What is the problem with Iran having nuclear weapons when every nation

[oncall247]

around them has nuclear weapons and the US is occupying their closest neighbor?

[tuvor]

1. You need SOME excuse to invade.

A nuclear weapons bogeyman will do just as well as the WMD bogeman did three years ago.

[Keepontruking]

6. nuclear weapons

If we as Big Brother and the biggest dictators in the world
can have them I say let everybody defend themselves against
us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Circus 
Girl

[MadMaddie]

2. That's a good question....

And asking the question doesn't mean you should be flamed. (Which may occur)

If the US is steadily creating new Nuclear weapons and the other countries are why should Iran not be able too. I think Irans leadership is pot shit crazy and I don't defend them but if this basic question can't be answered then Iran is going to continue to do what they are doing.

Welcome to DU!!:hi:

[feduppuke]

5. I think you answered your own question....

They're potsh!t crazy.

Say what we want about Bush.....I know he's not crazy enough to nuke another country. I can't say that about Iran's leadership (and yes, I know I will be flamed for saying Bush won't nuke someone).

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. Do you REALLY THINK...

they are not "crazy" enough to push the button?

I guess you didn't read the article about a bunch of US Generals who were threatening to walk if Bush & Co. didn't take the nuke option off the table when talking about possible action against Iran.

Jr. has been working on a nuke bunker buster since he first took office -- it was almost one of the first things he did as president.

Stick around, learn a few things about what Bush has done/woudl do, and be prepared to have your hair curled.

[feduppuke]

11. I am here now

because I am fed up with a lot of things this admin has pulled, but I am fairly confident that the US will not fire a nuke of any kind at any time during Bush's presidency.

I am certainly willing to bet a $50 donation to DU in your name (made by me) vs a $25 in mine (by you) on my supposition. It would certainly be the least of our worries if I am wrong, but I am willing to give you 2:1.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

27. Check out these Seymour Hersch articles...

Bush & Co. were dead serious about the nuke option. Hersch seems to think the nuke option is off the table, but I wouldn't trust this group as far as I could throw them. Will Bush use nukes? I have no idea. Is he "crazy" enough to hit the button? Absolutely. After all, this crew has enhaged in and condoned a lot of previously unthinkable things, like torturing detainees, rape of civilians and prisoners, abduction of insurgents family members, murder of civilians, naplam and phosphorous used on Iraqi civilians, rendition, illegal spying adn wiretapping... I could go on and on.

This group is capable of anything. And I mean anything. Never forget that.


http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

...One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

....The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said.



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060710fa_fact

...In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. The huge complex includes large underground facilities built into seventy-five-foot-deep holes in the ground and designed to hold as many as fifty thousand centrifuges. “Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,” the former senior intelligence official told me. “And Pace stood up to them. Then the world came back: ‘O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.’ ” At the time, a number of retired officers, including two Army major generals who served in Iraq, Paul Eaton and Charles Swannack, Jr., had begun speaking out against the Administration’s handling of the Iraq war. This period is known to many in the Pentagon as “the April Revolution.”

“An event like this doesn’t get papered over very quickly,” the former official added. “The bad feelings over the nuclear option are still felt. The civilian hierarchy feels extraordinarily betrayed by the brass, and the brass feel they were tricked into it”—the nuclear planning—“by being asked to provide all options in the planning papers.”

[feduppuke]

15. And Pres. Clinton

wasn't crazy, but he left the nuke option on the table for North Korea. It's long standing US policy for the option to be on the table when dealing with potential military crises.

[sufrommich]

34. The Iranian equivalent

of those American generals would be dust by now.That's the difference between a modern democracy(however flawed) and a brutal theocracy.There is no equivalent in Iran to those generals who put the word out that Bush was thinking the unthinkable. The fundamentalist Imams behind the throne in Iran aren't up for election every four years,and ,no,allowing them nuclear weapons would not be a good idea.

[KansDem]

41. "Operation Northwoods" was a plan conceived by top military brass...

...45 years ago to terrorize and murder Americans in an effort to get America behind an invasion of Cuba, and just a few days ago another top-military person thought the new generation of "crowd control" weaponry could be "tested" on unruly crowds of Americans. With just these two revelations, do you really think BushCo would not use nukes against another nation? Or do you think they just despise Americans...

[marmar]

3. Didn't you get the memo?

The United States gets to be sole arbiter of who gets nukes. Our economic ally India? They can have them. Our supposed anti-terrorism ally Pakistan? Hell No.

[Parche]

17. india

I dont trust India or Pakistan at all,they are both back stabbers

[Taxloss]

21. Pakistan has nukes.

It's had them for a while now.

[marmar]

26. It does, but the U.S. apparently objects to this.

Bush: No Nuclear Pact for Pakistan
President rejects giving Musharraf the same technology-sharing deal he gave India, but he praises joint efforts in the war on terrorism.
By Peter Wallsten,
Los AngelesTimes
March 5, 2006

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — President Bush praised Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Saturday as a "strong friend and ally" but said in no uncertain terms that his host's government would not receive the kind of landmark nuclear cooperation deal the U.S. struck last week with India, Pakistan's longtime rival.

Bush's comments, coming in a joint appearance designed to showcase U.S.-Pakistani cooperation in the fight against Al Qaeda, illustrated the international ripple effect of the U.S. decision to reverse decades of policy and permit sales of nuclear technology and fuels to India even though it has not signed the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Critics have charged that the agreement with New Delhi would prompt nations such as Pakistan to seek similar treatment and escalate their own weapons production. And, in fact, Musharraf raised the issue in private talks with Bush during the U.S. president's first visit to Pakistan, which was undertaken amid intense security measures.

With Musharraf at his side later, Bush said, "Pakistan and India are different countries, with different needs and different histories," presumably referring to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the former head of Pakistan's nuclear program who ran a black-market operation selling secrets and technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

The U.S. president's arm's-length courting of Musharraf, who came to power in a coup, and his deal with India exposed some of the uneasy compromises the Bush administration has made, analysts say. They contend that his actions appear to contradict the stated foreign policy agenda of spreading democracy, defeating "evil" and suppressing weapons of mass destruction. Although Bush describes his foreign policy as fueled by idealism, experts say, his trip to South Asia was a reality tour.

"President Bush should be commended for laying out a clear vision, but it's a tough and bumpy road between theory and practice," said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "The hardest trade-off here is this: Do we support nondemocratic governments that are helpful on counter-terrorism, or do we support democratic processes that enable our foes to flourish?"

That question was the backdrop for Bush's 24-hour stay in Pakistan, where he sought a balance between hailing Islamabad's cooperation with fighting the U.S.-declared "war on terror" and lecturing Musharraf on democracy and his nation's tolerance of Islamic extremism.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/PakistanBushNoNuclearPactfor%20PakistanMar06.htm

[fujiyama]

39. The US turned a blind eye toward their development in the '80s

Pakistan's main problem is that it has been proliferating nuclear technology for years now through AQ Khan's network. The US doesn't really give a shit though. I think the US was correct not to extend civilian nuclear program to Pakistan.

Ultimately I agree that this idea that the US can determine who can and cannot have nukes is arrogant though.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

4. I think it's because there is a warning label on nuclear devices

"Must be used in the presence of an Adult"

And the US doesn't consider Iran an Adult Country capable of not using them as offensive weapons.

Notwithstanding India and Pakistan almost already went to the nuclear arsenal, but they're our friends! As long as they blow each other up and leave the US and Israel alone, it's okay (it seems).

[creeksneakers2]

7. I don't want any nation to have nuclear weapons

That no longer being possible its hoped that no additional nations will get nuclear weapons. If that's not possible then I'd like Iran to have them least or one of the least. We have very bad relations with Iran.

I can see an us versus them approach to dealing with the world and also the idea of all nations coming under the same fair standards. I think the fair standards approach is good for trade deals and even to decide who goes to war with whom. But for nuclear weapons I think the us versus them approach applies.

In the United States we have the right to own guns. If my neighbor and I didn't get along, and it had gotten as bad as a hostage situation in the past, I wouldn't want my neighbor to get a gun, even if I had one myself. If I could keep him from getting one I would. I view my self preservation as more important than fairness.

[eallen]

8. Huh? Pakistan is the ONLY nation near Iran that has nukes.

If you look at Iran's neighbors, none of the others have nukes. Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and the various small nations in the Caucus mountains and on the Persian gulf are all nuke free. You ask that question as if Pakistan were the rule, rather than the sole exception.

I think it's pretty scary that Pakistan has nukes. I wish there were some way to undo that.

[wakeme2008]

13. did you forget about India

:shrug:

[eallen]

22. I guess it depends on what you mean by "near."

Might as well count Russia, then. Of course, with Russia, as with China and the US, geography matters less.

Why not ask the question the other way around: Why should Iran have nukes, when most of its neighbors don't?

[Taxloss]

24. And Russia ... n/t

[hogwyld]

28. Don't forget about Israel

I don't recall, but Turkey might have them since they are a member of NATO.

[eallen]

37. Israel isn't near Iran, and Turkey doesn't have nukes.

There is a good six hundred miles or more 'twixt the northeast corner of Israel, and the western reaches of Iran. That might be surprising, given Ahmadinejad's focus on Israel. That focus comes from ideological perversity, not any kind of geographic locality.

[leftofthedial]

10. nothing

it's just an excuse to rattle sabers.

[Double T]

12. Please don't let rational and reasonable thinking enter into THIS ISSUE...

it might totally dissolve bushco's argument for making certain that Iran doesn't have the capability of defending itself against ALL of the other nuclear powers in THIS REGION.

[Skink]

14. We don't want them to develop Nuclear Power.

They may then supply China and the rest of the world with means toward energy independance.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. It'd be a lot harder to invade them if they had nukes.

And therefore tougher to get their oil once it starts running out.

[feduppuke]

18. Or it might be

more dangerous if they continue their pattern of sposoring terrorism. Let's not hang our hat on allowing a nuclear Iran. They are becomming the state Bush, et. al. claimed Iraq was in 2003, and most of the country supported that invasion at the time.

A nuclear Iran should be a *real* cause for concern; not a possibly nuclear Iraq.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Nope. Sorry.

Because of MAD.

"They are becomming the state Bush, et. al. claimed Iraq was in 2003, and most of the country supported that invasion at the time."

LOL. That's exactly what Bush wants people to think.

[hogwyld]

30. I don't think MAD would work with Iran

They're trying to bring on the Mahdi army of the 12th imam. What do they have to fear when Allah's got this nice shiny brothel with 72 virgins waiting for them.

[nealmhughes]

20. Isn't it obvious: Iran = bad, Pakistan = good, India = OK, Russia and

China = what can we do?, UK and France = great, Israel and US = Hell Yeah! North Korea = loonie toons.

In other words, we view it only thru NATO and US eyes, no consideration to anything else. We are Atlantic-centric, in other words, and Eastern Europe and Asia are only considered as sources of raw material or objects of rivalry.

On the other hand, if Iran is surrounded by agents of the West, which they feel they are, although how much "control" over Iraq the US has is most debatable, as is that of Afghanistan. They must want a Shiite bomb, or else a Persian bomb -- if they want one at all. Maybe they want us all to think they may soon have a bomb?

I think they are getting ready for the post-oil economy, where "oceans of oil" are going down the pipelines to the north and east in Iran right now and will soon be for basicly domestic production in 35 years or so. They don't have the hydro infrastructure, solar not being considered, evidently, and they do want those reactors that the US and France got paid to build all those years ago for the Shah as well as to enrich their own Uranium, which they happen to have a lot of lying in Iranian grounds.

Brazil is enriching their own Uranium right now as well, to no outcry. The hypocricy is astounding in this instance. A simple google search for Iran and enrichment or Uranium or nuclear will reveal a great deal of international research on the topic from all viewpoints. There is a great deal of literature in le Monde Diplomatique on the topic, some of it in English as well as French.

Iran appears to be begrudgingly complying with the IAEA on this, but also is getting "caught" again and again with enriched Uranium residue in their facilities beyond what could be reasonable for fuel enrichment, which is approximently 3-4% for an ordinary power reactor of the PWLR and BWR varieties.

Natural Uranium is most prevelant in isotope 238, which is a relatively benign heavy metal,which can be made fissile under a neutron flux, but it is 235 to which it is enriched for a power reactor. This ought to only be 3-4% of the entire fuel load. A fission bomb, for example would require almost entirely pure 235 for an old-fashioned Hiroshima type bomb. Reactors are also used to make Plutonium (a transuranic, which means it does not occur in nature but is produced under a neutron flux). It takes a lot less Plutonium to make a fission bomb or a fission trigger for a fusion bomb.

Designing a bomb's insides isn't exactly secret stuff -- what is is the shaped timed charges that ignite the fission bomb and the shaped fission explosion that ignites a Hydrogen fusion bomb. Those are the nuclear powers real "secrets," not enriching Uranium or making Plutonium.

Does Iran have the capacity to enrich enough to make a bomb or to have the explosive technology to make triggers? Noone really knows. Maybe the Iranians like it that way to keep us all guessing.

Argentina, South Africa and Brazil have all eschewed a weps program for good reason, and Ukraine got rid of theirs for Russia! It appears to be more trouble than it is worth except for a superpower or a country that sees itself under seige or else empire-building. Iran appears to be content in its current size: they have half of Iraq already and a toe hold culturally in Syria, don't they without having the trouble to have to house, clothe, feed or protect these countries?

[Balbus]

23. Who says they want nuclear weapons?

According to the great man Ahmadinejad, they are enriching uranium for energy use - not weaponry. Which makes sense since there is nothing at all in Iran that could ever possibly be used as an energy source. Nothing. Zilch. Zero. They are all living in the dark at this moment.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Last I checked...

The U.S. had plenty of coal. But they've still built many nuclear plants.

[Balbus]

36. Yes, coal and oil are exactly the same.

[retread]

35. OK. How about the following from the IAEA in response to the House

Committee on Intelligence.


"A recent US House of Representatives committee report on Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Teheran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency has said.
In a letter obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation IAEA board meeting, the official says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913629943&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[A-Schwarzenegger]

29. Wasn't South Africa at some point supposed to have nukes?

Or was I having a clouds dream?

[fujiyama]

40. No, S.A. was had an active program

and it is believed by many that the Israelis were helping them out. It also thought that Israel tested a nuke with SA's cooperation.

SA did dismantle their program before the fall of apartheid. I suppose it scared the Afrikans that black people would have control of nuclear weapons.

[retread]

31. Accepting for the moment they have or are close to acquiring nuclear

weapons, which by the way there is zero evidence for that premise. Imagine a theocracy whose path to heaven is assured by killing as many unbelievers as possible. Imagine this path is guaranteed by becoming a martyr in this attempt. Mutually Assured Destruction is no longer a valid foreign policy. The way to true global peace is not acquiring more and better weapons.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. Ain't No Way In Hell They Should Be Allowed To Have Them. No Way In Hell.

Maybe we shouldn't either, maybe others shouldn't either, but that in no way deflects or dismisses the absolute danger presented if Iran was to have them. And I can guarandamntee that the average american hearing such a question would respond with "wait, you want Iran to have nuclear weapons? Are you crazy?". Not exactly a sentiment we're going to win elections on, ya know?

[Perky]

33. The Grand Canyon of difference

Is that no one else in the region is threatening to wipe a niegbor off the face of the earth. Israel has has never threatened to do that and neither has india or pakistan.

This guy is fruitloops. I would have no problem with any other state in the region having WMD. (Egypt or the Saudis, for example) But not this guy.

[fujiyama]

38. I have heard Pakistani leaders making some pretty outrageous threats

in the past. I seriously don't believe they can be considered any more stable or less worrisome than Iran having nukes.

Though I agree that Ahmed-jad's comments are pretty nutty and while I'd prefer he doesn't have access to nuclear weapons, it's almost inevitable they his country will develop them at some point.

At this point, there is no way I would trust this administration's intelligence claims over Iran's nuke program and it sounds like it's exceedingly exagerrated. US claims have been blasted by the UN as well.

[oncall247]

44. Actually, it has been evidenced that that is not what was said. US media

and friends translated those words and the pharase didn't include "off the face of the earth" even by the US translators. Iran was once an ally of Israel or at least Israel was an ally of Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. Israel actually aided Iran. Egypt once attacked Israel, something Iran has never done. But don't let me confuse the issue with facts. Move on.

[fujiyama]

42. Well this is one of those "who determines who gets nukes" questions

that we've heard a lot. I suppose it's a matter of how you look at it. Do we view it as a philosophical question of fairness or a matter of pragmatism? Is it right to "allow" a country headed by a man that endorses the destruction of a nearby nation to have nukes? Of course, how much would that change the current situation with an unstable Pakistan having nukes? Personally, I would rather Pakistan, Iran, and NK not have nukes, but it seems possibly that the former will aquire them at some point (though the administration exagerrates the threat to justify an invasion which would be disasterous). Unfortunately the diplomatic route is being squandered by an incredibly dangerous administration hellbent on another war. Iran also knows that once a nation develops nukes, it's much less like the US will attack them as has been the case with NK. So nukes are a great deterrent.

Iran's two main reasons to develop nukes are the US and moreso Israel. No other country is viewed as great a threat to Iran as Israel. Ultimately, Iran knows that Pakistan, Russia, China, and India really are not threats (infact relations between Iran and those "nearby" nations are not that bad).

[BeautifulLoser]

43. What countries have nukes around them??

Pakistan is the only one I can think of and they have a nuclear standoff with India.

Iraq wanted them in the 1980s but Israel bombed their reactor to the displeasure of Raygun.

It's bad enough other countries have nukes.

[Buckmaw]

45. Because they want to destroy the "great satan"

And would give the weapons to anyone who would do it also.

They used the same tactic in lebanon. Using Hesbi's and
bringing supplies in through Syria. Letting Iran get Nukes either
from interal or external sources is a major mistake.