Do you trust Iran now?

[Daniel]

Poll please

The BBC is saying that Iran will soon have enriched weapons grade Uranium.

So after what many would say were "immature" dealings in regards to the British sailors and marines do you now trust Iran with the tools to make the bomb?

I think a poll would be good with the following options

Yes and I always will trust them
I did but after their dealings with the sailors. No!
Nope and I never did or ever will
I didn't before but after their dealings with those sailors I do now :erm:
Undecided

In my humble opinion Iran can not be trusted. Perhaps before this happened they may have looked the victim of bullying by the US but nowon the back of evidence that they are supporting insurgents in Iraq, the fact that they kidnapped those British servicemen and the way they dealt with it I could not honestly look anyone in the face and say "Sure I trust Iran with the tools to make a nuclear weapon".

I think Iran have really damaged their reputation firstly by kidnapping those servicemen and then secondly by not immediately returning them to the UK.

[Rollo]

I don't understand why the media is so intent on demonising every single country that may happen to possess "the bomb" when only one country on the planet has ever been foolhardy enough to actually use the things in war time.

Politically as a capital weapon, nations understand only too well that actually using such a device will result in mutual hatred by every other civilised country on the face of the planet.
I don't happen to think that "the bomb" will ever be used by a "nation".

On the other hand, if it fell into the hands of a terrorist group then I'd say that the chances of one being used in my lifetime are 100%. In which case we shouldn't explicitly trust ANY of the countries that have it.

Those being:
France, USA, UK, Russia, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, North Korea

[viper_man]

I don't understand why the media is so intent on demonising every single country that may happen to possess "the bomb" when only one country on the planet has ever been foolhardy enough to actually use the things in war time.

Politically as a capital weapon, nations understand only too well that actually using such a device will result in mutual hatred by every other civilised country on the face of the planet.
I don't happen to think that "the bomb" will ever be used by a "nation".

On the other hand, if it fell into the hands of a terrorist group then I'd say that the chances of one being used in my lifetime are 100%. In which case we shouldn't explicitly trust ANY of the countries that have it.

Those being:
France, USA, UK, Russia, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, North Korea

Totally agree.

At the same time though if you look at it on the whole, is there really anything wrong with a country advancing itself? Perhaps that is what Iran is simply doing. I know they have put accross extreme views before and that they are generally viewed as an extremist nation but on the whole is all of what they are doing entirely malicious?

Say for example if here in the UK we didnt have nuclear weapons and were going through the motions of developing them as they are in Iran, would there be anywhere near as much of a fuss?

Not necessarily my views but I thought Id put them accross anyway.

Id say that no country needs nuclear weapons but you never know if we may need them in the future.

[Hawkmoon]

I don't understand why the media is so intent on demonising every single country that may happen to possess "the bomb" when only one country on the planet has ever been foolhardy enough to actually use the things in war time.

It's probably off-topic but there was nothing foolhardy about the use of the atomic bomb against Japan. It ended the war in the Pacific and saved countless more lives than it took.


Politically as a capital weapon, nations understand only too well that actually using such a device will result in mutual hatred by every other civilised country on the face of the planet.
I don't happen to think that "the bomb" will ever be used by a "nation".

I agree. All of the current nuclear powers would be extremely reluctant to use their nuclear arsenal. The problem, and you touched on it below, is when people who have extemist political and/or religious beliefs gain possession the weapon.


On the other hand, if it fell into the hands of a terrorist group then I'd say that the chances of one being used in my lifetime are 100%. In which case we shouldn't explicitly trust ANY of the countries that have it.

The problem we have is that in places like Iran and North Korea it can be difficult to tell the difference between the terrorists and those that run the country. I think that's why many people, myself included, have no problem with stable countries like the US having nuclear weapons but worry about places like Pakistan, North Korea and before long, Iran.


Those being:
France, USA, UK, Russia, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, North Korea

Of all those countries I think the ones most likely to launch a nuclear strike are Israel and Pakistan. Israel will do it because they feel they need to in self defense and Pakistan may if some of the religious extemists manage to gain control and the Indians don't pull out of Kashmir.

[Daniel]

I don't understand why the media is so intent on demonising every single country that may happen to possess "the bomb" when only one country on the planet has ever been foolhardy enough to actually use the things in war time.

Politically as a capital weapon, nations understand only too well that actually using such a device will result in mutual hatred by every other civilised country on the face of the planet.
I don't happen to think that "the bomb" will ever be used by a "nation".

On the other hand, if it fell into the hands of a terrorist group then I'd say that the chances of one being used in my lifetime are 100%. In which case we shouldn't explicitly trust ANY of the countries that have it.

Those being:
France, USA, UK, Russia, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, North Korea
Just for the record South Africa don't have nuclear capabilities. They are the only country to ever have the capability and then totally dismantle their project.

[Roamy]

It's probably off-topic but there was nothing foolhardy about the use of the atomic bomb against Japan. It ended the war in the Pacific and saved countless more lives than it took.



I agree. All of the current nuclear powers would be extremely reluctant to use their nuclear arsenal. The problem, and you touched on it below, is when people who have extemist political and/or religious beliefs gain possession the weapon.



The problem we have is that in places like Iran and North Korea it can be difficult to tell the difference between the terrorists and those that run the country. I think that's why many people, myself included, have no problem with stable countries like the US having nuclear weapons but worry about places like Pakistan, North Korea and before long, Iran.



Of all those countries I think the ones most likely to launch a nuclear strike are Israel and Pakistan. Israel will do it because they feel they need to in self defense and Pakistan may if some of the religious extemists manage to gain control and the Indians don't pull out of Kashmir.

yea very sad we should use ours but we belong to the vucking UN.

[Eki]

Just for the record South Africa don't have nuclear capabilities. They are the only country to ever have the capability and then totally dismantle their project.
Do we trust that they REALLY dismantled it? Iraq claimed they had dismantled their WMD projects, but the US didn't believe them or claimed they didn't believe, and look what happened.

[Tomi]

Dont trust Iran more or less than before, the capturing of the brittish did not change my point of view in any way, I still think they have the right to nuclear power if they want it that way. What comes to nuclear bombs I think everyone should get rid of them.

[Captain VXR]

Iran has a right to nuclear power but not nuclear bombs. End of

[Daniel]

Do we trust that they REALLY dismantled it? Iraq claimed they had dismantled their WMD projects, but the US didn't believe them or claimed they didn't believe, and look what happened.
What the hell are you on about Eki?

Other than the fact that I mentioned that Iran has allegedly been shown to be supporting insurgents in Iraq no one ever mentioned Iraq in this thread. This is not a thread about Iraq. If you want a thread about Iraq's WMD's then make one and leave your tired old anti-American rhetoric out of this thread. This thread is not about what the US, Britain or Israel are going to do about Iran, it's about what ordinary people like ourselves think about Iran and how recent events have changed what we think now the dust has settled and there's talk of them having nuclear weapons.

South Africa have dismantled their weapons and the international community seems to accept this. Why can't you? Even if South Africa had nuclear weapons I wouldn't really have a problem with that. South Africa has never historically thrown it's weight around like other countries who could be considered as dangerous. I support the right of all countries to have nuclear power, it's clean and it's better than using fossil fuels. I should mention that I don't support a military resolution to end any problems which develope in regard Iran's nuclear aspirations. I hope that all parties can work it all out in a sane manner so that no lives are needlessly lost.

What also makes me wary of Iran is that from what I remember Russia offered them enriched uranium suitable for generating power and they turned them down. We all know people can say one thing and do another. I mean as Eki points out in every single post that Dubya said there were WMD's and it turned out there weren't any. So why should we believe Iran when they say the uranium is going to be used only for peaceful purposes when they are currently being somewhat aggressive in the region? :mark:

Here's a bit of a story on South Africa's nuclear program. You can doubt it if you like but South Africa doesn't have a nuclear weapons program currently active.

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_01spring/albright.htm

[CarlMetro]

We've had this discussion before, different country (North Korea) but the same subject.

I fail to see where any of the current nuclear powers have the right to say that someone else cannot develop their own nuclear programme, be it for weapons or for power generation. There is nothing written/agreed that states only a certain amount of countries can have nuclear capability.

Now if we were to say the Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons because everybody else is in the process of completely dismantling all of theirs, then I would support that without any hesitation, but to tell someone, and indeed threaten them with sanctions, that they cannot have what you already have in vast numbers is hypocritical.

[Daniel]

We've had this discussion before, different country (North Korea) but the same subject.

I fail to see where any of the current nuclear powers have the right to say that someone else cannot develop their own nuclear programme, be it for weapons or for power generation. There is nothing written/agreed that states only a certain amount of countries can have nuclear capability.

Now if we were to say the Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons because everybody else is in the process of completely dismantling all of theirs, then I would support that without any hesitation, but to tell someone, and indeed threaten them with sanctions, that they cannot have what you already have in vast numbers is hypocritical.
I actually agree with you mostly Carl :up:

While I've always said that the threat of nuclear weapons being used has kept the world fairly war free after WW2 compared to before nuclear weapons were around I think the time has come for them all to go and while it would be great if all the nuclear powers could disarm I think it's an extremely bad step for the world to gain yet another nuclear power.

[Daniel]

I don't understand why the media is so intent on demonising every single country that may happen to possess "the bomb" when only one country on the planet has ever been foolhardy enough to actually use the things in war time.

Politically as a capital weapon, nations understand only too well that actually using such a device will result in mutual hatred by every other civilised country on the face of the planet.
I don't happen to think that "the bomb" will ever be used by a "nation".

On the other hand, if it fell into the hands of a terrorist group then I'd say that the chances of one being used in my lifetime are 100%. In which case we shouldn't explicitly trust ANY of the countries that have it.

Those being:
France, USA, UK, Russia, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, North Korea
South Africa DOES NOT HAVE ANY NUCLEAR CAPABILITY!

[Eki]

I actually agree with you mostly Carl :up:

While I've always said that the threat of nuclear weapons being used has kept the world fairly war free after WW2 compared to before nuclear weapons were around I think the time has come for them all to go and while it would be great if all the nuclear powers could disarm I think it's an extremely bad step for the world to gain yet another nuclear power.
It would also be a bad step for the world if the Chinese got that wealthy that everyone of them gets a car and a refrigerator, but I don't think we have the right to tell them they can't have them because it would pollute the world as long as we still enjoy our own cars and refrigerators.

[Daniel]

I say po-tay-toe Carl says po-tah-to

I say po-tay-to Eki says something totally different and off-topic.

[Eki]

I say po-tay-toe Carl says po-tah-to

I say po-tay-to Eki says something totally different and off-topic.
I think it's just that you don't understand analogies and read everything literally.

[Daniel]

It's not that. It's the fact that we're discussing Iran here and you bring global warming into it.

[millencolin]

i trust the Iranian government about as far as i could throw them.

And when i play cricket, im a wicketkeeper, which involves no throwing!

[Eki]

It's not that. It's the fact that we're discussing Iran here and you bring global warming into it.
No, it's in both cases about enjoying yourself of something that you'd prefer others will never have.

[Daniel]

Yes. Because I like to enjoy myself with a nice ICBM and a glass of coke everynight. :rolleyes:

[RaceFanStan]

It would take a very foolish nation to fire a nuclear missle over a neighboring country.
Iran is in a very volitile area, if Iran develops nuclear weapons, there is no certainty they will use them.
IF Iran used nuclear weapons against another country, it would seal their fate ...
reaction would be swift & destructive, the Iranian people would suffer ...
I don't think it is an issue that Iran would actually use nuclear weapons ...
however if Iran had nuclear weapons, the threat would exist ...

nuclear weapons are a country's measuring stick, if you have them you command respect ...
if you don't have nuclear weapons you have to take what is given because you aren't a threat ...
Iran wants to be recognized & respected, they feel nuclear weapons will do this for them ...
they may be correct, time will tell ...

Trust Iran ????? I find that very hard to do. :s
Can we stop them ????? Sadly, no we can't. :s

I hope my theory that Iran won't use nuclear weapons is correct, I shudder to think if I am wrong ...........

[Eki]

I hope my theory that Iran won't use nuclear weapons is correct, I shudder to think if I am wrong ...........
The Soviet Union never used nuclear weapons, and they actually had them. I would trust Iran with nuclear weapons as much as I trusted the Soviet Union.

[Tomi]

Iran with nuclear weapons might bring stability to middle east also, i think it's understandable if they try to get some too, they dont have to look very far to see what happens to a country with much oil and no real army.

[Daniel]

Iran with nuclear weapons might bring stability to middle east also, i think it's understandable if they try to get some too, they dont have to look very far to see what happens to a country with much oil and no real army.
Well Israel has nuclear weapons and it hasn't helped ;)

[Tomi]

Well Israel has nuclear weapons and it hasn't helped ;)

They have yes, and oranges, but no oil :) , The israelis are like swines in a rye field, they do what they want now in middle east simply because a strong army and monkey support, I belive that a Arab country with a strong army would cool them down a bit too.

[Malbec]

With any nuclear weapons, there are two separate types of 'trust' regarding whether you trust a particular country with them.

Do you trust that particular government to use them sensibly?

Do you trust the armed forces of that government to use them only when ordered to?

Answering the second point first, with the traditional five nuclear powers and Israel, I'd trust the armed forces to look after the weapons and have enough failsafe systems in place to not accidentally deploy them or allow one unhinged officer to fire them on his own initiative.

I trust the Pakistani and Indian armed forces much less in this respect.

With North Korea, right now I believe their armed forces can be trusted with nuclear weapons. However if that society breaks down of course, then all bets are off.

As for Iran, their armed forces are IMO more professional than that of, say, Pakistan and/or India, but I'd still trust them less with nuclear weapons than the traditional five and Israel.

Returning to the political leadership and their attitude towards nuclear weapons, I think we learnt a lot from the way the Iranians act from their behaviour over the hostage crisis.

Once it became clear that the only way out was either a serious escalation or a climbdown by the Iranians, the hardliners including the President were excluded from the decision making process to allow a peaceful solution. Now there is no guarantee whatsoever that in future the doves will win again, but this episode did show that rationality still exists in Tehran even under this hardline government.

Contrary to how the Iranians are portrayed sometimes in the West, neither the government nor the people are suicidal and both understand the power of nuclear weapons. IF they get nuclear weapons, its safe to say that missiles will NOT be raining down on Tel Aviv. However its guaranteed that the Iranians will use the fact that they have nukes to gain leverage not so much over Israel but over its Sunni neighbours to the west and south. That is not an enticing prospect, and that is the primary reason why Iran shouldn't be allowed to get them as it would destabilise the region.

As for nuclear power, Iran, like everyone else, should have the right to pursue a peaceful programme under international observation.

South African nuclear weapons were always about white power as a deterrent to the black countries to the north. Once it became clear that power would have to be ceded to the blacks in South Africa too, the nuclear programme was terminated and erased.

[Zico]

It would take a very foolish nation to fire a nuclear missle over a neighboring country.
Iran is in a very volitile area, if Iran develops nuclear weapons, there is no certainty they will use them.
IF Iran used nuclear weapons against another country, it would seal their fate ...
reaction would be swift & destructive, the Iranian people would suffer ...
I don't think it is an issue that Iran would actually use nuclear weapons ...
however if Iran had nuclear weapons, the threat would exist ...

nuclear weapons are a country's measuring stick, if you have them you command respect ...
if you don't have nuclear weapons you have to take what is given because you aren't a threat ...
Iran wants to be recognized & respected, they feel nuclear weapons will do this for them ...
they may be correct, time will tell ...

Trust Iran ????? I find that very hard to do. :s
Can we stop them ????? Sadly, no we can't. :s

I hope my theory that Iran won't use nuclear weapons is correct, I shudder to think if I am wrong ...........


I agree..... it is very worrying tho when Ahmadinejad has said he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

I dont trust Iran any more/less than before. Im in two minds over the right for them to own Nuclear weapons... ie, Who made the West world police, train of thought vs the threat of Nuclear weapon equiped fundamentalist nut job intent on wiping out Israel.

I reckon the west wont get oficially involved too much... Israels mossad assasinatied several French scientists involved in Saddams Nuclear
program delaying it initially, they went on to destroy the reactor in
a daring daylight bombing in 1981, . I believe they will treat the Iranian threat with the same severity.

You can watch it here..

Part 1. http://youtube.com/watch?v=tM5h2pr_UII
2. http://youtube.com/watch?v=V5GcclE73xk&mode=related&search=
3. http://youtube.com/watch?v=6s841DDTPt8&mode=related&search=
4. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tbpb5_wIcus&mode=related&search=
5. http://youtube.com/watch?v=4x88dZtuVvc&mode=related&search=

[Eki]

I agree..... it is very worrying tho when Ahmadinejad has said he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.


Firstly, Ahmadinejad doesn't control the armed forces in Iran, the Supreme Leader Khamenei does, and the Assembly of Experts controls the Supreme Leader:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_Government_of_Iran#The_Supreme_Leader

To think the president decides in Iran is like thinking the Queen decides in the UK or the president decides in Germany. They are all largely ceremonial positions.

Secondly, Ahmadinejad didn't specify that Israel should be "wiped off the map" through violence, it could also be done through politics (at least in theory).

[Zico]

Firstly, Ahmadinejad doesn't control the armed forces in Iran, the Supreme Leader Khamenei does, and the Assembly of Experts controls the Supreme Leader: ).

The same Supreme leader/experts who gave the go-ahead for the kidnapings of the British Navy personel?... doesnt really inspire much confidence unfortunately.



Secondly, Ahmadinejad didn't specify that Israel should be "wiped off the map" through violence, it could also be done through politics (at least in theory).

He maybe didnt specify using violence but IMO its certainly not possible to achieve through politics alone..

[Malbec]

The same Supreme leader/experts who gave the go-ahead for the kidnapings of the British Navy personel?... doesnt really inspire much confidence unfortunately.

I don't think its clear who if anyone ordered the hostage taking.

Certainly looking at the Iranians rather ad-hoc response to the whole affair its difficult to see how it was preplanned at a high level.

Words are cheap in politics in Iran. The words used against Israel were to appeal to a particular portion of Iranian society. They were never a policy statement despite how they've been treated by the Western press.

[odykas]

I trust Iran more than Bush and Israel.

[Daniel]

South African nuclear weapons were always about white power as a deterrent to the black countries to the north. Once it became clear that power would have to be ceded to the blacks in South Africa too, the nuclear programme was terminated and erased.

Don't bring the black and white thing into it :mark:

As you may well know Africa is probably the least stable continent around. South Africa has traditionally always had a rather large and strong army to protect itself from invasion by neighbouring countries. A nuclear weapon was merely part of this deterrent.

South Africa didn't need to give power to the black people. It wanted to. South Africa had a hugely strong economy, a hugely strong currency and sanctions weren't really hurting it. So it wasn't like international pressure forced them to stop apartheid. It was their choice and most white South Africans were happy to give black people back their democratic power......

[Malbec]

Don't bring the black and white thing into it :mark:

As you may well know Africa is probably the least stable continent around. South Africa has traditionally always had a rather large and strong army to protect itself from invasion by neighbouring countries. A nuclear weapon was merely part of this deterrent.

South Africa didn't need to give power to the black people. It wanted to. South Africa had a hugely strong economy, a hugely strong currency and sanctions weren't really hurting it. So it wasn't like international pressure forced them to stop apartheid. It was their choice and most white South Africans were happy to give black people back their democratic power......

There's no conflict between Apartheid South Africa developing the A-bomb to protect a white country against black neighbours and voluntarily choosing to hand over power to whoever was chosen by a democratic process that included black people for the first time. One doesn't preclude the other in the slightest.

[Daniel]

South Africa didn't care whether it's neighbours had purple skin or not. They wanted to be the big kid on the block with the big stick that no one wanted to mess with. With the way things go in Africa when things go back who can blame them? The road to getting rid of their Nuclear weapons was started way back in the 80's when there was no real sign of black South Africans being given the vote.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Another thread where Eki defends the actions of a nation that is an international pariah to most civilized democracies...

This is really simple. Does Iran have the right to the weapons? If they can make them, then yes, they have the right. They are a sovreign nation, but do we trust them? I don't, and I don't see why anyone rational would. Eki said he trusts Iran with the weapons as much as he did the Soviet Union. On this I agree, I trust Iran about as much as I did the Soviets, but that level of trust is different for me than it is likely for Eki.

That said, Iran I don't think will use the weapons, but their international reputation wasn't helped by the hostages from the UK. That was an example of the childish games that this regime plays with the world. Nations that play games such as this do NOT deserve to be treated as respectable citizens.

As for Tomi's comments about an Arab nation tuning up Israel, well first off the Iranians are proud Persians, and second of all, any nation want to try taking on Israel better understand they will likely lose. The Arabs have been trying to take Israel out from the start, and have all lost ground and lives in the process. I think this childish and stupid attitude on the part of Tomi feeling that this is ok just shows his anti-semite sentiments and I am not Jewish, but I am offended by this attitude, but alas, I have grown used to it and have put Tomi back on my ignore list....