Should Iran be allowed to develop the Bomb?

[Savage]

.



Should Iran be allowed to develop the Bomb?

And why do you think so?

[Milesian]

I voted yes.
During the Cold War, the policy was that of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) whereby a nation could theoretically protect itself from nuclear war by having it's own nuclear arsenal. The reasoning being that no hostile nation would be so stupid/insane as to launch a nuclear strike when they too would suffer a retaliatory nuclear strike.

At the moment, the US is gallavanting around the world invading countries at will (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc). Thus, it is only right that Iran should have a nuclear capability to serve as a deterrent against US warmongering.
That is why America is so up in arms about Iran nuclear programme. If it is fully developed then it will frustrate the US's plans to invade.

I believe the US was considering North Korea as a target in it's "Axis of Evil" list.
North Korea's nuclear weapons seem to have put paid to that idea though, as they are never discussed anymore. Iran is likely trying to finish it's own weapons programme in a rush to afford itself the same protection.

[Laocoon]

Yes, it should.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

Not only a bomb but also a delivery system. I fully support everything Iran is currently doing. Someone has to check American Crusaderism and Zionist hegemony. Iran's neighbors China and Russia don't seem worried about Iran's bomb. Why should others worry?

[Menydh]

I voted 'no'.

The threat of nuclear destruction is too powerful for any country to develop it. Then of course the U.S. or France should also dismantle their nuclear military facilities.

[Milesian]

That would be an ideal state of affairs, but I don't realistically see it happening. As such, I would rather one "superpower" didn't hold all the aces in order to trample all over everyone. M.A.D. is just that, madness.
But it is a form of madness based on mutual threat & utter destruction which does seem to give a certain amount of stability to the balance of power.

[Gil]

I voted Yes. To deny them this right is to question their sovereignty as a nation and since I believe the right for every nation to defend itself I think they should be able to arm themselves as they see fit. That and because Iran is a thorn in the american backside.

The only problem I see with a "nuclear Iran" is that many european nations supported the US in their recent military exploits, which means that I have no idea how Iran perceives the whole West, as main targets or secondary objectives...

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Manji

The only problem I see with a "nuclear Iran" is that many european nations supported the US in their recent military exploits, which means that I have no idea how Iran perceives the whole West, as main targets or secondary objectives...

Despite Ireland breaking it's neutrality by allowing US warplanes to use Shannon airport, Iran was still the world's no.1 producer of Bobby Sands portraits, last time I checked (where he is practically venerated as a hero). So we might still be alright

[Zrinski]

I say yes. If zionists can have nuclear weapon without anyone asking them a question why couldn't Iranians too? It will at least bring some kind of balanace there.

[Prinz Eugen]

Why should Israel must allowed to have nukes and Iran no?I vote yes!

[Savage]

A question of balance.

And it is too late to hinder aggresive terrorists to get it. USA/Israel already got it.

US-army may find a new Vietnam in Iran. For Europe, perhaps exept of England, it may come out postive anyway, an economical and military weakened USA may not be the worst news the world have seen.

The russian and chinese sceptice on USA`s agenda are also interesting as the european. The reicept used for Iraqui by manipulating and forcing UN may as follows not be as useful this time again.

The result may be that Iraque gets the time it need. Balancing for the region, but isolated I certainly does not like it anymore than any threaths.

As our friend Zoroastr expesses it;

"- Think beautiful thoughts, say beautiful words, and do beautiful acts..."

[Volcheyar]

I've pressed Yes. But I don't believe what Iran really developing a nuclear bomb. It's seems to me just cheap propaganda with only puppose to cut Iran from modern power technologies and make it depend on oil.

[Menydh]

Volcheyar, it is obvious that the many lies of America accusing Saddam's Iraq of having mass destruction weapons can cast a shadow of doubt about the possibility of Iran having nuclear weapons.

The question I believe is not as much if they already have the bomb, or if they have the ability and means to develope the bomb, and if there is a programme to develope it.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Volcheyar, it is obvious that the many lies of America accusing Saddam's Iraq of having mass destruction weapons can cast a shadow of doubt about the possibility of Iran having nuclear weapons.

The question I believe is not as much if they already have the bomb, or if they have the ability and means to develope the bomb, and if there is a programme to develope it.

Oh well, I think they`ll get it for free, " Made in China "..and as long as there is money, expertise and competence is no problem for Iran to buy.

Then comes the ideologic motor, many muslims with such knowledgedes would glady share it with Iran for free. And Pakistan and India has it.

North Korea and China are not too happy with a stronger and stabile India, and a Persian bomb could set India under outer pressure to Chinese and Chosan pleasure.

Then comes that europeans generally underestimates Persian intelligence seriously. There are good reasons that Nietsche points to Zoroastr. This is high philosophy, born of a lofty spiritual culture.

Quite a contrast to their Pakistanian neighbours...

For all we know, the Persians had interstellar spaceships 30 000 years ago...

[Theobald]

I voted "Yes". Iran needs the Bomb as a counterweight to Israeli nuclear power, and further to American influence in the Middle East. Also, a powerful Iran (stabilizing Muslim world and throwing Israel and the Americans out of it) would be the best ally of a nationalist Europe in this region.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Then of course the U.S. or France should also dismantle their nuclear military facilities.

I don't support a dismantling of our nuclear facilities as long as any other country has nuclear bombs, from the Washington-London-Tel-Aviv Evil Axis to Muslim and Asiatic countries. This is precisely our only guarantee of not getting a nuke on Paris, and that our allies (Germany in particular) will not get one on their towns.
I believe in mutual nuclear deterrence. No one wins a nuclear war so no one is going to start one. But if you don't have or give up your nuclear weapons then other hostile countries can use nuclear backmail (the best example being China towards Taiwan). I can't imagine Europe being between the Jewish-Anglo-Saxon axis and the Muslim-Chinese alliance without any weapon to make them fear us.
That's why Europe needs French and Russian nuclear arsenal. This is about our very right to life.

[tankistabg]

Iran wouldn't use bomb against europeans. They inherted a great culture and i thing that they are a civilized people after all.So - yes they should have a bomb.

[Strengthandhonour]

What makes you so sure they woudln't?The Iranian president said that one day the flag of Islam will fly high in all cities of the world