Does Iran have a right to peaceful nuclear technology?

[earth_as_one]

Today's Headlines:

Iran announces tenfold expansion of nuclear program
US, Europe question nature of activity

Compiled by Daily Star staff
Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Iran announced a dramatic expansion of its uranium enrichment program on Monday, saying it has begun operating 3,000 centrifuges - nearly 10 times the previously known number - in defiance of UN demands that it halt the program or face increased sanctions. The announcement brought quick condemnation from the United States and Europe.
"I proudly announce that as of today Iran is among the countries which produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a gathering at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in central Iran. Iran, which announced a year ago it had produced its first tiny batch of enriched uranium, had said it would install 3,000 centrifuges as a first stage toward "industrial-scale" output. Until now, Iran was only known to have 328 centrifuges operating....

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=81308

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

• <LI class=toclevel-1>1 Treaty pillars
  • <LI class=toclevel-2>1.1 First pillar: non-proliferation <LI class=toclevel-2>1.2 Second pillar: disarmament
  • 1.3 Third pillar: peaceful use of nuclear energy
  <LI class=toclevel-1>2 Key articles <LI class=toclevel-1>3 History
  • <LI class=toclevel-2>3.1 United States-NATO nuclear weapons sharing <LI class=toclevel-2>3.2 India, Pakistan, Israel <LI class=toclevel-2>3.3 North Korea <LI class=toclevel-2>3.4 Iran <LI class=toclevel-2>3.5 South Africa
  • 3.6 Libya
  <LI class=toclevel-1>4 Leaving the treaty <LI class=toclevel-1>5 Future <LI class=toclevel-1>6 Parties to the treaty <LI class=toclevel-1>7 See also <LI class=toclevel-1>8 References
• 9 External links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
[/quote]

Opinions?

 

[earth_as_one]

The other parts of the question:

Does anyone trust Iran or other non-nuclear nations to not seek nuclear weapons? Should we trust them and how could we stop them?

Should we continue to possess nuclear weapons?

Does anyone trust the current nuclear powers to disarm or not threaten other nations with nuclear weapons?

Should all countries have a right to peaceful nuclear technology?

 

[#juan]

I see no reason why Israel should have nuclear weapons and not Iran. Or Pakistan and not Iran. If I had my way, nobody would have nuclear weapons, but that thinking is long out of date. Would the U.S. be just as adamant not to allow Mexico to have nuclear reactors? Or Brazil? Maybe it's just those countries that have reason to hate the U.S..

 

[westmanguy]

earth_as_one

Does anyone trust Iran or other non-nuclear nations to not seek nuclear weapons? Should we trust them and how could we stop them?

Nope, they are going to get the nukes, and not going to fall for the UN dimplomacy. We cannot trust Iran, and I would sanction them, and put IMMENSE pressure on other nations to sanction. And if other nations like Germany continue to not sanction Iran, then Germany would have no trade with the USA whatsoever, and would boycott them (citizen wise). If all sanctions are enforced and harsh and it still goes through, military force.

Should we continue to possess nuclear weapons?

Yes, we should. Their is a difference the United States is a democratic, free nation, that is NOT a off-the-wall loose cannon, like Iran.

Does anyone trust the current nuclear powers to disarm or not threaten other nations with nuclear weapons?

I trust USA, Israel, to not use their nuclear powers un-needlessly. Rogue nations, like Iran, cannot be trusted with such power.

Should all countries have a right to peaceful nuclear technology?

Only if they are a democratic, free nation, and the people have the power to throw out their leader who makes the decisions on nuclear activity. Like the USA, if Bush used nukes on some nation in his first term, people would have had the oppurtunity to boot him in the elections.

Dictatorships (Iran) cannot have nukes. Become free, build up your nuclear power.

 

[darkbeaver]

The United States is not a democracy.

 

[westmanguy]

Wow I guess if voting for your President, Congress, Senate, DA, police chief, judges, govenor, state senators, state representatives, proposition votes on various subjects put to election by the state, mayor, councillor, sherrif, ETC, doesn`t make you a democracy, then nothing will.

Oh, and we can`t duplicate what Greece had.

 

[darkbeaver]

Voting is not what democracy is about, representation is. Most of us get to vote for one pile of money or the other pile of money.

 

[westmanguy]

A President represents the entire nation.
A congress person represents their congress district.
A Mayor represents their town or city.

I could go on and on about representation.

 

[earth_as_one]

I see no reason why Israel should have nuclear weapons and not Iran. Or Pakistan and not Iran. If I had my way, nobody would have nuclear weapons, but that thinking is long out of date. Would the U.S. be just as adamant not to allow Mexico to have nuclear reactors? Or Brazil? Maybe it's just those countries that have reason to hate the U.S..

I'm not so sure the US would Canada or Mexico possessing nukes?

Canadians may appear friendly but don't be decieved. As you can see by this map of Canada's population distribution, Canada maintains a threatening and agressive posture toward the US. Millions of Canadians are massing on the US's borders in what could be a pre-emptive mass human wave. Obviously we are not planning to invade Greenland.

Look what happens to Canadian when they put on skates and arm themselves with sticks:

They can't help themselves.

seriously, if we can't stop nations from acquiring nukes can we at least make it impossible to use them?

 

[Sparrow]

WESTMANGUY
Yes, we should. Their is a difference the United States is a democratic, free nation, that is NOT a off-the-wall loose cannon, like Iran.

You think the US is not a loose cannon! Have you followed the news these last years? Only a loose cannon would use lies to justify their attacking a country.
Why do you think that Iran hates the US? They are afraid that US will attack them like they did Iraq. The US had been causing havoc in Iran for years, check this:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html

 

[crit13]

Iran has enough oil to last them 100 years. 1,000 years if they don't sell it.

What other "logical" reason could Iran have to want nuclear power other than to make weapons?

Ahmidenajad doesn't strike me as being a pro-green guy.

 

[crit13]

You think the US is not a loose cannon! Have you followed the news these last years? Only a loose cannon would use lies to justify their attacking a country.

Those lies that you claim came from many different governments, including France and Germany who now distance themselves from this conflict.

 

[Sparrow]

Those lies that you claim came from many different governments, including France and Germany who now distance themselves from this conflict.

Maybe but the CIA told them there were no WMD in Iraq, the UN inspector told them there were no WND but they choose to ignore both of these and still use it as an excuse to attack Iraq.

I cannot confirm about France and Germany but I do know that Britain, Blair a good friend of Bush, did give false information.

 

[L Gilbert]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone on the planet that wishes to have nuclear technology should have it as long as it's for peaceful purposes and NO-ONE should have it for ANY other reason.

West, the USA is a republic not a democracy. Republics utilize rule by law. Democracies utilize rule by majority. Take a poli-sci course or two sometime or maybe just read a bit about political structures.

 

[Zzarchov]

Not being a Loose cannon does not mean "won't go to war", it means "wont start lobbing nukes around like confetti for no reason other than to cause death".

The USA is not a loose Cannon, the USSR wasn't (russia is becoming one with its increasing Neo-Nazi politics), China is not one, Britain is not one..France is borderline. And the records show they often went to war.


If you mean according to the NPT, the only thing they agreed upon that limits them to not having nukes in any kind of agreement, then yes, they can have their own fuel cycle.

That has nothing to do with them being bombed back to the stone age though.

 

[darkbeaver]

I need aluminum tubes.

 

[tamarin]

"Democracies utilize rule by majority."

Gilbert, can you name any democracies then? Certainly, Canada doesn't fit the definition.

 

[gopher]

The world thrives on progress -- nuclear tech improves upon energy sources so that Iran, like everyone else, is entitled to that.