Iran and a Tiny Nuke?

[Winner]

i don't want a (relatively) unstable area (not just country) access to a nuke.

Nobody cares what you want, what matters is what are you willing to do to avoid it

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

Nobody cares what you want, what matters is what are you willing to do to avoid it

I'm not going to convert my whole country to Islam, if that's what you mean. If not, I'm stumped

 

[Winner]

I'm not going to convert my whole country to Islam, if that's what you mean. If not, I'm stumped

I am afraid you didn't get it. Nobody wants Iran with nukes (almost nobody), but nobody is willing to do things, that are necessary to avoid it (the Iran with nukes).

 

[The Condor]

Now I'm generally in favor of countries having nukes, but seeing as to how we are currently at war with them and I kind of like the way I am living right now I am goning to go with the majority and say no to nukes for Iran because I don't want to die at the ripe old age of 14 just yet.

 

[azzaman333]

Yes, Iran should be prevented from getting nukes. No, its not worth the cost and effort to prevent them from getting nukes.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Iranian nuclear weapons would be for deterrent purposes against an American invasion only. Thus, I have no problem with Iranian nuclear weapons, particularly as Iran appears to be growing more progressive as time goes by (yes they still have quite a ways to go, but baby steps people).

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

I am afraid you didn't get it. Nobody wants Iran with nukes (almost nobody), but nobody is willing to do things, that are necessary to avoid it (the Iran with nukes).

Yes, I didn't quite get what you where saying.

But hasn't the US threatend to report Iran to the UN if they continue Nuclear testing?

 

[Yeeek]

Why are the USA even bothering with all this UN crap? Everyone knows where Bush administration's agenda is heading too as far as oil and gas are concerned. Perhaps this time more Europeans countries will join in to have bigger part of the cake.

I'm too naive, but a sovereign country should have the right to defend themselves, thats in theory. Am i wrong? Don't you think its kind of silly that the countries in the Nuke Club are the only ones to decide what's wrong and right. Ban all WMD on earth, not just the non-spread of nukes.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

It doesn't really make much of a difference whether Iran has nukes, since they wouldn't be invaded anyway. And if they were, the Iranian quality of life would get even worse.

Besides, stopping them would cause a bloody mess.

 

[Winner]

Why are the USA even bothering with all this UN crap? Everyone knows where Bush administration's agenda is heading too as far as oil and gas are concerned. Perhaps this time more Europeans countries will join in to have bigger part of the cake.

No. In fact, any military operation would be costly, politically extremely sensitive, with enourmous economic consequences (rapid oil prices increase, possible oil/gas supply shortage), loss of lives and it would most likely spark another wave of anti-Western feelings in the world.

If you really think, that US intend to occupy Iran and steal its oil as they tried in case of Iraq, you're a bit simple-minded, no offence.

I'm too naive, but a sovereign country should have the right to defend themselves, thats in theory. Am i wrong? Don't you think its kind of silly that the countries in the Nuke Club are the only ones to decide what's wrong and right. Ban all WMD on earth, not just the non-spread of nukes.

You're right, but Iran is doing very little to ease Western fears.

 

[Verbose]

The Iranian behaviour is suspiciuos, bet there's as yet no way of knowing what the devil their intentions really are.

You can ask them point blank, and they'll tell you a Nuke is the last thing on their mind. (This is being done.)

Not that anybody is much convinced, but there's no real proof of Iranian bomb-building yet. It's all circumstantial.

And Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty, which means they are technically wide open for any measures the UN cares to apply — should it become apparent they're building a nuke.

But as yet there's no proof either way.

Maybe that's all beside the point from the US perspective?
Considering the doctrine of pre-emptive action against future threats to US dominance it might be that suspiscion, conjecture and simple old fashioned fear is all that's required for the US to break out the explosives?

Personally I'd be worried if intutition and gut-feeling become an accepted basis for deciding international policies of war and peace, but maybe I'll just have to assume that those people in the US who agree with it have really thought this through?

In any case, the reason no preassure has been applied to Iran as yet, is that from the POW of nuke-building it's still early days, and no conclusive proof that's what they're actually up to.

 

[luiz]

It makes perfect sense for Iran to use nuclear power in the place of oil power plants. You see, oil, even Iranian oil, will one day peak, and that day is going to come pretty soon. When an oil supply peaks, the economy crashes. By increasing reliance on non-oil fuel supplies such as nuclear power, you delay this, and lessen the consequences when it does happen.

Fairly simple logic, not sure why you don't get it.

Nope, that makes no sense.
They should export the oil they don't use and generate their energy in the cheapest way possible. They should invest the surplus. So when oil peaks they would have much more capital than today, and then it would make economic sense to invest in alternative energies. Notice that peak oil doesn't mean end of oil, it means half of all reserves have already beign exploited. So when oil peaks, there is still plenty of time to build nuclear plants.

I'm afraid the intentions of the ayatolahs are pretty clear.

 

[Abaddon]

I wish they would, i think its ridiculus the US could force countrys to NOT have bombs, yet keep their own!

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Nope, that makes no sense.
They should export the oil they don't use and generate their energy in the cheapest way possible. They should invest the surplus. So when oil peaks they would have much more capital than today, and then it would make economic sense to invest in alternative energies. Notice that peak oil doesn't mean end of oil, it means half of all reserves have already beign exploited. So when oil peaks, there is still plenty of time to build nuclear plants.

I'm afraid the intentions of the ayatolahs are pretty clear.

It makes much more sense to invest in nuclear energy now rather than after the oil peak hits, because when it does, their economy will be torn to ****. I'm pretty sure you have no idea what happens when the oil peak hits, so I'm going to educate you.

You see, when it peaks, there will be 50% of the supply left, at which point the supply available to meet an exponentially increasing demand drops dramatically. When this happens, prices skyrocket, so you can afford less and less of it. Since every single thing around you is to one extent or another "made" of/with oil, the entire world economy goes to shambles, and you will no longer be able to live in that beachfront condo that Mommy and Daddy bought for you, Luiz.

To even suggest that the Iranians should wait until after the oil peak to invest in nuclear energy is absurd, because if they do that, they won't even be able to do so. I mean come on, the oil peak is going to hit in 2008, for Christ's sake.

 

[EdwardTking]

Nope, that makes no sense.
They should export the oil they don't use and generate their energy in the cheapest way possible. They should invest the surplus. So when oil peaks they would have much more capital than today, and then it would make economic sense to invest in alternative energies. Notice that peak oil doesn't mean end of oil, it means half of all reserves have already beign exploited. So when oil peaks, there is still plenty of time to build nuclear plants.

And when do you think oil peaks? Many think it is about now!

It takes time to develope a nuclear power generating infrastructure, particularly if you have not previously built nuclear power stations.

Countries (other than biofuel Brazil) which think that they can wait
until 1/2 oil gone before considering what to do, and 3/4 gone before
doing anything will find that they have left it far too late.

They will likely have to make hard decisions between using the oil
to power factories, ship and trucks to make and transport nuclear,
solar & wind power equipment so as to have any energy at all when
nearly all the oil is gone and some starvation then OR cultivating and
transporting food to eat then and much greater starvation later.

There is, much as the greenies hate it, a very strong economic
case for investment in nuclear power based on higher future $/KWH.

I'm afraid the intentions of the ayatolahs are pretty clear.

Quite. And nothng to do with the economic case.

They want to nuke Israel.

 

[luiz]

It makes much more sense to invest in nuclear energy now rather than after the oil peak hits, because when it does, their economy will be torn to ****. I'm pretty sure you have no idea what happens when the oil peak hits, so I'm going to educate you.

You see, when it peaks, there will be 50% of the supply left, at which point the supply available to meet an exponentially increasing demand drops dramatically. When this happens, prices skyrocket, so you can afford less and less of it. Since every single thing around you is to one extent or another "made" of/with oil, the entire world economy goes to shambles, and you will no longer be able to live in that beachfront condo that Mommy and Daddy bought for you, Luiz.

To even suggest that the Iranians should wait until after the oil peak to invest in nuclear energy is absurd, because if they do that, they won't even be able to do so. I mean come on, the oil peak is going to hit in 2008, for Christ's sake.

Allow me to educate you on how the world works.
Money today is worth more than the same ammount of money in 10 years. Much, much more. And I'm not talking bout inflation, I'm talking about making that money grow - a lot - investing it. In other words, it makes no sense to buy something that is not needed today, specially when you consider that the price of technology tends to go down.

What you wrote on oil peak is pure BS. When there is half of the supply, thise means that there is still plenty of oil. We have been burning oil for 100 years like crazy, and it still has not reached half of the reserves. When it reaches 50%, there won't be a sudden collapse. Even assuming the worst possible scenario, what will happen will be a slow degradation of the global economy. And even that is unlikely to happen. Also note that today the world is much more oil-efficient than it was in the 70's.

As for your 2008 predeiction: again, BS. Most engineers in the oil sector are working with somewhere between 2030-2040. And I very much doubt that a major world crisis will follow. In the future the global economy won't be based on one single energy base, but rather on various.

 

[Abaddon]

I hope they nuke the hell out of all that area, an all the other places with "silly" conflicts.

Sure lots would suffer and die, but not as much as do over the repeated generations of war.

 

[luiz]

And when do you think oil peaks? Many think it is about now!

It takes time to develope a nuclear power generating infrastructure, particularly if you have not previously built nuclear power stations.

Countries (other than biofuel Brazil) which think that they can wait
until 1/2 oil gone before considering what to do, and 3/4 gone before
doing anything will find that they have left it far too late.

They will likely have to make hard decisions between using the oil
to power factories, ship and trucks to make and transport nuclear,
solar & wind power equipment so as to have any energy at all when
nearly all the oil is gone and some starvation then OR cultivating and
transporting food to eat then and much greater starvation later.

There is, much as the greenies hate it, a very strong economic
case for investment in nuclear power based on higher future $/KWH.

I disagree with your timing for peak oil, but I agree with the case for nuclear power. I also think it is a great energy source. It is quite expensive however, and makes no sense in a oil-rich and money-poor country like Iran. It makes prefect sense for England, France, Germany, Japan and others, though.

Quite. And nothng to do with the economic case.

They want to nuke Israel.

Precisely. Even assuming that nuclear energy is good for Iran, if their goals were truly peaceful they would accept the russian offer.

 

[skadistic]

Lets see, a nation whos "president" has a rabbid hatedred of jews and is controled by religious fanatics with a rabbid hatedred of jews. A nation whos stated goal is to destroy the nation of Isreal. A nation that openly suports terrorists. A nation that supresses huma rights. Lets not kid ourselves the bomb isn't for defence its for offence or blackmail. If Iran doesn't want to be attacked by the US, UK maybe they sould stop terrorist suport, calling for the end of a jewish state, retarding human rights, allow free fair and open elections, and live up to its international promises.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

They should be kept from gtting nukes, but I doubt it will happen. We can only hope the new Iranian president isn't as nutty as he sounds in his speeches.