Iran Insists on Right to Pursue Enriched Uranium

[MagickMuffin]

NPR has a story on it's website, and this morning on Morning Edition.

What I found interesting is Israel is planning on purchasing 500 bunker busters after the US Nov. election from the US.

It is apparent that Israel is going to use these weapons to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.





img]

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Ya know... sad to say... but if they shipped the stuff over here....

and we enriched it for them... we would probably find a "legal" way to sell it back to them.... we could get Hallibacon to come up with some sort of loophole... like they have in the past. I mean... we would be saving face if we had a hand in the whole affair. <sarcasm off>

[napi21]

2. I disagree with our total support for Israel. And it's wrong for us to

provide bunker busters to them. But, more in line with your title line about Iran and enriched urnainum. What right do we have to tell another country they can't have war deterents, but it's ok for some countries to have them?

I hear the "some countries are just not responsible" idea, but why do we have the decision about who's responsible and who's not?

[MagickMuffin]

4. The bigger picture

Is the US selling the bunker busters so Israel can be responsible for starting a possible war with Iran?

That way if a full blown out war happens then the US can step in and help poor lil' Israel with 'their war'.

I agree that Israel is not any more responsible than any other country in that region with WMD's or nuke technologies.


img]

[natrat]

12. any place where big crowds chant about how much they want

to kill us should not have nukes imho

[TomClash]

3. On what moral grounds can the US complain . . .

about any other nation's acquistion of nukes?

[Heyo]

5. Not really any....

However in a pragmatic sense, I think if Iran had nukes they would surely use them... or start a shitload of trouble with them.

Heyo

[napi21]

7. Hasn't the US a;ready starten a sh*t load of trouble?

That was my point. Who are we to say some other country we are more respinsible with nukes than they are.

[Heyo]

8. not the point....

regardless of what any other country is doing... I think common sense dictates that Iran having nuclear weapons will be a huge geopolitical mess that I don't think anybody would want to try and deal with...

Heyo

[napi21]

9. I wish nobody had them, but if it's OK for Israel, why is it not OK for

Iran? Please understand, I'm not Jewish or Iranian. Just a 4th generation American with an Irish/English/German heritage. I just don't understand why the US should have the authority to say who can and who can't have these weapons. I don't think anybody should. But I sure can see why some countries believe they have to get them because those who oppose them will kill them if the fear of retaliation if they don't have them. Isn't that what the US says too?

[Heyo]

10. point taken...

"I wish nobody had them, but if it's OK for Israel, why is it not OK for Iran? "

My personal opinion? Because, regardless what you think of Israel, they would not pull off a nuclear first-strike unless under the most dire circumstances. The Israeli and US attitude towards them I think is the "absolute last resort" philosophy. Not to be even THOUGHT about unless the shit has honestly and truly hit the fan. And, with that philosophy in mind, I am glad we have them, simply because.. you don't want to get caught with your pants down. My philosophy on nuclear weapons is the same as my philosopy on people owning guns. "It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it."

(You may disagree with me on these points, and that's fair.)

Iran, on the other hand, I feel would do one of two things. a) Set it off immediately as soon as they had a working design, most likely in Israel. (The retaliation for this would almost certainly be nuclear as well) .. or b) "We have nuclear weapons, and we want x,y and z, or kiss goodbye"

From a moral standpoint your probably right.. "Why should so and so have them and so and so can't.. that isn't fair"

But, I am a real pragmatist when it comes to atomic weapons.... it's hard to say how many wars may have been started, and how many people would have died, had people not known that if they attacked they were assured complete destruction. (India/Pakistan, the most recent example) Maybe a lot, maybe none, we will probably never know. But I think it's a necessary evil.

Heyo

[Charles19]

11. MAD Mutually Assured Distruction

You think the USSR, China, and the US will sit by and watch if Iran starts lobbing nukes around?

Besides Iran isn't attacking any of its neighbors, nor has it ever claimed it wanted to. It is against Israel for what they are doing but so is everyone else including most of the Israeli's. They know it is not moral to imprison the Palestinians like that.

From what it looks like nothing can really be done right now. Look at every option both sides have. If US or Israel attack Iran, they can and will strike Israel and they don't know how well they can do that. With how much they underestimated their nuke technology who knows how much they understimated their missile technology. The intelligence communities of US and Israel haven't exactly won any blue ribbons lately in accuracy.

So I don't see an attack on Iran as likely.

[havocmom]

6. Entirely understandable. No WMD and US invades a nation.

Probable WMD and we pretend they don't exist. A nation would be foolish not to arm up when the US is attacking other nations because it is in the interest of some Corporations that we attack and make war. Just ask Unca Dick.

Face it, under the current regime, the US is making war a big business. And business is good. Again, ask Unca Dick.

[Tripmann]

13. Eh, quick point guys...

..with the US gunning for Iran as an axis of evil with an american powerbase next door in Iraq, surely an Iran nuclear weapon could be viewed as a 'deterrent' against invasionby the US instead of a WMD, just like Israels are viewed deterrents (though mostly by israelis and neocons)

Tripmann