Why are we against Iran getting ultimate nuclear power?

[RobertEarl]

Fukushima is a prime example of one reason.

4 years ago, Japan's nuclear plant at Fukushima was disabled and in the next few days overheated; blew sky-high, spreading radiation around the world.

Imagine that happening again in the Middle East? That would be bad news.

Too, Japan has the capability to engineer nuclear weapons and has the material to do so via its nuclear power plants making nuclear weapon materials. The effort against Iran is to keep Iran from developing such capabilities as Japan has. We have some agreements with Japan and other countries which limit their nuclear capabilities. So far, such an agreement does not exist with Iran, and so Obama rightly wishes to have such an agreement.

[NuclearDem]

1. Great, Fukushima's killing camels now too!

[B2G]

2. I don't understand why they want or need it

They are sitting on one of the largest oil reserves on the planet.

Are they that concerned with the environment?

[RobertEarl]

6. No concern for the environment

If they did have a concern for the environment they wouldn't be going nuclear which is an environment killer.

Several of Iran's neighbors have nuclear weapons, and so they feel they should be able to have such weapons also. Probably a matter of security in the line of MAD-Mutual Assured Destruction.

[B2G]

8. So your OP title should read

"Why are we against Iran having Nuclear weapons".

[RobertEarl]

11. Well

One leads to the other.

First you need to have the refinement capabilities. And a way to make plutonium which is what Japan had in its now burned out plant.

The thought is that if Iran has no nuke weapon making material operations they can't acquire weapon materials.

I am against Iran, and all other countries, having the capability to make nuclear weapon materials, thus my op.

[Brother Buzz]

24. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other if Russia keeps its word

Russia Reaches Deal With Iran to Construct Nuclear Plants
NOV. 11, 2014

MOSCOW — Russia agreed on Tuesday to build two new nuclear power reactors in Iran, with a possibility of six more after that, in a deal that greatly expands nuclear cooperation between the two countries.

The agreement shows that Russia is pressing ahead with its own vision for ensuring that Iran does not build nuclear weapons, by supplying civilian power technology that will operate under international monitoring. The approach won acceptance from the International Atomic Energy Agency and, grudgingly, from the Bush administration over the last decade as Russia completed Iran’s first civilian nuclear plant, at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf coast.

The United States was initially critical of the Russian policy of providing civilian reactors to Iran, but later withdrew its objections. Russia agreed to complete the reactor, which was begun as a German project before the Iranian revolution of 1979, on the condition that all the nuclear fuel used at the plant over its lifetime be supplied and reprocessed by Russian companies.

By demanding that Iran buy Russian reactor fuel, the authorities in Moscow deprived Iran of part of its justification for developing the ability to enrich uranium at home. But the deal has not halted the Iranian enrichment program. Iranian officials say they also require enriched uranium for medical purposes.

<more>

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/world/europe/russia-to-build-2-nuclear-plants-in-iran-and-possibly-6-more.html

[RobertEarl]

26. Yep

With Russian influence in this matter it makes coming to an agreement all the harder for the war mongers to sign on. Hence the 47 clowns' letter.

There are many who have a knee-jerk reaction to anything Russia does.

[Enrique]

3. what is the difference between Iran's nuclear power capability and Japan's

i.e.what do you mean by "ultimate" nuclear power?

[gcomeau]

27. They mean the word "nuclear" scares them.

So anything about it sound like something you should get all hyperbolic about with silly meaningless phrases like "ultimate nuclear power".

Because... Scary! Nuclear!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The same reason we're not opposing Israel having nukes.

Political expediency and PR.

[sabrina 1]

5. No one should have Nuclear Weapons.. No one can be trusted with them. So my question is

why are ONLY against Iran having them and NOT against everyone else having them? Especially those who have threatened to use them in recent times. As Israel did re Iran.

Something is wrong here.

Start demanding the same of all nations, regarding Nukes. Otherwise it is sheer hypocrisy in view.

[B2G]

7. Because Iran has threatened numerous times

to wipe Israel off the map.

That isn't enough for you?

And Iran is not the only country that we are trying to deter. North Korea ring a bell?

[closeupready]

10. That's like saying if Lichtenstein threatened to wipe Belgium off the map, nukes would logically

be the next step for Belgium's defense strategy.

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. I think this is a canard. Can you show me where Iran has threatened to attack Israel?

I know they have made aspirational statements about how Israel should not exist.

But I don't recall hearing Iran threaten to attack Israel.

Israel, on the other hand, frequently threatens to attack Iran, and tries its best to get others (us) to do its dirty work for it.

[B2G]

21. I guess 'annihilation' means dfferent things to different people...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

[Comrade Grumpy]

30. I have examined those quotations. I get that Iran doesn't like Israel.

I see some wishful speaking. Aspirations aren't battle plans.

On the other hand, do a Google search for "Israel threatens Iran" and you find real threats.

And just who has the means to "annihilate" whom?

[Mosby]

29. Your old, tired arguments are old and tired.

Iran-backed advance in southern Syria rattles Israel

Beirut, Lebanon — The Golan Heights, one of Israel’s quietest frontiers, is showing signs of becoming an active front that could soon bring the forces of arch-enemies Iran and Israel into direct contact for the first time.

For nearly a month, Lebanon’s militant Hezbollah organization and other Shiite forces under Iranian command have been inching their way across a belt of southern Syria in a bid to drive out rebel forces fighting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, an important Iranian ally.

If the offensive is successful, it could leave Iranian forces and their Shiite allies in control of the Syrian side of the Golan. And from that vantage point, Tehran could gain an additional means of deterrence against Israel in the remaining months before the June 30 deadline for negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2015/0306/Iran-backed-advance-in-southern-Syria-rattles-Israel

Via Hamas, Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guard Iran is one of the most, if not the most dangerous, aggressive countries in the world today.

[Comrade Grumpy]

31. Crawl back under your bed, or the big, bad Iranians will get you.

How many nuclear bombs does Israel have?

[Comrade Grumpy]

15. Which of those two countries has a nuclear arsenal?

[panader0]

19. The list so far--- from Wiki:

List of states with nuclear weapons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



There are eight sovereign states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons.[1][2] Five are considered to be "nuclear-weapon states" (NWS) under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States, Russia (successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France, and China.

Since the NPT entered into force in 1970, three states that were not parties to the Treaty have conducted nuclear tests, namely India, Pakistan, and North Korea. North Korea had been a party to the NPT but withdrew in 2003. Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons, though it maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding this, and is not known definitively to have conducted a nuclear test.[3] According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's SIPRI Yearbook of 2014, Israel is estimated to have approximately 80 nuclear warheads. Furthermore, according to Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Nuclear Notebook 2014, the total number of nuclear weapons is estimated at 10,144.[4][5][6]

South Africa has the unique status of a nation that developed nuclear weapons but then disassembled its arsenal before joining the NPT. This means that there are three European countries, one country in the Americas, four Asian countries, zero Oceanian countries and zero African countries which are known to possess nuclear weapons.[7] Nations that are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons are sometimes referred to informally as the nuclear club.

[B2G]

22. Neither, yet

thank god.

[sabrina 1]

17. Israel has threatened NUMEROUS times to use 'tactical nukes' if the International Community

doesn't, what, go to war with them, against Iran.

Link to Iran threatening the use of nukes against Israel.

Israel has nukes and has repeatedly refused to abide by UN articles regarding nations that have nukes.

The ramblings, and mistranslations of Iran's previous leader do not qualify as 'threats to use Nukes against Israel'.

ALL nations, including this one which HAS used them, should be held to the same standard as Iran.

Nukes are a threat to the survival of the Planet no matter WHO has them.

[closeupready]

9. Completely agree.

[RobertEarl]

18. Something is wrong here, sabrina

If Iran just had Cheney as a friend and business partner, Iran could also be a nuclear power. Like Pakistan is.

[Hoyt]

12. I doubt we would have invaded Iraq if they had nuclear weapons.

As long as we have nukes, how do we deny them to others?

I hope Iran decides to remain nukeless, but oppose bombing to keep them that way.

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. No, that's not why. US policymakers do not share your Fukushima concerns.

They're busy carrying water for nuclear-armed Israel.

[slumcamper]

16. GO SOLAR. n/t

[Agnosticsherbet]

20. Japan has enough plutonium to make about 80 bombs, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist

China worries about Japanese plutonium stocks
Recent news reports say that Japan failed to disclose the existence of about 640 kilograms of unused plutonium—enough to make about 80 nuclear bombs—in its annual reports to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2012 and 2013. This has raised Chinese concerns about Japan’s plutonium program.

Japanese officials claim that this under-reporting was an honest error of interpretation of the rules, because the material in question was part of the plutonium-uranium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel stored in a reactor that happened to be offline during this period.

But some Chinese policymakers and strategists question whether such under-reporting was an honest mistake, and wonder if it was a deliberate effort at concealment, as it is relatively straightforward to separate out the plutonium in MOX fuel that is “fresh” (i.e., not needing further reprocessing) and use it in a nuclear weapon. And in any case, the IAEA requires a report on all fresh, unirradiated MOX fuel.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, highlighted this issue at a June 9 daily press briefing: “Japan’s long-term storage of sensitive nuclear materials has outweighed Japan’s needs and aroused the serious concern of the international community… We expect Japan to respond to the concerns of the international community, take practical action at an early date, and address the imbalance between its demand and supply of sensitive nuclear materials.”

They were supposed to surrender their stockpile to the US.

[ann---]

23. Right

since Israel has a nuke, shouldn't Iran be able to defend itself against them or even a U.S. led nuke threat?

[Xyzse]

25. There's more!

Iran is not separated by natural barriers like the island of Japan.
It has porous borders where such material can be sneaked out easily.

That would be insanity.

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. I don't get the logic of war to punish what would be the 10th nuclear country.

Nuclear plans that the IAEA is monitoring to prevent and Iran claims to have no intention.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/introductory-statement-board-governors-61

Nuclear Iran would probably be a bad thing. Bad enough that everything to prevent it (short of war) should be considered.

[woo me with science]

32. Meanwhile, US grows our own nuclear WEAPONS program to the tune of THREE TRILLION DOLLARS.

Absolute hypocrisy.

U.S. Ramping Up Major (TRILLION DOLLAR) Renewal in Nuclear Arms
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/us-ramping-up-major-renewal-in-nuclear-arms.html?_r=0

[TheKentuckian]

33. Because it becomes way tougher to dictate to and bully if they have them.