Why cant Iran have nuclear weapons?

#1
Best solution would be for no one to have nuclear weapons. But considering:-

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, its a dictatorship and there intelligence agency help create the taliban.
Israel has nuclear weapons but has never signed up to the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

Why can't Iran have nuclear weapons?
 
#2
Guardian reader my arrse you illiterate cnut
 
#3
'cos the people in charge there think they have a direct line to God, and therefore think that if God tells them to use nukes they will be well ;ooked after.

There are few people stupid enough to attack Iran. The ground is ideal for defence. Even George's advisors are bright enough to realise that that the sort of armoured thrust that worked in Iraq could not work in Iran, even with air supremacy. So the question must follow why do they want nukes if not for an offensive capability. And that is why they shouldn't have them.
 
#6
mushroom said:
There are few people stupid enough to attack Iran.
We've got a crew in Washington that wants the attack so badly they can taste it.

After Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" turned out to be a load of noodles, however, they are not sure they can sell it.
 
#8
the scarey thing is ... you cant disinvent a weapon. Its been tried before with more authority than a NPT.

The catholic church tried to stop the use of the crossbow by excommunicating anyone using one in the 13th century but the genoese mercs just ignored the popes threats and war in europe (which had become jousting matches between knights) became full on carnage again with the humble grunt able to take down nobility.

Nukes are a F sight scarier than a crossbow but the parrallels are there. Everyone will get the things sooner or later no matter how you try to stop them especially if they are seen as a status symbol.
 
#9
The thought of Iran getting a nuke scares the holy $hit out of me. The country is sitting on a bloody oil lake, so why does it need a nuclear power programme? Maybe I'm being irrational, but I don't think so....
 
#10
Booty said:
The thought of Iran getting a nuke scares the holy $hit out of me. The country is sitting on a bloody oil lake, so why does it need a nuclear power programme? Maybe I'm being irrational, but I don't think so....
The argument from the Iranian side is: The oil is a finite, wasting asset. Production may have already peaked or, at least, soon will. The more of it they can conserve, by meeting domestic energy requirements through other means, the more they can have for exports.
 
#13
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
Booty said:
The thought of Iran getting a nuke scares the holy $hit out of me. The country is sitting on a bloody oil lake, so why does it need a nuclear power programme? Maybe I'm being irrational, but I don't think so....
The argument from the Iranian side is: The oil is a finite, wasting asset. Production may have already peaked or, at least, soon will. The more of it they can conserve, by meeting domestic energy requirements through other means, the more they can have for exports.
Sounds strangely familiar some of that. Still no one would actually consider actual energy efficency measures or renewables say cos obviously thats all dangerous pie in the sky.

Take the example of the Iranians, or GW or even our own dear leader (until BNFL proved they couldnt be trusted with a bucket and spade let alone THORP). :evil:
 
#14
Tiffy_71 said:
Guardian reader my arrse you illiterate cnut
Private Eye doesn't call it the Grauniad for nothing y'know!
 
#15
Israel is big enough and nasty enough to look after itself mad worked for
usa ussr so why shoudlnt it work for iran/israel .
irans get nukes lots of persian /israel willy waving thats all .And if they do
decide to exchange buckets of instant sunshine not really our problem
though sammkit might have a discount sale :)
 
#16
Iran wants nukes so the US will leave it alone and because they are very scared of the Israeli nuclear threat. Simple as that really.

The one over-riding lesson GWB has taught the world is that countries without nukes will get the good news whenever the US feels like it regardless of world opinion - if Saddam really did have WMD do you honestly think we'd have still gone in as we did ?

But if you've got the bomb then like Kim Jong Il you can be completely barking mad and preside over the slow starvation of your population and the US will tread softly around you.

And I suspect that the religious hardliners in Iran look at the religious hardliners in Israel and understand them very well - hence the wish to procure a deterrent.

Finally, remember that nukes are 1940s technology. Can you really keep a lid on it ?
 
#17
As has been said you cann't uninvent the bomb.
I do think Isreal will get the nod and do the bis.
But given time and a less warlike US gov which will come again the Iranians will get their bomb.
john
AS will others.
 
#18
Simple rule - If you're not going to use the bomb, then you can have one. If you might use it then you can't. (Sound familiar - Stores are for storing son).

That's why we're all a little concerned about Israel, Pakistan, India etc and *ing bricking ourselves over Iran, N. Korea and our good friends on the other side of the pond.
 
#19
woody said:
Israel is big enough and nasty enough to look after itself mad worked for
usa ussr so why shoudlnt it work for iran/israel
You need to check your history sir! The USA is the ONLY country that pursued the MAD policy. The USSR had in place measures to ensure that it's population could be protected and be able to survive.

The USA were quite happy for their citizens to fry while the leaders hid like cowards in the bunkers. The best the USA gave their people was "duck and cover", USSR gave their people the Yamantau complex (as well as others)

S.A.M.
 
#20
Speed_Air_Man said:
woody said:
Israel is big enough and nasty enough to look after itself mad worked for
usa ussr so why shoudlnt it work for iran/israel
You need to check your history sir! The USA is the ONLY country that pursued the MAD policy. The USSR had in place measures to ensure that it's population could be protected and be able to survive.

The USA were quite happy for their citizens to fry while the leaders hid like cowards in the bunkers. The best the USA gave their people was "duck and cover", USSR gave their people the Yamantau complex (as well as others)

S.A.M.
I agree with this with one qualification.

I've read that the underground city at Yamantau Mountain is for the nomenklatura and key technical and scientific personnel. It's not for your average Boris.

It is also rumored to have facilities for manufacturing strategic weapons, enabling Russia to continue production during nuclear war.

Russia, China and Switzerland have well-established civil defense programs.

In the USA, not only was officially sponsored civil defense eliminated (and it never amounted to much in the first place), but the establishment disparaged and mocked civilians who built shelters, acquired Geiger counters and other radiologic gear, and stored water, canned food and potassium iodate.

We were given to understand that the aftermath would be so horrible that enlightened, sophisticated people wouldn't even want to survive.

We were also told that civil defense is a bad thing because, by pursuing it, the government would embolden itself into becoming ready on reduced provocation to launch nuclear attacks.

They also put out the rationale that nuclear weapons are so destructive that civil defense would be futile. This argument seems to contradict the argument of the preceding paragraph.

I used to have a volume of papers reciting these notions which was entitled "No Place To Hide." You could infer the content from the title.

Russia never bought the RAND Corporation package: the Russian government believes that thermonuclear war is both likely and winnable.
 

Latest Threads

Top