Santa,

Your article didn't mention the intelligence source. If the source was from Mossad, it might have some credibility for me. If the source was US, I would be highly skeptical. It smells like a WMD story to me. We've been down this road before.

sensei:

Santa,

Your article didn't mention the intelligence source. If the source was from Mossad, it might have some credibility for me. If the source was US, I would be highly skeptical. It smells like a WMD story to me. We've been down this road before.

Gee, sensei, are you saying, like Saddam's WMD intelligence, the world could be wrong?

Mark 

By the way, Israel's intelligence was wrong before their last incursion into Lebanon. That's the nature of the beast. All Saddam had to do was get out of the way and do what he agreed to do after he was defeated in Gulf I. He didn't and he wouldn't.

Mark
 

No, they are not resuming anything related to an A-bomb project, at least at the moment.  They are refining uranium that eventually could be used for nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.  So what?

The United States and other countries are naive if they think they can keep other countries from developing alternative energy sources forever, even if they can be used for weapons.  Just because the United States used nuclear technology to build bombs before nuclear energy sites does not mean others will do so.  Other countries have the will and desire to develop.  It is clear that cannot be done for much longer relying on oil.  If one follows this "no nuclear proliferation" approach to its end result, does that mean that developing countries must hit the wall and stop developing when they cannot meet their energy needs?  What is the ultimate suggestion?  That other countries should just give up and join those who are already in possession of nuclear energy and become subject to their control?  Sure, this is a stretch, but so is the fear we have of nuclear weapons.  We have enough to destroy the world.  In fact many countries of the world believe we have both the capability and willingness to do so.  We have certainly demonstrated our willingness to use nuclear warfare, and we are the only nation to have done that. Not even big, bad Russia in the days of the shoe banging leader made that move.  We are fearful of rogue nations but there are many in the world community who believe we are the biggest rogue of all. 

Nuclear technology is coming for other countries just as it has for those who have obtained it after we did.  Delaying it with diplomacy, threats, economic sanctions, propaganda, etc. has been successful up to now, but not forever...............unless we want to blow up the world or take actions that result in other countries helping us do so.  Project yourselves 200 years down the road and offer any alternative conclusions besides either destroying the world or living with the knowledge that any number of countries have the capability of doing so, not just those who are primarily our allies.

Wayne 

(A lightning bolt struck just as this was being posted, so, hopefully, it did not get posted twice)

Wayne, that lightning bolt was God telling you you were wrong!

Iran is swimming in oil and does not need nuclear power for our lifetimes and a lot longer. They are a sworn enemy of the U.S. and Israel and would love to give nukes to terrorists. Pacifism will not keep us safe.         Ken

Ken:  I don't believe God cares at all about the politics of America, just that we set an example of caring, something we do very well when it comes to ourselves, less well when it comes to those who differ from us.  I may be wrong; it would not be the first or last time, but opinion is what this forum is about, and neither you nor I know the facts with this one or most of the other topics discussed here!

Wayne

KEN2CWL:

Wayne, that lightning bolt was God telling you you were wrong!

Iran is swimming in oil and does not need nuclear power for our lifetimes and a lot longer. They are a sworn enemy of the U.S. and Israel and would love to give nukes to terrorists. Pacifism will not keep us safe.         Ken

True, Iran does have a lot of oil but they don't have the ability to refine it. Most of the fuel is imported from Europe.

Anyways, oil drops $9 and Iran goes boo! Go figure. 

Liberalone:

No, they are not resuming anything related to an A-bomb project, at least at the moment.  They are refining uranium that eventually could be used for nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.  So what?

The United States and other countries are naive if they think they can keep other countries from developing alternative energy sources forever, even if they can be used for weapons.  Just because the United States used nuclear technology to build bombs before nuclear energy sites does not mean others will do so.  Other countries have the will and desire to develop.  It is clear that cannot be done for much longer relying on oil.  If one follows this "no nuclear proliferation" approach to its end result, does that mean that developing countries must hit the wall and stop developing when they cannot meet their energy needs?  What is the ultimate suggestion?  That other countries should just give up and join those who are already in possession of nuclear energy and become subject to their control?  Sure, this is a stretch, but so is the fear we have of nuclear weapons.  We have enough to destroy the world.  In fact many countries of the world believe we have both the capability and willingness to do so.  We have certainly demonstrated our willingness to use nuclear warfare, and we are the only nation to have done that. Not even big, bad Russia in the days of the shoe banging leader made that move.  We are fearful of rogue nations but there are many in the world community who believe we are the biggest rogue of all. 

Nuclear technology is coming for other countries just as it has for those who have obtained it after we did.  Delaying it with diplomacy, threats, economic sanctions, propaganda, etc. has been successful up to now, but not forever...............unless we want to blow up the world or take actions that result in other countries helping us do so.  Project yourselves 200 years down the road and offer any alternative conclusions besides either destroying the world or living with the knowledge that any number of countries have the capability of doing so, not just those who are primarily our allies.

Except that Iran is the world's 4th largest oil producer, and has no need for commercial nuclear power. 

Given that fact, combined with the statements of its leader regarding annihilating neighboring countries, it seems prudent to err on the side of preventing them from enriching uranium.  

Unless Iran has all of a sudden gone "green" and wants to do its part to reduce greenhouse gases.

No need for nuclear power?  What a short-term focus you have!  It is like saying you do not need to work next month because you just got paid.  Some people and countries think ahead, not just within the context of their own lifetime.

Yes, it is certainly possible that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.  Would you not want to have weapons comparable to those of countries from which you felt threat, Israel and the United States in this case (at least)?  We state we have no intention of using nuclear weapons but insist on the right to have them as a deterrent.  Why would the same reasoning not apply to other countries?  We certainly cannot say it is because we are smarter, less volatile, or less likely to use them, given our history.  Not that we should destroy all our nuclear capability, just my opinion that we and other countries with nuclear weapons should not be surprised that others want nuclear capability for multiple reasons.  We cannot stop that development forever.  That is not meant to imply we should not peacefully try to dissuade others from developing nuclear capability without some type of assurances, but it certainly would not make sense for us to destroy the world, reacting to a country that "might" be developing nuclear weapons in our effort to save it!

Wayne

Liberalone:

No need for nuclear power?  What a short-term focus you have!  It is like saying you do not need to work next month because you just got paid.  Some people and countries think ahead, not just within the context of their own lifetime.

Yes, it is certainly possible that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.  Would you not want to have weapons comparable to those of countries from which you felt threat, Israel and the United States in this case (at least)?  We state we have no intention of using nuclear weapons but insist on the right to have them as a deterrent.  Why would the same reasoning not apply to other countries?  We certainly cannot say it is because we are smarter, less volatile, or less likely to use them, given our history.  Not that we should destroy all our nuclear capability, just my opinion that we and other countries with nuclear weapons should not be surprised that others wa