Iran's nuclear ambitions

[x42bn6]

What are your thoughts on this?

I do not believe that Iran will build a nuke because it is depending on support from passive Islamic nations who are against sanctions and action against Iran. Once it builds a nuke most of this support will vanish.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an idiot for saying Israel should be wiped off the map, and I think he has received enough condemnation for that. However, we should not deny a country the right to build power sources.

The trust issue comes in here. The more nations distrust Iran, the more likely it is to go against their wishes. I don't believe Iran will build a nuke for the reasons above. However, until we receive concrete evidence about Iran's intentions to build a nuke (not evidence akin to the Iraq war starting!), Iran is innocent until proven guilty.

Thoughts?*

[Jimbo]

I agree that all nations shoul dhave the right to build a power source.. And are innocent untill proven guilty. But when it's when a nuke, when they are proven guilty, the result is very bad.

[B~E]

Iran has a fundamental need for an alternative energy source, for many reasons. First and foremost, Iran must support a rapidly growing industrial sector and a demographic explosion. Second, its oil extraction infrastructures are, to my suprise, in tatter, and are barely able to meet international demand, so we cannot expect this oil rich country to use its own fuel to power its own economy and expending population. And thirdly, the only way for Iran to actualy make money out of its own oil is by selling it to foreigners, not by using it themselves.

So Iran is looking forward to a booming energy demand, and cannot use oil to supply itself. The only viable solution would be nuclear energy. That, or an economical recession and ensuing crippling poverty.

On the other hand, Iran does not have an inalienable right to nuclear energy. Tthe so-called right to nuclear technology and know-how found in Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran signed, is conditioned on a state behaving "in conformity with articles I and II" of the treaty - articles which prohibit activities that lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. Add to this fact that, during the negotiations over the NPT, specific proposals were rejected that would have made it a "duty" for weapon states to aid non-weapon states with nuclear technology transfers and know-how. The point is that Article IV should not be interpreted as giving non-weapon states a presumptive title to such transfers. The NPT is, after all, a treaty against proliferation, not for nuclear development.

Secondly, Iran kept its nuclear reserches secret and lied about it for 20 years. Coupled with its support and control of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and probably others, we have every reasons to assume that Iran is gulty until proven otherwise. Western countries have no reasons to trust Iran one bit, and they are entierely justified in their suspicions and sanctions, and potential enforcement of those sanctions.

And I'd like to point out that States are not moral individuals, so moral rules such has "innocent until proven guilty" cannot apply to them. States have no duty to be generous, compationate, or to aby by any laws or rules whatsoever, unless they have something to gain. Scholars and intellectuals have tried for more than a century to try and determine the behavior of States, but they failed at it. The best that they came up with is the concept of State as rational actors. States are expected to act in their own interest, and if you want to predict the next move of a State, try and understand what are its interests.

In Iran's case, the 100$ question is, is it in its interest to develop nuclear weapons? Being aware of the new preemptive strike doctrine of the americans, knowing that they have a good shot at being a regional superpower in one of the world's most vital energical and cultural region, and having openly admited their goal of opposing western interests in the region (this include, among other things, our essential but questionable support to Israel's existence), and knowing that North Korea wasn't punished for its own nuclear developpment, I'd say that Iran will probably develop nuclear weapons.

Now, as I said, in inthernational relations, there is no place for moral question that concern only individuals. You cannot justify to me that we should assume that States are "innocent until proven guilty", because 1) we have good reasons to assum that Iran has no innocent purposes in mind for its nuclear energy and that 2) we have no reason to care if they are innocent anyway.

[Bret]

I believe we, or I should say the world, should have a responsibility to other nations when one country wants to wipe another country off the map. I don't care what country to what country. Iran's leader has a CLEAR definition to what he plans on doing. Do I think sanctions are going to help? lol no.

[Arxces]

First and foremost, it needs to be understood just what type of a weapon nuclear weapons are. Nuclear weapons in modern warfare are not the offensive weapons of mass destruction they are often thought as. On the contrary, they are a deterrent above all else. Any nation possessing nuclear weapons, and the vehicle to deliver them reliably worldwide, has effectively immunised itself from any conventional attack from any other nation. However, using nuclear weapons without cause brings with it very severe consequences from the international community, thus preventing a nation from using nuclear weapons as first-strike weapons.

Iran understands this dynamic. Despite rhetoric by Ahmadinejad on wiping Israel off the map, he understands that in order for Iran to become a regional power, it cannot perform such an attack, lest it alienate other nations in the area, who may turn to the US for support and defence. This scenario would give the US further mandate to establish power bases in the region and would generate support for the War on Terror.

However, there is great incentive for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, thanks to the way the US handled Iraq and North Korea. The former is a relatively peaceful nation (less wars fought than the US) which did not have any nuclear capability, and was invaded for supposedly having WMDs. The latter is a rogue state, an international pariah, who openly admits to having nuclear capability and has expressed it's hatred for the west, but did not get invaded. Looking at these examples, it is clear to Iran that it must develop nuclear weapons in order to not get invaded (a very realistic possibility in the War on Terror).

Finally, regardless of the legalities and international diplomacy, the conduct of the US has inevitably driven Iran into this position. Iran has immense potential as an oil-producer; a potential that has not been exploited well, and this makes it an attractive target for invasion by the US. The right-wing's invasion rhetoric is not helping in alleviating the circumstance either. On the contrary, the threat of invasion could have sent Iran scrambling to develop nuclear weapons, in order to deter invasion.

It is undeniable that Iran has the right to peaceful exploitation of nuclear energy. It is also a disturbing prospect that it may develop nuclear weapons. However, the international community, and especially the US, need to examine their strategies in preventing Iran's ascent as a nuclear power, especially with respect to their lack of success. If Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, the whole world is to blame.

[B~E]

Concerning the nature of nuclear weapons, in my opinion, it is more than merely a deterrent. The delivery of a nuclear device can be physicaly done through the actions of a proxy group, who's movements can be obscure and inscrutable. And in a chaotic region where Iran sponsor many proxy groups, Hezbollah being the most noticable, the possibility for Iran to deliver a device in such a manner will allow them to resort to an extremly dangerous form of indirect negociation: blackmail.

This summer's Israel-Hezbollah war demonstrated that a non-State actor, armed with rockets, popular support and bunkers, could make a stand against one of the world's most efficient and hightech military. The possibility of such a group being armed with a nuclear device is unthinkable. It just can't be allowed.

And finally, the 1991 Gulf war proved one thing to the world: that if Irak would have been armed with a nuclear device, the americans would have left them alone. Meaning that a purely defensive deterrent can encourage convential wars.

It is undeniable that Iran has the right to peaceful exploitation of nuclear energy.

How so? Is it possible for a coalition of States to legitimately feel threatened by a nuclear Iran and as such deny them this right, if they have the leverage to do so? How is their "right" to nuclear energy undeniable then?

[KCspdracer]

Is it really worth going to war just because Iran builds a nuke? Would we in fact be doing more harm then good? And who are we (USA) to say who can and cant have them? WHo gave us that right?

[B~E]

The right to security is inherent to every States. Nobody need to give you that right, what matters is if you can apply that right by yourself, if you have the power to do so and if its in your interest.

[Arxces]

Originally Posted by KCspdracer

Is it really worth going to war just because Iran builds a nuke? Would we in fact be doing more harm then good?

The US has an interest in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. However, the way it has conducted itself in achieving this is counterproductive to its cause. As it stands right now, with the looming threat of invasion, Iran has got more reason than ever to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent towards invasion. As it stands, the US needs to rethink its plan to stem nuclear arms proliferation...

[B~E]

I agree with your analysis so far. Do you have anything to suggest?

As far as I'm concerned, beside the construction of a coalition like the one in 1991 and the consolidation of the security in Iraq, I dont really have anything constructive to suggest.

[Arxces]

I'm afraid that I have nothing that even remotely resembles a solution. I only watch and wait for news, in the hopes that this situation does not escalate further. Amusingly enough I prefer the scenario that Iran develops nuclear weapons and the US backs off, over that of the US invading Iran and causing more imbalance in the region.

[B~E]

Actualy, the cause of imbalance would be what cause the US to invade, would it not? Iran is the one breaking a perfectly acceptable status quo here with its methode. What I would like to see is Iran develloping civilian nuclear energy in a manner that would satisfy Western concerns.

[Arxces]

I think that both nations are on the trigger (Iran with nukes, US with invasion), and one of them might slip and fire. As Iran has learnt, the US could invade them even without them having WMDs (like in Iraq). They could be maintaining the status quo and even then get invaded. The US could unwittingly cause the imbalance, while believing that they are correcting it.

[KCspdracer]

Stop nuclear proliferation? The biggest prolifereator in the world is the US. We gave Israel nuclear technology, and Pakistan, and NK, and China. We're the biggest proliferators in the world. We're also #1 in selling weapons. We're also #1 in giving financial aid to countries that are hostile to us.

[B~E]

Yeah, except that no, the americans didnt give it to the nork, to the chinese or the pakistanese.

[simpleforce]

there are over 10 countries with nuclear tech, i dont see y iran shouldn't have one. the only reason they seem evil is because they are focused that way. just as the usa is seen evil throughout the world

[Tipsy]

Whatever happened to national sovereignty? Assuming they withdrawal from the NPT (which the NPT says a member state can withdraw from the treaty as long as there is three months notice) they should be able to develop nuclear weapons without any hindrance from the international community. Simply possessing or developing nuclear weapons should not be any offense. Until they are used on another nation there really is no legitimate reason to forcefully disarm another nation. Given my view on nuclear weapons, I probably don't need to say I have no problem with Iran developing nuclear power either.

[Arxces]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

Whatever happened to national sovereignty? Assuming they withdrawal from the NPT (which the NPT says a member state can withdraw from the treaty as long as there is three months notice) they should be able to develop nuclear weapons without any hindrance from the international community. Simply possessing or developing nuclear weapons should not be any offense. Until they are used on another nation there really is no legitimate reason to forcefully disarm another nation. Given my view on nuclear weapons, I probably don't need to say I have no problem with Iran developing nuclear power either.

Ai! Withdrawing from the NPT?! That would be a dangerous move as it would imply that Iran really is developing nuclear weapons, and not the nuclear energy tech they claim to be developing. I can foresee how this would play out: the day Iran submits the necessary documents for withdrawal from the NPT, the US armed forces in Iraq are 'reorganised' and more aircraft carriers are sent, and Ohio-class subs. Patrols in the Persian Gulf will increase (allegedly due to the 'kidnapping' of the British sailors). The US will increase troops present in Afghanistan (allegedly because the Taliban are poised to retake the country). Then the President receives an 'intelligence briefing' on Iran's nuclear energy to weapons conversion programme. He submits this finding to Congress, who then pass the bill for the 'authorised use of force' (did you know the US has not declared war since WWII?) on Iran. Conveniently enough there are American troops on both the north-eastern and western borders of Iran, ready and poised to strike. And then we get a sequel to Iraq. A scary thought indeed.

I'll restate my earlier point: nukes are not an offensive weapon. They are weapons of deterrence. No country will dare attack another if it has the capability to totally wipe out the entire land. Nukes will not be deployed between nuke-capable countries. This is based on the principle of MAD (mutually assured destruction), where if a country gets nuked, then they will retaliate likewise, and both countries end up in ruin. That being said, the main fear the US has of Iran developing nukes is that it will now bind the US to MAD, and they will no longer be able to invade Iran.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Arxces

I'll restate my earlier point: nukes are not an offensive weapon. They are weapons of deterrence. No country will dare attack another if it has the capability to totally wipe out the entire land. Nukes will not be deployed between nuke-capable countries. This is based on the principle of MAD (mutually assured destruction), where if a country gets nuked, then they will retaliate likewise, and both countries end up in ruin. That being said, the main fear the US has of Iran developing nukes is that it will now bind the US to MAD, and they will no longer be able to invade Iran.

Sure they can be an offensive weapon and they will not neccesarily apply to MAD. For example, what if the weapons are set off by a terrorist organization? Who does the victim target their nuclear weapons back at? How can you know for certain they came from Iran? And though countries have sane populaces that generally don't support using nuclear weapons at the expense of their lives, that doesn't mean that a country won't have a leader who is less than sane. I don't question the sanity of the Iranian people, nor that of Ahmadinejad - he's a brilliant politician, though its the people like the ayatollah that scare me.

Do you really think a ground war would actually be the course chosen? Just compare the size and populations of Iraq and Afganistan to Iran and see how much more difficult it would be there and then continue to add in the weak position of troops because they would be hampered by still controlling (atleast attempting to) Iraq and Afganistan. It probably wouldn't pass just using airstrikes. Plus that would allow the President to get around having a Congress controlled by Democrats.

[B~E]

I'll restate my earlier point: nukes are not an offensive weapon

Neither are commercial airplanes.

Look, we've already said in this topic that there are many ways to deliver a nuclear warhead through non-conventional means, thus countering the MAD doctrine. And we all know that there isnt a First world country leader that is inhuman enough to whipe out an entire country to answer to a nuclear attack. And that even if such a guy existed, to say that international security should rest on the threat of total anihilation is a moraly banckrupt and dangerous proposition.

So why are you charging again with the same old crapy argument?

That being said, the main fear the US has of Iran developing nukes is that it will now bind the US to MAD, and they will no longer be able to invade Iran.

To say that the americans are affraid of a nuclear Iran because they wouldnt be able to invade this country suppose that they actualty *want* to invade them. On what are you basing this premise?

The US have no reason to invade Iran if they dont develop nuclear weapons in the first place. Ahmadinejad is creating his own justification for a nuclear arsenal by being a warmongering idiot who's doing everything he can to defy and challenge the americans and british and the West in general.

Its like you actualy *want* Iran to have its way and develop a nuclear arsenal. Is this true?

Do you really think a ground war would actually be the course chosen? Just compare the size and populations of Iraq and Afganistan to Iran and see how much more difficult it would be there and then continue to add in the weak position of troops because they would be hampered by still controlling (atleast attempting to) Iraq and Afganistan. It probably wouldn't pass just using airstrikes. Plus that would allow the President to get around having a Congress controlled by Democrats.

Western forces + Israel can incapacitate Iran's nuclear program and its military using only the airforce. Dealing with Iran would be piss easy if it doesnt involve rebuilding the country.