{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Sapphire
Edited by Parakitteh:
10/16/2013 9:23:01 AM
6
The risk of Iran acquiring weapons is probably due to being left out in the cold and to their own devices.
If the west agreed to construct Osirak-style reactors in Iran, we could seriously reduce the risk of weapons-grade proliferation.
Against the opinion of western intelligence agencies and all of Israel, independent assessment of the destroyed Osirak facility in Iraq by nuclear scientists and engineers seemed to agree that the Osirak facility could not have produced material sufficient to produce nuclear weapons.
Combined with many Generation III+ reactor designs, many of which have measures against proliferating - especially the proposed GenIV designs like the LFTR.
Besides, I've always been confused as to the veracity with which Iranian nuclear weapons programmes are hailed as doomsday. Yeah, it's going to be a shitstorm for regional stability if only as a penile extension of the Islamic Republic, but it's not as though they're going to launch a Terminator 3-style nuclear strike.
English
-
Iran is the most likely nation on Earth to actually use a nuclear weapon due to being able to build a delivery system with the range to hit Israel. I also won't trust any government with WMD when their motto of foundation is "Death to America."
-
Edited by Mags: 10/16/2013 11:59:46 PMI'm not worried so much about them using a nuclear weapon, rather I'm worried about the proliferation of an Iranian nuke to one of the terrorist organizations they prop up. Giving a nuke to Hamas or Hezbollah would give them a huge bargaining chip with Israel; which of course, would upset regional balance and quite possibly security. Lest we forget that Iran having nuclear weapons would definitely be a game-changer to Israeli and American strategies. [quote]Yeah, it's going to be a shitstorm for regional stability if only as a penile extension of the Islamic Republic, but it's not as though they're going to launch a Terminator 3-style nuclear strike.[/quote]As mentioned above, Para, I'm not really concerned about a "Terminator 3-style nuclear strike". Also, you're downplaying the severity of how much regional stability would be effected by a nuclear Iran. It's not a dick measuring contest and it never was. You of all people should know that the Gulf, Israel and Iran all compete for dominance over the Middle East. The war in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, has paved the way for greater Iranian influence throughout the region. The war in Syria is and will be a proving ground for who comes out on top for influence between Iran and the Gulf. You also have Iran trying to extend their hegemon into various parts of Africa and even the Gulf itself. Iran also is the main supplier of Hamas, Hezbollah, PIJ and the PRC, all of whom are in a perpetual war against Israel. A nuclear Iran would crush the non-nuclear Gulf and would be a very large opponent of Israeli influence. This could very well upset regional balance and security. There is a reason why [url=http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4441518,00.html]Gulf States are strengthening security ties with Israel[/url]. Another effect of a nuclear Iran, one that is said quite often, is the "nuclear arms race" that the Gulf could experience in order to compete with Iran. That is my concern. I don't know much about the Osirak facility but I can look into it.
-
I used to use Osirak as a big point, in line with western intelligence assessment, of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme. Until I read, on the wiki article no less, how a series of nuclear engineers had personally assessed the facility could not have produced material suitable for a weapon. I doubt Iran would be able to use any nuclear weapons as a regional political tool. The west won't stand for it. The sanctions alone would [i]kill[/i] Iran most likely. They're definitely not going to use them against Israel. Same reason why the North has yet to have invaded the ROK or nuked someone. They realise their significantly less-than-advantageous position and keep shit leashed.
-
[quote]I doubt Iran would be able to use any nuclear weapons as a regional political tool.[/quote]Using them as a regional political tool is a main reason why they want nukes. [quote]The west won't stand for it.[/quote]You're right. Which is why the West has been trying to stop their nuclear ambitions for more than a decade. [quote]The sanctions alone would kill Iran most likely.[/quote]If we keep sanctions and quite possibly even strengthen them, as well. Look at the PDF in the OP and you'll get a better understanding of how current sanctions are affecting Iran and why a short-term deal (i.e loosening sanctions) might be detrimental to our efforts.
-
Edited by Mags: 10/17/2013 8:19:19 PM
-
Edited by Parakitteh: 10/16/2013 11:10:16 PMThey don't have a fat lot to gain from nuking Israel. Largely because Israel and the US would nuke them back, and thought they tout themselves as Islamists, they seem to find this life more fruitful than the next. Hence my point, let's sponsor the construction of reactors that "cannot be capable" of leading to the production of a weapon - such as the Osirak facility.
