Debate: Iranian nuclear rights

Debate about whether or not Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons, have sanctions imposed against them, etc. I recommend that you do some research first, particularly an overview of its history from the 50s-today.

I'm on the fence on this issue and will be playing both sides in an effort to challenge others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rules:

-Do not up/down rate, leave all comments at +1

-Avoid personal attacks

-Memes =/= agruements

-Post sensibly and be prepared to back up your views with facts and sources

-Have fun! :D

You might be interested

Comments

Reply Attach
  • 1

    Hmm,. I support ..
    Iran has every right to develop their own nuclear energy .

    While I don't necessarily disagree, I will ask this: Given their government's ties to terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, do other countries like Israel not have reason to worry that an Iranian nuke could fall into their hands and be used against them?
    - CrazyJay February 3, 2013, 2:57 pm
    Hmm ... i see your point . Hamas isn't a terrorist group first of all . Only Europe , US, Canada, Australia and a few nations have an opinion that they both are terrorist organisation . Rest of the world (Especially Russia , India and Every middle eastern , Asian countries except Israel) doesn't think so . However , this two groups cant involve in any of Iran's government or military decisions .
    - oscarsylvester February 3, 2013, 3:31 pm
    Perhaps "extremist" would have been a more accurate label, however I'm Canadian (CSIS has them labeled as a terrorist group, depends on who you ask, I'll give you that.) The concern isn't that they would influence Iran, it's more the other way around. Since Iran backs them anyways, they *might* be willing to covertly hand them a nuke for leverage against Isreal.
    - CrazyJay February 3, 2013, 3:50 pm
    Israel strongly disagree for the nuclear rights of Iran for the same reason . But that doesn't prove they will perform a nuclear attack against Israel . For example India has a constant problem with Pakistan for more than 50 years . So many wars and attacks did happen within this time. US is a country performed more than 15 military actions in other countries after 1945 . Every country has a history and enemies of course .
    - oscarsylvester February 3, 2013, 4:17 pm
    This is basically why I'm not completely against them getting nukes. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate until someone who's anti-Iran shows up. I'm on the fence about this issue, hence wanting to debate it. :3
    - CrazyJay February 3, 2013, 5:48 pm
    I don't think you will find someone who is fully against Iran on sharenator.
    - triclebickle February 4, 2013, 12:28 am
    Reply
  • 1

    *not getting involved in the debate itself* but why is there always the rule of no uprating? Giving credit for the better argument seems logical, surely?

    Depends on your definition of "better". It keeps unpopular opinion from being censored. This way, someone doesn't get massively down rated below view threshold when others disagree.
    - CrazyJay February 3, 2013, 2:55 pm
    then couldn't you say to uprate the good ones, leave the bad ones alone?
    - Fail4424 February 3, 2013, 5:39 pm
    No, because just because a comment gets a lot of uprates doesn't mean it has intellectual value, just that it's popular. I've seen a lot of stupid comments that end up with a +5. To keep the debate balanced, don't touch the ratings.
    - CrazyJay February 3, 2013, 5:45 pm
    I think I was the original one to post those rules: and the reason for me was twofold-
    As said, a +1 on everything keeps all comments above viewing threshold.
    My reason for not allowing uprates is different. If a comment gets enough positive votes, it jumps above other replies, wrecking the conversation order. One of the most important things for these posts is that everyone can follow the conversation and add their opinions easily.

    I'll post my thoughts when I'm not in class X D. Also, I appreciate the credits, but really, not necessary ; ).
    - Logos385 February 4, 2013, 12:47 pm
    I stole your formula, therefore you get credits. Deal with it. XD
    - CrazyJay February 4, 2013, 3:45 pm
    Reply
  • 1

    I am all for Iran having nuclear energy, though I am concerned with them having a reactor capable of producing weapons grade U-235. If they used a LFTR or MSR system that uses Thorium and not uranium there would be no concern what so ever, but that isn't the case they are using uranium fueled reactors that produce weapons grade U-235. And since Iran signed the NPT (non proliferation treaty) They are allowed to use nuke for energy but not for weapons, this is why I brought up the LFTR and MSR systems because I am yet to hear about weaponized thorium. And is anyone else skeptical for why Iran isn't allowing inceptions of certain areas?

    Reply
  • 1

    No, Iran is ran by crazy people. Crazy people should not have nukes. It's kind of like how we don't let crazy people get/use guns. Because when we do, Newtown happens.

    So if the Iranian gov't was more moderate, or ceased to become a Muslim theocracy, would you be in favour of it?

    It's also worth noting that even Iran probably wouldn't be stupid enough to say, launch a nuke on Isreal. They know full well Isreal would take them down. (M.A.D) They could be more interested in nukes detering US/Isreali invasions. I think it's more likely we'd see an Isreal/Iran cold war. Though I do understand the concerns.
    - CrazyJay February 4, 2013, 3:50 pm
    Yes, if they weren't crazy people then I don't care if they get nukes. It's the same reason I don't want NK to get nukes. It would also helped if they didn't threaten to use them on my country, too (NK that is).
    - casper667 February 5, 2013, 8:36 am
    Reply
  • 1

    While I think that most countries should have the right to have their own nuclear energy, I have my doubts about Iran and their ties to various extremist groups. The way I see it, there should be some sort of limit, but since I am not educated enough on the particular subject, I don't know exactly what should be done.

    Reply
  • 1

    ohhhh so torn.... i'm gonna have to vote no for now but i'm def open to be swayed (admit fully i'm not completely up to date on this. i know most countries are against it though)
    Ok so here's my thoughts from what i know. the area is way to unstable for nukes to be in the area and i just simply don't think they are in a place where they could be trusted with such technology. i want it there simply for nuclear power but i'm just not sure if the area is capable without some kind of protective means by outside forces. i think what would be best is providing the right incentive to do this without producing weapons. however as idealist as i am i actually don't think the area is stable enough to do this.... idk like i said my vote is that we let them use it for power and stuff but it should be under heavy heavy watch.

    ideally though my votes for no nukes at all, idk if it's just me but considering how much people like to fight and the number of wars we've had in the past i have the feeling that nukes are defiantly going to screw us in the long run. first sign of war i'm headed to canada and living in a cave lol. (not to make fun of canada or anything but seriously who wants to fuck with them? just nice people trying to live in freeze your balls off weather and watch hockey! in my book that makes you awesome! and as a guy from mass, Eh Booys booys, It's Fahckin Coold owtside, 'ow 'bouts we crack a couple brewskis an' turn on da Bruins!)

    "the area is way to unstable for nukes to be in the area and i just simply don't think they are in a place where they could be trusted with such technology."

    Do you mean Iran, or the middle east in general? Iran has a stable gov't (It's an Islamic theocracy with a few democratic elements, but an organized gov't nonetheless.)
    - CrazyJay February 4, 2013, 3:48 pm
    the area in general is what i meant lol but like i said not to familiar with the area as a whole i try and keep on top of it to be honest but it feel a bit to do considering the extreme bias that america has on the area. all i ever hear about them is bombs and terrorsits. americans aren't overly informed about the area and receive little news about it unless it's oil or americans died. legit haven't heard good news in years.

    i'm going much more off the general knowledge than anything else but like i said very open to learning about the two sides of the argument.
    - 24paperwings February 4, 2013, 4:08 pm
    This is pretty much why I recommended researching Iranian history. That way, you get an idea of what their gov't is like, their foreign policy, history of exploitation by UK and US, who they threaten/threatens them. Though you're right to keep an open mind about them. You'll need one. XD
    - CrazyJay February 4, 2013, 4:16 pm
    Or we can tell them to use a fuel that isn't easily weaponized.
    - triclebickle February 4, 2013, 10:08 pm
    Reply
  • 1

    Being a Physics major and a general proponent of science, it takes quite a bit to get me to disapprove of scientific progress in any realm. That being said, I understand some peoples' concerns about Iran and nuclear capabilities.

    Where I stand now: I am a huge proponent of nuclear energy and its development across the world. No exception here.

    Okay, but what about in the context of nuclear weapons for Iran? Nuclear energy is one thing, but having nuclear missiles is quite another, right?
    - CrazyJay February 4, 2013, 4:57 pm
    As I currently see it, as long as we have more nuclear weapons stockpiled than I believe any group, country, or individual ever, I find it hard to think we are in a position of authority on the subject of not having nuclear missiles.
    - Logos385 February 4, 2013, 5:24 pm
    True enough. Because of that, Iran may see it as mandatory for self defense. However what do you make of Iran's gov't? Do you think the Ayatollah can be trusted not to use nuclear missiles?
    (I've said a bit on this already, but I want to know where everyone else stands as well as what they know about Iran's gov't)
    - CrazyJay February 4, 2013, 5:30 pm
    Reply
  • 1

    Much of my knowledge of Iran's government is outdated, as it was researched back when there was first concern of Bush declaring war on Iran. That being said- yes, I trust them to not use nukes in general, either from fear of retaliation or other motives.

    If you look purely at probability of using a nuke, the US beats every other country by a factor of infinity ; ).

    EDIT: meant to just be a response, not a separate post. Meh, I think we will live.

    Well, working on a poli-sci major pretty much demands that you look into foreign history/issues. I first started learning about Iran last year, in my CIA history class. Iran would be in a much better state now had the US/UK not staged a coup against them and exploited their oil reserves. (They had a secular, democratic gov't in the 50s, before the US put the Shah in power.) Whatever problems Iran has now are arguably the west's fault to begin with. Despite that they had a revolution (which resulted in the Islamic theocracy we know today.)
    - CrazyJay February 4, 2013, 6:34 pm
    Reply
  • 1

    If I'm perfectly honest, I don't really know what is going on in the middle east. I haven't been following the news lately, but as far as I know, shit's going down between many countries.

    Really, it's kind of a problem with the area. People are naturally aggressive there, not being racist. There are a few theories as to this, one being as simple as a lack of Zinc in the diet (their general foods lack Zinc), Zinc Deficiency causes aggression. Or, it could be just genetic... they could have ended "breeding" to a natural aggression and competition. But it just seems that they can't get along with eachother for too long.

    Stepping aside from that, I really don't think you can disallow a country to have nuclear rights. What kind of a country would you be, with piles of warheads stacked up behind you, to say that someone else isn't allowed any. Not that I'm promoting nuclear war, but it's not really fair. However, the safest option for anyone would be for noone to take any moves or advances in terms of nuclear weapons. Don't obtain any more, and don't use them.

    Not sure what my conclusion is, but I'm tired and need to go to bed.

    Reply
Related Posts
Loading...