The IEAE has suggested that Iran is currently building nuclear weapons. Many, many people knew this would be their stance. A suggestion that building nuclear weapons is completely different then possessing nuclear weapons. If Iran has to declare whether or not they are building, or indeed possess, nuclear weapons, then shouldn't Israel have to do the same? How do you think this inspection could be more balanced. Can we avoid another war?
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/1 … op-tehran/
Note to self: Remember what happened 8 or so years ago in Iraq.
It's amazing that no one can remember "our intelligence agencies lie about Middle Eastern Countries and nuclear weapons".
Ron Paul 2012
From what I've heard, Israel has nuclear weapons and it's been constantly restated many times.
As for Iran building nuclear weapons? Well, that's a problem and could destablize the Middle East even more so.
Yeah, I get where your coming from with this. But from what I've read, Israel has never admitted or denied that they have nuclear weapons. Whether they have or haven't, should not they be inspected, too? Why just Iran? Remember Iraq and the BS we were fed there? Inspections should be universal, no country should be excluded from this kind of inspection.
The countries who have never shown any ability to restrain themselves from acts of aggression should be inspected, I'm sure your next post will include how the United States can't stop being hostile to others but to Americans we have restrained ourselves time and time again.
Didn't mention the US. Reading comprehension springs to mind.
That had the potential to be funny, but, eh.
Repairguy, this is not a funny subject. I was not trying to be funny or criticize the US, or any of her citizens. If we go to war with Iran, we should be very afraid. If this is what Israel wants, then they should sacrifice there own citizens, not US or UK citizens.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be inspected. If it's not yet been proven that Israel has nuclear weapons, but the claim that they do have them, then yes by all means, they should be inspected to prove either way.
Not just Iran, but any Nation.
Personally, I would prefer a world without nuclear weapons altogether, but at this particular time that's not realistic, because the human species has too much aggression still in it's blood. Not to mention, the businesses- upper 1%ers and plenty of other idiots refuse peace.
Me too, and I know that nuke disarmament, however much we want it, is just not a realistic goal at this time. However, the the posturing is coming from Israel. They're the ones that are really making the noises here, US, UK we're sheep. How can we demand that Israel be prepared to expose themselves to the same kind of inspections and restrictions. We cannot demand from one country, what their aggressor is unwilling to give.
Hollie, everyone(every nation) should be open to being inspected, for peaceful reasons. If they are not, then they are not open to peace.
It is a money maker, that's the sad reality. Death and destruction is a money maker. I just hope we can make enough noise about this, I don't want to see another war, especially not the one that is looming.
I've accepted it as a sad truth, leaving reality out of it.
Yes, both, but so is construction and everything it entails, such as products/goods which are required to rebuild.
The one you see looming could happen and still not cause WWIII. Just to let you know.
That's a really good point, Cags.
War is a money maker.
Somebody got rich off Iraq and Afghanistan.
Didn't help the economy much, tho. Did it???
It's not yet been proven that Iran has them either. A suspicion, suggestion.
I like the idea of universal inspections.
I mean, if "we" wait until a known aggressor is strongly suspected of having nukes, then it looks like we are targeting them for inspection.
Why shouldn't everyone have to come clean?
We should set the example here in the US.
YES! We've got 'em.
Nope. We used to have them but hid them in Iraq.
Ok, who's next?
I dread to think what the UK have. As a nation we're pretty puny, but sneaky (I'm not proud of this) We should all be inspected. Any ideas for an impartial, independent Inspector?
Do you mean a person or a country?
How about Switzerland?
I guess I'm not understanding.
You would inspect the UK. You will find weapons. What next?
If all you are going to do is inspect Iran and not follow up with any action, why bother? If you will take action against Iran for having nukes, shouldn't you take the same action against the UK? And if you do, who will take that action, the UN? Without overwhelming force behind the actions, will the UK allow anything?
Yes, what gives one nation the the right to have nukes but not another? Personally, I wish we could do away with them all. But my point is, why just inspect Iran. What about Israel, they are suspected to have nukes, however, correct me if I'm wrong, they have never confirmed or denied this. Isn't this a double standard?
Might and power gives a nation the right to determine who has nukes. There can be no morally accepted reason. I suppose survival might be considered (thinking of Israel's precarious position there) but it is pretty shaky.
I still don't understand why you want to inspect if any action stops there. Why even pay the inspectors salaries, minute though they are in a countries budget?
Will you then point your own nukes at Iran and make sure you get first strike? Should America aim at the UK because they have nukes? Why do you want an inspection?
I just don't think it's reasonable for one country to say "We have nukes, that's ok, but you can't have them" As much as I disagree with nuclear weapons, it's apparent that some countries develop them so they wont get too bullied by western powers. The point I was trying to get across is that if we, decide that countries should be inspected and then prevented from developing nukes, then shouldn't that include all countries. Should we be pointing nukes at Iran, because we believe they have nukes? And, if so, shouldn't we be pointing nukes at Israel, because we believe they have them, too?
"...we, decide that countries should be inspected and then prevented from developing nukes, then shouldn't that include all countries"
Therein lies the problem. If we inspect all countries and deny them the right to nukes, who will take away them away from England? Or America? Who will take on China and Russia?
It being that we can't do these things we are limited to taking them away from countries that are much weaker than we are. Rule by strength.
Mind you, I would love to see every nuke in the world disappear and every single nation, including my own, inspected regularly with the rest of the world ready to pound on anyone caught with a nuke, but it isn't going to happen. I'll have to be happy keeping them away from my enemies that I am strong enough to take them from. And that number gets smaller every year.
One of the problems though, Wilderness, if recent history is anything to go by, is that we send in the weapons inspectors, who then decide that a country "may" have WMD's. Then this is used as the pretext for regime change. Later, it's a "opps" moment. Never was any wmds or any real potential to build them. I don't know if this is the case with Iran, but this feels like a deja vu moment.
More frightening then anything, is the potential for war with this nation, they are not puny like the UK . This time, I think we'll be biting of more than we can chew.
How do you feel about Colin Powell?
I think he deserves a second chance to get it right this time.
Not sure if I should even put a "lol" after that.
Not to take issue with the various pro's and con's (although in this situation I do agree with the "Might makes right" theory).....
But who's to do the inspecting? And no copping out with a U.N. answer. It's nothing more than a political tool for the "Big Boy" nations.
I think that's the whole problem. The "Big Boy" nations make the rules and impose them inconsistently depending on who else is in their club (this week).
I'm sure the US knows categorically whether Israel has or doesn't have nukes. In fact, I would wager we supplied them.
It seems we trust Israel to exercise restraint and not deploy their nukes. But we don't trust Iran not to deploy theirs.
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Iran? What should we do about it? Some of the same hawks who helped talk us into invading Iraq are coming out of the woodwork and saying that a nuclear Iran is...
by rhamson7 years ago
With Irans new revelations that they have a secret site for the nuclear capabilities is this the latest step in the path to a nuclear war?
by AngelTrader4 years ago
It is all falling neatly into place for the US to attack Iran on behalf of Saudi Arabia. The US views the plot as state-sponsored terrorism. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton described it as a "violation of...
by Evan G Rogers4 years ago
I'm sorry, but I have yet to find any evidence that Iran is building a nuke. Yet, the EU just condemned starvation and austerity to the people of Iran because it MIGHT be building a...
by Zubair Ahmed4 years ago
Professor Francis Boyle, the person who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by the US Congress, said that in 2001-2004, the US Federal Government spent $14.5 billion for civilian...
by dadibobs4 years ago
If Iran was to succeed in developing a nuclear weapon, how should our own nations react?Would we strike at the construction facitily, and possible storage sites?, or do we just use a nuclear weapon on them first?....
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.