While researching for another forum post, I came across an interesting note.
Iran say they are only developing Nuclear technology to produce electricity - which is a noble cause - but they have the largest stock-pile of oil in the world (or at least close to it) so why do they need an alternative source of energy - one that is going to cost billions of dollars to research?
Just an interesting side debate, and not one I've seen brought up in any other arguments against the pros and cons of Iran Nuclear research.
One might take it to another interpretation...we declared them in an "Axis of Evil" after being attacked by 12 Saudis trained in Afghanistan...though, not including either country. Then, we invade their neighbors without reason, based upon easily verifiable lies, and then their other neighbor at the same time....we haven't ever invaded a country with nukes...SO...if you were them, what would you do?
I buy a sack of spuds with the idea to create a spud power station.
If a bully next door to me has 400 spud guns and tells my neighbors that I was developing a spud gun and not a spud power station I certainly wouldn't provoke him by developing anything with spuds - I'd get rid of the spuds and then let him come into my garden, prove to him I do not have spud guns and do it in front of all the other neighbors - he'd toddle off with egg on his face and the rest of my neighbors would never believe him again! I then would seek permission off the rest of my neighbors to make something with spuds.
Nuclear energy is VERY safe (there are about 3 mishaps of note in about 70 years of its use. Compare this to just about any other source and it's pretty good).
It's also VERY energy/effort intensive. Windmills and Solar panels are hopelessly inefficient.
It's also fairly environmental: no CO2, and the waste can be used all the way to neutral if you need to.
HERE'S THE REAL QUESTION: Why does America and the EU think they can tell other countries what they can and cannot do? We can't afford another war.
Solar energy is a lot safer - we cannot dispose of Nuclear waste safely - we do not know the damage we are doing to the environment - we simply bury it and hope all is well!
I agree with your question 'Why can the US and EU ask' - but the point is they are asking and they are enforcing sanctions - Iran can stop this today by invisting the US and EU to come and visit all their Nuclear installations...
The reason countries get in other countries business is that they fear that business might end up in their back yard or that of an ally, or constitute a crime against humanity within the nation (e.g. nuclear detonation and/or fall out).
That is equally true of humanitarian aid as it is for spying/economic/military action. We are all connected.
Yes but it is not an efficient choice for their geographical area, which combine with the high rate of enriching and low rate of power plant building, makes it quack like a cover story.
Why does anyone NEED nuclear capabilities? I am okay with countries using nuclear power, but I am not a big fan of nuclear war capabilities. At the same time, I don't think it is right for the United States to have them but think they can police everyone else.
Why does anyone need nukes? And having them gives someone the right to deny them to others? Careful...your double standard is showing!
Not a double standard at all! Au contraire.
"Good" countries like USA "get" to have nukes because we are "good" guys.
You know, we would only ever use our nuke capabilities for good, like dropping onto evil empire countries like Japan (twice).
"Bad" countries like Iran cannot have nukes because they are "bad" and we simply don't know what they might do with them. The might use them on some other notable "bad" country. But they might use them on us or one of our fellow "good" countries.
We can't take that chance. So we "just say no" to Iran's nukes.
Perfectly consistent logic.
BTW, if you disagree with me, you hate America and are a communist.
Well MM, Those "Good Countries" Like Us and UK, have never abused their power!! Oh no, they have never nuked, bombed and generally committed genocide like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and all those other weird places, that are just ungodly and uncivilized! No, they cannot and must not be trusted! We must believe whatever the weapons inspectors "tell us" because they are " Good" people, they're not fallible like the rest of us and they would NEVER lie.
Never would lie, indeed, Hollie.
WMD are just powerful fig newtons of our imaginations.
I think the extreme religious radicals (NO OFFENCE) taking their 'jihad' beyond their own borders is what has other nations nervous with Iran having nuclear power if it should be overcome or controlled by 'radicals' ... need I say more
Radicals are bad anywhere in the world. By politically attacking the leaders you give radicals a stronger hand. Look at Afghanistan, it was the US who first taught, financed and armed the Taliban. The US should start by treating all countries equally Israel, Saudi or Iran. That at least would set an example of unbiased, unprejudiced actions, then ask the world to follow the example but please, please do not ask the rest of the world to act in the same way as the US currently does or armageddon will surely follow.
Why does any nation need nuclear capabilities? If my question does not answer your question then you should make more research.
It is always a good thing for a country to swap to "clean" energy regardless of how much oil they may have. The real reason why the Arabs want nuclear capabilities though is: The US gave Israel nuclear weapons. They didn't need them as a deterrent the US had already made it clear that if anybody nuked Israel, they would respond in kind. Now the Middle East believe that Israel was given the nukes so they could use them as a first strike capability, which is probably true. The first thing to do when bargaining nukes away from the Middle East, is to use the withdrawal of the nukes from Israel as a bargaining chip. If not then neighboring countries will always be trying to acquire their own "deterrent" and who could blame them? As for terrorists? The US has already "lost" enough weapons grade nuclear material to give every terrorist group in the world enough to destroy a couple of cities each. Swap Israel's nukes for proper precautions that only nuclear energy can be produced. While we are at it, if the US removed its nukes from South Korea, North Korea may be more amiable to talks.
It's hard to believe anyone creates such horrendous methods of destruction. A nuclear war, yeah right. More like a great way to start over for everyone, from ashes.
I need a nuclear weapon.
My neighbor keeps playing loud music on the weekends, and i find his obese kid's candy wrappers all over my lawn.
I'm not saying that I would actually use the nuke on them, but just its presence in my tool shed might deter their behavior
The Question posed is...
"Why does Iran need Nuclear capabilities?"
So flip it around and ask -
Why does anyone need Nuclear capabilities?
Should not every nation deserve to be asked this question? Instead of any one country? Why mention Iran?
"Why does Iran need Nuclear capabilities?"
Why does any other Nation need Nuclear capabilities? I would think the answer to this question would be the same for Iran.
Why should Iran not have Nuclear capabilities?
Coup 53 of Iran is the CIA's (Central Intelligence Agency) first successful overthrow of a foreign government.
But a copy of the agency's secret history of the coup has surfaced, revealing the inner workings of a plot that set the stage for the Islamic revolution in 1979, and for a generation of anti-American hatred in one of the Middle East's most powerful countries. The document, which remains classified, discloses the pivotal role British intelligence officials played in initiating and planning the coup, and it shows that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining the West's control over Iranian oil.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/ … l-weapons/
On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, "Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas". Quoting anonymous US "senior military officers", the NYT "revealed" that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided "critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war". The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died.
While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq’s 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Ronald Reagan’s Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime’s repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq’s Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
"US & Israeli intelligence say Iran is NOT building a Bomb"
The Rothschilds want their bank, that's all!
And your kids will die for it.
Right...was banned for comments. Don't know which ones, and can't fathom to guess. Really--it's because a lot of people don't like me. Because all the time I was banned, there was no shortage of personal attacks, swearing, thread-jacking, nasty comments.....and the perpetrators are still here!
So, I've come to the realization--it's not the game, it's the player!
The same question can be asked, Why does the USA need it or for that matter other western nations.
by rhamson 11 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 LoliHey 5 years ago
The Nuclear deal with Iran: Good or bad for Israel?So the Iranians are happy. Obama is happy. Liberals are happy. Israel and the right-wingers are not. What do you think?
by Link10103 6 years ago
I can understand the positives of putting your faith in such and such religion, which is why I do not think religion as a whole should be completely eradicated, however in this day and age I honestly wouldn't mind if it was.My question is this: why does religion NEED to exist? If you say "So...
by Zubair Ahmed 9 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 bio-warfare-related work. What other purpose does this serve but to kill people?The US and...
by Laura Thykeson 8 years ago
I know this is controversial, but it is a honest question, I promise. Why does our country feel theI know this is controversial, but it is a honest question, I promise. Why does our country feel the need to force democracy on countries that have lived under religious laws for thousands of years? I...
by Sharlee 3 years ago
The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995. After 23 years we now have a president that will keep America's promise to Israel.
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|