Do you think the west should stop Iran from development nuclear technology?

Question

While Iran states that its intentions for developing nuclear reactors is purely for power generation, is there a risk that they have a hidden agenda. It is very perculiar that a nation with so much oil has a need to develop alternate and more expensive energy sources. Furthermore can we take the chance of letting such an unstable regime ever developing nuclear weapons? The Bush administration may be right to make a stand now then face the consequence of some terrorists getting hold of nuclear devices in the future. It may be risky to start a conflict with Iran but do you prefer to do it it or live with the very real risk of some terrorist smuggling nuclear weapons into our nations? Even though the current Iranian government may be rational, there are enough fanatical factions in Iran who may one day seize power and they may be crazy enough to use nuclear weapons. Do we risk a conventional war now or a nuclear war in the future? Everyone like to criticize Bush but what would you do?

Answer 1

We should have stopped Haliburton from selling them nuclear technology last year when we had the chance.

Halliburton charged with selling nuclear technology to Iran
Halliburton, the notorious U.S. energy company, sold key nuclear-reactor components to a private Iranian oil company called Oriental Oil Kish as recently as 2005, using offshore subsidiaries to circumvent U.S. sanctions. The story is particularly juicy because Vice President **** Cheney, who now claims to want to stop Iran from getting nukes, was president of Halliburton in the mid-1990s, at which time he may have advocated business dealings with Iran, in violation of U.S. law.
Source: "Halliburton Secretly Doing Business with Key Member of Iran's Nuclear Team," Jason Leopold, GlobalResearch.ca, Aug. 5, 2005.

Answer 2

Rational? The president of Iran has already made threatening statements about Israel. I don't think the problem should only be addressed by the west or the Bush administration. I think European and many middle eastern countries need to take a united stand as well. They are really at a greater risk geographically and they already know not getting involved isn't going to protect them. Even being the 'wrong' type of muslim can be reason enough to be attacked. I sometimes wonder why there's so much world hate against the U.S. when all these other countries just want to sit back and let the U.S. take responsibility for solving problems that are potentially theirs. I also wonder why so many people try to make oil the issue. What if the U.S. totally backed out of ANYTHING to do with the middle east other than buying their oil. I'll bet they'd still sell it. I also bet we'd still see a lot of violence in the middle east. Saddam wasn't killing the Kurds because of U.S. interference. Yup, that's what I'd like to see. I'd like to see all the U.S. soldiers go home and spend their time protecting the boarders, airports, and seaports and only getting involved in a war if a direct attack is threatened. If being involved with middle eastern politics is the reason oil prices are so high, the U.S. should be able to start buying it dirt cheap. Then let all the countries who are in range of a donkey driven nuclear weapon get off their a s s es, join forces, and take a stand for their own protection. The U.S. will only have to get involved because they're asked/begged to. Think the world will stop hating them then? Probably not. Hate isn't about reason or logic, but it does need plenty of excuses. Other countries, and many Americans hate the U.S. government because they feel they're self-serving. Think if they backed out, and were only concern with their own people and protection the excuse would still be the same?

Answer 3

Here is my point of view. Unless the USA or some other nation (a.k.a Israel) bomb their nuclear facilities, we can assume that Iran will build a nuclear power plant. They may use it to make weapons grade Pu or they may not.

But If Iran decideds to build the the power plant and were against it, then they won't be keen on listening to our advise. In other words we will have no way of making sure the design a safe reactor with negative feedback and other safety systems, and we will have no input in making sure the keep the plant operating in good repair. On the other hand if we help Iran start a nuclear power program we will have engineers who help design the plant. We can give Iran technologies that will help make the plant safe. By helping Iran build their nuclear program we can make sure that they do it in such way that it will pose a minimal threat to the world around us. And if they decide to use their reactors to make bombs, then we will know and if one of their bombs happens to go missing and ends going off, we will be able to identify it as one theirs and hold accountable. This is the only way we can keep Iran from giving terrorist organizations nuclear weapons once they have a nuclear program.

Answer 4

Alberta Canada has been considering a nuclear reactor for power generation and for steam generation at the tarsands. They think it might be cheaper than burning oil and they can use the excess steam for helping to extract that $70 a barrel 0il. The Iranians likely do want this reactor for energy use, If they wanted weapons grade materials they would be far better of with a small research reactor that makes instead of burns weapons grade materials.

Answer 5

mending fences.....