Do you agree with Jacques Chirac that Iran's nuclear program is not very dangerous?

Question

His point is that if Israel has a massive nuclear superiority over Iran, and that if Iran ever bombed, Israel, Iran would immediately be destroyed in retaliation.

Mutually-assured destruction kept the peace during the Cold War. Why can't it work now?

Answer 1

If Iran's nuclear program is peaceful, then it poses no imminent danger. It might help the Iranian economy, so some people might not want that (the US, Israel). MAD will work here as usual, no one wants to start a nuclear war unless they are sick and twisted, no one wants to deal with the outcome. Considering leaders like Ahmedinejhad and Bush, that doesn't really make me rest easy that nuclear exchange won't happen.

Answer 2

No, because France and Iran have a "special" relationship.If Iran was producing a "peaceful" nuclear program, then the UN would not be so interested.

In February 2003, Iran revealed its uranium enrichment program at Natanz, claiming it was using the technology for peaceful purposes and inviting the UN nuclear monitoring body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to visit. The US, however, alleged that the program is part of a drive to develop nuclear weapons. Washington sought to refer the Iranian case to the Security Council. But in November 2004, Tehran signed a temporary agreement with Germany, France and Britain to cease uranium enrichment and the IAEA issued Iran a clean bill of health, effectively avoiding Security Council intervention. However, the IAEA said it could not confirm that Iran is not pursuing undeclared nuclear activities, and some observers were quick to note that Iran broke a similar agreement with the Europeans in 2003. Even if Iran's case comes before the Security Council, China's energy interests in Iran coupled with its veto power would probably stand in the way of sanctions.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm

Answer 3

Aminajab is obvious a man with a bad track record. But what is really going on in Iran.

They built nuclear reactors for electricity. Then refused to buy fuel rods from Kerr McGee. And started a enrichment program to make their own fuel rods.

Bush and the Huston Energy Cartel are outraged that a Nation like Iran would turn down there sales offer. And started finger pointing. "They are building WMD's"

The fuel rod street value is for Russian RBMK style reactors is about,$21,417. times 3000 rods per reactor. Or $65 million for a tank of fuel.

It's just business

Go big Red Go

Answer 4

He is absolutely wrong. If Iran had peaceful intentions,they would have been more open about the program in the first place. They do not allow nuclear inspectors into the country. Israel will never let them get that far anyway. They will attacked when they feel that they are close to having a bomb.

Answer 5

Chirac was Saddam's proprietor of nuclear components prior to the Israeli air strike that put a stop to Hussein's ambitions.

Afterward, Chirac obliged Saddam with all manner of military weaponry, a service for which Jacques made many of franc.

Now that Saddam the cash moo is gone, good 'ol Jackie boy has made nice with Ahmadinejad and the psychotic Mullahs


Money.....always about the money

Answer 6

The cold war was not between Islamic extremest and infidels. Chirac is an idiot and says this type of thing so that he can continue making money off over terrorist nations. Before we invaded Iraq he agreed to help the US for cash but when he was told we would not pay he became an Anti war supporter. He is a Whore out for sale to the highest bidder.

Check out his ties with Saddam, N Koerea, and Iran and you will see his motivation.

Answer 7

You really are not that smart.
Mutually assured destruction kept the peace during the cold war because both sides were pursuing material gain (albeit through criminal gain from the Soviet side) and the pursuit of life.
Iran - the world's chief state sponsor of terror - is ruled by religious fanatics that practice a barbaric, suicidal religion that seeks to destroy everything, including themselves - thus the advent of suicide bombers.
Their fanatical belief is that Allah ensures them a paradise on the other side of death.
They would willingly kill us all to achieve that goal.
Wake up.

Answer 8

A country equiped with nuclear wepons is always dangerous. But it can't be a danger for Israeli authorities as Chirac has said.

Answer 9

Jacques Chirac IS AN ANTI SEMITE. HE WOULD LIKE NOTHING BETTER THAN TO DESTROY ISRAEL. THE FRENCH HAVE BEEN SELLING NUCLEAR PARTS TO IRAN FOR A LONG TIME. HE IS TRYING TO JUSTIFY SELLING NUCLEAR SECRETS BECAUSE THE FRENCH ECONOMY IS IN SHAMBLES.
MUCH LIKE THE TIME THE FRENCH BUILT THE IRAQI NUCLEAR REACTORS AND THE ISRAELI'S BLEW THEM TO HELL. THE FRENCH ARE A SUBVERSIVE BUNCH THAT WOULD LIKE NOTHING MORE THAT TO DESTABILIZE THE WORLD. THE PROBLEM WITH IRAN HAVING NUKES IS THAT THEY HAVE AN UNSTABLE GOVERNMENT WITH UNSTABLE LEADERS THAT HAVE MADE THREATS AGAINST OTHER COUNTRIES AND WHO IS TO SAY THAT THEY WON'T CARRY OUT THESES THREATS? MAYBE THEY STRIKE FIRST AT EUROPE. HOPEFULLY THE FRENCH WILL BE THE FIRST TO TASTE THE TIP OF AN IRANIAN NUCLEAR MISSILE.

Answer 10

I believe Iran is enriching uranium for energy purposes only. Iran isn't that large of a country. And yes, she has some brilliant scientists, etc. But she isn't ready to nuke anyone,leastwise the United States, anymore than is she ready to nuke Israel. It's all a show. Iran flexes her muscles, mostly mouth. Isreal flexes its muscles (but isn't quite ready to drop a nuke on anyone so close to them,) and the United States flexes its muscles more openly because she is at war with Iran's neighbor, Iraq.
Still I wouldn't put anything past Iran. Wouldn't put anything past Israel or the U.S. either. But not with the use of nukes. WHen the BIG one comes, it will include a plethora of nukes, from all over the world. And then it will be good-bye everybody!