Why would anyone believe that Irans nuclear program isn't intended to make a bomb?

Question

They have been caught using polonium 210, a compound used only in space exploration and nuclear weapons, and we all know Iran has no space program.

Are some people just blind? Or do they truly believe a president who says "Israel needs to be wiped off the map", and the "Holocaust is a myth", and that "A world without Zionism and America is attainable and needs to be acheived" (President of Iran) is peaceful?

We need to tell them to give up the nukes and we will sell them lightwater reactors and lift economic sanctions and unfreeze the sha's assets. Force them into that position so the people will truly know what is more important to their leaders, nuclear technology and support of terrorism, or a good economy and relations with the rest of the world.

Never have I implied Iran needs to be attacked. You Brits seem to be quite agresssive it seems.

Answer 1

Hope.

Like the hope that the apeasers of the late '30s had that Germany and Itally really just needed 'breathing room.'

Answer 2

Funny clause in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It states that countries that sign it can't build nuclear weapons unless they are threatened to the point that their is no other hope of defending themselves. Here we are standing on their border saying they are the evil destabilizing nation who needs to be destroyed. Our leaders speak of invasion even though we are in a quagmire of a war in two other countries. Really, they can't win against us and so the whole talk about our seeming inability to deal with Iran in any way except war, ironically, is the very thing that will give them the legal capability to build the nuclear weapons we so don't want them to have. So maybe instead we should seek other paths such as offering them the technology needed to build reactors for power (also a part of the non-proliferation treaty) and if they still seek nuclear weapons get the UN involved instead of going it alone again.

Just a thought...

Answer 3

that is loopy to be asking this style of question. I say this because of the fact the prospect is there and it relatively is intense. that is relatively plenty akin to the "Atomic Age" of the 1950's, without the communist connection. One distinction that i'm taking off to observe is between the way electorate replied then to how we respond now. It grow to be so crucial to coach for such an adventure that it no longer purely unified us, yet invigorated our sense of patriotism. those are this sort of circumstances that define a technology. Assuming that a showdown with Iran is basic, we could desire to ask ourselves what could come from it? can we be extra perfect for it (I ask this question carefully), meaning can we settle for that fulfillment is a team attempt and can purely be accomplished if we stand by contrast terror united no longer purely in the present day, yet in addition the next day? i think we are able to, as loopy because it may desire to sound because of the fact we've been doing so on account that 1776. We individuals have continuously been a rigidity to reckon with because of the fact whilst freedom is at stake, our very life is besides. 200 and thirty-one years later, freedom isn't purely something we cherish, yet in addition something we are able to combat for and die for. and thanks to that, freedom will stay yet another day.

Answer 4

The more we bully people, the more angry they become. Who can't some people see that? If we said something positive about Iran tomorrow, they'd be positive in return.
It's unlikely they'd try to attack us. They know they'd be destroyed. It's most likely that they're reading the same papers and seeing the same news reports as the rest of us: George Bush declared that Iran was evil the day he entered office. He's attacked and occupied two of Iran's neighbors. If you were President of Iran, wouldn't you be obligated to defending your country?

Answer 5

Yeh. So kick Iran's asss right? OK. But won't China and Russia be just a little bit pissed off that you're picking on their friend? Also you have hardly got Iraq and Afganistan under control have you. So what's the plan? Reintroduce the draft? I can see that going down well. What about you? You going to go over there and take out some Iranian's or just sit at home and manage it from your armchair? I reckon you are going to need an additional 250,000 troops to go into Iran and try and get them under control. Then like I said China are going to say "hey? What the f*ck are you doing buddy? We do good business with Iran, hey Russia what's the deal with the US thinking they can do whatever they want? I think it's about time we kicked their overstretched armed forces all the way back to their c*nting land where they belong. What do say?". And Russia being Russia will probably say "yeh no worries, we owe those pricks one anyway, let's do it". You cannot take on the whole world. You should calm down and deal with Iraq and Afganistan first or you WILL suffer the worst defeat of your history. It amazes me the amount of people who think they are Generals and say "hey air attack just get in there and get them". LOL. It is just not that simple. The military operation required to mount an attack alone on Iran is beyond the US right now. But I suppose if all the people who seem to think it is so simple applied for a job in the armed forces then they would probably have enough tomorrow, seeing as there is absolutely thousands of expert war tacticians many of whom seem to come on this site.

Answer 6

Some people just can't handle the truth. They would rather stick their heads in the sand and believe the myths that the Iranians are trying to get the world to believe.

Answer 7

I don't think they are making bombs IAEA keeps watch and monitors as much as possible how fissionable materials are handled, to date there was about 20 oz. of Uranium hexafloride that was unaccounted for, but that amount is minute in comparison with bomb making needs. they have been cooperative with IAEA up til US rhetoric for war then Iran said they were reluctant to allow inspectors because IAEA often has American ex-Military or CIA people do work for IAEA, inspection have in the past been spying operations as in Iraq. that is why Saddam wanted them out not because he had weapons.

Answer 8

actually many of the things you wrote were out of context (but i won't defend them).

however I think Iran is the least of the worlds concerns when in fact both india and pakistan are far less stable and more willing to use nukes.

but i've said it before and i'll say it again. only country to use nukes is the usa. (we won't get into that either).

Iran could have bought nukes from Russia over 20 years ago-they didn't...so really points like yours make very little sense. Believe it or not countries outside of the usa actually do use and need nucular energy-and again the only country that has it and to ABUSE IT was the usa.

by the way i'm a world history degree holder as well as a political science degree holder.

Answer 9

If we still maintain nuke-you-ler weapons, who are we to decide other countries can't ? Last I heard, Pakistan has nuke-you-ler weapons, but we're not threatening them. Perhaps Israel should start defending themselves, and not look at the US to do it for them.


:-o

Answer 10

It beggars belief what those appeasing idiot's are thinking.

Down with the Iranian regime ASAP, whether it's comes about via the Iranian people themselves or via us, it don't matter, because either way someone has to stop these lunatics dead in their tracks "SOON" before it's to late, and they succeed in their mass murder mission. 'Hit em' where it hurts I say, by air attack only.


P.S Well bully for you, you asked a question and were given answers, if you don't like what you hear, it's simple,
DON'T ASK QUESTIONS IF YOU ARE GOING TO CRY FOUL AT THE ANSWERS, and just for the he11 of it you can ki$$ my @r$e.