• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hezbollah Chief Urges Lebanese Government To Build Nuclear Reactor

BTW your saying at the bottom of your posts should be considered inflamatory. I am somewhat surprised that moderators have not asked for that to be removed.


I was mocking all those who expresses constant hatred against Israel and Jews, but when pressed on the subject, define antisemitism in such extreme terms that almost nobody could possibly qualify (and which leaves them as not qualifying -- barely)

It's o.k. with me if he uses it.
 
A successful one is certainly a sign of a stable government. When a state is able to crush dissent to that extent it is a very stable government.

Yes nation wide protests against fraudulent election results resulting in violent government crackdown = sign of government stability. Wow.

Besides, Israel does this as well.

Israel has freedom of speech and assembly.

Finally, this is a stupid argument. The fact is that Israel having nuclear weapons is much more dangerous than Iran, regardless of how much more marginally "unstable" the Iranian government is. Pakistan and India are much more unstable than Iran.

The fact is Israel is a liberal pluralistic society; whereas, Iran is a theocracy led by an apocalyptic oligarchy and the worlds number one state sponsor of terrorism, to suggest that they are less dangerous than Israel is ridiculous to the point that the assertion doesn't even deserve serious discussion.

Face it. You got caught admitting that truth and now you are attempting to cover up your embarassing concession to attempt to reconcile it with your anti-Iranian beliefs.

The truth is that Israel has a more stable government and Iran is more of a threat to global and regional stability than Israel.
 
First, I never said Israel has an unstable government.

Okay so you admit then that Israel is a much more unstable and dangerous place for nuclear weapons to be because of all of the conflict it is involved in. Thank you.

The government controls the weapons. It's stability governs the stability of the weapons.

Second, you have to be completely and absolutely insane to think that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel. To the point where you're not even worth addressing; if you believe that then that just shows that you know absolutely nothing about Iran or Iranian politics.

It is their stated intention. Given their past behavior, would you rely on what they say or on some estimation that they don't mean what they say and won't do it?
 
Le Marteau said:
Simply untrue. Americans like to claim any government that isn't pro-West is "unstable" and "dangerous", but the fact of the matter is that Iran is a healthy, intelligent, rational and powerful state, that simply doesn't take any of America's bull like Nicaragua (etc.) does.

That's pretty ridiculous to call any state "healthy," "intelligent," or "rational." As for "taking America's bull," Iran has been working closely with the US and international forces in Afghanistan for years.

the American puppet government was overthrown, and since then, Iran has flourished, which just spits in America's face.

This is an equally ridiculous claim.

reefedjib said:
The government controls the weapons. It's stability governs the stability of the weapons.

Backpedaling. I stated that Israel is a much more unstable place, not its government. In fact I was arguing that the idea that one or the other government is more "unstable" than the other is a stupid and irrelevant argument to the discussion at hand. Agent Ferris is the only one that is really clinging to this, as you can see, and that is because he is bound by his predetermined convictions to do so.

It is their stated intention.

Lol because if a politician says it then it must be true.

Given their past behavior, would you rely on what they say or on some estimation that they don't mean what they say and won't do it?

I rely on an analysis of the situation as a whole, not what this or that politician said in this or that speech. I have been following Iranian politics for years and the claim that Iran will use nuclear weapons against Israel can only be believed either by those who are completely and entirely ignorant of Iranian politics and Iran as a whole or simply insane.

EDIT: In fact, and I hope I can get this in so you see it before you respond, the fact that Iran went with a light water nuclear reactor and has made a deal to ship all spent fuel back to Russia shows that they in fact are not insane suicide-bombers and completely disproves the ridiculous picture that people like Agent Ferris attempt to paint.
 
Last edited:
Simply untrue. Americans like to claim any government that isn't pro-West is "unstable" and "dangerous", but the fact of the matter is that Iran is a healthy, intelligent, rational and powerful state, that simply doesn't take any of America's bull like Nicaragua (etc.) does. And this pisses the Americans off, to no end -- the American puppet government was overthrown, and since then, Iran has flourished, which just spits in America's face.

So, Americans, you can claim that Iran is an anti-American government -- it is. You can claim that Iran is a Muslim nation -- it is. But you can not claim that Iran is a backwards, unstable, volatile terror regime, because nothing could be further from the truth.

Bull****.....
 
Yes nation wide protests against fraudulent election results resulting in violent government crackdown = sign of government stability. Wow.



Israel has freedom of speech and assembly.



The fact is Israel is a liberal pluralistic society; whereas, Iran is a theocracy led by an apocalyptic oligarchy and the worlds number one state sponsor of terrorism, to suggest that they are less dangerous than Israel is ridiculous to the point that the assertion doesn't even deserve serious discussion.



The truth is that Israel has a more stable government and Iran is more of a threat to global and regional stability than Israel.

No, no, NO. Iran is more of a threat to global and regional American interests than Israel, not "global and regional stability". Iran is a stable government, and it has done nothing extraordinary to destabilise the region beyond being a powerful neighbour. You're seeing the situation from an extremely pro-American viewpoint, something that'll land you in deep trouble in international politics.
 
That's pretty ridiculous to call any state "healthy," "intelligent," or "rational." As for "taking America's bull," Iran has been working closely with the US and international forces in Afghanistan for years.



This is an equally ridiculous claim.


Take a look at Iran under the Shah, and take a look at Iran under Mahmoudinijad. If you don't see that the Shah's government was more oppresive and unstable to the region, you're simply in denial.
 
Simply untrue. Americans like to claim any government that isn't pro-West is "unstable" and "dangerous", but the fact of the matter is that Iran is a healthy, intelligent, rational and powerful state,

Lol they met peaceful protests with violent crackdowns, they kill gays and apostates for being gays and apostates, they arrest women for not wearing the Hijab, their actual leadership is made up exclusively of an apocalyptic twelver cult, and they are the worlds number one state sponsor of terrorism. I could go on and on, they are unstable, unhealthy, and irrational.

that simply doesn't take any of America's bull like Nicaragua (etc.) does. And this pisses the Americans off, to no end -- the American puppet government was overthrown, and since then, Iran has flourished, which just spits in America's face.

What? Iran has flourished? They're worse off today than they were 50 years ago, the Iranian revolution of 1979 has been nothing but harmful to the Iranian standards of living. They haven't progressed they have regressed.

So, Americans, you can claim that Iran is an anti-American government -- it is. You can claim that Iran is a Muslim nation -- it is. But you can not claim that Iran is a backwards, unstable, volatile terror regime, because nothing could be further from the truth.

No nothing backward about executing gays for being gay, or people for leaving the religion of Islam. Dude you just make yourself look foolish when you make these assinine claims. They are the number one state sponsor of terrorism on the planet, they are governed by puritannical sharia law. They meet peaceful protests with violent crackdowns and mass arrests. You can't get anymore unstable and backwards than Iran.
 
Take a look at Iran under the Shah, and take a look at Iran under Mahmoudinijad. If you don't see that the Shah's government was more oppresive and unstable to the region, you're simply in denial.

Either you're ignorant or a mouthpiece for the Mullahs, the current Iranian regime's human rights record is far worse than it ever was under the Shah and SAVAK. Iran under the Shah was far more progressive both economically and socially.
 
Either you're ignorant or a mouthpiece for the Mullahs, the current Iranian regime's human rights record is far worse than it ever was under the Shah and SAVAK. Iran under the Shah was far more progressive both economically and socially.

This entire side argument about whether the Shah or the current state is more/less oppressive and better/worse is an exercise in futility...
 
No, no, NO. Iran is more of a threat to global and regional American interests than Israel, not "global and regional stability". Iran is a stable government, and it has done nothing extraordinary to destabilise the region beyond being a powerful neighbour. You're seeing the situation from an extremely pro-American viewpoint, something that'll land you in deep trouble in international politics.


lmfao they exported the Iranian revolution throughout the entire region. They are the worlds number one state sponsor of terrorism. And they are now set to spark off a nuclear arms race, not with Israel but with the neighboring Arab countries who are just as distrustful of Iranian intentions as Israel and the U.S..

Catch a clue.
 
Lol they met peaceful protests with violent crackdowns, they kill gays and apostates for being gays and apostates, they arrest women for not wearing the Hijab, their actual leadership is made up exclusively of an apocalyptic twelver cult, and they are the worlds number one state sponsor of terrorism. I could go on and on, they are unstable, unhealthy, and irrational.



What? Iran has flourished? They're worse off today than they were 50 years ago, the Iranian revolution of 1979 has been nothing but harmful to the Iranian standards of living. They haven't progressed they have regressed.



No nothing backward about executing gays for being gay, or people for leaving the religion of Islam. Dude you just make yourself look foolish when you make these assinine claims. They are the number one state sponsor of terrorism on the planet, they are governed by puritannical sharia law. They meet peaceful protests with violent crackdowns and mass arrests. You can't get anymore unstable and backwards than Iran.

You're not making a logical distinction between "oppressive" and "unstable". China is oppressive. China is not unstable. Iran is oppressive. Iran is not unstable.

Instability is simply the term used for how little "push" a country's government needs to topple. If you all have meant, via the word 'unstable', that Iran is an oppressive regime of theocrats, then, yes, you're right -- but I would ask you to use "oppressive regime of theocrats" as opposed to "unstable". There is nothing unstable about Iran's government -- Iran uses an iron fist regardless of the social issue!

At any rate, I think this entire semantical argument came about over whether Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel, and to that, I would say -- I think that, as a stable but oppressive and isolated government, Iran wouldn't dream of starting a huge international conflict without having a way to claim that they themselves weren't directly responsible.

Long story short, Iran won't go to war with Israel, because Iran will have literally zero of the five big powers to back it up, which is a rational thought process, leading me to believe that Iran's leadership, while idiotic and oppressive, is stable.

And THAT was a horrific run-on sentence, for which I apologise.
 
Eh, oh dear. I seem to have caught myself in a bit of a spot -- I did some more research, and I realised that you lot are entirely right. I had my Iranian regimes mixed up, and I mistook Ayatollah Khomeini for Shah Palavi. Quite embarrassing, considering my occupation. :/

I apologise, and fully admit my former ignorance -- Iran up until the 1979 revolution was much more progressive.
 
You're not making a logical distinction between "oppressive" and "unstable". China is oppressive. China is not unstable. Iran is oppressive. Iran is not unstable.

They are both unstable and oppressive.

Instability is simply the term used for how little "push" a country's government needs to topple. If you all have meant, via the word 'unstable', that Iran is an oppressive regime of theocrats, then, yes, you're right -- but I would ask you to use "oppressive regime of theocrats" as opposed to "unstable". There is nothing unstable about Iran's government -- Iran uses an iron fist regardless of the social issue!

Governments which have to resort to violence to restore social order are highly unstable. This tactic only leads to more dissatisfaction and anger among the masses. You can't keep the boot over the human face forever.


At any rate, I think this entire semantical argument came about over whether Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel, and to that, I would say -- I think that, as a stable but oppressive and isolated government, Iran wouldn't dream of starting a huge international conflict without having a way to claim that they themselves weren't directly responsible.

They would use a proxy. But the problem isn't necessarily that they will use the weapon but that their Arab neighbors will see a nuclear Iran as a threat and start attempts to acquire nuclear weapons of their own setting off an arms race in the most volatile region on the planet.

Long story short, Iran won't go to war with Israel, because Iran will have literally zero of the five big powers to back it up, which is a rational thought process, leading me to believe that Iran's leadership, while idiotic and oppressive, is stable.

And THAT was a horrific run-on sentence, for which I apologise.

I don't believe the Iranian Mullahs base their actions on rationality they base them on irrational religous convictions.
 
They would use a proxy. But the problem isn't necessarily that they will use the weapon but that their Arab neighbors will see a nuclear Iran as a threat and start attempts to acquire nuclear weapons of their own setting off an arms race in the most volatile region on the planet.

Who was the first country in the region to get nuclear weapons, again?
 
They are both unstable and oppressive.



Governments which have to resort to violence to restore social order are highly unstable. This tactic only leads to more dissatisfaction and anger among the masses. You can't keep the boot over the human face forever.




They would use a proxy. But the problem isn't necessarily that they will use the weapon but that their Arab neighbors will see a nuclear Iran as a threat and start attempts to acquire nuclear weapons of their own setting off an arms race in the most volatile region on the planet.



I don't believe the Iranian Mullahs base their actions on rationality they base them on irrational religous convictions.


To be honest, my area of expertise is British-EU politics and relations, so I'll admit to not being as well-read on the Iranian regime as my co-workers assigned to the region are -- so perhaps you're right.

I just have a hard time believing that Iran, which hasn't launched any full-scale assaults on Israel, would decide to do so with the bomb -- or, as with your other allegation, that they'd be the catalyst for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East -- as Iran is the only state (excluding Israel which already has the capability to go nuclear, and Pakistan, which already IS a nuclear state) in the region with the resources and capability for it.
 
Also, this fear that this nuclear reactor is going to lead to the development of nuclear arms is unfounded and simply wrong; the fuel used in the Bushehr reactor simply cannot be used for the development of nuclear arms.

So this entire discussion of what Iran would do if it had nuclear weapons is really a complete waste of time.
 
To be honest, my area of expertise is British-EU politics and relations, so I'll admit to not being as well-read on the Iranian regime as my co-workers assigned to the region are -- so perhaps you're right.

I just have a hard time believing that Iran, which hasn't launched any full-scale assaults on Israel, would decide to do so with the bomb -- or, as with your other allegation, that they'd be the catalyst for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East -- as Iran is the only state (excluding Israel which already has the capability to go nuclear, and Pakistan, which already IS a nuclear state) in the region with the resources and capability for it.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait could all go nuclear far easier than Iran, if Iran goes nuclear these nations will almost undoubtedly follow suit. Saudi Arabia may actually have already gone nuclear but keeps it under wraps like Israel.
 
Also, this fear that this nuclear reactor is going to lead to the development of nuclear arms is unfounded and simply wrong; the fuel used in the Bushehr reactor simply cannot be used for the development of nuclear arms.

So this entire discussion of what Iran would do if it had nuclear weapons is really a complete waste of time.

False:

Due to the isotopic composition, weapons designers do not consider plutonium bred in the spent fuel of nuclear power plants that recharge on average every eighteen months the best material for weapons. However, were fuel unloaded eight months or so into its cycle, the plutonium would be weapons grade. Presumably, IAEA safeguards would detect such an Iranian effort. Russia has demanded additional guarantees requiring spent fuel repatriation as a quid pro quo for new fuel elements. Were the Mullahs to balk they could bank on fuel supplies from their own enrichment and fuel assembly facilities to keep Bushehr in operation while extracting the plutonium for weapons from the spent fuel.

Bennett Ramberg, Ph.D.: Is Iran's Bushehr Reactor a Weapons Generator, a Hostage, Just Another Power Plant -- or All Three?

.....................................................
 
False:



.....................................................

False:

For each 100 fissions of U235, around 243 high energy neutrons are released. Some of these high energy neutrons interact with the abundant U238 and convert them into Plutonium—a fissile element not found in nature. Plutonium is the potent and feared “weapon” grade atom. However, in light water reactors (LWR) such as Bushehr, the Plutonium atoms themselves undergo further fission and generate energy. In fact about a third of the cycle energy in LWR comes from fission of the Plutonium atoms. THE only way to retrieve the Plutonium before it undergoes fission is by shutting down the reactor, removing the reactor vessel dome (atop #5 in the figure), removing the fuel assemblies from the reactor (using #4 crane in the figure), removing the very hot and radioactive fuel rods from the fuel assemblies, and transporting the “deadly” radioactive fuel rods to a reprocessing plant, which amounts to a major task involving series of intense and highly visible activities not possible to conceal, particularly from IAEA resident inspectors. Furthermore, the depleted fuel is not of much use for weapon purposes at the end of the cycle either, because the fuel is depleted, hot, and radioactive that should only be moved to the spent fuel tank. It should be noted that even US with all its technological might does not reprocess spent fuel for weapons. Otherwise, all operating and decommissioned civilian nuclear power plants in US would have gladly and patriotically donated their entire spent fuel—which is currently seating in their spent fuel pool at great burden and cost–to the government.

1996: The National Academy of Sciences declares nuclear fuel reprocessing impractical and too costly for the country. See this link.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/nakhai-bushehr-plant-going-hot.html

.....................................................
 
False:



.....................................................

lol you said it's impossible, the article clearly says at the end that it's impractical not impossible not only does it say they could remove the plutonium half way through but said that it is in fact possible to reprocess the spent plutonium as well only that it would be costly. And why exactly couldn't they simply use the original uranium being used to power the plant to produce a nuclear weapon? It would be a less powerful nuclear weapon than the plutonium bomb but it would be just as powerful as the one dropped on Hiroshima rather than the Plutonium one dropped on Nagasaki which was far more powerful.
 
Last edited:
I think this thread has, for now, devolved into unimportant and semantical arguing over uranium enrichment.

In case I could get an interesting new conversation going, I've made a thread in the Polls forum, polling DP on who you think history's worst genocidal maniac was. If any of you would stop by, cast your vote, and say a little something, I'm sure we could get some interesting conversation going pretty quickly.
 
Well this may just be my personal character coming out but i prefer action over defeatist attitudes.
The West/UN have had a decade to deal with Iran and IAEA non-compliance issues. Iran now has light and heavy nuclear reactors and many thousands of centrifuge units for byproduct enrichment. They have all of the material tools necessary to produce HEU and their scientists now understand the nuclear fuel-cycle and have overcome the tricky enrichment problems.

You can't just undo all of this experience and erase all of the knowledge. It is a fait-accompli. In addition, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (military) has jurisdiction over and manages Iran's nuclear programs. The IRGC is not a transparent organization and has created hundreds of front companies to frustrate the IAEA and cloak secret activities.

Sorry kaya, but the West is far too late to either monitor or demand Iranian NPT compliance. Iranian nuclear development and experience has reached the stage where it is impossible to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle.

This is why precisely Sunni Muslim ME nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are strongly considering beginning their own nuclear programs. Not because of Israel which has had nuclear capability for over forty years and has acted responsibly. But because of the irresponsible nature of the Iranian clerical regime. They are terrified at the prospect of a nuclear Shi'a Iran.
 
It doesn't matter to me so much that Israel never signed the nuclear NPT... it has extensive weaponry and is allies to one of the most powerful nations in the world. Its territory is expanding. That is going to create a security dilemma where other nations in the region want to increase their power.

The other problem is that the UN Security Council is comprised of nuclear nations only. I have always said this is a fatal mistake. It has set the example that only nations with nukes are to be taken seriously, and now an array of unstable powers covets them. The UN SC should have appointed some non-nuclear powers like Germany and Japan to the scene to offset this impression, but nope, never going to happen. The hubris of the nuclear nations combined with constant meddling in the M-E is what has brought this situation to a head.

I really dislike the Iranian government. Even its own people dislike it and are fearful if the country gains nuclear weapons, but they are powerless at the moment. We saw what happened during the student protests. But this is what happens when you play chess with fanatics, and play the boy who cried wolf with a non-nuclear Iraq in 2003. All credibility is shot, and now the real threats are up and coming.
 
It doesn't matter to me so much that Israel never signed the nuclear NPT...

Yes but international moves are not being taken based on the person behind the user "Orion" in one of the many politic debating forums on the internet, such moves are based on legalty, and as long as Israel is not signed on the NPT it has no reason or need to expose its nuclear progress to the world.

Its territory is expanding.

And the moon is made of cheese. That is outright false.

Anyway, back to the subject, there will be no Lebanese nuclear reactor.
Right now the sane part of the Western world needs to focus on stopping or delaying the Iranian progress towards the bomb.
 
Back
Top Bottom