IAEA report:
While certainly this does not mean that Iran is "days" away from obtaining a weapon, in the past the IAEA has been seemingly slow to acknowledge that this is a growing danger.
Ultimately, something is going to have to be done about a potential Iranian nuclear state.
I am not convinced they would use such a weapon, however the spread of fissile material and increasing proliferation within the Middle East is not something we can tolerate.
Enriched at what percentage? I think they only have a few kilograms enriched to 19% (which is necessary for doing researches, and is perfectly legal). They can't enrich it to more than 20% yet, and if you wanted to make a nuclear bomb you would need several hundreds of kilograms enriched to something like 90%.
That's why Israel should sign the NPT and allow IAEA inspectors to visit its military bases
Enriched at what percentage? I think they only have a few kilograms enriched to 19% (which is necessary for doing researches, and is perfectly legal). They can't enrich it to more than 20% yet, and if you wanted to make a nuclear bomb you would need several hundreds of kilograms enriched to something like 90%.
That's why Israel should sign the NPT and allow IAEA inspectors to visit its military bases
You are correct to state that it is not enriched yet to 90%
however stockpiling enriched uranium at 20% more than cuts in half the time Iran needs to actually produce a warhead.
Also, you claim that their enrichment is "perfectly legal" under the NPT, which is techically true, however it ignores the subsequent orders from the UNSC for Iran to halt its enrichment program.
I hardly think you can argue with a straight face that the Middle East is seeking to obtain nuclear weapons due to Israeli weapons. Israel is widely belived to have had these weapons for years, and most of the Middle East has made no effort to obtain nuclear weapons beccause of that fact.
Israel good. Iran bad.
Get with the program.
Israel won't use nukes except as an extreme last resort if its survival is threatened. Israeli nukes are, in that sense, actually a stabilizing presence in the M.E.
If you believe what Iran's president has said over and over, Iran might use nukes on Israel or the USA for the purpose of causing a general conflagration to "Bring on the 12th Mahdi" (Muslim apocalyptic figure), even if it means the destruction of Iran.
Yes, I know you discount that as mere rhetoric, mistranslation, etc etc.
Well I sure hope you're right, because it looks like we're going to dick around until Iran actually has nuke-tipped ballistic missles. Heh, you think the Mideast is unstable now? Just wait.
As for me... when a man tells me he's going to kill me and my whole family and burn down my house, then he starts loading his pistol... I'm going to assume he means business and act accordingly. I'm not going to wait until he puts the gun to my head to find out if he will actually pull the trigger. (I don't think Israel is going to wait much longer either.)
Do you know the percentage of enrichment of the Iranian uranium?
Not at all. While it's fairly easy to slightly enrich uranium at the early stages, it gets more and more difficult when you reach 20 or 30%.
There is no reason for Iran to stop the enrichment since they don't breach any NPT rule.
There's something I don't understand: you complain because Iran would have breached a NPT rule by keeping on enrichying uranium (which is really debatable) but you find it normal that Israel does not even sign the same treaty?? That's a huge double standard.
My reasoning is very simple and logical. You just have to agree with some premises:
- Iranians are rational
- rational people do not use nukes (that is called the MAD theory)
As several Israeli officials have said, the real concern for Israel is not that they could get nuked, it's that they will lose their local hegemony.
I think that this would be a good step towards peace since they'll actually be forced to end the colonization of West-Bank and East Jerusalem, agree on the creation of a Palestinian state and end the siege of Gaza.
My reasoning is very simple and logical. You just have to agree with some premises:
- Iranians are rational
- rational people do not use nukes (that is called the MAD theory)
There is a bit more to the MAD theory than what you cite here, but running with your statement that "rational people do not use nukes," was the United States acting irrationally in WWII?
Why would a nuclear Iran force the issue between Israel and the Palestinians? I would arge that Iran, and basically every other state in the Middle East as well, really does not care about the Palestinians at all.
Why would a nuclear Iran force the issue between Israel and the Palestinians? I would arge that Iran, and basically every other state in the Middle East as well, really does not care about the Palestinians at all.
My reasoning is very simple and logical. You just have to agree with some premises:
- Iranians are rational
.
Israel won't use nukes except as an extreme last resort if its survival is threatened. Israeli nukes are, in that sense, actually a stabilizing presence in the M.E.
There is quite a bit of evidence that this is not the case.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?