• 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!

Putin: 'No information on Iran's work on nuclear weapons'

K

Kss

Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
120
Reaction score
26
Location
Russia, Moscow
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Russia has no information that Iran is working on the development of nuclear weapons, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Thursday.

"We have no information on Iran's work on nuclear weapons," the prime minister said during an annual televised question-and-answer session with Russians.

Iran, which is already under three sets of UN sanctions for refusing to halt uranium enrichment, recently announced plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment facilities. Tehran insists it needs nuclear technology to generate electricity, claiming the right under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) censured Iran for withholding information on its controversial nuclear program in a resolution last week. It also urged Iran to freeze construction of its newly revealed uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom.

The resolution was endorsed by Russia, Germany, Britain, China, France and the United States, the six nations involved in long-running nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Putin: 'No information on Iran's work on nuclear weapons' | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire
 

Iran needs a lesson in manners. They WILL stop enriching uranium or their nuclear facilities, military bases, and sea ports can be obliterated.

Aminjihad needs to be taught so respect. It's time for a lesson ... and I hope that lesson arrives in Iran on the tip of a high yeild thermite plazma bomb.
 
Vader said:
Iran needs a lesson in manners. They WILL stop enriching uranium or their nuclear facilities, military bases, and sea ports can be obliterated. .
Click to expand...

I don't nessassarily have a problem with Iran having nuclear powerplants, but I think it's way too shady that they are lying about it. If they were really clear and honest about it then I would be fine, but right now they are not being transparent at all. They have been working on enriching uranium to who knows what extent, and they are trying to hide it. That's no good.

Vader said:
Aminjihad needs to be taught so respect. It's time for a lesson ... and I hope that lesson arrives in Iran on the tip of a high yeild thermite plazma bomb.
Click to expand...

Now come on, no doubt that Aminjihad is a bad dude, but there's no need to destroy the country. He's just one crazy in a mostly normal country.
 

I have noticed Vader that all your solutions are military and decisssive. Do you ever give diplomacy a chance ?

Destroy Iran while as we speak, large protests are taking place ? They are protesting against the regime, are you saying that you should destroy the regime and its oppoisition ?

They did topple the government once (the Shah) and they will topple this one as well. Perhaps you should give them some time to solve their own problems ?
 

Exactly What I am thinking. We need not get involved (look what happened when we got involved last time...Democracy was replaced by our friend the shah).

Yeah, you've really nailed it. Just let Iran do what they need to do...and dont blow them all up as some people would suggest.
 

Diplomacy was given a chance. It failed. Now Iran needs to find out the hard way the price of its lies and deceit.
 

I am only talking about targeting military bases, sea ports, and nuclear facilities. I am not suggesting an all out attack on civilian infrastructure.
 
Vader said:
Diplomacy was given a chance. It failed. Now Iran needs to find out the hard way the price of its lies and deceit.
Click to expand...

I think you are over exaggerating. Looking at things from Irans perspective I'd be doing the same thing they are. They want to enrich Uranium plausibly for nuclear energy. (but maybe to make a nuclear bomb, but I'll get into that later.) They are trying to enrich uranium like a ton of countries (including the US obviously) are doing. Yet they are being told "No, you can't do that." by the same people who are doing it themselves. I'd be pissed.

Now let's say they are making a nuke. It's just for show. They want to feel like a big boy. Let em. Iran will not nuke any other country because if they did their heads would be on a pike the next day, and they know it.
 

Under the NPT and international law, they are legally obligated to not enrich uranium to the levels that they currently are.

Now let's say they are making a nuke. It's just for show. They want to feel like a big boy. Let em. Iran will not nuke any other country because if they did their heads would be on a pike the next day, and they know it.
Click to expand...

I am sure the people who were all killed on the first strike in your scenario would appreciate your viewpoint.

Putting that aside however, the mere presence of an Iranian weapon will destabilize the entire region and set off a wave of proliferation. Both Saudi Arabia and Egypt have basically stated that if Iran obtains a weapon they will need to reevaluate their own programs.

What this means is more Middle Eastern states (that hate each other) all possessing nuclear weapons. Additionally, the increased availability of fissile material is not something we want within the region.
 
FlanaganReport said:
I am sure the people who were all killed on the first strike in your scenario would appreciate your viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Yes and the people killed in a first strike scenario from US, Russian, UK, France, China, India, Isreal...you get the point. Yes, any of the people killed from a first strike scenario from those countries would be just as dead as those killed by Iran's nukes. Yet we don't force all those countries to stop enriching uranium.


Saudi Arabia has already expressed interest in building a nuclear weapon regardless of what Iran does. Do we fuss about it? No. Why? Because we love Saudi oil.
 

The NPT recognizes these states (the ones that are signatories at least) as Nuclear Weapon States. The United States is abiding by the terms of the treaty to prevent proliferation, and working on disarmament, as seen with a potential new START agreement and SORT.

Saudi Arabia has already expressed interest in building a nuclear weapon regardless of what Iran does. Do we fuss about it? No. Why? Because we love Saudi oil.
Click to expand...

Actually, we were not pleased about it at all. What is certain however is that an Iranian weapon will ensure that a Saudi weapon is produced.

Am I to take from all this that you are fine with a fave of proliferation across the Middle East?
 

Yes and because they are members of the NPT their nukes would not work in a first strike scenario :lol: non sequitur...


FlanaganReport said:
Actually, we were not pleased about it at all. What is certain however is that an Iranian weapon will ensure that a Saudi weapon is produced.

Am I to take from all this that you are fine with a fave of proliferation across the Middle East?
Click to expand...

Fair, we might not have been very happy about it, but it recieved NO press. I was talking about this with one of my friends (who stays on to of the news more than anyone I know) and he was shocked to hear about Saudi Arabia wanting a nuke.

Now am I a fan of proliferation in the Middle East...not really. Proliferation anywhere is bad; proliferation where terrorists are most centralized is even worse. That being said the US has been harassing the hell out of Iran and really it's our (along with the UK and Russia's) fault that they are so backwards. (refering to the anglo-soviet invastion) On my website I talk about how Iran would be a better ally than Saudi Arabia. (link is in my profile if you're interested, but you'll probabily disagree so...) The only way we'd be able to get them as an ally again would be to start cutting them some slack instead of constantly bashing on them. If letting them have their nuke leads to Iran liking us then fine, I'm for it.
 
Rocka89 said:
Yes and because they are members of the NPT their nukes would not work in a first strike scenario :lol: non sequitur...
Click to expand...

Fair enough.. my point was simply that it is legal for us (the USA) to possess the weapons under the NPT, and that we are living up to our obligations under the treaty with things such as SORT and possibly a new START treaty.

Fair, we might not have been very happy about it, but it recieved NO press. I was talking about this with one of my friends (who stays on to of the news more than anyone I know) and he was shocked to hear about Saudi Arabia wanting a nuke.
Click to expand...

Yea, you are correct, it did not receive a lot of press. But it should be easy to predict. Saudi Arabia is certainly no fan of Iran, and a nuclear Iran will upset the balance of power within the region. Unless Saudi Arabia is willing to simply cede regional hegemony to Iran then they will have to do something.

Egypt has basically said they same thing. The Foreign Minister commented that "If one more nation gets a weapon (the other one being Israel) then they will have to change their position." The fight over regional hegemony will mean if one goes nuclear they will all have to go nuclear.

Now am I a fan of proliferation in the Middle East...not really. Proliferation anywhere is bad; proliferation where terrorists are most centralized is even worse.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

That being said the US has been harassing the hell out of Iran and really it's our (along with the UK and Russia's) fault that they are so backwards. (refering to the anglo-soviet invastion)
Click to expand...

Well.. that could be debated I suppose. However, regardless of why they are "backward", their leadership is still such, and therefore they must be treated as such in my opinion.


I will check it out. I actually might agree with you, if we see a change in Iranian leadership. A big part of why an Iranian bomb in my view is so unacceptable is because a Saudi bomb is that much worse.

I would argue that we cannot simply discard the Saudi's, however they are certainly not a great ally.

That is why I take issue with the idea of "letting Iran have a nuke" if it makes them like us because once that happens the ensuing proliferation is not something we can stop or control, and that is a bad scenario in my view.
 

Yeah, it would be a shame if Saudi Arabia got a nuclear weapon...Again we are jumping to conclusions and saying that Iran only wants to enrich uranium for weapons not energy. I'll give that point to you though, Saudi Arabia would want a weapon and thats probabily not good. I don't think either of those countries having nukes is dangerous because the cost of using a nuke greatly outweighs the benifits.



FlanaganReport said:
Well.. that could be debated I suppose. However, regardless of why they are "backward", their leadership is still such, and therefore they must be treated as such in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think they get more bad press than they actually deserve. They are crazy, but not suicidal. Perhaps backwards was the wrong word.




Thanks for checking it out. I agree, it would be great if we could get less extreme leaders in Iran, the problem is that most of the country is overly religous so Ahmadinejad is tough to beat in an election. As Iran becomes even more modern though, I think we will see newer better leaders.

Glad we agree that a Saudi bomb is much more dangerous. I am not even going to argue that point. It would be a shame to see them get a bomb...The question is if the ideal situation occurs where allowing Iran to get a nuclear weapon and in return getting their friendship and cooperation is more important than a few nuclear weapons, and on this I am truly torn. Part of me says all nukes are bad especially in that area, the other part says a friendship with Iran would allow us to play a bigger role in the Middle East.

The reason I say that is our alliance with Saudi Arabia is basically for oil. They make the most and we love it. The problem is they don't share our views and often times do what they like instead of what we would want them to. Iran on the other hand is becoming significantly more modern at an extremely fast rate. The more modern they become the more likely they will identify with us and take our ideas into serious consideration.
 
Rocka89 said:
Yeah, it would be a shame if Saudi Arabia got a nuclear weapon...Again we are jumping to conclusions and saying that Iran only wants to enrich uranium for weapons not energy.
Click to expand...

Well, from what has been reported, the level of enrichment that Iran is currently pursuing is only needed in a weapons program. Given that, I would say it is somewhat unlikely to very unlikely that Iran is not at least exploring the possibility of getting a weapon.

That said, I have serious doubts that they would test a weapon should they acquire it. I see the downsides outweighing the positives in that scenario.

I'll give that point to you though, Saudi Arabia would want a weapon and thats probabily not good. I don't think either of those countries having nukes is dangerous because the cost of using a nuke greatly outweighs the benifits.
Click to expand...

Well, you would agree with Ken Waltz who basically argued that everyone should have a nuclear weapon and therefore there could be world peace. However, with decreasing yields, and the uncertainty of deterrence, I think it is debatable that the cost of using a nuke outweighs the benefits.

I think they get more bad press than they actually deserve. They are crazy, but not suicidal. Perhaps backwards was the wrong word.
Click to expand...

Is it automatically suicidal to use a weapon in your view? I would argue that it is not.


Well, putting him aside, I think the clerics need to be removed before anything can really start to happen.


You keep going back to the point of that if Iran gets a weapon we can get friendship in return... what are you basing that on?


Well, as long as oil is important, Saudi Arabia will be a player. On the flip side, they do help us out in some regards in Middle Eastern affairs, and they also buy billions of dollars worth of weapons from us, so at least we get something in return.
 

True. They almost surely are interested in getting a weapon.



I'd like to hear how the benifits could possibly outweigh the costs...



FlanaganReport said:
Is it automatically suicidal to use a weapon in your view? I would argue that it is not.
Click to expand...

No, it's not suicidal to use a weapon, it's suicidal to use a nuclear weapon. The whole world would be in a frenzy and Iran would be in some form of serious trouble. Who would they use it on, Isreal? (I am going to assume they are the most likely) As soon as the nuke hits, Isreal would already have planes in the air and they would just destroy Iran, it would be ugly.



FlanaganReport said:
Well, putting him aside, I think the clerics need to be removed before anything can really start to happen.
Click to expand...

Yes, the clerics are even worse than him.


FlanaganReport said:
You keep going back to the point of that if Iran gets a weapon we can get friendship in return... what are you basing that on?
Click to expand...

I don't think the friendship would instantaniously return, but I think it would be a step in the right direction. We stick up for them, show them that we think they are responsible. It would bring the two countries closer.



Yes oil is important, but not nessassarily Saudi oil. Iraq + Iran = Saudi Arabia (kind of) in terms of amount of oil produced per year. So what I am suggesting, as I suggested on my site(Slap Stick Politics: Keeping Your Enemies too Close) , is that we essentially trade our friendship with Saudi Arabia in for a friendship with Iran. (Over time of course, nothing is instant.)
 
Iran's intransigence could just as easily be a result of past diplomatic relations with the Western world. How many times have we disregarded the wishes of others in the region and just interfered for our own benefit? I know there is a security risk happening and I'm not suggesting otherwise, but that's only one aspect of what's going on.

Iran is telling us to shove it because it has no incentive and no historical reason to give a damn what we tell it to do. The West has spent the past 100 years or more trying to colonize the Mid East and the past 50 setting up dictatorships. The Iranian government knows its history books. Why should it listen to the UN now?

Usually in times of economic crisis, one way to take pressure off of domestic governments is for them to launch wars against newly created enemies. It also provides a good source of revenue for the war machine; however, since the U.S. is already engaged on multiple fronts right now, the baton gets passed to other concerned parties.

I don't think Russia, China, Germany, the UK, or any other power will invade Iran. The U.S. could try manufacturing consent again, I suppose, but without direct evidence of nuclear arms development, it would be a hard sell during the recession. Not to mention, it didn't go over well last time when intelligence was cherry picked and exaggerated to suit the GWB administration's agenda.

So Iraq had no nukes, but was invaded upon such a false pretense; now Iran is in a true position to procure them, and our hands are tied. Sounds like karma to me.
 
Rocka89 said:
True. They almost surely are interested in getting a weapon.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
I'd like to hear how the benifits could possibly outweigh the costs...
Click to expand...

Well, I think it assumes that they will use it against another nuclear state. What if Iran decided that they wanted to create chaos in the oil market and attacked Saudi Arabia with a weapon?

Who is going to respond in a nuclear fashion? The US? I tend to doubt it. Israel? Probably not. You would have a conventional war no doubt, however if Iran possesses more weapons, that could deter any real invasion.

What if they opted for a space detonation? That would create huge problems, but does it merit a nuclear response from anyone? I am not sure.

No, it's not suicidal to use a weapon, it's suicidal to use a nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...

I disagree.


Assuming they used it on Israel... there are various scenarios that are equally as devastating that do not involve Israel.

Yes, the clerics are even worse than him.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I don't think the friendship would instantaniously return, but I think it would be a step in the right direction. We stick up for them, show them that we think they are responsible. It would bring the two countries closer.
Click to expand...

If we "stick up" for the current regime, doesn't that give them somewhat of a reason to continue cracking down on the domestic opposition? Why not support the opposition so we can get a more pro-western regime in there possibly?


Well, I would say like it or not in a world oil market (which is what we have) Saudi oil will matter regardless of if we decided to be their friend or not. Given their substantial production capacity and reserves, it seems we are better off with them as quasi friends than anything else.

I also think in your piece (from your website) you gloss over the historical relationship that the United States has had with Saudi Arabia. As early as 1938 we had a oil-based relationship, and we even included them in Lend-Lease in WWII. FDR additionally was arguing in WWII that defense of Saudi Arabia was vital to American interests. Of course it was for oil, but I think your point that before Saudi Arabia there was Iran is not quite accurate.
 

I doubt a nuclear responce would happen, I think pretty much every nation (except maybe Russia and China (and a few others)) would cut off trade, and the US would respond with non-nuclear force. Using a nuclear weapon wouldn't be taken lightly.

FlanaganReport said:
What if they opted for a space detonation? That would create huge problems, but does it merit a nuclear response from anyone? I am not sure.
Click to expand...

Space detonation? Seems questionable since Iran just became an orbital launch capable nation this past year. Don't get me wrong, its possible...just doesn't seem likely


FlanaganReport said:
Assuming they used it on Israel... there are various scenarios that are equally as devastating that do not involve Israel.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I just assumed you thought Isreal would be the target because of things Ahmadinejad has said in the past.


FlanaganReport said:
If we "stick up" for the current regime, doesn't that give them somewhat of a reason to continue cracking down on the domestic opposition? Why not support the opposition so we can get a more pro-western regime in there possibly?
Click to expand...

Well my reasoning for sticking up for the current regime is simple. The people of Iran like them. Supporting the opposition (I am guessing you mean helping them over throw the government not funding their campaigns :lol seems like the wrong move. If we help force the opposition to take power and the people don't like it, they will just revolt on an even larger scale and we will be back to square one (well not really square one, but we'll be back to another theocracy since it seems to be what the people enjoy.)




Saudi will matter, don't get me wrong, but they can become significantly less important to us if we start importing large amounts of Iran's oil instead of Saudi's. I am not suggesting we cut all ties to Saudi Arabia, just that we import less oil from them and more from Iran.


Fair, we did have oil ties to Saudi Arabia well before we cut our relationship with Iran, but they played a significantly smaller role in where we got our oil from.

Actually, speaking of our oil-relations with Saudi Arabia, they kicked us when we were down. In 1979 we were still trading oil with Iran. Oil prices were approx. $14 per barrel. Iranian revolution takes place, subsequent actions on Iran's part cause us to stop importing oil from them. What does Saudi Arabia do? Raise the cost per barrel to approx. $24.
 

The difference between the rest of the world and Iran is that Iran is a silly islamic theocracy that cannot be trusted with anything more dangerous that a slingshot.

Also ... the rest of the world is not funding, training, and arming Hezbollah, and various other terrorist groups.
 

Objection. Plaintiff states facts not in evidence.
 
creation said:
Objection. Plaintiff states facts not in evidence.
Click to expand...

Your objection is overulled.

There is ample evidence that Iran has been arming, training, and funding Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Taliban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…