Well, I admit to know only conspiracy theories about how Iran is up next from the Axis, so I'll abstain from too much comments until I learn more. I do know there was alot of problems with their recent elections when some of the new candidates weren't allowed to run.

Comments?

-Dolce

Yeah right. Why does Iran need a nuclear program? There's oil there everywhere, they don't need nuclear energy. They've been playing the same game as Saddam was, and I think they've learned something from the past 2 years ;-).

What? Not to develop nuclear warheads?

-Dolce

It's inevitable that as time goes on, old technologies get easier to produce and all countries that really want a nuke bomb will get one.

As to why would Iran need a nuclear bomb, why did the US need them? For deterrence against enemies. Is nuclear deterrence something that only is allowed for some countries but not others?

Yup. That's why they signed that agreement.

You're playing the moral equivalency card. Yes, some countries deserve it, and others do not. Who is more likely to give the technology to terrorists: Iran, who we know has ties with terrorists and sponsors terrorism itself, or France, U.K. and Israel?

So what is your view on the 7 countries that currently have it Krem.

Whether or not people deserve it is beside the point. A lot of people don't deserve to own a pistol but they can anyway. It's not our decision as to whether Iran deserves it or not.

Actually I think the Bush administration itself makes the best case for Iran having a bomb. If Iran having one means the US won't invade, with all the death and collateral damage that would entail, it's probably the best for the world if they get one.

I know if I was Iranian and had 145k troops from a superpower next door in Iraq I'd want us to have one.

What about *Rogue* nations? I agree that countries that don't prove themselves as worthy of handling them shouldn't, but what are the definitions of that proof? Complying with international decisions? International *Permission Slips.* Yeah, I don't really think they should have nuclear bombs, but then again, they've got a pretty valid arguement right now as to why we shouldn't either. Maybe that's what you were referring to that they learned from the past two years from Iraq?

-Dolce

Actually, this is the one point I do agree with .. the gun point .. and the one about threat.

I personally hate the fact that pakistan has the nuke .. I think the wrong person in power can ruin it for pakistan .. but i understand why we have it now and i understand that the consequences of not having one would be even worse...

Yes it is. If Iran having one significantly decreases our security, because they can pass it along to terrorists, then it should be our first order of business. To use your analogy, we pass background checks to get a gun. We don't sell guns to people who have already abused their rights.

Well, your theory breaks, because Iran has just agreed not to pursue their nuclear program.

Russia, U.S. , France, U.K., Israel, Pakistan, India? Did I get all of them right?

I don't think Pakistan and India should have the nuke; there is not enough control in those two countries to ensure non-proliferation. Same with Russia, to a lesser extent. However, neither of those three is as dangerous at having a nuke as Iran is.

Look, we could argue about equal claims and all that ad nauseum, but the bottom line is that Iran having a nuke goes directly against our and world's security interests. They may have a legitimate claim against us too, but in the end, when a nuke goes off somewhere, it most likely won't be from the U.S. arsenal.

....said the country that's actually dropped the bomb in the past.

-Dolce

Krem.

WHy do you think America has still refused to sign the CTBT?

Oh c'mon! You're gonna use that right now. It was 50 years ago and it was needed to end the war. Stay on topic.

No idea, I don't know anything about that. Something to do with national interests, I suppose?

The war was already over. Remember about 1/3 of Japan got fire-bombed the night before anyways. And even that was after the fact in Europe.

I am on topic, historic precedence plays a large part in international politics. BTW, the U.S. also refused to submit its own leaders to the queries by the International War Crimes Tribunal, and love the idea of other countries not being extended that priviledge.

-Dolce

We already had an argument about that.

In any case, should we deny Germany a chemical industry because of what they did 60 years ago?

Just hate debating the issue where people just don't see why it was needed to show some might over Japan. They could have easily taken out Tokyo or some other more populated area but no, they didn't.

rusty, i think thats whats being debated here.... iran, pakistan, india all have these bombs mainly for the purpose for creating a stalemate (atleaast in the case of pakistan and india, no other reason really)

Iran doesn't have the bomb yet.

And yes, everybody wants it for a stalemate, but not everyone can ensure that nobody else can get it.

India and Pakistan don't really deserve nukes either. But I do see why they have em. With the situation that's in Iraq right now why should Iran really fear. Aren't Iranians much more religious and much more willing to defend their land from "the american pigs" then Iraqis?

Deterrence works, even among countries that don't "deserve" it. Look at Pakistan and India, deterrence is working there. It's not just for Europe, America and a few other countries anymore.

Instead of trying to hold off the inevitable, instead of trying to lead some bizarre crusade, the US would be better of spending its time and energy in trying to make the world into a world we can live with once mid-century comes and we're no longer top dog and the nuclear club is 40+ members. That starts with us stopping making unncessary enemies, and we should stop giving this idea out that as long as no one can stop us we can do what we want, damn the consequences.

It won't be that long from now, in historical sense of time, when no one will be able to stop China doing what it wants and they can say well America didn't pay attention to international norms and opinions back then, why should we now?

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Its the number one thing most countries are being asked to sign as a sign of not developing nuclear arsenal and what not. America has been the number one country behind Japan asking for it. They havent signed themselves yet and have openly refused to so far. Pakistan and India have both said they will sign it if the States sign it ....

@Krem
Unofficially .. yes .. just like pakistan and india did before 1998
and the stalemate is the counter argument aint it ...