Should Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

[kev_n_jena 89]

I'm almost of the opinion that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. I believe that eventually most countries will have nukes and they will be used again, it's only a matter of time. I won't be surprised if they have nuclear weapons before Obama is out of office.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There is not even a consensus that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. If you discount all the crazy talk by Netanyahu, then at worst Iran has the capacity to make a bomb, or at least is heading in that direction, and at best, Iran is doing exactly what they are saying they are doing, that is an active research program focused on medical uses and power generation.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

No, Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. They could end up in the wrong hands and used without thought of consequences.

[unsmiley 111]

There is not even a consensus that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. If you discount all the crazy talk by Netanyahu, then at worst Iran has the capacity to make a bomb, or at least is heading in that direction, and at best, Iran is doing exactly what they are saying they are doing, that is an active research program focused on medical uses and power generation.

Why would one of the world's most oil-rich nations need another source of power generation? Get real. We all know what they are up to.

[unsmiley 111]

I'm almost of the opinion that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. I believe that eventually most countries will have nukes and they will be used again, it's only a matter of time. I won't be surprised if they have nuclear weapons before Obama is out of office.

Just because most countries will have nukes eventually doesn't mean shouldn't try to stop (or slow) certain countries from obtaining them.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Ayatollah Jannati to Iran’s Leaders: The People Do Not Support Your Efforts to Establish Ties with the U.S.,” from MEMRI, February 21:

In a Friday sermon in Tehran, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati addressed the Iranian leaders, saying: “If we, the people, are against America, you must oppose it too.” “Death to America is the first option on our table,” said Jannati, and the crowds responded with chants of “Death to America.”

Following are excerpts from the sermon, which was broadcast on Iran’s Channel 1 on February 21, 2014:

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati: One of our slogans this year has been: We are excited that all options are on the table. In other words, we are laughing with contempt at America. Who are you trying to intimidate?

[...]

We say [to the Americans]: Come if you are real men. This has been the message of our people: We are excited that all options are on the table. But what are the options on our own table? Death to America is the first option on our table.

Crowd: Death to America.

Death to America.

http://grendelreport.blogspot.com/2014/03/iranian-ayatollah-death-to-america-is.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why would one of the world's most oil-rich nations need another source of power generation? Get real. We all know what they are up to.

I tend to agree, however:

Iran holds the world's fourth-largest proved crude oil reserves and the world's second-largest natural gas reserves. Despite the country's abundant reserves, Iran's oil production has substantially declined over the past few years, and natural gas production growth has slowed. International sanctions have profoundly affected Iran's energy sector. Sanctions have prompted a number of cancellations or delays of upstream projects, resulting in declining oil production capacity.

http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=ir

They need to have the sanctions lifted. So, Iran's perfect position in the world, from a Persian perspective, would be having the sanctions lifted, and still be considered a viable nuclear threat, though just short of having a nuclear device ready to deploy. This way they can resume oil production at previous levels, and join the world's nations as a "respected" player, in the same sense Israel, India, and Pakistan are considered respected players as far as the Western world is concerned. Also, the world is seeking to move away from fossil fuels, and becoming a major producer of nuclear energy could be rather lucrative in coming decades. There is a lot of win in this scenario for Iran.

Edited February 26, 2015 by I AM NOT THAT GUY

[OriZ 3,157]

A country that has been a consistent supporter and financier of terrorism for decades should not have nuclear weapons. That's a no brainer.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So when is Israel turning in her nukes?

[JohnR! 5,495]

IMHO no country in the ME should have nukes. In fact, only America should have nukes. We invented them and that's that.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Your original post seeks opinions as to whether to "allow" Iran to have [create/acquire] nuclear weapon(s).

I am not interested in taking on that task myself, and the current regime in the US is not willing to stop them from getting it. In fact, they may even be working a deal to allow them to get nukes if they agree to fight radical islam. So, the only country capable of stopping them today is Israel.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Brace yourself. The looney brigade will come for your with all their wrath...

So when is Israel turning in her nukes?

[LibCampFireClub 635]

They met in the walmart hardware department this morning, and will be back soon

[bowens44 213]

Why not? The US has them. No nation with nukes has the moral athourity to prevent other nations from having them.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Why not? The US has them. No nation with nukes has the moral athourity to prevent other nations from having them.

It's my position that nukes ain't moral, and he who has the most or the biggest wins.