You seem to have substituted an article for a pretty crucial noun. Whose
“ability to dictate to them”? If the answer is, “the UN’s,” you might eventually sell that to the international community, even stubborn states like Iran, but if it’s “the U.S.’,” now way are they going to “get used to” that.
Well, there’s one crucial point nobody’s addressed yet. Several posters regard that as inevitable that the Iranians are going to “get their nukes,” but just what does that mean? Is there any possibility they’re telling the truth when they say they want the technology for electricity, not bombs?
No.
People die in wars, get used to it, and freedom is worth that price.
Don’t oversimplify the picture, Ryan. If you die for my freedom, that’s a fair exchange, but it doesn’t work in reverse. 
Not if you don’t lauch unilateral first-strike nuclear attacks on them they don’t. Which is what you were advocating.
Have you ever seen the waxworld episode of Red Dwarf? This is bringing that to mind for some reason…
But it all boils down to that, whether people are prepared to stand up for freedom.
Freedom = having your country invaded, occupied, pillaged and destroyed by Emperor Bush’s foot soldiers.
Youth really is wasted on the young.
It seems a forgone conclusion in this thread that it would be in Iran’s best interests to have nuclear weapons… and thus that it’s safe to assume that their interest in being able to produce/recycle nuclear fuel is just a cover for an arms program.
Did I miss Iran’s “We’re gonna make us some nukes and you try and stop us.” North-Korea-style announcement? or are we all talking out of our asses about Iran’s WMD program a-la-Iraq?
“And its Ryan this, and Liam that, and chuck the bugger out!
But its Willy Wonka wankers when the wooly wogs about!”
Sorry…can’t really explain it, going to post something entirely sensible, then Animal Planet shows a picture of a mongoose, and I just can’t help myself…
Again, sorry.
Couple the US’s aggressive attitude towards Iran with the presence of its heavily armed troops literally next door for a conceivably extended period of time - I know they’re a bit tied up now, but that’s going to change eventually - and you have a rather uncomfortable situation for Iran.
Whether or not they ever intended to militarise their uclear program may be moot. Now they will want to anyway.
And their nuclear program too :smack:
Sorry , I meant the States dictating to Iran or whomever , not the UN.
Declan
The sad thing is that it makes so much sense for the Regime in Iran to have nukes… its basically the only way to keep their regime going. They’ve been pushed against the wall in a way… and they know a nuke is the only thing that guarantees sovereignty. US military superiority and willingness to use it no matter what has created a “need nuke” paradigm for “roguish” states.
So is there a point in blocking Iran ? I think so... its got to be made as hard and difficult as possible... even if no military option is used. The cost of joining the nuclear club should always be high to deter proliferation as much as possible.... but apparently people forget that there should be "rewards" for not joining too. I hate the solution with North Korea though... bribing them...
International law and order means little to current american political agenda… so one might just get nukes to make sure. US aggresive posturing also means a “chicken” game that if the current Iranian government backs off… it will be labeled as weak and cowardly by its people.
What are the risks to the Iranian people for having a bomb program? if they are going to be processing plutonium, they could have all kinds of nast accidents…and a comparatively non-inductrial country like Iran would be hard pressed to deal with an accident or spill. I even doubt they have much capability to maintain a reactor properly-look at what happened in Chernobyl. perhaps its just as well to let the Iranians screw around…they may well wind up having a major accident (which will require a massive claenup). 
IIRC, the North Koreans made their announcement after they had acquired nuclear weapons, and if the Iranians are sensible they will follow that example.
That clears up the picture but it doesn’t solve the problem. Religious extremism has little to do with it. There’s such a thing as national pride, you know, and the Iranians have more of it now than ever before in their history. How do you think the average Iranian feels about the idea of his government taking any kind of dictates from the U.S.? Multiply that by ten and that’s how somebody actually in the government feels about it.
Yeah, all their camels and sand will be radioactive, huh?
I get this impression that you don’t know much about nuclear power, nuclear weapons, or Iran. Am I far off base in that impression?
The spectacular failure of the Chernobyl plant was due largely to graphite moderation. All of the current and planned Iranian reactors are water moderated. A Chernobyl style failure is basically impossible.
As for the “nasty accident” from fuel processing… I suggest you look up the prompt criticality accident at Japan’s Tokai processing plant. That’s probably about as bad as it can be, nightmare fantasies about coincidental atomic holocausts aside.