How can USA /United Nation prevent Iran from Atom Bomb manufacturing, Should US destroy their facilities?
345418
You should be immediately appointed as the Chief Advisor to George Bush !
499177
Like it or not, Iran and North Korea are not allowed to have nuclear weapons because an alliance of nations (namely the UN and NATO) have passed restrictions against thier developing of such weapons... That being said, I do (and any reasonable person should) think it is AT LEAST a little hypocritical that we attempt to disarm the world, and yet spend record amounts to arm ourselves (we, as in the the US)... I do agree with you that Bush (at the moment) is a far greater threat to world peace (like him or not, actions are louder than words), than any two nations combined... What angers me is that we are trying to stop Iran from developing nuclear power... they have the legal right to develop nuclear power under the UN, but also must submit themselves to inspection (something they have refused to do)... but, keep in mind that the US openly has a nuclear weapons program, and only a small fraction of it is "visable" to the UN (despite what the politicians say)... With ALL of the above being said, if Iran would openly submit to inspection, I would not be against their RIGHT to develop peaceful nuclear energy (note that all US nuclear POWER facilities are open for inspection)... as for nuclear weapons, it is my firm belief that if one country wishes to disarm another peacefuly, it must do so its self... that is not to say we should completely disarm our nuclear stockpile, as this would create an imbsalance between us, and other world powers (namely China and Russia)... I do know for a fact, that a nuclear (weapons) Iran is a danger to the world, in particular, the US, Europe, and its neigbors... really it is a far more complicated issue than it seems on the surface, and WAY more complicated than our political leaders (and those of other nations) want us to believe. Sanctions (economic, and material) have been proposed (against Iran), but I believe, that given our fragile economic state, imposing such sanctions, would be the economic equivelent of "kicking ourselves in the (censored by yahoo)", and would therefore most likely fail quicly, or WE would face the consequences of economic recesion (thus succeeding in punishing ourselves!?!)... most politicians are playing this economic impact down, and I fear that our government may start bombing Iran soon (much like Iraq under Clinton)... now I know you asked to minimize the "Bush bashing", but I just gotta get it out of my system... It is my thought that the war-monger, chickenhawk, ideological, neofacist, Bushite, republican morons (notice I insulted republicans, and not conservatives, as they are not always one and the same), will drag us into another unecisary conflict... now that I've got that out of my system... I just am not sure what is the BEST solution (or if there is a "best" solution), but I know what we certainly shoudn't do, and I fear we will do it anyways...\n\nto directly answer your question, we are alowed to have a say, only because of our size, and military might, if Iran had these two factors over us, (they were the super power), THEY would be telling US what to do... it's not right, but such struggles between human powers/groups/factions have been going on since the begining of humanity... and will probably go on until humanity is gone... I hate to say it (and as a member of the human race, I am ashamed to), but nothing has changed, same concepts, just different weapons, and different names... same old desires, fortune, land, and power... don't think about it too hard, or you'll wind up like me... the sad thing is majority is power, and in this world, the individule has little say, something I recognize, but never really like to believe...\n\nAnyways, sorry for the long, drawn out, boring rant, but it is a complicated issue, like I said, don't stress about it to mutch.\n\n*************************************\nNever fear "marty barber", I am 100% sure that a good portion of your people are hypo
333463
Why is it the the U.S. can have nuclear weapons and Iran can't?
1183863
Iran should have the right to peaceful nuclear technology.Why is it U.S.A,India,and all the other countries can have nukes, but Iran can't?Bush is a Racist. He hates Iranians.If you really don't want Iran to have Nuclear tech, ask the world to destroy their nuclear stockpiles first,especially the US.
401042
Well Britain , Australia , the US have shown that they\nare responsible with their nukes and will not use them to kill million of people however Iran is different. The President of Iran had said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the planet> I don't know about you but I don't trust nuclear technology to a person who goals is to wipe another country out of existence.He had apparently said that the world will end in three years and his goal is to bring chaos and destruction to the world to bring about \nthe reign of a Muslim prophet . This Prophet will make the world an Islamics world- Can you trust a guy who said all that with nukes??\n\n there a different process to transform Uranium to\nuse for Power than for weapon . the problem is that Iran\nrefused Russia offer to enrich Uranium for them to make sure it wont be used for WMD. .This is a compromise agreed on by the UN to let Iran have nuclear power for energy consummation. Why? the obvious reason is the want nuclear grade uranium for WMD.
284983
fact: iran(and other muslim nations) dont like the USA\n\nif they get bombs they can use it against us. i want them to have energy and rights ect.. but sometimes you(us..the USA)  just got to flex your muscles and be the jerk if you dont want to die.
408433
Prepare yourself for the unthinkable, war againsty Iran may be a necessity.\n\nThe UNIMAGINABLE but ultimately inescapable truth is that we are going to have to get ready for war with Iran.\n\nTehran threatended the US with 'harm and pain' for hauling them before the UN Security Council over its nuclear program. The rapidly intensifying crisis is like a train on a collision course.\n\nWhile we were chasing phantom nukes in Mesopotamia, next door, Iran was busy building real ones.\n\nThe unavoidable reality is that we now need urgently to steel ourselves to the ugly probability that diplomacy will not now suffice, one way or another, unconsciounable acts of war may now be unavoidable.\n\nThose who say war is unthinkable are right. Those who say the US should not send young boys to die in the Middle East far from home are right. Those who say war will foster more violence in the Middle East are right.\n\nMilitary strikes, even limited, targeted and accurate ones, will have devastating consequences for the region and for the world.\n\nAll the argument against a strike are fearfully powerful. But multiplied together, squared, and then cubed, the weight of these arguments do not come close to matching the case for us to stop, by whatever means necessary, Iran from becoming a nuclear power.\n\nIf Iran gets safely and unmolested to nuclear status, it will be a threshold moment in the history of the world, up there with the Bolshevik Revolution and the coming of Hitler.\n\nIran has stated that they will 'wipe Israel off the face of the map." They've stated that the 'holocaust was fake.' And the kind of society we live in and cherish in the West will change beyond recognition if Iran becomes nuclear. We balk now at intrusive government measures to tap our phones or other intrusions into our civil liberties. Imagine how much more our freedoms will be curtailed if our government's fear we are just one telephone call or e-mail, one plane journey or truckload away from another Hiroshima.
322245
We've beaten the odds so far, but probability has way of catching up to up you. Let's look at current crisis.\n\nTargeting sites in a nuclear war with Iran, or any country in the region, would involve widespread nuclear contamination and large numbers of casualties. It would be impossible to limit this to Iran alone. And even in extreme circumstances, the only clear requirement for high-yield strategic nuclear weapons would be on some selected command and control facilities; their use would have to be restricted to a small number of targets because of fallout considerations.\n\nIf Iran did acquire atomic bombs, it would put pressure on other countries in the region to do the same. Many Arab countries believe it is unfair that Israel has nuclear weapons. If Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia but also Egypt and possibly Syria, found themselves caught between a nuclear-armed Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran, it would greatly increase pressures to pursue their own nuclear options. \n\nThis could result in a regional arms race in the Middle East which is likely to be quite destabilizing, given the number and intensity of conflicts and instabilities in the region. \n\nBecause of Murphy's Law, the conflict could escalate into a major confrontation between US and Russia/China, especially when long range missiles are fired by the US at Iran (for instance), it could be interpreted by early warning systems in Russia and China as an attack against them. \n\nThe military people call it "accidental or false attribution". How does China know the missile is headed for Iran and not them? By the time the flight path is determined, it could be too late to form a retaliatory response, hence, it's better to "launch on warning". A global nuclear exchange could be initiated in a nuclear war in the Middle \n\nThere's been over 20 close calls during the Cold War and Post Cold eras, from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the accidental training tape incident at NORAD in the late 1970's, to the more recent 1995 incident involving a Norwegian science satellie launch. The hair triggers nearly put the world into a nuclear inferno. Most people in the world did not know how close they've come for the nuclear sword of damacles to come tumbling down on the heads. \n\nEven today, we only stand 28 minutes from a nuclear at any given time. The aging Russian early warning systems and their reduced security after the break-up of the Soviet Union should be real concerns. \n\nIf anything, a nuclear war will be the result of accidental launches from a false alarm from the two 'strategic' superpowers.
67954
There is a fine line between nuclear energy and nuclear WEAPONS.  Energy will benefit everyone greatly until a meltdown of course.  However researching nuclear energy and experimenting with it leads to some bad people having volitile materials which COULD BE used for a dirty bomb or full out nuclear weapon.  To answer the 2nd part of the question.. what do you THINK the US will do to stop them?  We will warn them once, ask the UN and get denied, then take matters into our own hands.  I vote move to Canada.
485984
Take it at 95%. The US, Britain, and France all are getting tough on the UN to stop Iran from its nuclear program. But as you know IRan is not listening and probably won't listen into they have obtained nuclear weapons.
516748
A nuclear capable Iran is a threat to the world--not just to the USA and I am sorry but this not a case of "so and so has nuclear power and so can we".  If your a country that is threatening others then stopping a nuclear program will is a must.\n\nEvery effort at diplomacy will be done but if that doesnt work--then I imagine they will take out Irans Nuclear site. I say "they" because it wont be the USA alone--in fact I do not think we will do it--it will probally be Israel.
431849
The usa know of the iran forces and i think polotics will also hold them back as it is not going to well for them in iraq. think they may let another country like isral hit iran first rarther than dent there reputation further by going to another war within the middle east.  the whole world think the iraq war was all about oil. at the end of the day we should not be looking for war to gain oil we should be looking at new resourses as oil will run out within the next 10 - 15 years.\n\nAirstrikes no chance from usa not without backup from the UN\n\n\nbelow is a news statment of isreal and iran\n\nIran has warned Israel it will react "most severely" if Israel uses force to try to destroy its nuclear facilities. \nForeign Minister Kamal Kharrazi was responding to reports that the United States is to sell Israel hundreds of "bunker-busting" bombs. \n\nIsrael urged the United Nations Security Council to take action to stop Iran's nuclear programme. \n\nThe US and Israel have accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. \n\nIran recently defied calls by the UN's nuclear watchdog to suspend all enrichment-related activities, insisting its nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes only. \n\nNuclear 'nightmare' \n\nAccording to reports, the US is to sell Israel 5,000 hi-tech bombs, including 500 one-ton "bunker-busters", which can penetrate two metre (6.5ft) thick walls. \n\nIn 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor when it believed Saddam Hussein was close to producing a nuclear bomb. \n\nIsraeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said the UN must deal with the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons before it is too late. \n\n"[The Iranians] are trying to buy time, and the time has come to move the Iranian case to the Security Council in order to put an end to this nightmare," he told reporters after meeting UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. \n\n"We know that the Europeans are trying now to engage with the Iranians, but we know that the Iranians will never abandon their plans to develop nuclear weapons. They're only trying to hide it." \n\nHowever, Kamal Kharrazi said Israel, not Iran, was a threat to world peace. \n\n"Israel has always been a threat, not only against Iran, but all countries." \n\nWhen questioned about Israel's reported purchase of the bombs, Mr Kharrazi said, "be sure that any action by Israel certainly will be reacted by us most severely".\n\nmal UK\n\nI Also agree that iran is not the danger and israel is the big danger one that claims to be a friend is most proberbly the most dangerious of all USA are not to clever and still think of israel to be a friend, i dont think so israel have the power to take the usa this is my thoughts and the USA acctually help them by selling them arms USA Govenment is all about Greed not saying UK is any better but UK seems to follow bush
988732
No DEAL to US and Israel.Why US and Israel can use nuclear weapon not Iran.Iran can use nuclear weapon to protect their country from PIRATES(Israel and USA).\nBy the way,You must change "natas" to SATAN
459616
Personally I do not think that we need to go nuclear on anyone. Iran is a Middle Eastern country that we should not have involvement in. This country (US) is great on spreading democracy but other than oil what is our interest there? Why in the world do we need to be making everyone do our bidding? We need to focus in this country on how to improve our own job situations, education, over population, excessive oil use, and  focus on our country not theirs. That is my opinion.
41704
most probably america will easily solve this by droping a nuke on the iranians...maybe they'll drop it on moscow too if its convientent since they like bombing up other countries like japan,vietnam,afghanistan,iraq....etc..
260342
Using military forces...No.\n\nBUT\n\nI think they will manipulate the World Economy so America collapses under economic ruin...especially if ANY military action is taken against Iran.
549897
Iran only has the capability (at the moment) to make a dirty bomb rather than a full nuclear device.\n\nWhy wont use one if they get it is that pretty much the rest of the world will turn Iran into a crater - the nuclear taboo would galvanise the world against them to immense proportions. Anyone they are likely to launch against is also likely to be a nuclear power.\n\nThe leaders in Iran are on to a good thing and are unlikely to risk losing this.  Aggressive rhetoric has been part of Arab/Islamic culture for decades - the very definition of sabre rattling.\n\nPeace out