Should iran be attacked to stop it from developing nuclear technology?
464915
No, it should not be attacked. At least not when Iran has not shown hostile deterence towards literal negotiations and attempts to hold peace talks.\n\nYes it should take a global effort, but it is to discourage the focus on nuclear technology, not to attack a country, and cause underlying problems to occur.\n\nIt is better to make the people of iran be convinced that the programme is wrong instead of hating the world for destroying what they deem as a need for their future.
532696
It should not be allowed nuclear capabilities, and we should all endever to prevent this occurance, because it is not within the intrests of the Western world. I recognise the arguement that Iran is as unstable or backward as the Western press portray it to be, however a neuclear Iranian would enable it to dictate policy in the region to a much larger degree, look at North Korea for example. The West needs a weaker Iran to exploit its natural resources, we should not be apologetic about this fact, we should however be careful how we go about it. As previous events have shown, badly planned interferance is far worse than isolationism.
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.
194227
Neither, The regime in Iran simply needs to not be able to produce nukes.\n\nDestroy their enrichment facilities and leave it at that.\n\nWe don't need the country.\n\nWith luck, the Israeli's will resolve that for us.
368891
I think he has no right to attack Iran because they want to use nuclear source.  If they did want  to have nuclear energy  and weapons their country should have the right to  defend themselves if it was ISRAEL that was doing this there would be no problem and they already have nuclear weapons at Iran.The weapons part  situation should be look over and watch put I believe that we should not have the right to  say you can not  have nuclear energy or weapons.To allow to defend themselves and they may be using it nuclear for power or energy that is what they are saying they are doing.The one thing that bothers me is that Israel can do these things and the other middle east country cannot that is not fair that is saying we can do it and you cannot.
52865
see what results of Europe's talks(which are becoming worse and worse) then use sanctions and arrange for military capabilities to be optimized against Iran, possibly sending another Aircraft carrier to the region. Get Iraq under control to free up military power in case Iran immerses itself into its Nuke making program. (there is no doubt that it is producing the technology and material to make nukes and has the intention to.)
138749
The rest of the world is willing to let Iran have nuclear power; that's not the problem.  The problem is that Iran has proven itself to be a rogue nation that produces and harbors terrorists.  The blatant hatred that Iran has for anything Western is reason enough to doubt its motives when it comes to the development of nuclear energy.  As I said, the rest of the world is willing to allow Iran to have nuclear power, provided that it is willing to allow UN inspectors access to verify that Iran's motives and capabilities are peaceful.  Iran is unwilling to allow this. That's why the rest of the world is skeptical of Iran.
210852
of course peace should be the target for everybody in this world,but FAIR PEACE.\nif usa or israel or anybody else attacked IRAN or any other nation,its logic that they should defend themselve by attacking back.
432893
An air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is unlikely to be surgical. There are about 50 sites associated with nuclear development in Iran and they are mainly sited in towns where civilian populations would be at risk. An attack would be certain to inflame the Islamic world against the US, almost certainly lead to a full-scale civil war in Iraq with the support of the predominantly Shiite Iranian people, and the US fleet in the shallow and narrow Persian Gulf would have to withdraw or be vulnerable to Iranian missile attack.The cynical explanation for the Bush Administration's threats against Iran is that, like the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, the real objective is "regime change", which has been re-enforced by the slump in President Bush's approval rating to 34 per cent.The ramifications of such an attack could be disastrous. At a minimum, it would likely “rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq.” But most importantly, a military strike would “almost certainly speed…up” Iran’s nuclear weapons development by sparking a “crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years.”
313353
no, thats the very reason terrorism against us exists. if a military invaded your country & killed your friends & family would you let it be? i wouldnt. id go all the way off. we tamper with their economies, laws, cultures, news/info & rights. just ain right. so many note the proactive stance,'woudl you rather wait till they attack?'...yes. itll be bad but thats the way it is. what if someone took an interventionist stance on us? we'd be pissed & outraged. by that rational, iran should attack usa since weve already made it clear that we're in their business. about iran, they have no means of making any nuke weapons. they have 2nd generation urenco centrifuges. we have 10th generation. the threat is if india with their new fast burn multipliers will sell iran the uranium for a weapon. although, india makes more selling electricity than weapons. iran has made upgrades to their reactors which allow them to enrich to 8%, 93% is needed for a weapon.\nactually rogerpoirier2, we & uk had blockades on both germany & japan. japan & china were in a big war so russia was the only place they could get recources. remember, theyre an island, not that big. they have limited recources. germany was on their european tour thing & needed to be shut down & thats what we did. only when rngland was attacked did we officially get in it. \nww1\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=88\nww2 http://www.philipdru.com/stinnett_stream.html
644008
In my view,Iran is as entitled to develop a nuclear program just as much as anybody else,regardless of whether it's for energy or military use.Iran has a hostile neighbour that is bristling with nuclear weapons,so who can blame them if they're trying to develop an effective defence system.Israel is a country which is founded and run according to religious fundamentalism and in my view they are the most likely to be the protagonists for the next nuclear war but nobody is prepared to try to disarm them or halt any nuclear research and development.I am from the czech Republic by the way.
356129
Neither. Iran looks around the world and sees that several of the countries in their region have nuclear weapons, such as Israel, China, Pakistan, and India. This places Iran at a disadvantage should hostilities ever break out. From Iran's standpoint, it is unacceptable that their enemies have nuclear weapons, and they have none to defend themselves with.\n\nIran does not want a real war with the US. They know that they cannot stand up against the US military in an actual shooting war. In addition, the damage to Iran's infrastructure due to air attacks would be so great that it may take them a generation or more to rebuild.\n\nIran also doesn't want the world's attention on this issue. The more that the world pays attention to Iran, the less that they will be able to get away with their less desirable actions (i.e. financing suicide bomb attacks against Israel).
661098
Should the U.S be stopped from having nukes?
322683
If told that some countries had nuclear weapons you would barely even bat an eyelash as you know that the country would use that technology for defence purposes only, such as Canada.  Other countries with this ability would make you sweat blood.  Giving Iran nuke ability is like putting a madman in a crowded shopping mall with a machine gun.\n\nIran is now testing very advanced missiles that have nuke capabilities........you better be bothered.
309123
I think so. Iran is just advancing in chemical technology, just like Russia, India and Israel.
593384
Giving Iran nukes would destabalize the entire middle east, because Israel cannot survive with an enemy with nuclear tech.  Israel will attack Iran before the year is out unless sanctions are imposed.  Why?  Israel has been invaded by nearly every country in the middle east at one point or another, and defeated them all.
309336
It may be the only option to tackle climate change. Iran shouldn't be denied this technology because of the fears of the west. In any case their enrichment isn't anywhere near that required to make nuclear bombs (70-90%). Lets all work together for a peaceful future.