what do you think about Irans nuclear energy?
459645
I think it's up to them as long as they did not threaten anybody. Especially a country which has nuclear energy does not have the right to stop another country from having it.
170042
Nuclear energy was originally designed to kill. It got the USA out of WW11 sooner than most expected. It has been killing ever since. Did you know we have not built a new Nuclear Power Plant in app. 30 yrs. why? It's a detrement to society. Do you want a Nuclear Waste Storage Facility in your backyard? No, of course not. Iran for that matter I believe NO Country should be allowed to ever build anything again that creates Radioactive Waste. Did you know your Microwave is Radioactive? Try taking one to the scrapyard. Most scrapyards have Geiger Counters in place now days. Why can't we all ride the green wave? Solar,Wind,Wave Action. To most people it's still a novelty but one day it will be common-place if we can keep the powers that be from destroying this Planet we call Home.Think GREEN! Peace to all.
625577
Iran saying that they are enriching uranium for power generation. Security council should closely monitor the pace in which they are enriching. I dont think Iran has much power demand.\n\nyes its ok if the are using nuclear power for peaceful means & for their nations security. Because every nation has the right to protect themself.
347515
Now that is one big question lol. I would say this to you, what do you want from iran?\nOk so Iran gets nukes so what?\nSo they give them to some bad guys so what?\nSo bad guys give them to us like say 3 of our biggest cities. May four cities. Now what do we need to do to Iran?\nHow many got to die before we make a decision?\nIt is coming and soon!!!!!!!!!!
327106
No. Iran's radical theocrats want a nuclear weapon. (It gnaws at them that Israel has nuclear weapons. It is Israel's nuclear weapons that have deterred attacks from her neighbors.) They have no legitimate need for nuclear energy. They have more than enough oil to cover their energy needs. They use the excuse of a "right" to nuclear technology to drum up support among Iranians for the government (which is otherwise disliked/hated by the majority of Iranians). \n\nIran is stalling for more time to strengthen their bargaining position. (They've done fairly well for themselves thus far. The talks have been ongoing for three years now.) So far they haven't overly miscalculated, but that doesn't mean the world's patience isn't wearing thin. What happens next is up to Iran. Russia and China won't be able to perpetually block meaningful efforts within the UN to address the problem.\n\nI don't think the US will attack Iran's nuclear facilities, but I wouldn't be surprised if Israel did so. Contrary to what many think, Israel will do what they feel is in their best interests whether or not the US condones it. What will the fallout be? Not much. There will be condemnations from Arab and Muslim governments, but the Iranians have two things against them. They aren't Arabs, and they aren't Sunnis.
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
209187
Iran has NOT allowed the IAEA inspectors to do their jobs. If Iran's intentions were as they say, they should have no problem with the Russian offer to have the enrichment facilities in Russia.\n\nGiven the Iranian government's statements regarding Israel and "causing harm and pain" to the US because they got referred to the UN Security Council, how can we think for one minute that their efforts are peaceful. Their rhetoric sounds like it could have very easily come from Bin Laden or another Islamo-fascist zealot bent on murdering anyone whose views differ from their own.\n\nThe asker asks why Iran cannot use nuclear energy. The world has no issue with this. Iran is welcome to use nuclear energy to bring electricity to its people. You can be damn sure, however, that the world isn't going to turn a blind eye while a fundamentalist state enriches uranium against UN and IAEA requests.
228184
I have done some extensive study of Iran and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran is a party to the NPT. The enrichment plant that Iran has built in no way violates their resonsibilities as a signer to the NPT. The centrifuges that everyone talks about are normal equipment for anyone who wants to enrich uranium. The same equipment is used to enrich uranium to 5% (for nuclear power) or 95% (for weapons). (The only other way used today is gaseous diffusion.)\n\nIn my opinion, Iran has every right (as granted to them by the NPT) to mine, mill, convert, enrich, burn, and (hopefully) reprocess uranium. Iran's facilities have been inspected repeatedly and absolutely no evidence of a nuclear weapins program has ever been found there. \n\nThe United States was the country that gave Iran the technology and supplies (in the 1970s) for a nuclear power capability. I think that Iran should be allowed to continue with their nuclear program. If they do eventually develope nuclear weapons, it will be another sad day. But they will not be the only country with nukes in the middle east. As of now, it is known that Israel, and India have them also.\n\nIran has every right to nuclear power (no matter now much oil they have) and every aspect of its production. We must not deny them this right.
405216
Experts say it still remains unclear how close Iran is to completing a nuclear-fuel cycle. But nuclear experts point out that Iran has proceeded with its enrichment process much faster than many expected and, despite skipping steps along the way, may have passed a point of no return in terms of rolling back its nuclear program. \n\nThe Iranians removed seals from enrichment equipment at their Natanz reactor in January and, within a span of two weeks, developed a cascade of 164 centrifuges. Given the new political facts on the ground and Iran's recent announcement, most experts admit that the most likely option now, especially if the UN Security Council fails to take strict action, is for Iran merely to freeze its nuclear program, not completely dismantle it. \n\nOthers, including the International Crisis Group, have even called for sanctioning a "limited enrichment" program, provided it is coupled with intrusive inspections. CFR President Richard Haass says in a new interview with cfr.org's Bernard Gwertzman that a very limited enrichment program could be permitted as part of a diplomatic package that combines incentives with the threat of military force. Any limited military strike, Haass argues in the FT, would not be "small or quick" and "would not remain limited for long."
1168694
Your question assumes that Iran has military ambitions with respect to the development of nuclear energy technology.  Either way (peaceful or military use), Iran is about 7 to 10 years away from even developing the capability to enrich enough material to develop a single nuclear weapon.\n\nIt seems much more critical to reign in the activities of nations the world over that have thousands of nuclear weapons (like the U.S., Europe, India, Pakistan, etc.), or nations wherein nuclear stockpiles are poorly secured (in Russia and former USSR states).  The latter is a far more dangerous threat with respect to potential terrorism.\n\nIn addition, all of this is predicated upon accepting "nuclear" as a reliable energy source.  The dangers of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the like, as well as the intractable problems of nuclear waste disposal and vulnerability of nuclear plants to terrorist threats make it crucial that the entire planet move away from "nuclear activities."
145148
I think so. Iran is wanting nuclear weapons. They should live under the same rules as everyone else.
118975
The biggest 'good news' thing is that Russia said they'd build some Nuclear Reactors and pipe the power to Iran so that it couldn't build bombs but still have the energy. (which is what Iran says it's concerned with.)\n\nIran initially refused but now is saying it'll 'consider' the option.
578990
Iran has oil.  Oil can be used to produce electricity.  Iran claims that they only want nuclear power for electricity.  It doesn't add up.\n\nNorth Korea has no oil and wants nuclear power for electricity.  It is a more realistic claim on its need.
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.
1176724
Iranians people can have nuclear energy but also they need freedom they want to have a right to talk and write and behave freely. these things are more important than having nuclear energy.aren't they.\n    \nall nations around the world have right to have and use it peacefully.but Iran had show that want it for other things
428294
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet.\n\nAmericans ALWAYS think of things in "negative-prevention" but has anyone considered "positive-prevention"? A little gob of goodies for Iran if they do not pursue nuclear weapons may go a lot further then rattling the sabre(again.). You catch more bees with honey then vinegar.
812881
Iran = has oil\nUS = wants oil