Iran Nuclear Program?
482425
Iran it self in not threat, but when they sell their technology to other mid.eastern countries and they got their hand on nucks that would be the real threat.
445913
twin,\n\nI certainly hope not.\n\nNothing that cannot be solved by a couple of well-placed smart munitions, however.\n\nThe U.S. and the world is right to be concerned about the likes of their ayatollah with nuclear capabilities.  The Iranians are unstable, led by an unstable person.  Who would feel safe with a maniac with a nuke button?
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
309383
Check this article: http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1158\n\n"Tehran is planning a massive hole-in-the-corner program, using 155,000 centrifuges to produce 3-5 nuclear bombs a year by the end of 2007..."
808745
Sala'm Aga / Khanum!\n\nDo you want to imply that Iran's case is similar to that of the Iraq during last days of Saddam when he was denying having any WMD and USA was insisting that he was lying?\n\nIn any case, there is a great difference in the analogy. Iran has been more-or-less positively identified by the IAEA to be moving towards a secret nuclear weapons program, as per circumstantial evidences its inspectors and 'monitors' has obtained.\n\nSo, in my personal view, the President of Iran Mr. Ahmedinezad is playing high-wire act and also brinkmanship with the West (not only with USA). I am a Muslim and I worked in Iranian Air Force for two years as civilian specialist and I have no ill feeling for the Iranian people.\n\nGod forbid, if Iranian people had to live the miserable life that of Iraq then it would be solely the present government of Iran that would be held responsible to ignore numerous warnings to refrain from its present belligerent attitude and sit with world community and sort out its differences across the table.\n\nInshaAllah we hope major catastrophe could be averted and Iranians can live and prosper and be the Malaysia of the Middle East!\n\nKhuda Hafez
678053
Yes, the countdown has certainly begun.  This is a time of crises for the world.  I would hope that the used of nuclear weapons against Iran would be the last resort.  Because the first time nuclear weapons are to be used by any nation in an offensive measure, they must prepare to be counter attacked accordingly.  This could easily cause a chain reaction between countries and their allies sparking the Armageddon that we have feared sine the nuclear age has come alive.
537394
of Course ! that will be one of US hiding reason after WMD for invade Iran. Bush will take that option coz Iran is a threat for economic and politic of US.especially for rhe democracy program in middle east.
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.
282419
For those of you who aren't hooked on the History Channel... (I might be a geek...)  If Iran does not comply with requests to shut down its nuclear program (regardless of its intent)... the U.S. primary strike will most likely be from the air.  A ground assault would require 300,000 troops which would put an enormous strain on the Armed Forces already spread into any area Uncle Sam's engorged nose is poked.\n\nBecause Iran most likely keeps terrorists funded, this initial strike may cause an increase of car bombings in Iraq and other places the U.S. has landed itself including, perhaps, her own soil.  Iran would most likely use the same guerilla warfare tactics being used in Iraq.\n\nIran has a professional army of 800,000 plus an untrained organization of recruits that number around 7 million.  One tactic the U.S. may use to prevent a duplication of the Iraq situation is to strike fast and hard from the air and promise that the next attack will be an all out invasion which would level any Iranian threat.  The hope is that the thought of a massive U.S. invasion would quell any Iranian urges to retaliate.\n\nThe problem with Iran is that it is 4 times as big as Iraq and its people are larger in number and different in character.  This is a proud nation, one which has had the longest standing borders of the middle eastern world.  Its a nation with a history of power and prestige.  And as recent history shows us, they have citizens willing to literally throw themselves at the enemy.  (Iraq/Iran war.)\n\nSo will an American attack on Iran prevent their uranium enrichment ambitions?  Maybe.  But let's remember that keeping the Iranian people happy while constraining the Iranian government is an extremely tricky thing to do.  And as long as Iran continues being elusive about their nuclear program and the U.S. adamant about knowing... an attack on Iran might be in our future.\n\nThe New York Times has a report quoting credible sources saying that the U.S. army is already training for an Iranian war.\n\nFor the U.S. government's reasons for going to war, see this link.\nhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123081,00.html
392943
hope full it want come to that, however the only way to insure that Iran's nuclear capability it completely erased is to use a small tactual nuke. it would be kinda a bunker buster and while it would re lase radiation it wouldnt be a huge amount.
443268
iran deserves nuclear weapons?\n\nare you retarded?
96621
The idea to contain nuclear proliferation is to have as few countries as possible have atomic weapons.  On the other hand any country can use nuclear energy for electric production.  A number of countries will assist other countries in constructing a peace nuclear energy plant.\n\nThe problem occurs when a country wants to develop their own nuclear industry, purportedly for peaceful purposes and their government is not stable and their plans for such development are clearly for weapons development.  Iran falls into this latter category.\n\nRussia has offered to develop for them (on Russian soil) the nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes and Iran has turned this down.  They want nuclear weapons and they already have the missile systems which deliver them at least as far as Europe.  They support the destruction of Israel and it is a surety that if they had such weapons they would use them.\n\nThey will be helped to have atomic energy plants for peaceful purposes, they will not be allowed to have an atomic weapons development program.  .
300195
Iran has no nukes, independant inspections have proved this, they do have a few certerfuges (used to enrich uranium), and a small amount of enriched uranium... for the most part, even our government recognizes the fact that as of yet Iran doesn't have nuclear bombs... in fact, Iran is many years away from developing even a simple uranium fission bomb (in my opinion, probably 4-10 years if advancement continues at its current rate)... however, they are on "the path" to develop such devices... but as of now, the advancement of thier nuclear program depends ENTIRELY on forign technology (yea, they could eventualy build it, but it may then take them more like 30-40 years), and machienery (that is how they got centerfuges, they didn't build them)... they do have radiologicly active munitions ("uranium bullets"), but most countries do, and they are not a signifigant threat (the bullets are made from depleted Uranium)...\n\n(dependant mainly on thier design choice) They are far from developing the hardest (scientificly speaking) parts of a nuclear device, such as the "pit", which is primarily made of plutonium, the technology to machine the "lense" (high explosive charges), and the trigger.
177248
Iran should be able to have nuclear energy. If the US is giving it to others then it should go both ways. There should be no room for hypocrisy.
1095327
I think we shouldn't give up diplomatic efforts until a) it is clear  that diplomatic efforts won't work or b) we are convinced that Iran is just using the delay to press full speed ahead towards a weapons program.\n\nHowever, from what I hear from the EU as well as the US, b) isn't far away, unfortunately.
56062
Be real.  It's not just the US concerned about it, it's pretty much the rest of the world.  Iran cannot be trusted with it and that's that, their government is always unstable and you don't know who'll be controlling the nukes next year.
977336
You want to know something interesting?  Reagan first proposed this program but it was CLINTON who ran on a platform of implementing it.  The moment he was elected, he gutted all funding for the program.....which is why we have no real defense against nuclear weapons.  Note that russia and china have been developing these.