February 21, 2007
-
Iran
Iran has agreed to stop its uranium enrichment program.
They have one little condition. They want all the Western Nations to halt also. The White House has already said that is unacceptable. Here is the link: Link
If the US could get every other country to agree to stop producing nuclear weapons, should we stop too?
Comments (156)
Yes
No. But it does make our position ridiculous…
not sure
Things that make you go “hmm”.
This would be an acceptable agreement if Iran hadn’t already threatened to destroy Israel. If the United States and Britain halted their weapons programmes, Iran would continue and Israel would be wiped off the map.
I’m sure that sounds rather paranoid but Iran has yet to make a relatively sane statement.
Cheers,
m
If that was possible then I would say yes. A lot of countries may say that they are stopping their nuclear program but they might be still running it regardless. And when everyone else is disarmed they will have all the nuclear power they want.
Of course we should. We can’t expect them to stop if we don’t. It just isn’t going to work, IMO.
morally yes, strategically no.
We can always lie!
absolutely. we don’t have any right to tell others to stop if we won’t also.
absolutely. we don’t have any right to tell others to stop if we won’t also.
Posted 2/21/2007 8:29 AM by sealannie
Agreed.
“But it does make our position ridiculous”
If you’re ignorant and have sub 50 IQ. Which I know better from this individual.
Could be we worried a little more about a nation such as Iran that states it will use nuclear weapons as soon as it gets them. And the USA is on the hit list.
Yes
Umm…-yes-. Stopping the making of nucular weapons is just another step towards peace. If -they- can’t have them, neither can we, and personally, I would feel safer without them.
No. We’ve never gone and attacked some country without it being out of defense.
Yes. The problem is, even if we did “say” we were stopping, we’d be doing it in secret anyways, and every other country would be too. All the countries need some sort of incentive to stop, and there isn’t one.
I think that’s stupid because there is a huge chance that they aren’t going to stop developing their uranium.
obviously
They have an “enrighment program”? Does that mean they are giving rights to uranium?
In answer to question, prb not. It falls back on the fact that we need to keep the playing field even, or at least tilted in our favor.
Yes
of course! if we don’t thats being a hypocrite.
Yes, sir.
i think it’s rediculous that the US has a “do as we say, not as we do” attitude. we can tell them to halt, but will the really?
ps-we SHOULD stop, bu we prob won’t actually do it.
Yeah. Not to dismantle the ones we already have, at least not yet, but to not make any more, yeah.
In fact, didn’t we stop making new ones already?
No one would really stop. We’d all be doing it in secret, and then spending more money just to hide the fact that we’re making nuclear weapons. I think enough of our budget goes into military spending. I would hate to see more of our money going into hiding our military spending.
So the question is, then, uranium enrichment, which I assume we still need for our nuclear power plants. Iran claims it wants nuclear power plants but can’t be trusted not to make weapons instead…
I’m not really sure. It’s certainly different for Iran, because they’re clearly hostile in their intents. The US shows no inclination to use nuclear force to wipe nations off the face of the earth, while Iran certainly does.
There has to be a responsible nation with nuclear weapons to act as an enforcer for when another nation does produce nuclear weapons. If you make concessions to a person or nation that has a history of neglecting their end of the deal, as North Korea does, then you need to maintain the ability to respond in kind at best.
If there were some kind of guarantee that nobody would ever enrich uranium again to produce nuclear weapons then we should stop but such a guarantee is not possible with human beings. As much as we deny that we are a warlike species the fact that we are still remains.
I’d say slow down, but not hault…. like mentioned earlier, they’ve threatened to blow up other countries so if we just slow it down, it’ll keep em slightly happy and the rest of the world slightly happy if we stop em if they have it going secretly
Practice what you preach.
We can always lie!
Posted 2/21/2007 8:28 AM by MrKikey
That is what all of the nations we are negotiating with do. North Korea lies, Iran lies, Iraq lied and still does to some extent. The problem is that we are an open enough country that it would be virtually impossible for us to get away with the lie plus we do not want to stoop to their level.
It’s only fair. I don’t see what the big problem is.
I don’t have an answer to your question, but I have a question of my own.
Today is Ash Wednesday, Theologian. What are you giving up for Lent?
I like this guy.
Yep. I mean, its a waste of nuclear fuel. We could have 100% clean energy already, but no, we’ve gotta do stupid things like make useless weapons. All nuclear weapons should be destroyed, and no more should be built.
If there wasn’t any nuclear threat then there wouldn’t be any point in having nucs. However, there will always be a nuclear threat.
Shouldn’t we ALL stop??
In the uranium enrichment program, the uranium is enriched only to a certian level which isn’t any good for nucs, but it only takes one more step to make it useable.
haha, we don’t have to ’cause we’re in control of the world
sure, we’ve got enough already
YES YES YES YES!!!
Absolutely. What makes Iran a threat with urainaum production makes us a threat. We’re not superior to those countries just because we’re capitolists.
Of course.
Ahh, the joys of being a superpower.
We suck.
Man, I wish it would happen…everybody in the world stopping with the nukes. Too bad we’re all much too attracted to the power of being the only ones with them.
yes
I see why that sounds logical but there’s a difference between America’s leaders and the psycho terrorist wanker leading Iran and other countries over there. America would only use nukes if attacked with nukes, and I’m not even convinced that a democrat would use them even then. (democrats are such wimps). Those lunatics who dictate over the middle east and in North Korea would love to use them just to make a silly point.
but i can see thier point “why do we have to stop when you guys are making yours left and right”
Don’t we have enough by now? Surely we could quit.
yeah it’s only fair
If it were absolutely assured, yes, the US should stop producing weapons as well.
But, in order for it to mean anything, the world would also have to do away with existing weapons for it to mean anything.
I see why that sounds logical but there’s a difference between America’s leaders and the psycho terrorist wanker leading Iran and other countries over there. America would only use nukes if attacked with nukes, and I’m not even convinced that a democrat would use them even then. (democrats are such wimps). Those lunatics who dictate over the middle east and in North Korea would love to use them just to make a silly point.
Posted 2/21/2007 9:22 AM by Corwin256
Riiiight. ‘Cause the only time Nukes have ever been used in a conflict has been in retaliation?
Of course, but it wouldn’t happen. The US goverment acts as though they’re above the guidelines they demands of and forces on other countries. They want to be the world dominator and make exceptions for themselves.
Should we? Yes. Will we? No way.
Nah, its one of the perks of being a Superpower.
riri maggie I am in complete agreement.
duuuhhhh
You caught me off gaurd with a real question…..
(sits and thinks)
yeah… it’s only fair
I don’t think most of your readers understand that the leader of Iran (Ahmadinejad) is preparing the way for the 12th Imam to rule. In order for the 12th Imam to save the day, the world must be in horrible chaos, horrors, and subjugation. He calls the west the Great Satan and the man is mental unstable. Hmm… Does it really seem fair to give this guy the benefit of the doubt? Never.
Hard to say. I’m not ashamed to say, “I have no idea.”
The thing is that you can’t really trust that other countries will really stop. . .Even if they say they will. And we can’t leave ourselves defenseless. So I guess that’s a no.
we should be the first ones to dismantle.
of course!
Well yeah but only if we knew they really did stop.
As much as the anti-nuclear activists refuse to admit it, M.A.D. has done great in preserving the peace. We won’t get rid of our nuclear weapons unless China and Russia do, they won’t unless the U.S., Britain and France give up theirs, India and Pakistan won’t unless the other gives up, and we’ve still got to worry about North Korea and Israel. Removing them all would require a whole lot of inspections of each country to make sure they’re really getting rid of them, a bureaucratic nightmare.
And even if we do that, it will only take one crackpot (like Ahmadinejad, who has stated wiping out another country as a goal) figuring out how to make a nuke to start nuclear war. And without the potential threat of having nukes fired back at him, he might just do it. So I think I honestly feel safer with several countries having nuclear weapons and talking to each other.
I would hope so, but I highly doubt it would ever happen.
YES!!!
I doubt that will work! DOUBT IT!!!
I hope we do regardless of what others do. Another post says, “morally yes, strategically no.” And I must respectufully disagree – the moral is always strategically better. The problem is that it’s God’s strategy and not ours. It may not look or BE better by our most reasonable estimation of things, but in God’s eternal wisdom it is the only way.
I wonder, by what authority do we claim the right to deny to other sovereign nations what we ourselves refuse to surrender?
It seems to me that we are operating under the “authority” of moral superiority. We trust ourselves with nukes but not Iran. Strangely, we are the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons against a civilian population, and as a nation we have not repented of that evil. Thus our alleged moral superiority is utterly negated.
If we would repent of that horror and get rid of such things, then we would have the moral authority to ask and expect the same of others.
We should. Keyword: should.
But we won’t, and neither will any of the other nations. Because we all act like little kids who don’t trust each other. “You put your toy sword down first.” “No, you put yours down first.” “Come on, neither of us are going to win, don’t worry, I won’t attack you, just put your sword down.” “No way… are you nuts? You’ll attack me. You put yours down first..”
And then when we do we’ll pull out other weapons and we’ll lie about the weapons, etc. etc. etc.
Enrichment, Dan, not enrighment.
Yes, we should stop in time as well, unless we want to fight the aliens or something.
For example, we were against the “no weapons in space” thing. Big mistake.
We think we are making the world safer, but avoiding policies like this does just the opposite…
Without nuclear weapons, our military advantage over other nations is significantly greater. It may slightly reduce our firepower, but will drastically reduce that of others such as North Korea. We can defend ourselves much more readily against them and still attack effectively, so losing nuclear weaponry wouldn’t be that much of a setback for the U.S.
Yes! Why do we need enough nukes to blow up the world SEVEN TIMES? Lead by example people!!
we should be the first ones to dismantle.
Posted 2/21/2007 10:12 AM by bigman_91984
Bad idea, We’re the U.S. if we dismantle we’re screwed. And most everyone is going to come after us ’cause we’re the best.
And if some lunatic descides to nuke us and we don’t have anything to retaliate or protect ourselves with…..
This is a no-win situation, either way we’re boned.
If there were a magic button to make all the nuclear weapons disappear, I’d push it.
But do you really think Iran and North Korea would get rid of their nuclear weapons just because everyone else got rid of theirs?
This would be an acceptable agreement if Iran hadn’t already threatened to destroy Israel. If the United States and Britain halted their weapons programmes, Iran would continue and Israel would be wiped off the map.
I’m sure that sounds rather paranoid but Iran has yet to make a relatively sane statement.
Cheers,
m
Posted 2/21/2007 8:24 AM by riri_maggie
You’re right on. The big difference between the western world and the middle east is that the western world (which is more or less christian) is taught to turn the other cheek, and the middle east (which is primarily muslim) is taught to kill the infidel. Difference of opinion? Oh, yeah!
yes. because it’s ridiculous to think that we should be aiming weapons in all directions going,”okay, I promise if you don’t make any more weapons I won’t blow up your country.”
it’s stupid. yes, we want to be safe from terrorists, but it makes us looks like terrorists ourselves and holding the world hostage.
Sounds fair.
No. That guy in Iran is a nut-job. No, that is the wrong word, because that could be insulting to people who really do suffer from mental illness. I guess the right word is idiot.
Of course. If other nations can promise to go one step closer to peace, why can’t we? Are we just that ridiculously greedy that we MUST be the leader of the world? Ugh.
oh man… i’m not touching that with a 30 foot pole.
Fight Mental Illness Stigma
“No. That guy in Iran is a nut-job. No, that is the wrong word, because that could be insulting to people who really do suffer from mental illness. I guess the right word is idiot.”
And yet you refuse to explain why, so we’ll have to assume what you mean. So. I assume you think someone is an idiot when they finally say they’ll stop making something that could basically destroy humanity as we know it. And just because WE refuse to do that, HE’S the idiot? Makes no sense. I can understand SOME people WANT hatred and war and violence to continue….
..but really, what’s the point?
Yes.
“Yes. The problem is, even if we did “say” we were stopping, we’d be doing it in secret anyways, and every other country would be too. All the countries need some sort of incentive to stop, and there isn’t one.
Posted 2/21/2007 8:42 AM by raemariem”
This is closest to my opinion…everyone can say they’ve stopped, but I’m not sure that anyone actually will. But it’s too scary to think about! I’d rather live my life with blinders on, thank you very much. No use in worrying about dying…
*HUGS*
i think it’s rediculous that the US has a “do as we say, not as we do” attitude. we can tell them to halt, but will the really?
Posted 2/21/2007 8:48 AM by dnaXnXchemicals
ps-we SHOULD stop, bu we prob won’t actually do it.
Posted 2/21/2007 8:49 AM by dnaXnXchemicals
I agree whole-heartedly.
ha ha.. they need this phrase over and america flag saying, OWNED!!! They speak the truth and we should stop the production ourself. the whole practice what you preach. Sometimes the US acts like its the parents of other nations and can tell them what to do without practicing it themselves. I love the US, i love a lot of this but even things we love can from time to time be wrong or need change.
- Daniel (doubledb)
it’s not fair for us to have wmd’s and tell the rest of the world they can’t. everyone should have them, or everyone should get rid of them. i’d prefer we all get rid of them…
well, he is not stoping, today was his last day and he hasn’t quit.
if thatis possible then yes, definetly…what makes the US so superior over everyone else that the rule wouldn’t apply to us? how can we expect it of others and not of ourselves?
yes
what makes the US so superior over everyone else that the rule wouldn’t apply to us? how can we expect it of others and not of ourselves?
To answer that question (and others like it), the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty specifically gives the U.S., Russia, China, the U.K. and France the right to have nuclear weapons and prohibits other signatory nations from having them. Iran, as a nation who has signed the treaty, is not allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s fair to ask why the U.S. is allowed to have nuclear weapons and not Iran, but your quarrel is with the United Nations, not the United States.
Um… I don’t know.
Of course. Fair is fair.
No. Someone has to have some leverage against the irrational behavior of the middle eastern countries.
yes we should. this really angers me.
we’ve used nuclear bombs,but yet if anybody elses tries to enrich for protection or anything its a big deal.
why?
are we scared.
we should be.
we’ve gone and pissed off everyone no wonder they want to destroy us.
ugh.
I say we just disable every single nuclear weapon ever made. And then we never make anymore. But if the US is insisting s country stop but we won’t, thats just BS. Stupid United States.
Absolutely, why not?
The sad thing is, no one will be honest about this treaty, I bet..
ROFL……………..
Yeah, let’s be this country – waving our hands in the air – screaming “I’ll stop it if you do”…………
……….like that works………………..
I laughed so hard at this………..I hurled.
No way
If that really truly happened? Sure. We’d have no need for them anymore. But get real… that’s just not going to happen.
I think that is building off the idea that pacifism is actually a reality. And it’s just not. Unfortunate, but realistic.
If we have the right to feel nice and safe without anyone else having nukes, then so do they.
haha we talked about this in ethics last month. the reality is.. neither are going to halt.. even if they say they will.. even if it would be the best for both to stop.
Thank you!
And yes, I think we should, but it would be dangerous, wouldn’t it, considering other countries may still secretly be building them? I don’t know. Politics and gambling, it’s all out of my range.
Why not? If I was an outsider looking in on the world, I would say America is acting like a grade-school bully.
That doesn’t exactly make sense for us to tell everyone else to stop, but we keep going. It’s like a bunch of kids playing on a schoolgrounds, and one kid takes the balls from everyone else and keeps them all for himself. Things don’t work that way.
good idea, but i don’t want us to get rid of our nuclear weapons, it makes me feel more…protected i guess.
but then again, if no one else has them, then there’s nothing to worry about.
Yeah.
haha, why the hell do we want everyone else to stop if we wont. Its very screwed up. If they stop we should stop. Put yourself in their position for one second. They are next door neighbors to a country at war with us, they see what we have and can do, and they know about our atomic bombs.
Would you just sit there waiting for your death?
Derek
Yes, because why would we need it?
Yes.
I think that’s quite unfair for us to ask another country to stop but we don’t stop.
In an ideal world we would all stop. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuut..
Yes!!
No…Of course not.
For those idiots who failed to recognize the sarcasm…
That was SARCASM.
Idiots.
FUCK YEAH
Yeah. Even if other countries didn’t, we should stop anyway.
Yes. It isn’t fair that we’re thinking OMG why won’t they stop making neuclear bombs when we won’t. Seriously.
The U.S. doesn’t rule the whole fricking world. Deal with it.
The USA are the ultimate of hypocrites.
-Kristin
Yes, we can’t try to make another country get rid of its nukes without getting rid of ours first. Of course, we all know that no matter what country (ourselves included) says they’re getting rid of their nuclear weapons, said country is going to keep at least the majority of them and/or secretly keep making them. No country, neither Iran nor the U.S., is that stupid. Or truthful, for that matter.
And Dan, what do you think about Russia’s threatening to point nukes at the sites in Poland and the Czech Republic where the U.S. plans to build ballistic missile defenses? Surely its an empty threat, but its interesting to say the least.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/world/europe/21russia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
yes, definitely.
Why do we need to keep making and perfecting something as terrible as the nuclear bomb? It’s a pity the technology was ever found in the first place.
It makes sense. It’s like “yeah, sorry, you can’t have nukes, you know. you’d use them badly. i mean, yeah, we’re the only nation to ever use them, but heck, we used them responsibly, dammit.”
so yeah, let’s not be hypocrites any longer.
Only if we can be 100% sure they have actually stopped. But yeah, US just proved world peace can’t exist.
Yes, if it was every other country, and we were sure of it.
That would be the ideal situation, but our dear planet is hardly ideal. As it stands in the world today, I don’t think it will ever happen
Duh?
Uh. YES!
It’s only common courtesy. Plus if we force everyone but ourselves to stop, they’d probably ban together and wage war on us. That would be scary. What’s the point of making nuclear weapons? We use them and we end up hurting everyone including ourselves. It’s just dumb.
YES.
Talk about hypocritical.
It would be consistent with our constitution, so no, we shouldn’t do it.
Is the United States still producing nuclear weapons? Or is it that we already have “enough”?
yes. i think nuclear weapons are stupid. do they REALIZE that if we got into a nuclear war that we would totally DESTROY the earth!?!?
it’s all about power. we have to “scare” other countries. please. all machones. i bet if girls ruled the world… it’d look a lot nicer then it is. well. kinda.
Yes, and not only that we should stop creating nuclear energy too. Otherwise you’re a big ole hypocrite,IMHO.
Iran is not serious and anyone who thinks they are is a FOOL. The USA should constantly build whatever weapons are necessary to protect this nation from its enemies who want to kill us and destroy our democracy.
I agree with sealannie.
Uh yea.
of course!
this is ridiculous.
i cannot stand this country’s false sense of intellectual and overall superiority and general unculturedness and lack of respect.
should we? Yes.
Will we? Never.
Destroy our democracy? I’d say Georgie boy is doing that. He wants to create some sort of executive theocracy in which he is the lord god almighty of the land. Fuck congress and fuck the Constitution and especially fuck anyone who doesn’t like it and says so.
Who was the guy that said something like the ultimate evil would come to this country wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible. I can’t remember the quote–but it was good, and it sure as hell fits what’s been going on around here.
yes.
Yes. I don’t think anyone should be doing this.
how can they be sure that iran would “really stop” their uranium crap making??
So we need to be able to nuke people, just in case, but other nations cannot be trusted. Well yeah, that logic only works on one side, the USA’s. Does it really seem unreasonable for no nation on earth to have nuclear weapons. I think we should all disarm. We can always redevelop the weapons were there ever a need, (just in case we still need to blow up the world?)
Well, date passed they didn’t do anything. Usual. lets see…..can we duplicate beginning of diplomatic victory in N Korea?
Why does the US feel that it is acceptable for the US to have the technology, but not Iran?
At least Iran does not have a mentally retarded leader.
the less nuclear weapons…the better…nobody wants to die of nuclear poisoning….do they!?!
The United States has had nuclear weapons for 60 years, and in all that time has used them only twice (60 years ago). Iran, on the other hand, would launch nuclear weapons against Israel within 60 seconds of creating them.
Why? Because people’s lives don’t mean ANYTHING to a Muslim extremist like Ahmadinejad. He hates the Jews so much that he’d even destroy the Palestinians if doing so would destroy the Jews too. When he says he wants to “wipe Israel of the map”, he wouldn’t mind seeing even the literal land itself submerged into a radioactive Mediterranean Sea.
Ahmadinejad knows that, after he wipes out Israel, the USA and most of the rest of the world will be after him in a second. So the next thing Ahmadinejab would do is attack America (“The Great Satan”) with nuclear weapons BEFORE we can attack him.
With great power comes great responsibility. America has shown some restraint with using nuclear weapons over the past 60 years, so that ought to count for something. Iran, however, can’t show restraint even with conventional weapons.
Personally, I think Ahmadinejab is using North Korea as his personal refinery. Sure, he’s developing his own weapons, but in the meantime he won’t mind buying them.
The U.S. isn’t really pursuing making bigger nukes. They have no need to really. Most of their pursuit with weaponry has been making smarter, more precise bombs.
I don’t trust the Iran government and don’t think they’ve given much reason to be trusted.
I think it’s a naive position to say we should disarm so they will too. How can we hold hands with nuclear arms, right? Making ourselves impotent would mean becoming vulnerable, and they would take advantage of that. I’m with Teddy Roosevelt, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” We don’t have to use nukes to get the point across.
So, my answer is no. Governments rarely follow what they agree to. However, I guess since the U.S. already has plenty, it wouldn’t hurt for them not to make more. But we don’t know at what rate, if any, they are currently making nuclear weapons. I don’t anyway.
yeah, nukes aren’t very friendly
Yes. If we want them to stop, everyone should stop. Fair is fair.
It is unfair for us to ask others to stop and not stop ourselves. Why can’t we just all do it?
Seriously, at least they’re talking to us. But it could me implemented because I agree that we can’t tell everyone else to stop making nukes if we don’t stop. Who do we think we are anyways? And if we agree to Iran’s idea, then maybe over stubborn ass countries will stop making the shit as well (N. Korea perhaps).
wtf of course. america makes me really angry sometimes…
Psh, yes. Otherwise, I would consider it hypocrisy.
… Let me guess. it’s not so much that we’re being stupid bastards… it’s the principle of the thing. No one can demand we stop anything! The way this post was written makes me think that we’re being very STUPID about this issue. I don’t really know anything though. *grrrrrr*
yes.