pudge's Journal: Iran's "Right" to Nukes

An Iranian viewer writing (from San Francisco) to CNN says "if America has a right to own nuclear reactors and bombs so does each and every country in the world, and not just the countries that the U.S. finds desirable for its own welfare."

There's two errors of logic here. First, as a UN member nation, the UN Security Council does get to tell Iran it can't have nuclear bombs. Sorry. Don't like it, pull out of the UN. This isn't just the U.S. we're talking about here, and framing it that way is dishonest. The Security Council says you must stop uranium enrichment, so you must, if you respect your own word to the UN.

Maybe you don't, and I couldn't blame you. The UN sucks, although I agree with it in this case. But you said you would abide by the UN Security Council resolutions when you joined the UN.

Second, and more importantly, I don't see the U.S. saying that Iran doesn't have a right to nukes. If it is saying that, I agree, that's wrong. However, just because Iran has a right to nukes doesn't mean the U.S. or anyone else doesn't have a right to prevent you from having nukes. You have a right to build nuclear facilities, and we have a right to blow them up.

How about them apples?

Not quite right....

[jedidiah]

The problem here isn't that we are complaining about Iran's nuclear power developments. The complaint is that by being able to enrich their own fuel, they can make their own weapons material. They've been "offered" the authorization to build the reactors but not make the fuel. They have to get their fuel from outside... kind of like how other people get their oil from Iran.

The US is really only complaining about those parts of Iran's nuclear power program that aren't strictly necessary.

Something else to kee

Re:

[multimed]

When many of us were kids, we were plain afraid of the end of the world. The US and USSR both had enough nukes to turn the planet into a total slagheap. When compared to 60 thousand nuclear weapons, Osama Bin Laden is just not that scary. Sure it would suck if he blows up your local mall while you are in it. However, he cannot trigger the end of the entire world at the push of a button and have it all done in 30 minutes.

It really depends - if it's an X% chance of blowing everything up, and a Y% chance of

Re:

[ncc74656]

When many of us were kids, we were plain afraid of the end of the world. The US and USSR both had enough nukes to turn the planet into a total slagheap. When compared to 60 thousand nuclear weapons, Osama Bin Laden is just not that scary. Sure it would suck if he blows up your local mall while you are in it. However, he cannot trigger the end of the entire world at the push of a button and have it all done in 30 minutes.

Osama and his friends need to remember who they are dealing with.

Mutual assured des

Re:

[jedidiah]

What "Mutual"?

Here, the destruction would be strictly one sided.

They piss us off enough to feel really threatened and there might be no one left over there to hold a grudge.

Watch "The War" for some perspective on what happens when we really go to war.