From Ynet News:
Iran’s chief nuclear envoy Ali Larijani said on Friday that Iran is committed to the peaceful use of nuclear technology but warned the situation could change if his country is threatened.” We oppose obtaining nuclear weapons and we will peacefully use nuclear technology under the framework of the Nonproliferation Treaty, but if we are threatened, the situation may change,” He told a news conference after two days of talks in Beijing. Iran’s nuclear chief said his country has produced and stored 250 tons of the gas used as the feedstock for uranium enrichment, state-run television reported Friday.Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who is also the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said Iran has kept the uranium hexaflouride gas, or UF-6, in underground tunnels at a nuclear facility in Isfahan to protect it from any possible attack.“Today, we have produced more than 250 tons of UF-6. Should you visit Isfahan, you will see we have constructed tunnels that are almost unique in the world,” State-run television quoted Aghazadeh as saying.
This is horrible news. Iran’s supreme ruler supposedly issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, but it’s clear that the country wants them. One can only speculate at the chaos that could be caused when Iran threatens Israel or the United States with nuclear weapons.
I’m pretty sure the U.S. would use nuclear weapons when threatened. So what is the problem? Your nuclear stockpile of 10 000 WMD’s is the real thing to worry about.
Also note that Israel has illegal nuclear weapons and will use them if they feel “threatened” too. Stop the U.S.A bias please.
The U.S. has shown that it can be responsible with nuclear weapons by not using them. Other countries — who knows? There should be as few countries with nuclear weapons as possible. Every time people respond to news of rogue nations developing nuclear weapons with, “oh well, the US has even more”, it’s counterproductive. Just because the US has nuclear weapons, does that mean that everybody should? I’m all in favor of disarmament for the United States, but it will never happen, so why don’t we just push towards as few nations with nuclear weapons as possible? There is no bias — only a will to see nuclear weapons as infrequently as possible — ESPECIALLY in the Middle East, which is a powder keg.
I think that this is the biggest lie since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ok ? What do you mean “by not using them” ??? Are you not ashamed of your words ??? When you try to lie in the face that’s why they threat you as they would threat some monsters.…
Who are you to decide who has “the right” and who hasn’t it ?? Why don’t you just stop in your own garden to create weapons ??
What is strange is here another thing not your words though — I see that this Iranian official didn’t told anything as the stupid and “burning” title “we will use nuclear weapons”. He said his country is committed to peaceful means and maybe we should understand that they will merely start to create and possibly to use them if americans will continue to harrass them in the ass.
Americans hate iranians because they cannot infiltrate them and spy them as they would like … What a stupid phylosophy of a “Big Brother” kind .…
I dont condone any violence but see that nobody can enter between the arabs to spy them because no stranger can enter in a family. Nobody likes him and accept him. WTF is he searching he in the house of the other family. You know what is said “Go start a life” .… That’s true here, too, america ! Stop the incests you try with other nations, these people are also humans not animals, so stop thinking you can have sex with them, please !
I don’t hate Iranians. But any country based around a religion is dangerous. And Ahmadinejad personally believes that an Islamic messiah will arrive on earth in his lifetime and usher in an End of the Times scenario.
Hiroshima/Nagasaki was over sixty years ago. Iran is likely pursuing nuclear weapons today, and lying about it to the international community. By introducing nuclear weapons to the Middle East, Iran will force numerous other nations to acquire them, leading to proliferation on a whole new scale.
This is not a national bias thing. If I could throw away all the nukes in the world, I would. This is a matter of proliferation vs. non-proliferation. There are people that want more nukes, and people who want less. I want less. The countries involved is a secondary issue.
More info on Iran’s President:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad
U.S. is based around a religion too. Creationism in school? What the *fuck*?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems like an very intelligent person. Not many people in that kind of position are brave enough to express their opinions. Those historical events in Germany should be researched without bias too.
Lets check the facts:
*U.S. planning to spend $100 billion on new nuclear weapons
*U.S. only nation in the history of human race to use nuclear weapons
I too like your definition of “rogue nations”. Talk about bias.
Fun fact: In a paper U.S. congress defined Finland as an old Soviet state. Don’t know if it is fixed by now.
Randpost, I’ll repeat myself — the fewer countries with nukes, the better. If you think that Ahmadinejad is a very intelligent or reasonable person, you haven’t done your homework. He is a Holocaust denier, for one thing, and a religious fanatic that mixes theology in with his speeches. You should read his blog. Iran also funds jihadists who are determined on taking control of the state of Iraq and turning it into an Islamic regime.
All the anti-Americanism in the world won’t justify allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons. The international community is in agreement on this one: Iran should not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons.
A rogue nation is a nation that ignores the international community, and is dangerous to itself and its neighbors. Examples are Iran, Syria, and North Korea.
Michael, I would not bother responding to randpost and mayama, they provide no value and no intelligent dialog and clearly lack an understanding of the complex issues involved. To compare the US, which has a constitutional seperation of church and state and requires complex multistage approvals before any new law can be passed, to Iran, which hangs young girls when they are raped, issues new laws by random decress, and intentionally brutalizes and oppresses its population, because one school district tried to teach creationism, is *fing* rediculous. Just delete posts like that.
Matus, I appreciate your opinion on freedom of speech.
randpost is expressing sympathy for the devil. According to randpost logic, If someone was about to kill him and his family with a knife, and randpost possessed 2 guns, he would have to toss one to the attacker to make it a fair fight. I mean if randpost has a gun, why can’t everybody. This ignores the simple fact that in this scenario one person is using weapon for a good reason while the other is using it for an immoral reason. Not to be outdone by the obvious absurdity of his argument, randpost ignorantly lurches forward and in a breathtaking display of sickening hypocrisy, he raises the banner of freedom of speech in defense of the country that would deny that right to all mankind.
Haha, thanks for standing up for the right position, guys. I really appreciate participation in the comments, and also emails regarding suggestions for future posts. Randpost, your comments are welcomed, but I would appreciate it if you would be sympathetic to my writing and points, and refrain from jumping all over them. I also appreciate your comments at my home blog.
Free speech does not apply on blogs, which tend to be owned by people. Also, blind anti-Americanism is so boring and tired. We get a fair amount of that here in San Francisco, where people hate any form of authority, whether it’s good or bad.
Free speech refers to governments suppressing ideas and speech, which incidentally just about ever majority arab / Islam nation does in fact do. It does not refer to you being able to say whatever you want through a medium provided by someone else. This blog is private property and as such it’s owner has no obligation to provide you with the forum to spread your bad ideas. Get your own blog and own forum and develop it’s popularity through your own effort and the integrity of your own ideas.
Everybody knows that, but I don’t see the point of this comment feature if you can’t disagree with the blog owner.
You can, but saying that nukes are safer in the hands of Iran’s radical Islamist government than in the hands of the US is just soooo off base, so juvenille (only someone under the age of 25 would EVER say it), and so ignorant of even reading the basic wikipedia articles on the people involved, that it qualifies as “trolling”.
Interesting comments from all. One point worth bearing in mind. The real danger of Iran’s nuclear weapons is to Iran itself. Two reasons why: First, once Iran has nukes, there’s a real danger that someone might take their threats very seriously, and act pre-emptively. One of the reasons nuclear powers always speak very softly about their weapons is precisely to avoid that danger. No one wants an accidental nuclear war, but no one wants to take the risk of being hit: thus, Iran can threaten as much as it likes so long as it doesn’t have nuclear weapons. Once it does, the dangers of aggressive words grow enormously.
Second, the most dangerous time for Iran is right after it tests its first nuclear weapon. The primary key to MAD is mutually assured destruction: when Iran tests its first weapon it becomes a nuclear power, but without a return strike capability, thus opening itself to truly mortal peril.
It will be very interesting to see how Iran solves these problems.