On Iran and Nukes
Dec. 5th, 2007 12:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
liveonearthYesterday (while studying biochem) I halfway listened to the democratic presidential candidate debate on NPR and the first (of 3 toughies) question that they tackled was Iran. The whole time the candidates were dancing around the questions of "how dangerous are they" and "are we justified to attack" I was thinking about what a reasonable leader (in Iran or elsewhere) would do in response to the demonstrated threat posed by the United States of America.
It seems reasonable to me to build nuclear bombs in secret as fast as possible. Once built, then a nation could publicly declare them. Why? Because there's this imperialistic power (the US) that goes around knocking over nations, especially in the mideast where there's lots of oil. This imperialist power is intent upon maintaining hegemony, and in order to do so wants to stop all other nations from getting nukes (if they haven't got them yet) and to maintain at least partial control of the governments of all nations that possess oil. This imperialist power has been in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) for years now. Yes, we are building more nukes even though we promised not to. And we are attacking nations because they might do what we are doing. Does that make us moral leaders? I think NOT.
If you are a small country with oil, the only way to keep US off your back is to possess nukes. Merely by having this devastating weaponry, you gain a seat at a table where non-nuclear countries are not admitted. By having nukes, you gain the right not to be invaded pre-emptively. So far. This could change, too.
There is another great reason to pursue nuclear technology. This planet is going to run out of oil and for those who wish to maintain a similar standard of living, having nuclear generation of electrical power is an obvious way to support that outcome. But building nuclear power plants takes a lot of energy and materials. So it would be best to build those power plants NOW while oil is still relatively cheap, because it will be much more dear in the near future. So when Iran says they just want to build nuclear power plants, and that is discounted by our government, I say to myself---"Iran is smart. We should be building nuclear power plants too."
But for less of a hothead take on Iran and the chance that the US would launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on that country:
"Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”
- Dr. Ron Paul, Statement on H Con Res 21, June 20, 2007
It seems reasonable to me to build nuclear bombs in secret as fast as possible. Once built, then a nation could publicly declare them. Why? Because there's this imperialistic power (the US) that goes around knocking over nations, especially in the mideast where there's lots of oil. This imperialist power is intent upon maintaining hegemony, and in order to do so wants to stop all other nations from getting nukes (if they haven't got them yet) and to maintain at least partial control of the governments of all nations that possess oil. This imperialist power has been in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) for years now. Yes, we are building more nukes even though we promised not to. And we are attacking nations because they might do what we are doing. Does that make us moral leaders? I think NOT.
If you are a small country with oil, the only way to keep US off your back is to possess nukes. Merely by having this devastating weaponry, you gain a seat at a table where non-nuclear countries are not admitted. By having nukes, you gain the right not to be invaded pre-emptively. So far. This could change, too.
There is another great reason to pursue nuclear technology. This planet is going to run out of oil and for those who wish to maintain a similar standard of living, having nuclear generation of electrical power is an obvious way to support that outcome. But building nuclear power plants takes a lot of energy and materials. So it would be best to build those power plants NOW while oil is still relatively cheap, because it will be much more dear in the near future. So when Iran says they just want to build nuclear power plants, and that is discounted by our government, I say to myself---"Iran is smart. We should be building nuclear power plants too."
But for less of a hothead take on Iran and the chance that the US would launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on that country:
"Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”
- Dr. Ron Paul, Statement on H Con Res 21, June 20, 2007
Iran needs nuclear power
Date: 2007-12-05 11:09 pm (UTC)Re: Iran needs nuclear power
Date: 2007-12-06 06:19 am (UTC)