| |
|
Clearly, given statements from NATO and the US, the west is more likely to attack a nuclear capable Iran, even where that capability is nascent. The US, NATO and Israel have only talked of attacking Iran since Iran started developing technologies that may lead them to a nuclear weapons capability.
Regiment - When you say "we" I assume that you are referring to the UK? If so, the UK retains an enrichment capability to sustain its own declared nuclear weapons arsenal. Same goes for the USA. "We" in Australia don't have a nuclear weapons capability as such we don't enrich uranium. Iran has been offered reactor grade uranium by Russia, so why does Iran need to go to the expense of constructing centrifuge cascades to obtain something they could get far cheaper on the open market? There are many countries that enrich uranium for sale to countries wishing to generate power. Furthermore, countries that currently enrich submit to full IAEA inspections and audits, Iran doesn't. You don't need HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium - >85% U235) to run power reactors. Given these facts you have to ask why Iran needs an enrichment capability if it doesn't seek weapons grade material? Why won't it submit to a FULL IAEA inspection regime?
Elene - I argue that we are at or nearing peak oil, not the "end" of oil. Extraction will continue for many years after the point of peak extraction. Iran has (I believe) the third largest reserves in the world. It has more than enough to create a strategic reserve with enough left over to sell for foreign currency. Iran's reserves are also not fully exploited so Iran's production peak will occur sometime after world production has peaked due to the fact that their production capability will rise over the coming years. Presumably this will mean that Iran will get a higher price for its oil as demand increases price per barrel.
As for an Iranian space program, my argument follows a very similar line as above with regards to this capability. All of the "space-faring" nations initially got into the "space race" as a result of their pursuit of long range, unmanned delivery of their nuclear warheads. The exception to this may be Europe, although a lot of their rocket technology came from the French missile programs (this also allowed France to offset their research costs). There is no doubt that civil space programs exist, but these are largely secondary to to the main pursuit - strategic weapons delivery. Why does Iran need to go to the expense of developing their own space-lift technology and capability when this could be contracted out to the likes of Europe, China, and Russia at a far reduced cost?
Why I don't I think Iran should have these technologies? Iran has regional aspirations that are manifesting themselves in some openly aggressive policies. Iran is fighting a war against Israel through their proxy, Hezbollah. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard supplies Hezbollah with monetary, material and ideological support. This is why the US has designated the IRGC a terrorist organisation. We could argue until the cows come home over whether the IRGC or even Hezbollah are terrorist organisations (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter) but this doesn't change the fact of what Iran is doing. Let's not forget that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to "Wipe Israel off the map"! Iran also aids and abets the Shia insurgency in Iraq. Iran doesn't have much in the way of friends around the world due to their belligerent stance toward their neighbours.
Iran is a signatory to the nuclear NPT. They have agreed they won't pursue nuclear weapons. They continue to deny that they are, fair enough. But they haven't really supplied an explanation for why they need the technologies they're pursuing, nor will they give full compliance with internationa agencies who could verify their claims. The world community seems concerned enough that this is an issue worth frequent discussion in the UN.
I happen to believe that NOBODY should have nuclear weapons so I'm against ANY nascent capabilities, whoever they belong to. I believe that nuclear release should be a crime but, with the permanent members of the security council also being the declared nuclear states who retain a right to first strike, will it ever be considered as such? I doubt it! Furthermore, how do you enforce such a law? By nuking those who transgress? Nuclear proliferation is one of the great issues of our time and the world needs to do whatever is reasonably possible to prevent the expansion of nuclear weapons capabilities. Full stop! The world has moved from a situation of nuclear M.A.D. to one where nuclear war can be assymetrical. This makes nuclear war winnable which makes the nuclear option worth considering in the minds of those in posession of nuclear weapons. Do you think that the world would be safer if Iran had nuclear weapons?
As to the NATO statement that they should retain a first strike doctrine for those pursuing nuclear ambitions, well, this isn't really any surprise nor is it anything new. A large part of nuclear strategy is deterrence. Yes it IS ironic that you might use nuclear weapons to prevent nuclear weapons! I also fear that the enactment of such a first strike policy would legitimise the use of nuclear weapons. But really nothing really changed upon release of this statement. It was more a rattle of the sabre.....
Are you comfortable with a nuclear armed Iran? Remember, we've seen this before, haven't we Kim Jong-il? |
|
|
