There is talk of developed countries strongly opposing any ambition Iran may have in constructing a nuclear arsenal. Iran is currently undertaking a nuclear energy plan. Im under the impression that if you have a country with nuclear energy, it is dead easy to sell off some depleted uranium on the cheap. Which is what i think Iran may be capable of doing so with the *insert name here* terrorist group. May i remind you that depleted uranium is nasty nasty stuff.

Iran must not be allowed to have unsupervised nuclear energy.

The step from having nuclear materials to building a nuke is still a very big one though.

But i always think it must be a very strange thing to explain to your countrymen:
No we can't have nuclear power, because they fear we might make nuclear weapons with it.
What? Yes they have nuclear weapons themselves. But we can't have that technology.
Why not? Because we're the bad guys.
Says who? The ones with the nukes say so.

Meh you get my point. I'm not saying Iran should be allowed to have nukes, but it must be weird if you're on the other side.

Oh btw didn't France agree with some other nation to cooperate with them against the non-proliferation agreement or so? Heard something vague about that.

Building a 'nuke' may be complex, yes. But building a radioactive bomb is piss easy.

Ingredients:

1. 5 ton truck.
2. Fill 3-quarters with C4.
3. Top up with depleted uranium.

I think the opinion of the Iranian people on this matter should be out of considertion because although the Iranian people themselves may be saints, we know that all around them are terrorists. By the way, im sure they can find alternative sources of energy.

just to inject a few facts into this conversation.

1. You can't make nuclear-bomb grade plutonium from a regular nuclear reactor. You need a special type of reactor (a breeder reactor) to even start getting nuclear-grade plutonium.

2. After that you have to purify it. You need some very specific equipment to do this.

The problem isn't Iran building nuclear reactors. It's Iran building huge field of uranium enrichment plants (step 2) and reactors that act like breeders. It's very obvious they're pursuing nuclear weapons, and not some sort of civilian usage.

Ditto with north korea. We actually assisted them with technology for nuclear reactors (civilian variety).

Oh well...let's just hope my country's ABM capabilities mature before these guys develop nules and a means of shooting them across the world.

wasn't there some sort of change in the US nuclear credo a while ago? Or pending? Saying that the US could use nukes as a pre-emptive striking means.

Anyhoo, like J said, it's really a delicate matter. From iran's pov you have to imagine: a lot of countries who've got nukes themselves -and loads of them too- preventing them to make one. In the eyes of a country like Iran that is both hypocritical and patronising -after all, who's to say the US or France are to be more trusted with their nukes than Iran with theirs?

Needless to say, I prefer -say- France with a nuke than a theocracy like Iran, I'm just saying that from their pov the attempts to stop them make no sense.

It's really all about the double standard used between the West and the rest.

'you can't violate human rights!' ->US has prison camps and death penalty
'you can't have WMD's/Nukes!' ->all big Western countries have them. Heck, Israel has nukes. But does the west mind? Course not.

Ah well...international politics are always a delight. Like with the geneva conventions, everyone does something else than they say they're doing. Let's just hope we don't die in the process. And of someone gets nuked by Iran or any muslim country its Israel anyway.

on a sidenote on that preemptive nuking.

The president has always had that power. Everyone's all freakin' out because it was added to some document, but it's not like anything's changed. The president (and only the president) is the only person that can authorize the release of nuclear weapons. Noone else has ever figured into it. That includes preemptively.

And what president in their right mind would preemptively nuke someone without a damn good reason. I think the document spelled out some reason...the destruction of germ weapons that couldn't safely be destroyed by other means being one. And that's a damned good reason.

Anyway....it's pandora's box. Once a country has nukes, there's no going back. And despite Israel having some issues, they've never used nukes. It was thought they even had nukes during that war in the early 70s where they grabbed the west bank and whatnot....even when facing virtual annihilation, they didn't use nukes.

On the other hand, Iraq used chemical weapons on its own people and on Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war. Tell me Iran wouldn't have retaliated with nukes if they had them.

Now, Pakistan and India scare me...I don't think they have the maturity to handle the power and responsibility that comes with them. Though I admit they're trying really hard to move into the present (Pakistan especially), they're not there yet. I could see a nuclear war erupting over there.

Nukes suck.

bleh, they're an inevitable consequence of progress. Nuclear bombs also brought nuclear power and a deeper understanding of the base physical reality of the universe. It's a tradeoff I'm happy about.

I'm sure people felt similarly when gunpowder for weapons was invented, and maybe even when the first sword or spear was used to kill another human. I certainly know that the inventor of dynamite felt horrible when its power was used to kill. *cough*Nobel*cough*

Anyway, don't worry. Nukes will appear paltry when the next major stride in physics is made. Compared to antimatter weapons or whatever follows that, I'm sure we'll be pining for the good old days of mutually assured destruction by nuclear weapons.