Dude- I thought everyone knows that Israel's nuclear. Even "End of Ze World" knows :) - so what does NPR mean that America hasn't acknowledged Israel's nuclear capabilities? Americans haven't crusaded against them? And I didn't read your links yet (don't worry I'll totally check them out) but I can't help but be skeptical that a nuclear Iran wouldn't be a major threat to Israel. Are you also saying that Iran isn't actually trying to get nuclear weapons? I would be interested to find out exactly what the differences are between the ingredients necessary in building nuclear power plants and nuclear missiles.
Plus, even if, as you say, Iran isn't doing anything wrong aside from not bowing to our pressures (and who says they should), there are still tons of things to be critical about. Like, I don't know, the fact that Ahmadinejad straight-out says that there are no gay people in Iran, and being homosexual is against the law? I find that a lot of very liberal people in the USA support both liberal social movements here and also governments that the USA is particularly tough on, even when those governments violate a lot of their liberal ideals. This doesn't mean I think America should go invade in order to unilaterally "bring rights to people" or whatever- we've done such a bang-up job in Iraq and Afghanistan already. But I don't understand the point in defending Ahmadinejad, just because he maybe didn't say one or two things that we say he did, when he DID say other things similar, plus 1000s more things that are pretty offensive.
hey, sorry it has taken me so long to reply to this =(cjceejAugust 2 2009, 16:19:24 UTC
yes it's true everyone (americans, israelis, palestinians, iranians... everyone) has been implicitly exposed to the knowledge that israel possesses nuclear weapons, but neither the states nor israel has actually acknowledged to the united nations (or wherever this sort of thing is voiced aloud) that "yes, israel is a nuclear state." if america acknowledges publicly that israel is a powerful nation on its own due to its nuclear arsenal, it's possible that the average american (who currently doesn't spend much time thinking about the implications of israel having powerful weapons) would not be agree that we should send aid, guns, support, whatever so that israel can defend itself... meaning, if israel has nukes, they aren't really as helpless a nation as is commonly perceived.
our country's reputation is being hurt as our nation is almost 100% supportive of a dangerous, unstable nation, and to declare publicly that israel *also* has nukes would further discredit us in the eyes of the international community... so no one mentions that israel has (illegally) acquired nukes. i kind of think it's a waste of time to demand that arab states be friends with us, so long as we are unflinchingly defensive of israel's policy towards any country that is not fully in support of zionism; we're seen as trying to have it both ways, as wishy-washy. a nuclear iran would be a threat to israel, but don't you think a nuclear israel is already seen as much more of a threat to iran, especially since the states are on israel's side currently? and especially since radical israelis are saying shit like "ahmadinejad is the anti-christ and wants our nation wiped off the map, so we must bomb the shit out of his entire country before he can bomb ours"?
also i looked up the difference between material needed for nukes and power plants, hope you don't mind that i am also citing wikipedia =) as you probably know uranium is a naturally occurring element containing 92 protons. in its most stable form it contains 238 neutrons; enriched uranium contains 235 neutrons, and this form is considerably more radioactive and dangerous. this is the only type of uranium that is useful when considering nuclear power or nuclear weapons.
iran is reported to have produced enriched uranium that contains about 3.5% U-235. this is reactor grade uranium, the kind that is used in nuclear power plants. this amount of enriched uranium is physically incapable of being used in a nuclear fission bomb. a nuke must contain at least 80% U-235 in order for it to detonate. at the time it appears that iran is physically incapable of producing such highly enriched uranium, and their claims that they are only processing uranium for use in nuclear reactors seems to be in line with the data we know about their capabilities.
ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that his country is not developing nukes, that their nuclear facilities are only for generating power across the country, and that it is against their religious beliefs to use nuclear weapons. it's really unfair of the states and the united nations to disbelieve iran and insist that they *must* be producing nukes, especially when every single time we've checked them out we have found no evidence of wrong-doing.
and yeah, you're right -- we definitely don't have the right to invade another country on the basis "they deny rights to homosexuals" because we do the same thing here. the only difference is the degree to which it's done, and while we've made tremendous progress we still have a long way to go
Plus, even if, as you say, Iran isn't doing anything wrong aside from not bowing to our pressures (and who says they should), there are still tons of things to be critical about. Like, I don't know, the fact that Ahmadinejad straight-out says that there are no gay people in Iran, and being homosexual is against the law? I find that a lot of very liberal people in the USA support both liberal social movements here and also governments that the USA is particularly tough on, even when those governments violate a lot of their liberal ideals. This doesn't mean I think America should go invade in order to unilaterally "bring rights to people" or whatever- we've done such a bang-up job in Iraq and Afghanistan already. But I don't understand the point in defending Ahmadinejad, just because he maybe didn't say one or two things that we say he did, when he DID say other things similar, plus 1000s more things that are pretty offensive.
Reply
our country's reputation is being hurt as our nation is almost 100% supportive of a dangerous, unstable nation, and to declare publicly that israel *also* has nukes would further discredit us in the eyes of the international community... so no one mentions that israel has (illegally) acquired nukes. i kind of think it's a waste of time to demand that arab states be friends with us, so long as we are unflinchingly defensive of israel's policy towards any country that is not fully in support of zionism; we're seen as trying to have it both ways, as wishy-washy. a nuclear iran would be a threat to israel, but don't you think a nuclear israel is already seen as much more of a threat to iran, especially since the states are on israel's side currently? and especially since radical israelis are saying shit like "ahmadinejad is the anti-christ and wants our nation wiped off the map, so we must bomb the shit out of his entire country before he can bomb ours"?
Reply
iran is reported to have produced enriched uranium that contains about 3.5% U-235. this is reactor grade uranium, the kind that is used in nuclear power plants. this amount of enriched uranium is physically incapable of being used in a nuclear fission bomb. a nuke must contain at least 80% U-235 in order for it to detonate. at the time it appears that iran is physically incapable of producing such highly enriched uranium, and their claims that they are only processing uranium for use in nuclear reactors seems to be in line with the data we know about their capabilities.
ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that his country is not developing nukes, that their nuclear facilities are only for generating power across the country, and that it is against their religious beliefs to use nuclear weapons. it's really unfair of the states and the united nations to disbelieve iran and insist that they *must* be producing nukes, especially when every single time we've checked them out we have found no evidence of wrong-doing.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment