Does Iran have the right to pursue civilian nuclear energy (i.e. not nuclear weapons).

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

IMO, yes. [edit] I will qualify this opinion: Yes, as long as they agree to regulations to control spent nuclear material (and feed material) and as long as they participate in and allow verification that they are following regs. [/edit]

They do not have the right to pursue nuclear weapons. No way, no how.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I'm not entirely sure if this is really in the realm of "rights," per se, but I have no problem with them developing peaceful nuclear tech.

I'm not sure it would necessarily be the wisest move on their part...but that's their call.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

They have the "right" if they are able to do it without being invaded/destroyed. If not, then no.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I voted no on the grounds nobody has a "right" to do it, per se, its not something that could be classified as a basic neccessity for their survival, even with the price of oil as it is, seeing as they sit on such a mass of it.

They may have the "preoragative to do it", but not a right as say the right of every nation to defend itself.

Sure, but I have serious difficulty believing that's what they're currently doing.

Iran is murdering out kids...........and people in America want to trust them.

I think that when a leader of a country says they want to destroy you it makes little sense to give them the tools to do it.

__________________


"We can't screw it up any worse than they have." - Barack Obama

Wanna bet?



"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...." - Rahm Emmanuel

does the npt allow such? they are a signatory. if so then sure they do.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Yup. And I am realizing that there is confusion of many over what technology is used for nuclear power and that used for nuclear weapons. The NPT allows for nuclear energy development. It does not for nuclear weapons.

The conflation of the two technologies by some is a surprise to me.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

USA has the right, but Iran has no, because the world is belonged to USA.
OK?!

__________________

No, the world is not belonged to the USA.


We're not threatening to wipe our enemies off the face of the Earth like Iran has. We at least have some self-control.

When was the last time we used a nuke on anyone............even though we have had plenty of opportunities to use one?

The only reason we used the two we used over 70 years ago was because of battles like Iwo Jima. If we had attacked Japan's mainland it would have been much worse then the thousands that lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.......a hundred times worse.

After the Japanese lost 22,000 and we lost 6000 and took over 26,000 casualties in one month of fighting it was plain to see that the Japanese were going to go down fighting and they were going to take a lot of Americans down with them. We couldn't expect the Japanese to quit and we knew forcing them to surrender would have cost a massive amount of money and a horrible amount of blood-shed. Their tactics at Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal made dropping nukes on two Japanese cities our only choice.

__________________


"We can't screw it up any worse than they have." - Barack Obama

Wanna bet?



"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...." - Rahm Emmanuel

The question is too vague, I couldn’t answer it. I don’t have a problem with Iran having a nuclear program if it’s only ever going to be used for peaceful purposes. Then again, I don’t have a problem with al Qaeda having a nuclear program if it’s only ever going to be used for peaceful purposes. The question is, how do you guarantee it’s only ever used for peaceful purposes? I don’t think this would even be an issue if such a guarantee could be maintained. I don’t believe for a minute Ahmadinejad’s intentions are strictly peaceful. I don’t believe he has a real interest in a nuclear program at all, this is just a political ploy he’s using to jockey for position in negotiations over Iraq.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

Hey, hey, hey, my guys. This vote is about nuclear energy , not nuclear weapons,OK?
Surely, USA has some self-control.This is true.
But the reasons of self-control is if American use nuclear weapon to attack a place, there
would be nothing left include petroleum.
If there's a type weapon that could kill people as nuclear weapon and could leave all things well,
I think Bush will very like it and will immediately use it in war.

When Iran threatened some countries that it would wipe their enemies off the face of the Earth,
who will believe it dare to do that?
And whom Iran is threatening?There're so many countries, why Iran only threaten USA?
It's for Iran is more powerful than USA?
Oh, my god.Who believe this are so stupid.
USA everyday threaten Iran with war.
If a guy threaten a cat, what the cat will do?
I think the cat will threaten the guy with a terrible sound.
But at this time the guy is laughing and the cat is full of fear.
When USA threaten Iran, USA is relaxed, but Iran is tense.

__________________

Absolutely, especially in a time when the world needs to be looking at alternative energy sources to oil and gas. That's not so say that nuclear power is the best option, but is merely one option that should be explored. Iran should be entitled to explore this option, just as any other country should be able to.

Pretty much. When it comes to negotiations of "rights" between countries, might makes right.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson