Should the world community bargain Iran out of its  nuclear pursuits the way it did with North Korea? Is IAEA monitoring enough for non-proliferation? Or should countries be allowed to have limited nuclear arsenals for the sake of mutual containment, as we see in India and Pakistan?

sam       September 20, 2007, 21:38

and blacks and native americans. Hold on sorry wrong country

Parham       September 20, 2007, 15:46

UN security must don't let Iranian Goverment Have nuclear weapons.
Now in Iran They kill people cause their opposition of goverment.
they kill gays and............

Sevodnya_Net       September 19, 2007, 19:17

I deplore any threat of war against Iran or N. Korea by the US. However, it is highly questionable that nuclear weapons stopped wars between the super powers.
More importantly, today, it is wholly ludicrous to suggest that countries such as Iran want nuclear weapons to stop them being bullied by larger countries. Since Iran started its nuclear program it has had nothing but hassle and threats from the US! I'm no fan of Israel, but it's not gone unnoticed that the Iranian president has threatened the destruction of that country. Considering the number of expatriot Russians who live in that country I wonder at Putin's desire to help Iran's nuclear program.
Nuclear weapons are dangerous in anyone's hands. I'd like to see them disposed of altogether. The world is a more dangerous place with them and I find it hard to understand how anyone can say otherwise.

sam       September 19, 2007, 11:44

Nuclear weapons have always played a role as defensive weapons.Think of it how many wars between the USA and the USSR would there have been?
My believe that the only reason Iran and N Korea want nukes is to stop being bullied by stronger countries.Think of it. would anyone invade them if they could explode a nuc51lear device over enermy troops.Like the talk of Iran invasion going.I wonder if people ever learn lessons.

fred       September 18, 2007, 15:01

dino ...

why shouldn't we trust them ??

i don't see any reasons we should believe more one than an other one ... (including USA , Russia or France ! )

that's exactly why the whole matter is kind of B.S. !

there is tha atom-agency , so let them deal with it ...

off-course for some not-so-wise-man (i do edit myself the post to ease the work of RT ! ;-)) , yes i' talking about G.W.B. ) would not make any difference , if it suit theirs need , it will be ok ; if not they will just pretend Mr Albaradai (sorry for mispelling) is sold to Russia , Iran or whomever they will have as a target then ...

yes , the only way out is DIPLOMACY , and it should starts FIRST by USA talking directly with Iran to settle any misunderstanding ...

like scrapping-off the "damato" law (ok = forbidding any US firms to invest in Iran , while everybody interrested in the topic know that the US firms are making-up some off-shore entity to be able to be in Iran without being labelled as US firms ...)

only diplomacy will allow Iran to have civillian nuclear and control what is not civillian ...!!

vencor       September 18, 2007, 13:41

Iran has more of a legitimate claim to develop Nucs if you look at Israel's massive arsenal. However North Korea has a benefactor in PRC with nucs and thus has no need to develop nucs. However given that the country's nuclear options are decided in Washinton rather than in Teheran, would anyone grudge Iran's nuclear programme! It almost inhumanely unjust!

Al       September 11, 2007, 05:48

Agreed Golo. Nuclear weapons are best used as a deterrance or defence, that's a fact and the only real way to look at them because we all know what will happen if they are used for offense. Could you think of a better way for a country to commit suicide? Let Iran and Korea have the nukes, just ensure they are not mass produced and sold to other countries.

Golo       September 11, 2007, 02:00

Let them have their weapons. They will feel more secure and won't feel a need to flex their military muscle. Leave them alone, and they'll leave you alone. If the United States is unable to invade either, it would calm a lot of tensions. The only nuclear threats are the United States and possibly Israel. Nuclear weapons, the great equalizer. That is, if ANY of the supposed nations are contemplating building weapons and not for civilian use.

Dino       September 10, 2007, 20:04

It is "TOTAL INSANITY" to allow these 2 countries to continue there programs for one simple fact: Why the heck would anybody "trust" these 2 countries when they has broken many, many agreement's they have signed with western countries over the last 75 years dealing with nuclear issues? They have NO history of bargaining in "GOOD FAITH", not to mention the constant rhetoric of its leaders in the media expressing there clear intention to Destroy its Enemies. America has done bad things around the world "YES" ...but when was the last time Bush or "ANY" politician called for the complete destruction of another country? "NEVER"! Both the Little Elvis impostor "Kim" and "I'm-A-Nut-Job" from Iran trash talk all the time! Wake UP people...these 2 countries are dangerous and CRAZY!

Margo       September 10, 2007, 19:03

For what concerns nuclear weapons I would have them banned all over the world. Real stability does not come when everybody is armed up to their teeth. The weapons industry needs and produces war so that very few people can become hugely rich and powerful, while billions of people all over the world need food, work and a dignified life. Peace and perspectives are the only things that can allow that.

Margo       September 10, 2007, 18:51

Given that there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons (inspite of what the Americans say: they sustained that Saddam had WMD and it wasn't true!), the best solution is always and only DIPLOMACY.
Besides, many countries all over the world have nuclear power stations as energy sources and it's not clear what would be the reason - juridically speaking - to forbid this to Iran.