Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Iran power shortage? They urge the need for nuclear power as a solution. Will they manufacture weapons?
What should any country’s right be when it comes to developing nuclear energy given the lethal waste byproduct and hazards? It can always be argued that a country with the capability of supplying nuclear energy, could or may research, build and/or use nuclear weapons.
First, is there any real evidence other than that, why Iran shouldn’t have it? And next, should anyone?
It seems understandable why they are looking at nuclear as a solution, but in all this, I find it quite interesting that Iran is also the second largest OPEC oil producer and also sit on the second largest global gas reserves, that being another story in itself.
So in any case, is Nuclear really the solution, for anyone? Everyone needs energy, even Americans are lobbying hard again for nuclear energy... but with regard to Iran, it feels like a “do what I say, not as I do” kind of thing. Again, maybe nuclear is just not a good idea at all for this reason.
Excerpt of the article inspiring this question...
“Iran, OPEC's number two oil producer which also sits on the second largest global gas reserves, has said it needs nuclear power to meet the energy needs of a growing population when the fossil fuels run out.
But this is disputed by the West, which accuses Tehran of being more interested in developing a nuclear weapon, a charge it vehemently denies.” – AFP May 29 [1]
Personally, I’m not sure how I feel about nuclear energy. In one hand, the waste the plants produce is environmentally disastrous and very difficult to deal with, not to mention, a meltdown is always potential and never good. However, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), nuclear energy would in effect, offset and help to combat the accelerated effects of Global Warming due to it’s lending to the reduction of the burning of fossil fuels and green house gasses (GHGs [2]). Whether it is to rescue the economy, reduce financing terrorist activities, save money at the pump or help reduce pollution …because we all need and will consume energy, the moral question is, do we go all out nuclear, or not? What is the right solution to this problem?
aceking... There can be many answers as my question opens multiple channels of discussion, but your answers do not even address what I have outlined in my question.
For example, I do not put into question whether or not Iran is dangerous nor do I disagree that they should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.
What I was asking was whether or not Iran is able to justify the need for nuclear 'energy' (power plants) to deal with their energy demands (and can anyone really), should they be allowed to have nuclear energy whether they need it or not, and what makes that country any less likely to produce nuclear weapons than any other country which maintain nuclear reactors? With that said, maybe it would be easier to just say, because of the risks and because there is no way to actually get rid of nuclear waste, then to really solve the problem, no one should build any more nuclear reactors period. Maybe some other, any other solution is better.
I'm still trying to understand how it is we can be justified in saying Iran or any country can or can’t have use nuclear energy, and at the same time, not be contradicting ourselves, considering, not only do we us nuclear energy, but we’re entertaining building more plants again to meet our energy needs as well, and to date, the U.S. is still the only country to have ever dropped an atom bomb on civilians. And in any event, do the benefits ultimately outweigh any risks?
If a strong enough case can be made why Iran for example shouldn’t or can’t have nuclear energy, even though there is no more evidence to support they would use it to build nuclear WMAs than any other nuclear country, than perhaps that should be the case across the board, maybe there should be no nuclear fission reactors at all because if any country that does is at anytime, able to produce atom bombs, than maybe we should nip that in the bud and say, no to everyone, including ourselves.
Where is the line drawn?
8 Answers
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
They definitely don't 'need' nuclear energy any more than we do. If safety reasons and environment aren't enough, than perhaps keeping countries from even having the option of having the capability to produce nuclear arms should be.
Given our track record, America on that front at least has demonstrated, that despite actually having a whole arsenal of nuclear weapons before anyone else, and since seeing first hand the incredible destruction they can unleash, we haven't again and vow never to use them.
Still, even one country with this capability is too many. We really can't afford to trust anyone else with it.
Iran has plenty of energy they can tap, there should be no excuses. Not to mention their track record. That's why we have to question their intentions. Allowing Iran to have nuclear power is like giving a juvenile delinquent a gun.
But I see your point. We shouldn't be pushing nuclear and expect anyone else to not want to exercise the same rights.
- darren mLv 71 decade ago
Methane Gases are a danger everywhere also.
There is also the concern that Peat Bogs could release emissions as the planet warms up do to Global Warming causing gases in the peat to increase the warming. A National Geographic article on Peat Bogs in Siberia had a mention of this. In Ireland this could also be of concern as there are peat bogs there as well. What went on in 2005 has a bearing on future dates. While the numbers for centuries may change many human attitudes do not. So what people did in The Twentieth Century or the Twenty First Century would have an effect on theThe 22nd Century .
Source(s): National Geographic article 2005 issue maybe. - 5 years ago
The claims you mention accusing that the US made false statements about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Is totally ridiculous and asinine, those claims were made from the UN IAEA inspectors there who reported the enrichment and centrifuges. And the US is all out to secure all of our interest and allies there in the Middle East. Not to forget other countries like Pakistan, Saudi's , and others who are also concerned about this and is a part of the coalition for disarming Iran
- Scott JLv 41 decade ago
Iran has already purchased a nuclear reactor from Russia, even though UN sanctions are in place. Now they are demanding Russia to quickly complete the shipping of the reactor to them.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already stated that they Want nukes and that Israeli holocost was a myth. He also stated that there are 2 enemies Israel and America as he deems it the Great Satan.
Even if nuclear power was the best and cleanest way to keep the environment safe, what would the result of nuclear war be?
Are we really willing to sacrifice 1 evil for a worst one?
Is there no way to have windmill generated power over there?
Is there a more safe energy that can be used without letting them get nuclear capabilities?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- RickLv 71 decade ago
Iran has made it's intentions known in 1992 & 1994 in Buenos Aires!
From:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298300,00.html
" The Iranian government directly ordered an act of terrorism in the Americas after being frustrated in its secret nuclear ambitions, a former chief of Argentine intelligence tells FOX News in an exclusive interview."
Note: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself ordered the "Hit".
Khamenei has many 'generals' worldwide Nasrallah (Hesbollah) , Ben Laden (Al Queda), Al Sadar (Iraqi militia), etc in about 100+ countries. The president of Iran is only a puppet for Khamenei.
The Russians offered to help install and run a Nuclear Power Plant - which the IRANIANS REFUSED!
Iran Installing 6,000 New Nuclear Centrifuges
http://kdka.com/national/iran.nuclear.centrifuges....
Do you believe Iran needs this many centrifuges for Nuclear Power Plants? Their intentions are obvious when you review history.
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE
http://www.insiderreport.net/clash_1-2.html
People really should review history - unless they want to repeat it!
Edit: You said:
"Personally, I’m not sure how I feel about nuclear energy. In one hand, the waste the plants produce is environmentally disastrous and very difficult to deal with, not to mention, a meltdown is always potential and never good."
Yet later you show you want to stop ANY building of Nuclear Power!
Do you even know about Breeder Reactors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor
The track record of newer generation Nuclear Power plants is almost flawless and safe - with little worry about spent fuel.
But the Angry Islamist Jihaddists bent on world domination WILL use Nuclear weapons - they even say so themselves to anyone that listens. Read the The Clash of Civilizations.
You would have to read history and understand why DEMOCRAT Truman used Atomic Bombs - not knowing the aftermath. With small minded, power hungry Democrats in office the chance of using Nuclear weapons is far greater!
- 1 decade ago
If Iran has a power shortage it's due to poor generation and transmission infrastructure, not the scarcity of fuel. They're a leading oil exporter. You can generate electricity with oil. Just because the US generates only 2% of its electricity with oil doesn't mean you can't do it.
- 1 decade ago
Are you kidding me ??? This is 1938 all over again.
Your question borders on silly , it is common sense that Iran , a dangerous rouge nation , cannot be allowed to posses nuclear weapons , no way ! The 1938 reference can be seen here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
"""" there is no more evidence to support they would use it to build nuclear WMAs than any other nuclear country""""
???????????????????
You might want to research your topic a little better next time because your statement is WAY OFF base with reality.
- jjttkbfordLv 41 decade ago
would you?
would you if you lived in a violent world?
what does soveriegnty mean to you?
dang nukes - gonna ruin our day - well some day - probably