Are you confusing a nuclear reactor with a nuclear bomb? A nuclear reactor cannot explode like a nuclear bomb. The material used in each is different.

 

Enlighten me on the topic of the difference.

 

I know it wouldn't blow up like a bomb, but wouldnt the radiation leak out like it did in Chernobyl.

I don't necessarily disagree, but playing devil's advocate, why should Iran not have nukes? Why are we allowed to, but not them?

Also, Ahmadinejad has said many times made threats to Israel, as well as his comments many times on bringing in the 12th Imam, as well as saying they would be annihilated.

 

I can't find it now, but the Iranian president before him, Mohammad Khatami, made some very strong threats about how if Islam ever gets the weapons that Israel has in their possession, he basically said there would be no more Israel.

^As I said, I understand why it's a concern, and mostly agree. Mainly playing devil's advocate, but also trying to get others to understand how they as well as other countries view U.S.'s stance.

 

As far as Israel, I'm very confident they can more than adequately defend themselves.

The short answer is because Iran is run by a nut bag. Just like Korea is/was run by a nut bag. Crazy people with weapons like a nuke are a risk to the world not just the US. Anyone that is ok with Iran having a nuke is delusional in my mind.

 

As for Israel defending themselves, there's no defense against a nuke exploding in your back yard.

The short answer is because Iran is run by a nut bag.

 

Isn't Iran really ran by the Supreme Leader and a Guardian Council? I know his job includes high command of the armed forces and the ability to declare war, send troops, etc. I've always thought Ahmadinejad was sort of the talking head out front, doing the saber-rattling to keep all of the outsiders at bay, and to put pressure on Israel. It is my belief that any really action taken on any of the issues would come from the Guardian Council, which seems to be much more realistic and level-headed.

Isn't Iran really ran by the Supreme Leader and a Guardian Council? I know his job includes high command of the armed forces and the ability to declare war, send troops, etc. I've always thought Ahmadinejad was sort of the talking head out front, doing the saber-rattling to keep all of the outsiders at bay, and to put pressure on Israel. It is my belief that any really action taken on any of the issues would come from the Guardian Council, which seems to be much more realistic and level-headed.

Not something I would be willing to take the risk to find out.

Isn't Iran really ran by the Supreme Leader and a Guardian Council? I know his job includes high command of the armed forces and the ability to declare war, send troops, etc. I've always thought Ahmadinejad was sort of the talking head out front, doing the saber-rattling to keep all of the outsiders at bay, and to put pressure on Israel. It is my belief that any really action taken on any of the issues would come from the Guardian Council, which seems to be much more realistic and level-headed.

 

This is true. I wouldn't call them moderates, but Ahmadinejad doesn't have his finger on the button.

^As I said, I understand why it's a concern, and mostly agree. Mainly playing devil's advocate, but also trying to get others to understand how they as well as other countries view U.S.'s stance.

 

As far as Israel, I'm very confident they can more than adequately defend themselves.

 

I agree with you. I can understand why Iran wants nuclear weapons. I don't want them to ave them, but I can see their perspective.

Enlighten me on the topic of the difference.

 

I know it wouldn't blow up like a bomb, but wouldnt the radiation leak out like it did in Chernobyl.

 

In a nut shell, both use uranium-235 for fuel, but what is used for reactors 1) has a much lower purity and 2) is lower in quantity than what would be needed in purer uranium to cause a nuclear "explosion" to occur.

 

A radiation leak from a steam explosion from a reactor is always a small possibility. It really depends on how the reactor is built. Chernobyl did not have a containment building to prevent the release of radiation in an explosion. All of the nuclear reactors in the US and most other countries do have containment buildings. It would just depend on how Iran builds their nuclear power plants.

If Iran tests an A-bomb it will become known as the land of glass shortly there after.

 

Maybe this is the answer to the Iran Nuclear question.

^So more of a "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality? Pretty easy to see why they're not okay with that, right?

 

Believe me, I completely understand why, and for the most part agree with it, but I can also see why countries like Iran aren't okay with it.

 

There is that, but I think there's also regret by the US. Wish we didn't have them so let's try to keep every one else from having them as well.

This is true. I wouldn't call them moderates, but Ahmadinejad doesn't have his finger on the button.

Who would you rather have their finger on the button? Ahmadinejad or the Surpreme Leader? Tough question.

There is that, but I think there's also regret by the US. Wish we didn't have them so let's try to keep every one else from having them as well.

 

Really? What makes you think that?

If I'm not mistaken, you're a Ron Paul guy, correct? Isn't that pretty much the crux of his stance on Iran?

 

That's an understatement. He actually has a shrine of Dr. Paul in his room. Pretty freaky.