I feel that the UN should use its wide ranging powers to halt Iran's development of nuclear weaponry. Iran says that it has no interest whatsoever in construction of a nuclear device. If this were really the case, why did it spend nearly 2 decades deceiving IAEA inspectors about its production of plutonium and enrichment of uranium? (Ed. May 6th-12th, The Economist) Such behaviour is not normal if the country means to use such fissile material in a benevolent manner. Furthermore, Iran has repeatedly refused to comply with UN requests to halt its nuclear program. This defiance from Iran is also now prompting EU leaders to put together a incentives package to further entice Iran to stop fissile production. What makes Iran's actions even more damaging is that it had signed the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NNPT)and is now in violation of its provisions. All these negative incidences put Iran's stance in a bad light, and point to the sole fact that it should be stopped from producing nuclear material
Now, you and your group need to summarise the knowledge you have so that the rest of the class are motivated to try to understand and follow the discussion.
I agree with what kaiyi said about the deceiving if IAEA inspectors, this alone clearly show that they are hiding something from the world, perhaps nuclear weapons. However i would like to bring up the point that the Bush administration erred badly when it signed a nuclear pact with India that would undercut the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the cornerstone of international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Why then, is India allowed to the most dangerous fuel-making technologies and supplied with uranium? Does this mean if Iran will be attacked for keeping uranium and nuclear power plants, wheras other countries can keep it without inviting troubles? And like what shafiq said about Iraq, nothing was found, maybe the same goes for Iran, but because they want to keep their program secret. Does it mean that keeping secrets necessarily means keeping weapons? Almost every countries have their own top secret articles, does that means its necessarily means it bad. However i personally am not for any country having nuclear power, the WWII atomic bomb is already a statement to nuclear power. If evidence is produced however, UN should interfere and strip them of their nuclear facilities, because it mean they cannot control the usage of nuclear energy.
4 Comments:
At 10:53 AM,
the other person said…
Just a short one here for my own topic (:
I feel that the UN should use its wide ranging powers to halt Iran's development of nuclear weaponry. Iran says that it has no interest whatsoever in construction of a nuclear device. If this were really the case, why did it spend nearly 2 decades deceiving IAEA inspectors about its production of plutonium and enrichment of uranium? (Ed. May 6th-12th, The Economist) Such behaviour is not normal if the country means to use such fissile material in a benevolent manner. Furthermore, Iran has repeatedly refused to comply with UN requests to halt its nuclear program. This defiance from Iran is also now prompting EU leaders to put together a incentives package to further entice Iran to stop fissile production. What makes Iran's actions even more damaging is that it had signed the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NNPT)and is now in violation of its provisions. All these negative incidences put Iran's stance in a bad light, and point to the sole fact that it should be stopped from producing nuclear material
At 11:03 AM,
changzee said…
Good, kaiyi. I'm pleased that you read widely!
Now, you and your group need to summarise the knowledge you have
so that the rest of the class are motivated to try to understand and follow the discussion.
At 9:47 AM,
changzee said…
eLearning week is now officially over. If you choose to blog on to discuss more with your group members, do go on. This will definitely help you in your discussion café.
I would be still accessing this whenever I can.
At 3:39 PM,
akatsuki said…
I agree with what kaiyi said about the deceiving if IAEA inspectors, this alone clearly show that they are hiding something from the world, perhaps nuclear weapons. However i would like to bring up the point that the Bush administration erred badly when it signed a nuclear pact with India that would undercut the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the cornerstone of international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Why then, is India allowed to the most dangerous fuel-making technologies and supplied with uranium? Does this mean if Iran will be attacked for keeping uranium and nuclear power plants, wheras other countries can keep it without inviting troubles? And like what shafiq said about Iraq, nothing was found, maybe the same goes for Iran, but because they want to keep their program secret. Does it mean that keeping secrets necessarily means keeping weapons? Almost every countries have their own top secret articles, does that means its necessarily means it bad. However i personally am not for any country having nuclear power, the WWII atomic bomb is already a statement to nuclear power. If evidence is produced however, UN should interfere and strip them of their nuclear facilities, because it mean they cannot control the usage of nuclear energy.
Post a Comment
<< Home