LLD101

Serbia

ok, im having a debate for my french class on the following topic:
Should Iran be allowed to produce nuclear power?

im suppose to be against it and i need some help with arguments, also if u could use some references to other sites that would help, or other viable information.

It would help if we could have a debate on it here (im noob so dont attack me, i need help from u guys Smile

)

heprea · Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:42 pm Post subject:

lol why not? NUKES FOR EVERYONE... *voted yes*

Hong10 · Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:04 pm Post subject:

Dao Jones · Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject:

You have the easier position to argue, Hauradrims. Just hit Google and read any news from America regarding Iran. I won't even bother citing any, because EVERY White House press release on the subject is full of reasons (true or fabricated) why Iran shouldn't be allowed nuclear technology.

The first argument, of course, is that technology for light water power-producing reactors is nevertheless a step toward the heavy water plants needed for acquiring nuclear weaponry*. And regardless of what Iran says publicly, they most definitely want nuclear weapons. Everyone is looking at North Korea, India and Pakistan; three countries that acquired nuclear weapons in defiance of non-proliferation treaties (to be fair, India and Pakistan never signed any), and all three countries have only seen their global profile rise since they got the bomb. Additionally, it is a poorly kept secret that Israel has nuclear bombs, and you can bet that the Arab and Muslim states are scrambling to provide a counter to that power. (Most Arabs don't like Iran, who are Persians, but they like them more than the Jews.)

Additionally, Iran is a known weapons technology proliferator. And unlike North Korea, which is essentially a rogue state isolated in a region with stronger countries and fairly secure borders, Iran is in the middle of a region with tenuous alliances, several open conflicts/wars, and loose borders for illegal weapon technology to move into the hands of radicals that might actually use them.

*Some people will counter that light and heavy water reactors are two entirely different technologies. And they are correct - to a point. But saying that a light water reactor would provide no insight for building a heavy is like saying building a motorcycle shares nothing in common with building a car.

sPiN · Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:11 pm Post subject:

No, nobody should.

heprea · Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:48 pm Post subject:

Hellfireclanx · Joined: 17 Jun 2004 Posts: 1198 11.73 Silvarrr

yeah, I don't see why not

dragonfire_god · Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:25 am Post subject:

Why shouldn't they be "allowed" to have them?

AmishSpeedGoat · Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject:

We have them.. why shouldnt they?

Goky · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 1425 1.68 Silvarrr

AmishSpeedGoat · Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject:

Its not how much radiation is givin out its how its disposed of. If you dont think nuclear plants pose as much threat as a coal plant then you have obviously never heard of Cher Noble (Sp? I used to be able to spell it..).

Sunlight emits radiation but you forgot to state that so much of it is filtered out that it doesnt pose a threat, if any real amount of gamma was in earth we would all be dead.

I dont think standing next to someone would kill you due to radiation poisoning. But hey, it could happen. I guess. maybe..

And dont say that environmentalists have no idea what they are talking about. They do there homework about these things.. The USA alone is one if not the worst country when it comes to the environment. Do you have any idea the impact on the environment a nuclear power plant would have on any area? Obviously not alot. Im no tree hugger but I do care for the planet I live on. Its the only one I have.

(However im not saying Nuclear power is bad, it does alot of good. I just dont like the effects it does. But since we use it then everyone should use it. But I would like it more if no one did.)

Shieron · Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:52 pm Post subject:

Whoops! GAMMA RAYS...my bad..

Goky · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 1425 1.68 Silvarrr

Mimes · Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:20 pm Post subject:

At the beginning of the thread i think some people were thinking nuclear weapons, not nuclear power plants...

I dont see why they shouldnt be able to have nuclear power plants. I mean...we do, and so do a lot of other countries. Why should nuclear power plants be strictly allowed to only those countries deemed "safe" be able to produce another form of power.

Icywarz · Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:05 pm Post subject:

nukes no, nuclear power yes.

It doesnt matter who has nukes anyways. I mean if chinas launching at say the Us. the Us arent just going to stand by and take it. They'll launch theirs. Then every other country and their dog with start attacking with sticks stones and nukes.

But nuclear power is ALOT better then any other power source worth using. Get real we wont live of the sun unless somehow they harvested the energy in space. So until 3425 (or the death of the earth, whichever comes first) We should use the cleanest possible source. Nuclear seems the most obvious answer. Anyone know of or remember the big nexon oil tanker spill around alaska/east coast of canada? It STILL has lasting effects. Nulcear would have long lasting effects as well but nothing so widespread. It killed off an entire species all on its own. So I say let them build their powerplants but just watch them. I mean, continue watching them.