Time to kick Iran

[Matteo Martini]

You're an "America Hater", I guess. Get used to it. There is no other
way to describe your un-patriotic criticism towards US-Politics.

I can not be un-patriotic in criticizing the US, as I am not American

But kidding aside: What do you personally think about the presidential
debates in which candidates state that "Iran is an intolerable threat!" ?

Do you believe that?

Yes.
I do believe Iran should not get nuclear capabilities, at this time.
But, they should be allowed to have in the future ( nuclear power, not nukes ) when they have become a real democracy, and a lot less religious fanatics than now.
My point was different, I was arguing why the big boys still have nukes, not why Iran does not.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Neither do I - as long that no one has nuclear WMD's. But at the
same time, I see no good explanation why a country having them
can in any way say: "Nah, you not". That's a no-brainer.

And I doubt that Israel is willing to get rid of even ONE of their
nuclear warheads - while simultaneously whining about any middle-
eastern nuclear facilities because ...

Nuclear reactor = "WMD! ISRAELIHIROSHIMA! OMG! MUSHROOMCLOUDS! ENDOFISRAEL! OMG!!!"

Well, I must say that I do not feel really unconfortable with Israel ( and the US, and France, and the UK ) having nukes, but I would, to say the least, if Iran gets them.
My point is that Israel having nukes has no use in deterring Iran ( for example ) acquiring their own, on the contrary, it could be useful for Iranian internal propaganda ( " look, the Jews have nukes, we have to get them too!! " )

 

[RandFan]

So his question was nothing but Woo?

Since Iran is in the process of being able to enrich nuclear fuel it would be appropriate to say they are acquiring.

Your question simply didn't make sense. I wouldn't call it woo but be my guest.

 

[Ziggurat]

Excellent.
Then your point is:
" if you have been quick enough to get nukes before the NPT was signed, it is OK to have nukes, if you have ben to slow, just your problem "

"Just your problem"? No. It means that you can either sign the NPT as a non-nuclear power, or not sign it. Nobody was forced to sign the NPT.

BTW
I read that the NPT also imposes a ( vague ) obligation on all NPT signatories to move in the general direction of nuclear and total disarmament.
Are Russia, America and China disarming?

I don't know about China's arsenal, but both Russia and the US's arsenals are down considerably from their peaks.

I never denied that there is a legal framework.
But, as we have seen in many many examples, at UN level, not always legality = justice
I am talking about fairness here

Fairness and justice aren't the same thing either. It's "fair" if you are made as miserable as someone else is, but it's not justice.

It is not possible to dismantle nukes?

Maybe you need to look up the definition of the word "prevent", but dismantling nukes that already exist isn't the same thing as preventing nukes from existing in the first place.

I do not.
Why is dismantling nukes difficult?

It's very difficult to dismantle nukes owned by another country, because nukes are small and easy to hide, which essentially mean you can't do it without their consent unless you conquer them. Nuclear weapons programs however, are large, complex, require significant infrastructure support, and can be attacked without conquering the nation in question.

I never said that China should be forced to dismantle nuclear arsenal

If you're not willing to force a country to stop doing something, then there's absolutely no sense in which you can possibly say they should or should not be "allowed" to do it. There is no "allowed" unless you have the ability to deny. Therefore, the question of whether or not China should be allowed to have nukes is meaningless unless you're willing to talk about whether or not to force them. All you can talk about is whether or not you want them to.

Only once, as far as I know.
And, not not under the current administration.

The buck stops at Khatamei, not at Ahmadinejad.

As far as I know, el Baradei is well under pressure from Bush:

As well he should be. He's been doing a crappy job.

ElBaradei had strongly questioned the U.S. rationale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq

That's nice, but it's also beyond the scope of his job, so I have no idea why you think it's relevant here.

 

[Ziggurat]

It does, as I do not think it is fair that, some countries should be allowed to keep their nukes, while others should not be allowed to develop their own.

That only applies to countries which agreed not to get them. And why on earth is fairness (something that has never and probably will never really exist in international relationships) more important to you than questions of security and stability? The NPT wasn't intended to be fair, it was intended to try to keep nuclear war from breaking out. That to me is a far more preferable goal, but perhaps you don't feel the same way.

So, would you be OK with Iran getting nukes, if tomorrow they withdraw from the NPT?

Withdrawl requires notification ahead of time, so tomorrow doesn't work. Would I be OK with it? Well, they'd be legally entitled to withdraw from the treaty. But their withdrawl doesn't have to be consequence-free either. Sanctions, for example, are a perfectly acceptable response to a withdrawl from the NPT. Beyond that, it's no longer simply a legal question.

 

[Luciana]

It does, as I do not think it is fair that, some countries should be allowed to keep their nukes, while others should not be allowed to develop their own.

You're hardly alone in that belief. The truth of the matter is that the NPT creates two classes of "citizens": some that will have their nuclear plans closely inspected, and that might suffer international pressure, pestering and reprimands for dreaming of building a nuclear weapon and b) those who already have nukes, therefore are allowed a free reign, because for all practical purposes, who will pressure them into anything? And yes, the commitment to disarmament is entirely useless, and there are no regular inspections or goals to be met.

So it follows that the vast majority of the signers of the NPT kept their promises not to pursue the building of nuclear weapons; however, none of the 5 nations who already had nukes demonstrated a clear intent to decrease their arsenals to a lower point than 1968s, at least not that anyone could be sure about, as they keep their nukes as State secrets.

As usual, the law is optional to the powerful.

 

[Matteo Martini]

That only applies to countries which agreed not to get them. And why on earth is fairness (something that has never and probably will never really exist in international relationships) more important to you than questions of security and stability?

This question reveals a lot about your mentality

The NPT wasn't intended to be fair, it was intended to try to keep nuclear war from breaking out. That to me is a far more preferable goal, but perhaps you don't feel the same way.

What you do not get is, to prevent a nuclear war, you need the cooperation of many nations, which will cooperate, if they think that the cooperation is based on fairness.
Too difficult to get?

Withdrawl requires notification ahead of time, so tomorrow doesn't work.

Pedantic.
Tomorrow was not to be intended literally

Would I be OK with it? Well, they'd be legally entitled to withdraw from the treaty. But their withdrawl doesn't have to be consequence-free either. Sanctions, for example, are a perfectly acceptable response to a withdrawl from the NPT. Beyond that, it's no longer simply a legal question.

So, why Iran has to face sanctions if they are still abiding to the NPT and do not have nules, while India is a big friend of the US, and has no sanctions, even if they did not sign the NPT and have nukes?

 

[Matteo Martini]

You're hardly alone in that belief.

Oh Luciana, what a pleasure!!
We had a discussion together about 2 years ago..

The truth of the matter is that the NPT creates two classes of "citizens": some that will have their nuclear plans closely inspected, and that might suffer international pressure, pestering and reprimands for dreaming of building a nuclear weapon and b) those who already have nukes, therefore are allowed a free reign, because for all practical purposes, who will pressure them into anything? And yes, the commitment to disarmament is entirely useless, and there are no regular inspections or goals to be met.

Agreed.

So it follows that the vast majority of the signers of the NPT kept their promises not to pursue the building of nuclear weapons; however, none of the 5 nations who already had nukes demonstrated a clear intent to decrease their arsenals to a lower point than 1968s, at least not that anyone could be sure about, as they keep their nukes as State secrets.

Agreed.

As usual, the law is optional to the powerful.

Dramatically close to the truth.

 

[Matteo Martini]

"Just your problem"? No. It means that you can either sign the NPT as a non-nuclear power, or not sign it. Nobody was forced to sign the NPT.

Almost.
You can face sanctions if you do not.

I don't know about China's arsenal, but both Russia and the US's arsenals are down considerably from their peaks.

???????????????????????????????????

Country Warheads active/total* Year of first test
Five nuclear weapons states from the NPT
United States 5,735 / 9,960[3] 1945 ("Trinity")
Soviet Union (now Russia) 5,830 / 16,000[4] 1949 ("RDS-1")
United Kingdom 200[5] 1952 ("Hurricane")
France 350[6] 1960 ("Gerboise Bleue")
China 130[7] 1964 ("596")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

What was their arsenal during the peak, I am worried to ask..

Fairness and justice aren't the same thing either. It's "fair" if you are made as miserable as someone else is, but it's not justice.

Yawn..

Maybe you need to look up the definition of the word "prevent", but dismantling nukes that already exist isn't the same thing as preventing nukes from existing in the first place.

Not my question.
I wrote:
" It is not possible to dismantle nukes? "

It's very difficult to dismantle nukes owned by another country, because nukes are small and easy to hide, which essentially mean you can't do it without their consent unless you conquer them. Nuclear weapons programs however, are large, complex, require significant infrastructure support, and can be attacked without conquering the nation in question.

Really?
Looks like an excuse, to me.

If you're not willing to force a country to stop doing something, then there's absolutely no sense in which you can possibly say they should or should not be "allowed" to do it. There is no "allowed" unless you have the ability to deny. Therefore, the question of whether or not China should be allowed to have nukes is meaningless unless you're willing to talk about whether or not to force them. All you can talk about is whether or not you want them to.

Completely missing my point.
I was speaking about a voluntary agreement between the few countries which have nukes, to dismantle them.

The buck stops at Khatamei, not at Ahmadinejad.

Debatable.

As well he should be. He's been doing a crappy job.

As he is not serving well America` s interests?

That's nice, but it's also beyond the scope of his job, so I have no idea why you think it's relevant here.

Just to point out that he was " pushed " by Bush, as also Kofi Annan was.

 

[Ziggurat]

This question reveals a lot about your mentality

Indeed. It indicates I'm no longer a spoiled little child who cannot accept the limitations of reality. Even your concept of what constitutes fairness is juvenile. Why on earth does fairness require treating dictatorships and democracies the same?

What you do not get is, to prevent a nuclear war, you need the cooperation of many nations,

Not really. It wasn't cooperation but self-interest which prevented the US and the USSR from engaging in nuclear war.

which will cooperate, if they think that the cooperation is based on fairness.
Too difficult to get?

Damn, are you clueless. Iran is our enemy. They chose that role. And as long as they are our enemy, fairness is never going to be relevant to whether or not they cooperate.

So, why Iran has to face sanctions if they are still abiding to the NPT

They have violated IAEA rules. That is grounds for sanctions, regardless of whether or not they get nuclear weapons.

while India is a big friend of the US, and has no sanctions, even if they did not sign the NPT and have nukes?

We had the option of imposing sanctions in response to either situation. So, too, does Germany, Japan, Italy, France, etc. That we choose not to do what we could have done in this case depended upon the particular circumstances. Our friendliness with India and enmity with Iran is hardly the only feature which differentiates them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Almost.
You can face sanctions if you do not.

You can. But Pakistan and India did just fine abstaining.

Not my question.
I wrote:
" It is not possible to dismantle nukes? "

Yes, but you wrote that in response to me saying it wasn't possible to prevent China from getting nukes. Again, don't blame me for your writing problems.

Really?
Looks like an excuse, to me.

And yet, strangely, you didn't contest a single point I made there.

I was speaking about a voluntary agreement between the few countries which have nukes, to dismantle them.

As already pointed out to you, there is absolutely no reason China would ever agree to do that, which makes that a completely useless hypothetical. Furthermore, as already stated and what should be obvious, our own disarmament would not reduce the incentive for non-nuclear powers to obtain nuclear weapons. In fact, it would increase the incentive. Until the disarmament crowd comes to grip with that reality and figures out how to deal with it (which they haven't, since they won't even acknowledge it), then it will only make things worse if they get their way. It may be an unintended consequence, but it's still what the consequence would be.

Debatable.

By people who have no clue about how Iran's government works, sure.

As he is not serving well America` s interests?

No, as he's doing a terrible job at ensuring compliance with IAEA regulations.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Indeed. It indicates I'm no longer a spoiled little child who cannot accept the limitations of reality. Even your concept of what constitutes fairness is juvenile.

Is hoping for a nuke-free world " childish "?

Why on earth does fairness require treating dictatorships and democracies the same?

For the 100th time.
Is China a democracy?

Not really. It wasn't cooperation but self-interest which prevented the US and the USSR from engaging in nuclear war.

That worked out as the nations involved were only two.

Damn, are you clueless. Iran is our enemy. They chose that role.

They declared unilaterally war to the US?
When?
Also, we were not speaking about Iran only, you were taling about " how to prevent a nuclear war ".
Not only Iran is the problem..

And as long as they are our enemy, fairness is never going to be relevant to whether or not they cooperate.

There is no war between the US and Iran, AFAIK

They have violated IAEA rules. That is grounds for sanctions, regardless of whether or not they get nuclear weapons.

But not the NPT.
Also, they get inspected continuously.
Why are not the US and Russia inspected by the IAEA?

We had the option of imposing sanctions in response to either situation. So, too, does Germany, Japan, Italy, France, etc.

So, why you did not impose sanctions on India?

That we choose not to do what we could have done in this case depended upon the particular circumstances. Our friendliness with India and enmity with Iran is hardly the only feature which differentiates them.

Be more specific..

 

[Matteo Martini]

You can. But Pakistan and India did just fine abstaining.

Why?
Does it have anything to do with their ( at least, India ) being friends of the US?

Yes, but you wrote that in response to me saying it wasn't possible to prevent China from getting nukes. Again, don't blame me for your writing problems.

Playing with words.
You wrote it is not possible to prevent China from getting nukes.
I said, OK, but, nukes can also be dismantled.

And yet, strangely, you didn't contest a single point I made there.

You claimed:
" It's very difficult to dismantle nukes owned by another country, because nukes are small and easy to hide, which essentially mean you can't do it without their consent unless you conquer them. "
I contest this point.
I ask for evidence.

As already pointed out to you, there is absolutely no reason China would ever agree to do that, which makes that a completely useless hypothetical.

Did you ask them?

Furthermore, as already stated and what should be obvious, our own disarmament would not reduce the incentive for non-nuclear powers to obtain nuclear weapons.

Evidence?
Is that only your unsupported opinion or what?

In fact, it would increase the incentive. Until the disarmament crowd comes to grip with that reality and figures out how to deal with it (which they haven't, since they won't even acknowledge it), then it will only make things worse if they get their way. It may be an unintended consequence, but it's still what the consequence would be.

Evidence for this claims?
Are these opinions?

By people who have no clue about how Iran's government works, sure.

Yawn..

No, as he's doing a terrible job at ensuring compliance with IAEA regulations.

Who said that?
Please, quote this.

 

[RandFan]

Not offered as proof of anything but some inteligent opinions about Iran that bring a fresh air to the discussion.

 

[Oliver]

Yes.
I do believe Iran should not get nuclear capabilities, at this time.
But, they should be allowed to have in the future ( nuclear power, not nukes ) when they have become a real democracy, and a lot less religious fanatics than now.
My point was different, I was arguing why the big boys still have nukes, not why Iran does not.

But how do you know that they are planning to have nuclear
weapons? And what if all sides would agree that they are allowed
to have nuclear power as long UN-inspectors are able to have
access to their nuclear facilities?

Do you know what happened to Iraq's nuclear plant? :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

 

[RandFan]

But how do you know that they are planning to have nuclear weapons?

You are (a) dishonest or (b) not reading what others are writing (c) not capable of figuring out what is being said.

One more time.

1. Iran is setting on large resources of energy they are in no real need of nuclear energy.
2. Other nations have offered to provide Iran nuclear fuel for their power plants.
3. There is no reason for Iran to refuse this offer.
4. Unless they want to make nuclear weapons.

So, go ahead and ignore the evidence, again.

 

[Ion]

Oliver,

you are speaking not only for most outside U.S., but you are speaking also for people like me in U.S..

 

[RandFan]

Oliver,

you are speaking not only for most outside U.S., but you are speaking also for people like me in U.S..

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."

Welcome to the jungle Ion.

BTW, aren't you glad that I'm one of the few that doesn't have you on ignore?

 

[Correa Neto]

The problem is that with Iraq, U.S. showed itself to have no credibility, but to be a Fascist power.

So the situation in Iran shouldn't be trusted to U.S..

The situation in Iran should be trusted to U.N. and I.E.A.E. (which ironically U.S. tried again to tamper with six months ago, shades of how U.S. manipulated data about Iraq).

That's the problem: "...for USA interests..."...

In case you haven't noticed, I am merely arguing that the "OMG, USA has plans to bom Iran" line is... Well, a storm in a botlle of water.

Its not a symptom of fascism or any other "isms".

As for having nukes or not... Well, there is the possibility of a nuke from Iranian or [add country suspect of being involved with terrorist group here] being handled to someone who could smuggle and detonate it in to a Western city. If the weapons were to be used for millitary purposes only (hopefully deterrence), even thought I try, I can't find a reasonable argument against it.

For example, if a South American country gets a nuke, its not unreasonable that we in Brazil would also want to have some (specially if its government is potentially hostile), just in case.

Sad, yes, but that's how things are. I would love to see a world without nukes, but it is as unrealistic as a world without armies...

 

[RandFan]

In case you haven't noticed, I am merely arguing that the "OMG, USA has plans to bom Iran" line is... Well, a storm in a botlle of water.

Its not a symptom of fascism or any other "isms".

As for having nukes or not... Well, there is the possibility of a nuke from Iranian or [add country suspect of being involved with terrorist group here] being handled to someone who could smuggle and detonate it in to a Western city. If the weapons were to be used for millitary purposes only (hopefully deterrence), even thought I try, I can't find a reasonable argument against it.

For example, if a South American country gets a nuke, its not unreasonable that we in Brazil would also want to have some (specially if its government is potentially hostile), just in case.

Sad, yes, but that's how things are. I would love to see a world without nukes, but it is as unrealistic as a world without armies...

In case you hadn't noticed, Ion doesn't care. His hatred for America, his ego and his iron clad certainty that his world view is the only correct one are the only things he cares about.