Nuclear Iran

[Balta1701]

So if this was a nation that, in our opinion, was not bats*** crazy, we would be fine with them acquiring the bomb?

No...our obligations under the NPT allow us to be concerned with any signatory that makes a move towards acquiring the bomb, to the point of international referral, sanctions, and even military action.

[Jenksismyhero]

As they have for 20 years.

 

Probably, but this is a significant and actual step towards that.

[Balta1701]

Legitimate interest, sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean a legitimate authority to tell other countries what they may or may not build for (ostensibly) peaceful purposes.

 

But the NPT and the IAEA complicate that matter and I won't pretend to know if the US really does have legitimate authority on this issue.

In this case, the NPT allows the U.S. and other countries legitimate inspection authority over all nuclear facilities, but allows Iran the right to enrich uranium to low levels to use as nuclear fuel. Anything beyond what could be used in a civilian reactor is prohibited.

 

The reason why so far sanctions have not been an open and shut case is that Iran has not been shown to step over the line regarding enrichment levels. Until that point, other NPT signatories can play coy even if Iran violates some of the inspection requirements.

[BigSqwert]

So if this was a nation that, in our opinion, was not bats*** crazy, we would be fine with them acquiring the bomb?

I'm starting to think you might be a peace loving hippie like me.

[StrangeSox]

My understanding is that reactors will create the fuel used in the production of nuclear weapons.

 

 

You can use weapons-grade material in normal reactors, but normal reactors do not produce weapons-grade materials. You need separate enrichment capabilities.

 

Also, you can't just sneak some nuclear fuel out of the reactor. The plant has to be shut down, and these refueling shutdowns are scheduled and typically last a month or two. They would likely need Russia to collude with them, and I don't see that happening.

[iamshack]

I'm not talking about treaties.

 

I'm just saying philosophically, this is hypocrisy at it's finest.

[iamshack]

And not against our interests, yes.

What is it about "our" interests that makes them so much more important than the interests of others?

[NorthSideSox72]

What is it about "our" interests that makes them so much more important than the interests of others?

Because "our" interests are for the protection of most of the world, in this case.

 

[BigSqwert]

Because "our" interests are for the protection of most of the world, in this case.

From our point of view. There are many others out there that think we are trying to take over the world and take over its natural resources.

[StrangeSox]

And not against our interests, yes.

 

Edit: I know nothing of the NPT, so maybe Balta is right. But I think if an ally of ours wanted a nuclear weapon we wouldn't make a big deal out of it.

 

We would as long as they signed the NPT. For example, Israel has not signed and likely has several hundred weapons, but we have no authority.

 

It's in everyone's best interests that there be zero nuclear weapons in the world. Even a small regional exchange between Pakistan and India could have very significant, very bad effects around the world.

[Balta1701]

Because "our" interests are for the protection of most of the world, in this case.

The rest of the world benefits if there are not nuclear armsraces between small countries every time there's a dispute between them. Every country in the world benefits if they don't have to worry about the country they're in a trade dispute with going off and starting a nuclear weapons program to make sure they control that product. Just some examples.

[NorthSideSox72]

From our point of view. There are many others out there that think we are trying to take over the world and take over its natural resources.

 

From the point of view of all but a small handful of nations.

 

The rest of the world benefits if there are not nuclear armsraces between small countries every time there's a dispute between them. Every country in the world benefits if they don't have to worry about the country they're in a trade dispute with going off and starting a nuclear weapons program to make sure they control that product. Just some examples.

 

Exactly.

 

[Soxbadger]

Its not about legitimate interests, its about sovereignty. 1970's USSR had a legitimate interest in the US not having nuclear weapons, but I doubt we would have cared if they said to stop making them.

 

But its a non-issue, Iran is part of the NPT. Iran can leave the NPT upon notice. They decided to contract their sovereignty rights away.

 

So I think Iran should follow the contract that they agreed to sign. Absent said contract, Id say they have the right to do whatever they want in terms of making nuclear weapons.

 

Modern era does believe that sovereignty can be usurped by outside countries due to crimes against humanity or restrictions of freedom.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Soxbadger

[iamshack]

And I will start believing that convenient nonsense as soon as we no longer have 4,000 of them laying around.

[Jenksismyhero]

What is it about "our" interests that makes them so much more important than the interests of others?

 

Because it's OUR interests. Why wouldn't OUR interests be more important than others?

[BigSqwert]

And I will start believing that convenient nonsense as soon as we no longer have 4,000 of them laying around.

Obama signed something that states we will slowly eliminate our stockpile. Maybe when I'm 90 we'll have 3,950 of them.

[BigSqwert]

Because it's OUR interests. Why wouldn't OUR interests be more important than others?

One could state "who the f*** are you?"

[StrangeSox]

Because it's OUR interests. Why wouldn't OUR interests be more important than others?

 

Going with this idea and ignoring the NPT, what authority or right do we have to dictate to another country what they may or may not build?

 

We can be angry about, disagree with it, pressure them not to do it, but I don't see the US as having an inherent right to dictate policy to the rest of the world.

[Soxbadger]

Well there is a reason why we can impose sanctions on NK and Iran, whereas China is free to do whatever they want.

 

ie

 

China could say "Who the f*** are you."

 

The authority or right is:

 

Might makes right.

 

We can impose our will on countries because they cant stop us.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Soxbadger

[iamshack]

Because it's OUR interests. Why wouldn't OUR interests be more important than others?

First of all, they are not your interests, the are the interests of the US government, so we shouldn't even use the word "our."

 

Secondly, if we are arguing from a philosophical standpoint, you're saying that if you were on the other side of the fence, perhaps a citizen of a Finland or something, would you willingly accept that the US was dominating the discussion because it was in the interests of the US government to do so, or would you wish to argue the issue philosophically? I have a hard time accepting the answer would be the former.

[Jenksismyhero]

Going with this idea and ignoring the NPT, what authority or right do we have to dictate to another country what they may or may not build?

 

We can be angry about, disagree with it, pressure them not to do it, but I don't see the US as having an inherent right to dictate policy to the rest of the world.

 

If you want to go down that logic train, man has no inherent right to dictate ANY policy to any other man. I can kill someone and you have no inherent right to tell me not to.

 

But in civilized society, you do, because it's for the good of the whole. Just like not allowing a nation like Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is for the good of the world (and more importantly, us).

Edited August 17, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[iamshack]

Well there is a reason why we can impose sanctions on NK and Iran, whereas China is free to do whatever they want.

 

ie

 

China could say "Who the f*** are you."

 

The authority or right is:

 

Might makes right.

 

We can impose our will on countries because they cant stop us.

 

And I would be much more comfortable if they just came out with this justification, rather than all the other hypocritical bs.

[Balta1701]

Obama signed something that states we will slowly eliminate our stockpile. Maybe when I'm 90 we'll have 3,950 of them.

Good luck getting that through the Senate. Obama just wants us to surrender to Brezhnev. Thank God we have the Senate to prevent that.

[Balta1701]

First of all, they are not your interests, the are the interests of the US government, so we shouldn't even use the word "our."

 

Secondly, if we are arguing from a philosophical standpoint, you're saying that if you were on the other side of the fence, perhaps a citizen of a Finland or something, would you willingly accept that the US was dominating the discussion because it was in the interests of the US government to do so, or would you wish to argue the issue philosophically? I have a hard time accepting the answer would be the former.

Frankly, yes, if I was a citizen of some random European country, I would have zero desire to have my government developing nuclear weapons for any reason, and I would find there to be a huge benefit to simply outsourcing my nuclear security to another nation or set of nations through treaty obligations. That way, my nation doesn't have to invest huge resources into developing the weapons (resources which could be put into civilian programs or lower tax rates), my nation doesn't have to worry about controlling the weapons, and my nation doesn't have its relations poisoned because other countries believe that I might be developing those weapons.

[Jenksismyhero]

First of all, they are not your interests, the are the interests of the US government, so we shouldn't even use the word "our."

 

Secondly, if we are arguing from a philosophical standpoint, you're saying that if you were on the other side of the fence, perhaps a citizen of a Finland or something, would you willingly accept that the US was dominating the discussion because it was in the interests of the US government to do so, or would you wish to argue the issue philosophically? I have a hard time accepting the answer would be the former.

 

Again, this logic just basically goes like -"if i want to kill a man, i should be able to. its not fair that the government tells me that's wrong."