Nuclear Iran

[iamshack]

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).

Are you kidding me?

 

This argument is great in the scheme of governing regular citizens.

 

Do you really believe this is how nations operate amongst one another? We do whatever the f*** we want, when we want it, for the good of those in power.

 

Not buying the "for the good of the whole" nonsense when it comes to the actions of the US Government on the world stage.

[StrangeSox]

That is a terribly flawed analogy.

 

Killing someone quite obviously harms another person. As a society, we have formed a government and given law-making powers to elected and non-elected representatives. They have pretty clear authority to make and enforce laws.

 

Now, under the NPT, the rest of the world does have that right because Iran signed the treaty. But speaking in a broader sense, we (either the world or the US) do not have the right to dictate to Iran what it may or may not do outside of whatever treaties it has established. We may not like them building large military capabilities, but we don't have authority to stop them. We may not like them building nuclear facilities for civilian purposes, but we don't have authority to stop them beyond IAEA regulations and controls. Just as we have zero authority to stop Israel, North Korea, India or Pakistan from obtaining nuclear weapons, even though that would be in the best interests of the world as a whole.

 

Of course, soxbadger's "might makes right" is how things work in reality.

[iamshack]

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.

And you would trust that nation not to screw it all up?

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

Hobbesian to the core. The life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

 

Which is why man enters into a social contract with govt. Whereby ceding some of his rights to govt, for protection.

 

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).

 

I agree with the first part.

 

As a society we agree to be bound by certain "social contracts" (haha used Rousseau and Hobbes in the same post). Whereby we give up certain rights that we may have had, for protection against others.

 

The second part, I think is subjective.

 

Its for the good of the "Western" or "Judea-Christian" world for Iran not to have nukes.

 

Its bad for the "Muslim" world for Iran not to have nukes.

 

There has to be some counter-balance to the power of the West. I dont want anyone to have nukes, but I think its naive to believe that will happen.

[StrangeSox]

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."

 

No, it doesn't. National governments have clear authority over citizens. Outside of bodies like the UN or treaties, national governments do not have authority over other governments.

[Jenksismyhero]

Are you kidding me?

 

This argument is great in the scheme of governing regular citizens.

 

Do you really believe this is how nations operate amongst one another? We do whatever the f*** we want, when we want it, for the good of those in power.

 

Not buying the "for the good of the whole" nonsense when it comes to the actions of the US Government on the world stage.

 

My point is that you're claiming some "inherent right" to be able to do what you want. This cleary isn't true, either individual actions, or nation actions. "There are rules man, this ain't Vietnam."

 

And it is for the good of the whole. Not having a nation hell bent on killing all of the Jews is a good thing, I dunno how anyone can dispute this. As is not having ANY nuclear weapons. But in this world I'd rather have the US have them than anyone else.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

And you would trust that nation not to screw it all up?

Why would I trust my own government not to screw it all up?

 

Especially when you consider that the other nation, by virtue of having gotten there first, has already had the chance to develop a command and control system and learn from its mistakes in how to deal with the opened Pandoras Box.

 

If I can't have a nuclear-weapon free world...then the fewer countries that have the bomb, the less chance there is for an exchange, and the less chance there is for a mistake.

[StrangeSox]

Hobbesian to the core. The life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

 

Which is why man enters into a social contract with govt. Whereby ceding some of his rights to govt, for protection.

 

 

 

I agree with the first part.

 

As a society we agree to be bound by certain "social contracts" (haha used Rousseau and Hobbes in the same post). Whereby we give up certain rights that we may have had, for protection against others.

 

The second part, I think is subjective.

 

Its for the good of the "Western" or "Judea-Christian" world for Iran not to have nukes.

 

Its bad for the "Muslim" world for Iran not to have nukes.

 

There has to be some counter-balance to the power of the West. I dont want anyone to have nukes, but I think its naive to believe that will happen.

 

Disagreed. It is bad for everyone for anyone to have nuclear weapons.

 

Let's not lose the distinction that Iran is still claiming that they're only building research reactors and civilian power reactors and that they are not claiming to be developing a weapon. If they are meeting IAEA regulations and inspections, then we have no right to prevent them from doing using nuclear power for peaceful purposes (AFAIK).

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

No, it doesn't. National governments have clear authority over citizens. Outside of bodies like the UN or treaties, national governments do not have authority over other governments.

 

You're missing my point. All "rights" are completely made up by organizing bodies. "Murder" is a crime because people made it a crime. Having nuclear weapons isn't ok because groups of nations got together and said so. It's the same principle.

[Balta1701]

Its bad for the "Muslim" world for Iran not to have nukes.

Gotta totally disagree with you here. First of all...anything that raises the possibility of a nuclear exchange in the Muslim world, such as Iran developing the bomb...that's a terrible thing. Secondly...much of the Muslim world is not on friendly terms with Iran, and as such, Iran gaining influence through possessing the bomb is a terrible thing for them. An Iranian bomb, for example, is highly likely to set off a crash Saudi bomb program.

[iamshack]

My point is that you're claimign some "inherent right" to be able to do what you want. This cleary isn't true, either individual actions, or nation actions. "There are rules man, this ain't Vietnam."

 

And it is for the good fo the whole. Not having a nation hell bent on killing all of the Jews is a good thing, I dunno how anyone can dispute this. As is not having ANY nuclear weapons. But in this world I'd rather have the US have them than anyone else.

I'm not claiming any inherent right to do anything. I'm laughing at everyone trying to justify why the US and the it's few handpicked allies should be allowed to have the biggest toy in the sandbox. Just admit it, you can't stop us, and we can stop you.

 

You keep trying to justify having the bomb from your Western perspective and US educated and cultured opinion. Do you really think that everything is that cut and dry? That we come down on the side of right on every issue? That you aren't being manipulated or misled into believing some of what you believe in?

[StrangeSox]

My point is that you're claimign some "inherent right" to be able to do what you want. This cleary isn't true, either individual actions, or nation actions. "There are rules man, this ain't Vietnam."

 

No, that is not the claim. The claim is a lack of authority of one nation over the interests of another.

 

Why doesn't Iran have the authority to demand that the US stop all nuclear development? We are hostile to them, we've invaded two countries in their backyard, we've supported revolution in their country and we're the only nation to have actually used the damned things.

[Balta1701]

No, that is not the claim. The claim is a lack of authority of one nation over the interests of another.

 

Why doesn't Iran have the authority to demand that the US stop all nuclear development? We are hostile to them, we've invaded two countries in their backyard, we've supported revolution in their country and we're the only nation to have actually used the damned things.

They certainly do have the authority to demand that. However, they have little to offer the U.S. to convince the U.S. that it would be in either the U.S.'s best interest or any other nation's best interest if that were to happen. As such, they can demand whatever they want, but there is no reason for the U.S. to acquiesce to that demand. Furthermore, if they were to base their behavior on U.S. compliance with that demand, it could easily hurt Iranian interests as well.

[iamshack]

Why would I trust my own government not to screw it all up?

 

Especially when you consider that the other nation, by virtue of having gotten there first, has already had the chance to develop a command and control system and learn from its mistakes in how to deal with the opened Pandoras Box.

 

If I can't have a nuclear-weapon free world...then the fewer countries that have the bomb, the less chance there is for an exchange, and the less chance there is for a mistake.

You might trust your own country if it had a history of being far less aggressive and power-hungry, did not invent the bomb in question, did not detonate the bomb in question, did not threaten others with the bomb in question, etc.

 

I think it would help if we all took our red, white and blue glasses off and tried to see this from other perspectives.

[StrangeSox]

You're missing my point. All "rights" are completely made up by organizing bodies. "Murder" is a crime because people made it a crime. Having nuclear weapons isn't ok because groups of nations got together and said so. It's the same principle.

 

Murder is a crime because it is codified as one in the law, but murder is morally wrong absent any government or legal structure. That's an important distinction imo.

 

But, again, governments have very clear authority over their citizens. What authority does government A have over government B if government B has signed no treaties and is not part of the UN?

[StrangeSox]

They certainly do have the authority to demand that. However, they have little to offer the U.S. to convince the U.S. that it would be in either the U.S.'s best interest or any other nation's best interest if that were to happen. As such, they can demand whatever they want, but there is no reason for the U.S. to acquiesce to that demand. Furthermore, if they were to base their behavior on U.S. compliance with that demand, it could easily hurt Iranian interests as well.

 

Damnit, you're right, that wasn't worded properly. Of course, any nation has the right to ask, plead, request or demand another nation to do something.

 

But they don't have the authority to force them to do it (outside of treaties/ UN agreements).

[StrangeSox]

You might trust your own country if it had a history of being far less aggressive and power-hungry, did not invent the bomb in question, did not detonate the bomb in question, did not threaten others with the bomb in question, etc.

 

I think it would help if we all took our red, white and blue glasses off and tried to see this from other perspectives.

 

A nuclear weapons-free world is ideal but probably not realistic. Given that, less bombs and, more importantly, less countries with bombs is better for everyone.

[Balta1701]

Damnit, you're right, that wasn't worded properly. Of course, any nation has the right to ask, plead, request or demand another nation to do something.

 

But they don't have the authority to force them to do it (outside of treaties/ UN agreements).

And that's what brings us to the game of diplomatic relations. If a country wants to make a demand upon the U.S., they ought to have something to offer to the U.S. in return for meeting that demand.

 

The NPT system works because the countries that weren't nuclear powers at the time that the agreement was established received things in exchange for accepting the nuclear status quo; they received the right to develop peaceful nuclear technology with the assistance of the nuclear world, they received inspections and control of the nuclear technology of their potential adversaries, and they received large cost savings by not having to worry about being forced into a situation where they thought they needed nuclear deterrence.

 

Even without the Red, White, and Blue glasses (and this is probably the first thread I've ever been accused of wearing those), the rest of the world, and the smaller nations in particular...have achieved significant gains by the NPT system.

[iamshack]

I have no idea what you guys are seeing in the behavior of the US government which would make other countries feel as "in good hands" as you are trying to argue here.

[Soxbadger]

Just because it seems to have been missed:

 

I dont want anyone to have nukes, but I think its naive to believe that will happen.

 

Itd be great to turn back the clock and never make a nuke. It wont happen and as long as the technology becomes more attainable the proliferation only becomes more likely.

 

Gotta totally disagree with you here. First of all...anything that raises the possibility of a nuclear exchange in the Muslim world, such as Iran developing the bomb...that's a terrible thing. Secondly...much of the Muslim world is not on friendly terms with Iran, and as such, Iran gaining influence through possessing the bomb is a terrible thing for them. An Iranian bomb, for example, is highly likely to set off a crash Saudi bomb program.

 

That is your perspective.

 

There are (and there is a reason why I use quotes because im not saying every Muslim is the same, but that instead there are some Muslims who agree with Iran) some "Muslims" who are friendly and support Iran. So for them, a nuclear weapon would be a possible tool to prevent Western countries from trying to usurp their sovereignty.

 

Nuclear weapons are deterrents.

 

but murder is morally wrong absent any government or legal structure.

 

Morals are nothing more than a quasi-legal structure.

 

We have defined murder as wrong, but in human prehistory, murder would have not only been accepted, but basic survival.

 

When 2 human tribes fought over land or resources, they killed each other. The tribe that won didnt put its members on trial for murder. They had no understanding of the concept.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Forget the "rights" issue here, its meaningless. These are states dealing with each other.

 

The fact that they signed the NPT is a nice discussion piece, but really nothing more.

 

Simply put, its in the best interests of 95% of the world's countries and their populations that Iran does not have nukes. Therefore, many countries, led by the US, will work to prevent it. And I completely agree with them doing so. It doesn't matter what you think of US conduct, or of the fact that we've had nukes since 1944. Doesn't matter. What matters is what is best for people going forward.

 

And hell, I would even say that Iran with nukes doesn't help its people much either.

 

[Balta1701]

I have no idea what you guys are seeing in the behavior of the US government which would make other countries feel as "in good hands" as you are trying to argue here.

Let me ask you the counter-argument then...why would I feel safer as a smaller country if my country were to attempt to possess the bomb on its own?

[iamshack]

Forget the "rights" issue here, its meaningless. These are states dealing with each other.

 

The fact that they signed the NPT is a nice discussion piece, but really nothing more.

 

Simply put, its in the best interests of 95% of the world's countries and their populations that Iran does not have nukes. Therefore, many countries, led by the US, will work to prevent it. And I completely agree with them doing so. It doesn't matter what you think of US conduct, or of the fact that we've had nukes since 1944. Doesn't matter. What matters is what is best for people going forward.

 

And hell, I would even say that Iran with nukes doesn't help its people much either.

It's really easy to make this argument when you've got money down on the leading horse...

[BigSqwert]

Let me ask you the counter-argument then...why would I feel safer as a smaller country if my country were to attempt to possess the bomb on its own?

The same reason people feel they need to own a gun. For protection!

 

*ducks*

[Soxbadger]

Simply put, its in the best interests of 95% of the world's countries and their populations that Iran does not have nukes.

 

Tyranny of the majority.

 

Which is why the NPT is so important.

 

Iran decided to give up its "right" to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that countries signed a treaty to give them up, suggests to me that absent that contract they had the right to pursue them.