Nuclear Iran

[StrangeSox]

Morals are not a quasi-legal structure. They are a philosophical development.

 

And that's another bad murder analogy in this thread. The situation you describe is a fight over resources, analogous to a war in modern times.

 

Murder is tautologically wrong because it is defined as unjustified killing.

[NorthSideSox72]

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

Your idealistic one-liners are noble but uninformed and also useless to the discussion. Read my post again - and tell me what in it you disagree with. Tell me how a nuclear Iran is good for the world. Tell me how it isn't in our best interests to keep Iran away from nukes.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

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?

 

Since the invent of the atomic weapon, how many countries possessing nuclear weapons have been invaded after possessing the weapon?

 

Im pretty sure the answer is 0.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

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

 

*ducks*

 

Guys, please stop with the bad analogies.

[StrangeSox]

Your idealistic one-liners are noble but uninformed and also useless to the discussion. Read my post again - and tell me what in it you disagree with. Tell me how a nuclear Iran is good for the world. Tell me how it isn't in our best interests to keep Iran away from nukes.

 

How far do we go to prevent that? Unilateral military action?

[BigSqwert]

Since the invent of the atomic weapon, how many countries possessing nuclear weapons have been invaded after possessing the weapon?

 

Im pretty sure the answer is 0.

 

 

Guys, please stop with the bad analogies.

That's where I was headed with my 'protection' analogy.

[iamshack]

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?

I've never made that argument here.

 

I just don't believe you would find the US government so trustworthy and competent had you not been born and raised here.

[StrangeSox]

Since the invent of the atomic weapon, how many countries possessing nuclear weapons have been invaded after possessing the weapon?

 

Im pretty sure the answer is 0.

 

I'm tempted to make a really bad joke about the "Mexican invasion".

 

Since the bomb is possessed primarily by some of the largest military powers on the planet, I don't think it means much.

[BigSqwert]

I've never made that argument here.

 

I just don't believe you would find the US government so trustworthy and competent had you not been born and raised here.

I don't think many of us here think the US government is competent.

[Balta1701]

Since the invent of the atomic weapon, how many countries possessing nuclear weapons have been invaded after possessing the weapon?

 

Im pretty sure the answer is 0.

Israel likely had the bomb as their ace in the hole when they were invaded in the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

[Soxbadger]

Morals are not a quasi-legal structure. They are a philosophical development.

 

Disagree.

 

And that's another bad murder analogy in this thread. The situation you describe is a fight over resources, analogous to a war in modern times.

 

Murder is tautologically wrong because it is defined as unjustified killing.

 

So I can murder some one if they buy a coke and its the last coke in the machine?

 

That is a fight over resources.

 

In fact you can claim every single murder is a fight over "something" whether it be money, love, etc. They are all "resources" if broadened to the nth degree.

 

Morals are nothing more than the precursor to laws (or were laws to begin with).

 

If morality was floating in the air, then why were the 10 commandments so important? Because before them, "morals" were just suggestions.

 

Morality without consequence is nothing, because morals are self defined.

[StrangeSox]

That's where I was headed with my 'protection' analogy.

 

Yes, but MAD is fraught with problems and nuclear conflicts don't extrapolate down to small arms.

[Soxbadger]

Balta,

 

There is no proof Israel has a nuclear weapon.

 

A deterrent only works if the other side knows you have the capability.

 

Deterrents dont work as a surprise.

 

So Israel, is excluded from the comparison.

[StrangeSox]

So I can murder some one if they buy a coke and its the last coke in the machine?

 

That is a fight over resources.

 

In fact you can claim every single murder is a fight over "something" whether it be money, love, etc. They are all "resources" if broadened to the nth degree.

 

They are all "resources" and "justified killing" if you're completely redefining terms.

 

Morals are nothing more than the precursor to laws (or were laws to begin with).

 

Morals also exist without a legal structure. Your argument is that whatever is codified in law is defined as moral, and that's trivially wrong.

 

If morality was floating in the air, then why were the 10 commandments so important? Because before them, "morals" were just suggestions.

 

The 10 commandments were some religious rules a society developed a few thousand years ago. It doesn't make them moral by definition.

 

Morality without consequence is nothing, because morals are self defined.

That's a pretty nice platitude. Also, you should notify all atheist philosophers that they should abandon their careers.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Balta,

 

There is no proof Israel has a nuclear weapon.

 

A deterrent only works if the other side knows you have the capability.

 

Deterrents dont work as a surprise.

 

So Israel, is excluded from the comparison.

 

The rest of the world is/was 99.999% sure Israel has the bomb. That's still a good deterrent.

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

No country has legal "rights" that any other nation need recognize unless they choose to. This is, again, an empty argument.

 

And calling it tyrrany is a pretty ridiculous stretch.

 

[iamshack]

Your idealistic one-liners are noble but uninformed and also useless to the discussion. Read my post again - and tell me what in it you disagree with. Tell me how a nuclear Iran is good for the world. Tell me how it isn't in our best interests to keep Iran away from nukes.

Hah...It must be nice to be omnipotent.

 

Explain to me what exactly the discussion is then, so perhaps I might be able to sustain your interest and pass your high threshold of what qualifies as useful here.

 

I've never argued, nor will you find many that will argue, that it is in "our" best interests for Iran to have nukes.

 

The point I am making is that you can come up with justifications all day and night for why we should be the decision-maker regarding who does and does not get nuclear weapons, as well as why it isn't a threat to the world that we have 4,000 of them. But my guess is that the have nots and the more progressive nations of the world would not find the issue so cut and dry.

 

And when you were born into the side of the haves, it's a lot easier to convince yourself that your government is protecting the world, that your government is trustworthy and competent enough to maintain a huge stockpile of weapons large enough to destroy the world 1000 times over, that the governments of others are incompetent fools not to be trusted with the same tools that yours is, etc.

 

Personally, this is the perspective I find most interesting about this issue. It does seem like it stimulated most of the discussion on the issue, doesn't it? Whether you choose to find it useful or informed, I could not care less.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

How far do we go to prevent that? Unilateral military action?

 

Its a value equation, so that depends on the precise circumstances. In the case of Iran at this time, from what I can tell, I'd say no. But if other data becomes available that they are on the verge of getting them, AND if I felt we could get rid of that capability with some high degree of certainty, then I would consider it. But only after many other things were tried first.

 

Balta,

 

There is no proof Israel has a nuclear weapon.

 

A deterrent only works if the other side knows you have the capability.

 

Deterrents dont work as a surprise.

 

So Israel, is excluded from the comparison.

The whole world "knew" Israel had nuke(s). Proof is irrelevant. The deterrent effect was in place.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Hah...It must be nice to be omnipotent.

 

Explain to me what exactly the discussion is then, so perhaps I might be able to sustain your interest and pass your high threshold of what qualifies as useful here.

 

I've never argued, nor will you find many that will argue, that it is in "our" best interests for Iran to have nukes.

 

The point I am making is that you can come up with justifications all day and night for why we should be the decision-maker regarding who does and does not get nuclear weapons, as well as why it isn't a threat to the world that we have 4,000 of them. But my guess is that the have nots and the more progressive nations of the world would not find the issue so cut and dry.

 

And when you were born into the side of the haves, it's a lot easier to convince yourself that your government is protecting the world, that your government is trustworthy and competent enough to maintain a huge stockpile of weapons large enough to destroy the world 1000 times over, that the governments of others are incompetent fools not to be trusted with the same tools that yours is, etc.

 

Personally, this is the perspective I find most interesting about this issue. It does seem like it stimulated most of the discussion on the issue, doesn't it? Whether you choose to find it useful or informed, I could not care less.

You keep arguing about whether the US has the right to be a grand decision-maker, or if they are omnipotent. I'm saying, it doesn't matter. If you are the big kid on the block, you want to protect your own best interests (like everyone else), but you also can make a choice to be a bully, or protect the interest of the majority of smaller kids on the block. Keeping nukes away from Iran is the latter, therefore, its the right course of action, in my view.

 

And this haves and have-nots thing is playing into the argument that we SHOULD keep nukes out of Iran, because again, as it happens, that is in the best interests of the have-nots as well.

 

[BigSqwert]

Oh and Happy Birthday Nuke wherever you are.

[iamshack]

You keep arguing about whether the US has the right to be a grand decision-maker, or if they are omnipotent. I'm saying, it doesn't matter. If you are the big kid on the block, you want to protect your own best interests (like everyone else), but you also can make a choice to be a bully, or protect the interest of the majority of smaller kids on the block. Keeping nukes away from Iran is the latter, therefore, its the right course of action, in my view.

 

And this haves and have-nots thing is playing into the argument that we SHOULD keep nukes out of Iran, because again, as it happens, that is in the best interests of the have-nots as well.

What I am arguing is that it is BS and a matter of convenience that the US, under the guise of protecting the interests of the rest of the world, decides for the world who gets the bomb and who does not. I'm sorry, but it doesn't mean a whole lot to me when the country that has 4,000 bombs lectures other nations why they cannot have 1 bomb. You can argue I am naive and uninformed all you want, but it rings quite hollow coming from the position that our government is in.

 

The bottom line is that we want to have the ultimate deterrent and trump card, and we want a few of our allies to have it, and no one else. And quite frankly, there is very little anyone else can do about it.

 

Now if that is how the issue was presented, then it would be a lot more realistic and even trustworthy. But it isn't. And frankly, I don't blame other governments and citizens of those governments for seeing right through it as a giant hill of horses***.

[NorthSideSox72]

What I am arguing is that it is BS and a matter of convenience that the US, under the guise of protecting the interests of the rest of the world, decides for the world who gets the bomb and who does not. I'm sorry, but it doesn't mean a whole lot to me when the country that has 4,000 bombs lectures other nations why they cannot have 1 bomb. You can argue I am naive and uninformed all you want, but it rings quite hollow coming from the position that our government is in.

 

The bottom line is that we want to have the ultimate deterrent and trump card, and we want a few of our allies to have it, and no one else. And quite frankly, there is very little anyone else can do about it.

 

Now if that is how the issue was presented, then it would be a lot more realistic and even trustworthy. But it isn't. And frankly, I don't blame other governments and citizens of those governments for seeing right through it as a giant hill of horses***.

OK. If you want to fight for the little guy who also happens to like spitting on the other little guys, so that he can have a machine gun, in order to make a point that the big kid is just a big kid... go ahead. It doesn't buy you anything though, unless you are a radical cleric living in Iran.

 

[Balta1701]

Now if that is how the issue was presented, then it would be a lot more realistic and even trustworthy. But it isn't. And frankly, I don't blame other governments and citizens of those governments for seeing right through it as a giant hill of horses***.

Let's take a look at the countries that aren't signatories to the NPT. Israel, India, and Pakistan have chosen not to sign it, and North Korea pulled out of the agreement in 2003 while we were invading Iraq.

 

First point is...they have every right to have done this under international law. There is no punishment for choosing to not join a treaty, and, with Israel as a case in point, there certainly has not been penalties.

 

The question to ask then is...why have so many nations accepted that framework? Why does Iran, for example, continue to accept it, when simply pulling out of the agreement would leave them unencumbered and free to develop those weapons if they so desire? The answer is...it's not just the U.S.'s citizens who benefit from this framework and agree to it.

 

Iran might want to develop a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes, but Iran isn't going to leave the NPT framework. Why? Because many nations benefit from a maintenance of that framework. Nearly all of Iran's trading partners benefit from that framework, and as such, they would have their situations hurt if Iran pulled out of it.

 

Those citizens are most of the time more than content with the NPT framework as it is, because even if it may be a giant hill of horses*** to some eyes, it is a massive benefit to those citizens at the same time.

[iamshack]

OK. If you want to fight for the little guy who also happens to like spitting on the other little guys, so that he can have a machine gun, in order to make a point that the big kid is just a big kid... go ahead. It doesn't buy you anything though, unless you are a radical cleric living in Iran.

I'm not arguing for Iran.

 

I'm pointing out how hypocritical the reasoning the US uses is.

 

Not sure how many times I have to point that out.

[Balta1701]

Furthermore...consider the countries that have not signed. India...Pakistan...Israel. Can anyone convincingly argue to me that the long-term situations of those countries are improved by having the bomb? The Pakistan and Indian situation has been a mess. Despite both sides having the bomb, terrorism has remained common and war was only narrowly averted between them once. Furthermore, neither side seems particularly secure in its hold on its weapons (Pakistan especially) and as such, all of the neighbors of those 2 countries have potentially been put under threat.

 

Israel...it may have enhanced its short term security through the presence of the bomb, but look at what we're discussing here; it's an exact carbon copy example of why the NPT framework is necessary. Because Israel has the bomb, other countries in the region who have interests hostile to Israel's interests feel it necessary to procure and develop nuclear technology. When you break the NPT framework, everyone loses.