Nuclear Iran

[iamshack]

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.

 

Give me a break, Balta. What other option is there, really? So because there is little or no other alternative in this mess we have created, that somehow makes this beneficial to everyone? As if this is a favor we have done for the rest of the world? Now that we and the Soviet Union have designed and built enough weapons to destroy the entire world thousands of times over, we give the gift of the NPT to everyone! Hooray!

 

[Balta1701]

Give me a break, Balta. What other option is there, really? So because there is little or no other alternative in this mess we have created, that somehow makes this beneficial to everyone? As if this is a favor we have done for the rest of the world? Now that we and the Soviet Union have designed and built enough weapons to destroy the entire world thousands of times over, we give the gift of the NPT to everyone! Hooray!

Frankly...that's exactly the truth. The cat is out of the bag, pandora's box is open. Either we can pretend that it never was opened and have every country out there developing the bomb (does anyone remember the South African nuke program? The Brazilian nuclear weapons program?), or we can come to an agreement that acknowledges reality and works to the benefit of everyone else.

 

It's not a "favor" we've done. It provides us the same strategic benefit that everyone else has...preservation of the status quo, and a chance to work in other ways towards improving it (i.e. the START framework)

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

Thats not my argument at all.

 

My argument is that morals are nothing more than a quasi-legal idea of how to control population.

 

I have no argument on things being codified or morality. I dont believe there is such a thing as "universal morality", I believe in utility, which would have no basis in morality.

 

Morality tries to modify behavior (good or bad) based on preset ideas of right v wrong. In my opinion this is nothing more than quasi-legal, in that it tries to modify behavior, but there is no actual punishment for wrong doing (unless it is also illegal).

 

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

 

I was making the inverse argument.

 

These werent "morals" until they were codified by rule.

 

If there were these "inherent" morals, why would they need to be created?

 

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.

 

Its not an empty argument.

 

Countries have unlimited legal right to do what they want on their own soil, its called "sovereignty". Most nations have agreements that recognize the other countries "sovereignty".

 

Most countries recognize the other countries "sovereignty".

 

It is only in rare cases (nuclear weapons) where sovereignty is questioned for the better good of humanity. Because most people agree that each country could have nukes if they wanted, they made an agreement whereby offering countries an incentive not to create nukes.

 

Why did they do this?

 

Because absent the agreement, each country would have the right (under their own sovereignty) to have a nuclear weapon program.

 

Now sovereignty is subject to "might makes right". If country A does something and is to small to protect itself, country B can take away its sovereignty.

 

But that is an act of war. No one denies the US could declare war on Iran and end its nuclear program. But I believe the context of the argument is, how can we prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons without warfare.

 

The answer is, was and will be the NPT.

 

As for "tryanny", I didnt create the theory, that was De Tocquevill, Mill and Madison, etc. I just am applying their insight to this fact pattern.

 

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

 

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

 

Yet still to this day (over 30 years later) no one has verifiable proof of its existence.

 

Not to mention, the evidence for Israel nuke uses the year 1975.

 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

 

which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons.

 

The last time Israel was invaded was 1973. This would suggest that as soon as the other Middle Eastern nations were convinced that Israel had a nuclear bomb, they did not invade Israel again.

 

Once again, since no one has definitive proof when Israel had a nuclear weapon, or what the Arab states that attacked Israel knew or believed at the time of the attack, its impossible to use Israel in the argument.

 

And even then, Israel would be the only nation to have ever been invaded while in possession of a nuclear weapon. That doesnt really disprove the idea that countries are less willing to attack other countries with nuclear capabilities.

[iamshack]

Frankly...that's exactly the truth. The cat is out of the bag, pandora's box is open. Either we can pretend that it never was opened and have every country out there developing the bomb (does anyone remember the South African nuke program? The Brazilian nuclear weapons program?), or we can come to an agreement that acknowledges reality and works to the benefit of everyone else.

 

It's not a "favor" we've done. It provides us the same strategic benefit that everyone else has...preservation of the status quo, and a chance to work in other ways towards improving it (i.e. the START framework)

Well I'm not going to disagree with much of this. I certainly am in favor of mitigating damage at this point.

 

I guess I would find our position a bit more tolerable if we spent less time proclaiming the evils of all the other nations wishing to explore nuclear weapons technology and more time trying to determine the best method of eliminating our gigantic stockpile.

[Balta1701]

I guess I would find our position a bit more tolerable if we spent less time proclaiming the evils of all the other nations wishing to explore nuclear weapons technology and more time trying to determine the best method of eliminating our gigantic stockpile.

Talk to the U.S. Senate. There's an agreement sitting there to continue work on that. I'm sure you can guess which party thinks doing so is a terrible idea.

[iamshack]

Talk to the U.S. Senate. There's an agreement sitting there to continue work on that. I'm sure you can guess which party thinks doing so is a terrible idea.

And as long as this continues, I will not blame other countries for calling bulls*** on us. And as I said, I cannot really blame them.

[NorthSideSox72]

Thats not my argument at all.

 

My argument is that morals are nothing more than a quasi-legal idea of how to control population.

 

I have no argument on things being codified or morality. I dont believe there is such a thing as "universal morality", I believe in utility, which would have no basis in morality.

 

Morality tries to modify behavior (good or bad) based on preset ideas of right v wrong. In my opinion this is nothing more than quasi-legal, in that it tries to modify behavior, but there is no actual punishment for wrong doing (unless it is also illegal).

 

 

 

I was making the inverse argument.

 

These werent "morals" until they were codified by rule.

 

If there were these "inherent" morals, why would they need to be created?

 

 

 

Its not an empty argument.

 

Countries have unlimited legal right to do what they want on their own soil, its called "sovereignty". Most nations have agreements that recognize the other countries "sovereignty".

 

Most countries recognize the other countries "sovereignty".

 

It is only in rare cases (nuclear weapons) where sovereignty is questioned for the better good of humanity. Because most people agree that each country could have nukes if they wanted, they made an agreement whereby offering countries an incentive not to create nukes.

 

Why did they do this?

 

Because absent the agreement, each country would have the right (under their own sovereignty) to have a nuclear weapon program.

 

Now sovereignty is subject to "might makes right". If country A does something and is to small to protect itself, country B can take away its sovereignty.

 

But that is an act of war. No one denies the US could declare war on Iran and end its nuclear program. But I believe the context of the argument is, how can we prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons without warfare.

 

The answer is, was and will be the NPT.

 

As for "tryanny", I didnt create the theory, that was De Tocquevill, Mill and Madison, etc. I just am applying their insight to this fact pattern.

 

 

 

 

 

Yet still to this day (over 30 years later) no one has verifiable proof of its existence.

 

Not to mention, the evidence for Israel nuke uses the year 1975.

 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

 

which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons.

 

The last time Israel was invaded was 1973. This would suggest that as soon as the other Middle Eastern nations were convinced that Israel had a nuclear bomb, they did not invade Israel again.

 

Once again, since no one has definitive proof when Israel had a nuclear weapon, or what the Arab states that attacked Israel knew or believed at the time of the attack, its impossible to use Israel in the argument.

 

And even then, Israel would be the only nation to have ever been invaded while in possession of a nuclear weapon. That doesnt really disprove the idea that countries are less willing to attack other countries with nuclear capabilities.

Again, proof is irrelevant, because the countries knew it in their own minds to be true. Therefore, the deterrent effect was in place.

 

Furthermore, the US waiting until 1975 to say they believed it is sort of funny, since Israel got the technology FROM The US. This is one of those really poorly kept secrets.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Well I'm not going to disagree with much of this. I certainly am in favor of mitigating damage at this point.

 

I guess I would find our position a bit more tolerable if we spent less time proclaiming the evils of all the other nations wishing to explore nuclear weapons technology and more time trying to determine the best method of eliminating our gigantic stockpile.

 

What more can you expect in terms of eliminating stockpiles? We've gone from 35k weapons to like 5k in 50 years. I'd say that's pretty good all things considered.

[Balta1701]

And as long as this continues, I will not blame other countries for calling bulls*** on us. And as I said, I cannot really blame them.

And frankly, once that treaty collapses in the Senate, other countries will suddenly have immense reasons to consider pulling out of deals they have with the U.S.

[Soxbadger]

Again, proof is irrelevant, because the countries knew it in their own minds to be true. Therefore, the deterrent effect was in place.

 

Show me some credible evidence that suggests that pre-Yom Kippur war the Arab nations believed that Israel had a weapon.

 

Ive done the research myself and never found anything compelling, so Im not just going to assume Arab nations had this inside information on the Israel military program.

 

1 country wont make or break my argument, but please dont just keep saying "proof is irrelevant."

 

In fact some articles Ive read that suggest that Arabic states knew of the Israeli bomb, also suggest that Arabs did not attack as aggressively in order to prevent Israel from responding with nuclear weapons.

 

I have not read anything to suggest that the Israel "nuke" had no effect.

 

Due to the inconclusiveness of this, I am not willing to use Israel as either a pro or con.

 

You can feel free to do what you please, but I am not comfortable trying to use facts that are not credited or sourced.

[iamshack]

What more can you expect in terms of eliminating stockpiles? We've gone from 35k weapons to like 5k in 50 years. I'd say that's pretty good all things considered.

 

50 years? That is an acceptable period of time for you?

 

 

[Balta1701]

50 years? That is an acceptable period of time for you?

Technically that's happened in about 20 years, since the signing of START 1.

[iamshack]

Technically that's happened in about 20 years, since the signing of START 1.

Fair enough. So 20 years is acceptable? Especially when you realize that the reduction that's occurred to this point has, for all practical purposes, accomplished nothing. What is the practical and real difference between possessing 35,000 bombs and 4,000 bombs? Absolutely nothing. They've been dragging their heels on this and the only accomplishment is a numbers game, so they can say "we've eliminated 80% of our stockpile!"

[Jenksismyhero]

Fair enough. So 20 years is acceptable? Especially when you realize that the reduction that's occurred to this point has, for all practical purposes, accomplished nothing. What is the practical and real difference between possessing 35,000 bombs and 4,000 bombs? Absolutely nothing. They've been dragging their heels on this and the only accomplishment is a numbers game, so they can say "we've eliminated 80% of our stockpile!"

 

When you have two super powers in a death stare for that long? No one is ever going to give up all of their nuclear weapons, so get rid of that pipe dream. I think that's quite a lot actually, and the talk about doing more continues.

[Balta1701]

Fair enough. So 20 years is acceptable? Especially when you realize that the reduction that's occurred to this point has, for all practical purposes, accomplished nothing. What is the practical and real difference between possessing 35,000 bombs and 4,000 bombs? Absolutely nothing. They've been dragging their heels on this and the only accomplishment is a numbers game, so they can say "we've eliminated 80% of our stockpile!"

I think we're probably in a much safer world thanks to START 1. Less weapons overall, less chance of accidents, less free nuclear material, less necessity to continue building to outbuild the other guy, fewer delivery systems, etc. Overall, I'd say START has made a significant dent in the likelihood of them ever being deployed. Continuing that program will continue to do so.

[lostfan]

Fair enough. So 20 years is acceptable? Especially when you realize that the reduction that's occurred to this point has, for all practical purposes, accomplished nothing. What is the practical and real difference between possessing 35,000 bombs and 4,000 bombs? Absolutely nothing. They've been dragging their heels on this and the only accomplishment is a numbers game, so they can say "we've eliminated 80% of our stockpile!"

That isn't anywhere NEAR as easy to do as you're trying to make it sound.

[iamshack]

That isn't anywhere NEAR as easy to do as you're trying to make it sound.

In the great words of Mr. Obama...."If it was easy, it would have been done already!"

 

Look, again, I'm not arguing that it is easy, or that the situation is not complex. All I'm saying is don't treat me like I'm f***ing stupid. Admit the situation is what it is, and let's make decisions based on that. Let's not make up fake reasons and bs arguments to justify what the real result we're going for is - we want to control the supply of nuclear weaponry so as to continue our status as the only, or possibly in the future, one of, the world's superpowers - now was that so hard?

[lostfan]

In the great words of Mr. Obama...."If it was easy, it would have been done already!"

 

Look, again, I'm not arguing that it is easy, or that the situation is not complex. All I'm saying is don't treat me like I'm f***ing stupid. Admit the situation is what it is, and let's make decisions based on that. Let's not make up fake reasons and bs arguments to justify what the real result we're going for is - we want to control the supply of nuclear weaponry so as to continue our status as the only, or possibly in the future, one of, the world's superpowers - now was that so hard?

Actually, even granting you that, I don't even know why this would be wrong. Acting out of self-interest to improve/preserve position is something every country does (and will always do lest another country do it first, see: Iran)

 

That kind of thing is just not said out loud in diplomatic settings though, for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

[iamshack]

Actually, even granting you that, I don't even know why this would be wrong. Acting out of self-interest to improve/preserve position is something every country does (and will always do lest another country do it first, see: Iran)

 

That kind of thing is just not said out loud in diplomatic settings though, for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

So you're arguing that every country throughout modern history has sought to dominate the world? This is second nature for all governments?

 

I could not disagree more.

 

Maintaining or improving world stature and building 35,000 nuclear weapons are simply not the same thing at all.

[lostfan]

So you're arguing that every country throughout modern history has sought to dominate the world? This is second nature for all governments?

 

I could not disagree more.

 

Maintaining or improving world stature and building 35,000 nuclear weapons are simply not the same thing at all.

????

 

You made Balta proud just now

[iamshack]

????

 

You made Balta proud just now

Your argument is that every nation would do the same as the US, should it have the opportunity, correct?

[lostfan]

Your argument is that every nation would do the same as the US, should it have the opportunity, correct?

I don't know what you're getting at when you say "do the same as the US."

 

If you mean "do what it can to preserve its position as the dominant superpower and center of the world" then yes. Absolutely. If you mean "build a s***load of nuclear weapons" then no. If you mean "want to keep itself as one of the haves while everyone except for a handful of others are have nots" then maybe.

[iamshack]

I don't know what you're getting at when you say "do the same as the US."

 

If you mean "do what it can to preserve its position as the dominant superpower and center of the world" then yes. Absolutely. If you mean "build a s***load of nuclear weapons" then no. If you mean "want to keep itself as one of the haves while everyone except for a handful of others are have nots" then maybe.

You made the statement that every country would do the same as the US were they in the US position. I'm not sure exactly what you were saying there.

 

All I'm saying is that I disagree with you. I think that the vast majority of countries have no designs on being a world superpower. Maintaining or improving stature, yes. Being a world power similar to the US? Some, but I don't think the majority, let alone every nation.

[lostfan]

You made the statement that every country would do the same as the US were they in the US position. I'm not sure exactly what you were saying there.

 

All I'm saying is that I disagree with you. I think that the vast majority of countries have no designs on being a world superpower. Maintaining or improving stature, yes. Being a world power similar to the US? Some, but I don't think the majority, let alone every nation.

I can't think of any country that would willingly downgrade its status, wealth, influence, military power, standard of living, etc. (and not in a deliberate way of rolling with the inevitable to make it orderly if the nation is already declining). Show me a country that does that and I'll show you a country that sucks.

 

I also don't see how a country wouldn't want to be more powerful, spread its influence across the globe, and such... yes we are talking about different countries in very different regions in the world, with different goals and views of themselves but when you make it a choice between "be more powerful" and "not be more powerful" I don't see too many leaders choosing the latter.

[iamshack]

I can't think of any country that would willingly downgrade its status, wealth, influence, military power, standard of living, etc. (and not in a deliberate way of rolling with the inevitable to make it orderly if the nation is already declining). Show me a country that does that and I'll show you a country that sucks.

 

I also don't see how a country wouldn't want to be more powerful, spread its influence across the globe, and such... yes we are talking about different countries in very different regions in the world, with different goals and views of themselves but when you make it a choice between "be more powerful" and "not be more powerful" I don't see too many leaders choosing the latter.

Where are you getting that from my post? I said I agreed with you that all countries would want to maintain or improve stature.

 

What I'm saying is that that is in no way analogous to building 35,000 nuclear weapons in some ill-conceived arms race.

 

I think there are all kinds of progressive nations in the world that are perfectly happy letting the US and some of the other traditional powers worry about being dominant powers, meanwhile, they concern themselves with their own people, their own immediate regional issues, and focus solely on those for the benefit of their citizenry. That is maintaining or improving stature.

 

What the US has done over the course of the last 65 years or so is entirely different.