Iranian Nuclear Program and the U.S.

[Lucius]

If the child is a real brat and it happens to point the gun at itself... xD

[SteveThaiBinh]

nothing here move along

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmmm.

[Dark_Raven]

I guess I should just stay out of political discussions.

[Cantousent]

:Cant's slapping Arkan on the back and offering his the beverage of his choice icon:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your smiley isn't showing up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Alas, it never does. :ph34r:

 

Now, back to the political discussion, yeh scurvy lot.

[Judge Hades]

Botomline, if we have nukes then we have no right to tell other countries that they can't have nukes. They have as much right to protect themselves as they see fit as we do. If Israel does attack Iran, conventional weapons or otherwise they would be within their right to attack back in full force, nukes included.

[Hurlshort]

I guess we should count our blessings then now that religious fundamentalism is making a comeback in the US

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Going to court over GTA and Janet's boobie are a long way from religious fundamentalism. While the US is conservative, it's still much more open-minded and tolerant than many other places in the world. There is also always an ebb and flow when it comes to social progress (although opponents would call is regression.)

[Colrom]

Americas new foreign policy!

 

Brought to you by the Program for a New American Century!

 

Based on proven principles!

 

Confirmed over and over again.

 

Never fails to give a memorable result!

 

"Nothing is so peaceful as a well tended graveyard."

 

Now to be applied to Iran and Syria!

 

Gott mitt uns!

[thepixiesrock]

Botomline, if we have nukes then we have no right to tell other countries that they can't have nukes.  They have as much right to protect themselves as they see fit as we do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But we do have a right to tell them that they can't have them. I mean, we are bigger than them. We have a lot of say in what goes on around the world, and we want to ensure that we can continue to live comfortable and rich lives. We want to continue doing so, and other countries that we see unfit to handle such technology, we should keep the technology out of their hands. I mean, is it fair that we have this technology, and that we are bigger super powers than other countries? Well, we earned it didn't we? The world didn't just wake up one morning and say to itself, "Hey, I think the US should have a lot of weight to throw around in world polotics. I think they should have the technology and resources to do whatever they see fit to do."

 

I mean, I'd love to live in a world where I, we don't have to worry about this crap. I dream about living in beautiful utopias, and never having to worry about anyone blowing up anyone else, but we don't live there. Where we live, is a world that will never be able to function as a society of well mannered, enlightened, super intellegent people.

 

We're animals. We're mean, rotten, horrible things. We are monsters. We are good, compasionate, and loving beings, sure, but not enough. There is something wrong with the world, and it isn't fair. Sure, it isn't fair that the UN doesn't want some countries to have nukes, but it's also unfair that a sixteen year old kid has to live in fear. It isn't fair that I have to worry about being drafted. I shouldn't have to stay up all night, tossing and turning thinking about what a horrible place we all live in. Thinking about how easy it would be for us to be a good world, but at the same time, ultimately impossible.

 

Hades wants something to happen, that is just plain silly. Something that our world isn't capable of. We can't trust eachother, because deep down, we still are animals.

Edited August 24, 2006 by thepixiesrock

[Enoch]

It's a pipe dream to expect the US to disarm their nukes first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US could reduce the number of nuclear weapons it has and abandon development of new kinds of nuclear weapon, and still keep enough to destroy the world, if that makes it feel safe or happy, and I'm not sure why it would do either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One problem is that the U.S. current nuclear arsenal is very out-of-date. The warheads out there now were mostly designed 30 years ago, to address the strategic problems of the Cold War. (I.e., deter a Soviet first strike with the threat of total anihilation of a vast and populous nation.) The U.S. (or any other nuclear nation, for that matter) isn't going to totally renounce nuclear weapons, and nobody is helped by keeping antiquated warheads out there.

 

As for the hypocrisy of a nuclear nation attempting to restrain the nuclear ambitions of another state, there's an easy answer: Iran agreed to this restraint by signing the non-proliferation treaty.

[Dark Moth]

Botomline, if we have nukes then we have no right to tell other countries that they can't have nukes.  They have as much right to protect themselves as they see fit as we do.  If Israel does attack Iran, conventional weapons or otherwise they would be within their right to attack back in full force, nukes included.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, if a country has to resort to nukes just to 'defend' themselves, then there's something horribly wrong with the picture. Secondly, it's not so much about Iran just being able to defend itself. It's about letting a theocratical state run by a madman (who also finances terrorist groups, like Hezbollah) obtain the technology to further one of its stated goals, which is 'wiping out Israel'. Yes, the US has more of a right to harbor nukes then Iran does. We are a democracy, and for that reason alone we'd be less likely to use nukes off the bat just for that reason alone. However, if Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decided one day he wanted to wipe Isreal off the map, he wouldn't have anyone from his own population to answer to. Don't forget that we're also dealing with a society run by a theocratical government that still lives in the Dark Ages and whose goal is not merely 'defending itself', but wiping America, Israel, and all infidels off the face of the earth. You saying you'd feel safe with someone like that having nukes? And before you say it, Bush may not be a great leader, but he and the administration would not be quick to use nuclear weapons in any situation. Whether you admit it or not, the BA is on a higher moral platform than those currently running Iran.

[Azarkon]

Hades wants something to happen, that is just plain silly. Something that our world isn't capable of. We can't trust eachother, because deep down, we still are animals.

 

And there you just nailed exactly why Iran will continue pursuing its nuclear program, regardless of what the US does. But then I could've told you that in the beginning - this discussion is pointless, because nothing said here will affect anything in the world, and nothing the US or the UN babbles will change the basic facts regarding how power is kept and exercised in this world.

 

Embrace powerlessness; it is the joy of life.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Azarkon

[Cantousent]

Overall, the non-proliferation treaty is ineffective. I wish it weren't, but it really only keeps in proper check those countries that pose little threat in the first place.

[Hurlshort]

You know, I was playing Civ4 and the UN passed that non nuke measure. I kept looking for a way to do it secretly. Dang game...it's nothing like reality.

[SteveThaiBinh]

As for the hypocrisy of a nuclear nation attempting to restrain the nuclear ambitions of another state, there's an easy answer:  Iran agreed to this restraint by signing the non-proliferation treaty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And as I said before, that treaty requires non-nuclear nations not to acquire nuclear weapons, and it requires nuclear nations to work towards disarmament. If the US lived up to its obligations, even partially, it would look less of a hypocrite when demanding Iran do the same.

 

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, like many international treaties and organisations, the UN included, is imperfect but better than nothing, and will work better the more governments endeavour to make it work. Nothing is perfect. Should we abolish the police because they fail to prevent crime and fail to catch every criminal?

[Cantousent]

If the police were as corrupt and inept as the United Nations or as ineffective as the Non-Porliferation treaty, yes. We would disband them immediately and replace them with something that did the job.

 

In the case of the Non-Proliferation treaty, nothing is what we have anyhow. Nations that are willing to disarm do so. Nations that want nuclear weapons pursue them. In fact, because some people actually think the treaty will work, some nations have an easier path to nuclear weapons.

 

Forget the treaty and approach each nation on a case by case basis. Even with the treaty, that's what we're doing anyway. That's assuming we even know they have a program and to what extent it's advanced towards actual production.

 

I've always been impressed by your manner and style, Steve. I mean that sincerely. But Pixies has a better grasp of reality than you. These treaties are only effective if backed by force. That's the nature of all treaties. Look at the number of treaties the Germans signed before World War II. We might think treaties have power in and of themselves, but they do not. It is a fatal mistake to believe they do.

 

Unless the United Nations is willing to enforce or, at the very least, endorse enforement of its own decisions, then it fails in one of it's primary tasks.

 

Sure, I like the UN. I like having a deliberative body that gives voice, no matter how illusory, to smaller nations. I like having an apperatus to organize charitable donations. I even like a world body. Just don't think that well worded speeches in defense of the UN are anything more than an exercise in rhetoric.

 

If the UN were the police, crime would have won already.

[SteveThaiBinh]

And yet despite the wisdom of your words, Cantousent, few serious politicians are calling for the Non-Proliferation Treaty to be abandoned, or condemn it as utterly useless. That's because they, like me, have a very good grip on reality, and they see the value of such treaties, limited though it undoubtedly is.

 

Without the non-proliferation treaty, there is no diplomatic route to keeping Iran non-nuclear. There's no international coalition, either, since most of the countries of the world - those without the US' massive power to defend itself - care deeply about lawfulness in international relations. Without legality, the US is just a global bully trying to weaken a country it doesn't like, and that cheapens US authority and power both over this matter and in matters yet to come. Even if the treaty ends up being nothing more than a figleaf, that too matters, because figleafs are how politicians stomach doing the things they know they have to, and how they explain it to their people once the neccessary deal is done.

 

I never claimed that the non-proliferation treaty solves all problems, or indeed that by itself it solves any problems at all. The threat of force, such as it is with the US mired in Iraq, remains a potent one in international relations. The internal politics of both Iran and the US matter yet more. Yet treaties matter too, because they, like the solution to this crisis, are the stuff of international diplomacy.

 

To further the analogy (if that's useful) the police have been corrupt, inept and ineffective in many places and at many times in the history of the world, yet disbanded and replaced? How, when the factors that led to the corruption and ineptitude remain as before? To the extent that the UN is corrupt and ineffective (depends on what the purpose is, but still), it's because the governments of the world are corrupt and ineffective. Are you going to abolish and replace them, too? Get real! :D

 

Oh, wait.

[Atreides]

Some dudes don't say what they think on the inside because they don't want to be the bad guy or they have other agendas.

[Cantousent]

Great gymnastics, but it misses the mark. For one thing, you cite the push for this treaty, but how many of these backers advocate the treaty because of a sincere belief that it is somehow enforceable? How many of them do so for reasons revolving around domestic or world politics?

 

You say, "[w]ithout the non-proliferation treaty, there is no diplomatic route to keeping Iran non-nuclear." That is simply not true. The same measures used to control Iran's nuclear arsenal are available without the treaty. Force. Embargo. Diplomacy. These all exist independently of the treaty. The treaty is actually an example of failed diplomacy.

 

Furthermore, what nations have disarmed or abandoned programs under threat of this treaty? Nothing argues like success except, perhaps, failure. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Ukraine and South Africa as nations that disarmed. Still, these nations had a vested interest in abadnoning their nuclear arsenals. That interest existed without the treaty.

 

"[w]ithout legality, the US is just a global bully trying to weaken a country it doesn't like, and that cheapens US authority and power both over this matter and in matters yet to come."

 

This puts undue weight on words rather than firepower. Sure, I'd rather have a war of words than firepower, but when your war of words is part of a goal to gain advantage in firepower, then it amounts to false security. This treaty only provides shelter for nations to hide programs just a little while longer. It serves no purpose, but enough misguided souls believe that all resolution can come from words. Those "figleafs" don't allow politicians to do the right thing. Rather, in this case, the leaves in question force them to do the wrong thing. ...Or, perhaps, the figleafs in question simply provide enough cover to pursue a program even in violation of the conditions of the treaty.

 

You misunderstand me, however. I believe that treaties are an important part of diplomacy. Nevertheless, this diplomacy must be backed by some sort of consequence. Look at it this way, I can make a "treaty" with you that stipulates that I will give you two million tons of rice for ten million dollars a year. If you fail to supply the rice, at the very least I should have the right to withhold my money, right? What are the consequences of breaking this particular treaty? If it's anything like the programs centered on exchanging oil for food and medicine in Iraq, than we can count on corruption undermining the program from the very beginning.

 

If Iran comes to the table and makes real concessions, you may rest assured that it is because of the threat of real consequences and those consequences would exist, and just as well defined, without the illusion of protection afforded by this treaty.

 

You used the analogy of the police and then you broaden the analogy to include other governments. The problem is that police organizaitons are not analagous to either the UN or foreign governments. Our participation in the United Nations is a matter of national policy. It is a domestic matter. The removal or replacement of foreign governments is not. If the police are inept, then the police are replaced. That is also a domestic policy decision. If the organization is corrupt or ineffective, then we overhaul the entire organization. However, removing a foreign government is not the same thing as rooting out corruption in the police force. I appreciate a clever argument, but I much more admire a true one.

 

Finally, while I respect your ability to argue, your arguments tend to be a bit morally superior. *shrug* Your style is your style, but you can sharpen your rhetoric without the didactic tone.

[SteveThaiBinh]

For one thing, you cite the push for this treaty, but how many of these backers advocate the treaty because of a sincere belief that it is somehow enforceable?  How many of them do so for reasons revolving around domestic or world politics?

I'm saying the treaty has value even if it's not fully enforceable, because it creates law and gives legitimacy to those who seek, by whatever means, to enforce it. It's a useful tool.

The same measures used to control Iran's nuclear arsenal are available without the treaty.  Force.  Embargo.  Diplomacy.  These all exist independently of the treaty. 

If the whole world were to agree to an embargo, that embargo would need to have legitimacy. Where would that come from, if not the treaty and the UN?

 

With the treaty, the diplomats can talk to the Iranians about how they can meet the terms of the treaty they signed up to. Without the treaty, what will they talk about? How the Iranians can meet the arbitrary demands of a superpower because it wants all the weapons for itself? That's a very different discussion, and one that's much less likely to be solved without the use of force.

Furthermore, what nations have disarmed or abandoned programs under threat of this treaty?  Nothing argues like success except, perhaps, failure.  Off the top of my head, I can think of the Ukraine and South Africa as nations that disarmed.  Still, these nations had a vested interest in abadnoning their nuclear arsenals.  That interest existed without the treaty.

What of nations that had the capability to develop nuclear weapons but didn't, probably hardly even thought seriously about it, because they chose to commit themselves to a vision of world stability as expressed in the treaty?

 

And what indeed of South Africa? Why did they decide to give up a nuclear programme? I don't imagine they particularly feared their neighbours, but that doesn't mean they'd just throw away a tactical advantage over them. I don't think they feared a US military invasion, either. They did it largely because they wanted to leave behind the diplomatic isolation of the apartheid era, and that isolation might continue if they developed nuclear weapons because they're illegal under the non-proliferation treaty. I don't think that same pressure would have existed without the pre-existing framework of the treaty. I can't really see a concerted international campaign against the government of Nelson Mandela because it can't be trusted with nuclear weapons?

What are the consequences of breaking this particular treaty?

The fact that you've broken the law, and everyone knows it. World attention, diplomatic isolation, heightened regional tension, visits by the IAEA, and ultimately, yes, the threat of sanctions by the United Nations security council, either economic or military. Nothing so spectacular as some might like, but they are consequences. It's very easy to dismiss this, but international relations is a chess game, and countries weigh advantages and risks very carefully. Plus the US is more likely to get approval for sanctions from the UN Security Council because the treaty has created international law in this area to be broken.

 

If you object to the police analogy or find it useless, then fine. I was just trying to illustrate a particular point.

 

I'm sorry you feel the need to supplement your arguments with comments about my grasp of reality and didactic tone, but I suppose that's just your style.

[Cantousent]

With that, I'm willing to let folks read our arguments and decide. Well, that and we can both stick to the style that we find most agreeable.

 

However, I would like to say that I have no real animosity over the issue. I might argue like hell against you one day, but I understand that we're just a couple of internet geeks trying to make sense out of a crazy world. The next day, we'll talk about games. Gotta love 'em.

[SteveThaiBinh]

With that, I'm willing to let folks read our arguments and decide.  Well, that and we can both stick to the style that we find most agreeable.

 

However, I would like to say that I have no real animosity over the issue.  I might argue like hell against you one day, but I understand that we're just a couple of internet geeks trying to make sense out of a crazy world.  The next day, we'll talk about games.  Gotta love 'em.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Colrom]

I haven't read all the posts. I will in a while.

 

I notice that some folks seem to believe that the nuclear nonproliferation treaty forbids nuclear enrichment.

 

It doesn't.

 

Iran claims to only be enriching nuclear materials for nuclear fuel - about 5% enrichment. There is evidence that they have conducted a small scale enrichment of exactly that type.

 

There is no evidence or reason to believe (aside from the paranoid angst and rantings of various psychopathic killer leaders here and there) that they have the intent or the capability to enrich to 95% as required to make a nuclear weapon.

 

Of course most folks would probably suggest that the Iranians may want to go ahead and make nuclear weapons if they can - since it may be the only way for them to deter the US/UK and rest of the smiling Killer Crusader Movement from bringing "Democracy" and the peace fof a well tended graveyard to their little neck of the woods.

 

Talk about terrorism! We here in the US are the best at Terrism! Naturally!

 

But whether the Iranians would be well advised to go ahead or not there is no evidence that they have actually even begun.

 

Ah. Paranoid psychopathic behaviors are becoming the norm.

 

I heard an interview of a psychopathic killer a long time ago in which the killer explained that he was in the right to kill a business man because the business man was not strong enough to stop him.

 

I thought that was an interestingly sick and crazy point of view.

 

I never realized it would become public policy and be popularly put forward in places like this.

 

Go figure.

 

I guess the crazyness of the Nazis is not so unusual after all!

 

[metadigital]

And as I said before, that treaty requires non-nuclear nations not to acquire nuclear weapons, and it requires nuclear nations to work towards disarmament.  If the US lived up to its obligations, even partially, it would look less of a hypocrite when demanding Iran do the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US has disarmed quite a lot (remember Regan and Gorbachev?).

 

As Enoch said, the new post-Cold War threats require a totally new armed force, meaning that there is a much more urgent requirement for smaller, tactical munitions.

 

and i sincerely hope you aren't going to suggest that the world would be better off without the US acting as a policeman ... it is very easy to blame the US for everything that is wrong, but I haven't heard a decent alternative (apart from a substitute policeman: the UN).

 

If the UN was more representative and less corrupt, then it might be more effective. Then again, maybe not ...

The same measures used to control Iran's nuclear arsenal are available without the treaty.  Force.  Embargo.  Diplomacy.  These all exist independently of the treaty. 

If the whole world were to agree to an embargo, that embargo would need to have legitimacy. Where would that come from, if not the treaty and the UN?

With the treaty, the diplomats can talk to the Iranians about how they can meet the terms of the treaty they signed up to. Without the treaty, what will they talk about? How the Iranians can meet the arbitrary demands of a superpower because it wants all the weapons for itself? That's a very different discussion, and one that's much less likely to be solved without the use of force.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree. Look at an extreme example, one where nuclear weapons are next to useless: a foreign national hostage.

 

No amount of UN intervention has ever been useful.

 

Typically (for a putative "Muslim" extremist group, say) a regional powerbase needs to be invoked (e.g. Arafat when he was alive used to have a bit of sway).

Furthermore, what nations have disarmed or abandoned programs under threat of this treaty?  Nothing argues like success except, perhaps, failure.  Off the top of my head, I can think of the Ukraine and South Africa as nations that disarmed.  Still, these nations had a vested interest in abadnoning their nuclear arsenals.  That interest existed without the treaty.

What of nations that had the capability to develop nuclear weapons but didn't, probably hardly even thought seriously about it, because they chose to commit themselves to a vision of world stability as expressed in the treaty?

 

And what indeed of South Africa? Why did they decide to give up a nuclear programme? I don't imagine they particularly feared their neighbours, but that doesn't mean they'd just throw away a tactical advantage over them. I don't think they feared a US military invasion, either. They did it largely because they wanted to leave behind the diplomatic isolation of the apartheid era, and that isolation might continue if they developed nuclear weapons because they're illegal under the non-proliferation treaty. I don't think that same pressure would have existed without the pre-existing framework of the treaty. I can't really see a concerted international campaign against the government of Nelson Mandela because it can't be trusted with nuclear weapons?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nuclear ambitions are VERY EXPENSIVE, both to aquire and maintain. Ukraine were happy to leave behind the expense, especially as they can rely on Russia for defence (much like Canada relies on the US). I say this because I doubt your notion of "fair play" even registers on the political radar. Seriously.

What are the consequences of breaking this particular treaty?

The fact that you've broken the law, and everyone knows it. World attention, diplomatic isolation, heightened regional tension, visits by the IAEA, and ultimately, yes, the threat of sanctions by the United Nations security council, either economic or military. Nothing so spectacular as some might like, but they are consequences. It's very easy to dismiss this, but international relations is a chess game, and countries weigh advantages and risks very carefully. Plus the US is more likely to get approval for sanctions from the UN Security Council because the treaty has created international law in this area to be broken.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think your understanding of international politics is very one-dimensional. I think you ought to consider the amount of horse-trading (by ALL permanent members of the Security Council). China will rubber stamp anything that doesn't affect their right to ethnic clense Tibet and other bordering countries, so long as it doesn't have a detrimental affect on their long-term plans, for example. But they aren't the only ones: witness France and Russia in the pre-Iraq invasion and their wish to protect their own commercial oil interests, rather than any ethical concerns over the oppressed population. For that matter, witness everyone's complete disinterst in any crisis in Africa, even in oil-, gold-, diamond-, etc- rich provinces.

If you object to the police analogy or  find it useless, then fine.  I was just trying to illustrate a particular point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i think (not wanting to step on Cant's toes) that the point is that Police are beholden to the government, and are actually completely plastic in this relationship.

 

A better (more depressing) analogy would be if the army was corrupt. How does a government deal with something that won't be cowed to its will?

[metadigital]

Ah. Paranoid psychopathic behaviors are becoming the norm.

 

I heard an interview of a psychopathic killer a long time ago in which the killer explained that he was in the right to kill a business man because the business man was not strong enough to stop him.

 

I thought that was an interestingly sick and crazy point of view.

 

I never realized it would become public policy and be popularly put forward in places like this.

 

Go figure.

 

I guess the crazyness of the Nazis is not so unusual after all!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You should study a bit of history: the only (successful) political force is superior might. And it is fallacious to compare international politics with human inter-personal relations.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Nuclear ambitions are VERY EXPENSIVE, both to aquire and maintain. Ukraine were happy to leave behind the expense, especially as they can rely on Russia for defence (much like Canada relies on the US). I say this because I doubt your notion of "fair play" even registers on the political radar. Seriously.

I wasn't really talking about fair play, in either case. I'm talking about states that feel their security is better served by a (relatively) nuclear-free world than by a world in which everyone has their own nuclear deterrent, and the non-proliferation treaty as the legal expression of that policy. With regard to South Africa, I'm trying to make the point that the existence of the non-proliferation treaty means that there are diplomatic consequences for breaking it, even if there are no immediate economic or military consequences, and that these diplomatic consequences matter and are a factor in countries' decisions to abide by the treaty or not.

 

I think your understanding of international politics is very one-dimensional. I think you ought to consider the amount of horse-trading (by ALL permanent members of the Security Council). China will rubber stamp anything that doesn't affect their right to ethnic clense Tibet and other bordering countries, so long as it doesn't have a detrimental affect on their long-term plans, for example. But they aren't the only ones: witness France and Russia in the pre-Iraq invasion and their wish to protect their own commercial oil interests, rather than any ethical concerns over the oppressed population. For that matter, witness everyone's complete disinterst in any crisis in Africa, even in oil-, gold-, diamond-, etc- rich provinces.

I'm afraid I have to say that your representation of international politics here is rather one-dimensional. Aren't you saying that narrow national self-interest is the only factor that matters? It certainly was not the only factor that lead to the French government's opposition to the Iraq War, for example. I wasn't trying in my comments to give a full picture of how international relations works, and I certainly didn't want to imply that it's simple and governed wholly by international law, but I do suggest that treaties and law are important, and force and the threat of force are not the only factors that count.