Nukes for Iran?

[The Terrible Sweal]

A possible Iranian nuclear weapons program is getting a lot of airplay these days. Some say things like "Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons." Or "Israel will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons."

Currently, Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, under the terms of which they have agreed not to seek or obtain such weapons. But that treaty has a procedure available for leaving the treaty.

My question is this: if Iran exercised its right to leave the treaty, do people still think there is some way it could be justly prevented from building nuclear weapons? If so, what is that way, and why should they be so prevented?

[takeanumber]

They're already in violation of that treaty.

The Americans are letting the Europeans fail in their approach to Iran, just as they failed with Afghanistan.

Why shouldn't they get the bomb?

Well, I know you're a member of the Left, and as such, you are committed to nuclear non-proliferation as a point. It's gospel.

As for my logic? If Iran gets the nuke, it's already in the wrong hands. They want to get rid of Israel.

I can't advocate the extermination of another 5 million Jews, in spite of what the Israeli government is doing, they don't deserve to die. Although I'm sure some people in the NDP, Conservatives and even Canadian Islamists (who for some reason are allowed to remain in Canada), would argue that Israel deserves to be wiped off the map.

Given the population distribution of Isreal, it would be easy to cause catastrophic damage with just 5 nukes.

I can't advocate that.

If Iran gets'em, they'll find some excuse to use'em.

[Black Dog]

As for my logic? If Iran gets the nuke, it's already in the wrong hands. They want to get rid of Israel.

I can't advocate the extermination of another 5 million Jews, in spite of what the Israeli government is doing, they don't deserve to die.

So, just to be clear: what's your stance on Israel's stock of nuclear weapons. If it's okay for Israel to have nukes to deter places like Iran, would it not be okay for Iran to have nukes to deter Israel?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Takeanumber:

1. I am not a 'member' of 'the left'. (In fact, I'm a classical liberal in the J.S. Mill-Thomas Jefferson mold.)

2. IF they are developing nuclear weapons, then yes, they are in violation of the treaty.

3. You misunderstand my questions. I don't need to know why we should want them not to have nukes. That's obvious. The question (which I may have put poorly) is what valid justification is there for preventing them from building them if they are not in the treaty anymore.

[takeanumber]

It believe that for the treaty to be declared invalid, something like 10 years have to expire.

I don't believe that Israel has nukes. THey have capability, but so does Canada.

I'd argue under nuclear non-proliferation, 5+2 is enough. (Original big 5, plus India and Pakistan....um, South Africa disarmed, and Brazil and Argentina's programs are on hiatus, and I don't think NoKo is there yet.)

Anyway, that's my justification. 7 powers is already too many.

The ideal number is zero.

[Black Dog]

I don't believe that Israel has nukes. THey have capability, but so does Canada.

Israel's nuclear arsenal

Also look up Morechai Vannu, who, in 1986, revealed that the Israelis' Dimona nuclear power plant, where he worked, has churned out hundreds of warheads.

The ideal number is zero.

On that we can agree.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It believe that for the treaty to be declared invalid, something like 10 years have to expire.

Individual counties can withdraw on a few months notice.

[August1991]

I don't believe that Israel has nukes. THey have capability, but so does Canada.

TalkNumb, do you really believe that any Israeli PM would block a weapons programme after being told that it can be done?

My one doubt concerns testing. To my knowledge, Israel has never tested a nuclear weapon. But there are ways around that.

So, just to be clear: what's your stance on Israel's stock of nuclear weapons. If it's okay for Israel to have nukes to deter places like Iran, would it not be okay for Iran to have nukes to deter Israel?

In a sense, that is the crux of the matter. But is Israel an aggressor state?

Would Iran risk its own citizens in support of a Palestinian cause?

Don't mix Iran with the Middle East. The two are even more distinct than those on the Arabian peninsula and those near the Mediterranean.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

My one doubt concerns testing. To my knowledge, Israel has never tested a nuclear weapon. But there are ways around that.

Israel and South Africa jointly tested a nuke off-shore of South Africa 22 September, 1979. They were both 'pariah states' at the time. Israel traded the secrets of building nukes with South Africa in exchange for uranium ore, and access to a testing site. So, while France helped Israel develop the nukes, they wouldn't go so far as helping them launch one.

Another good book on Israel's nuclear capabilities is "The Samson Option", by Seymour Hersch.

[Black Dog]

In a sense, that is the crux of the matter. But is Israel an aggressor state?

Israel invaded Lebanon, and has historically shown a predilication to striking first when it feel strheatened. Iran, on the other hand, has not attacked anyone in the 25 year history of the Islamic Republic. Is there any reason to think they'd start now?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

The US is already gearing up for war in Iran. I am presently reading "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix, and it is amazing how the US is following the same M.O. as with the Iraqi invasion. If Bush wins the election, I expect action against Iran in late 2005. As with Iraq, neither proof nor truth will be an issue. They have already started down the path. For them (the US) to stop, they'd have to admit being in the wrong. So, it looks like war with Iran.

[maplesyrup]

Weren't there 3 countries on the US Axis of Evil shit list?

Iran is just number 2.

North Korea, so close to China, will prove to be more challenging!

[Guest eureka]

I think that Bush may have drooled over the prospect of even greater "glory" to be won in Iran. However,. he won't go there now. The lesson of Iraq is all too new and painful.

Iran is almost twice the size of Iraq and America does not have the military forces. And, the USA could not stand even deeper oil shocks.

[takeanumber]

Alright, Alright.

I think I might be wrong about the 10 years thing.

I can't remember the latin term for declaring a treaty invalid, I think that's what I was thinking of.

If there's a provision for withdrawing from the pact, then it's fine.

As far as Israel is concerned, I don't know if they still have nukes. I though as of 1986, they abandoned the weapons plan, and the site where they built the nukes have been disabled or are non operational.

But whatever.

I'm not going to engage the whole agressor state stuff. Those who are blindly anti-Arab will automatically call any arab state an agressor state because of X, Y, Z, anybody who is anti-semetic will call Israel an agressor for exercising its right to even exist. (and my use of the word 'right' in itself would cause an anti-jew arab to freak out, but it's true, they do they have the 'right' to be there.) No. I'm not jewish or Arab, but it really burns me up when people oppress moderate Islamic Arabs and secular Islamic Arabs, as well as jews.

That doesn't imply anybody here fits either catagory, I'm just saying that it makes it difficult to figure out who is being a coy bigot and who is genuinely a good person and is equally appauled by both.

That said, glad we can agree on the ideal number being zero.

It's on that basis that I cannot support NoKo, Israel, or Iran from possessing nukes.

I don't buy into the entire 'plausible deterrent' bs either.

What's even more interesting is what should be done to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Which, since I have good sense, I won't engage in that debate.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear takeanumber,

Thank you for coming here and farting. That last post was long-winded, with no substance and no point.

What's even more interesting is what should be done to prevent nuclear proliferation

No one has been able to stop it yet, but inspections and sanctions can work.

[Black Dog]

The US is already gearing up for war in Iran. I am presently reading "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix, and it is amazing how the US is following the same M.O. as with the Iraqi invasion. If Bush wins the election, I expect action against Iran in late 2005. As with Iraq, neither proof nor truth will be an issue. They have already started down the path. For them (the US) to stop, they'd have to admit being in the wrong. So, it looks like war with Iran.

The U.S. economy is already struggling under the weight of the deficits of the wars on "terror" and Iraq. I don't think they can afford another war.

Startegically, they're not ina good position either. Invading Iran would require an invasion via Iraq, which would essentially open up a second front and leave Iraq essentially without a leg to stand on.

Then there's the question of trops: the Iraq force is already streched thin, and while they could probably summon enough troops from reserves and other postings to do the job, they'd probably need a draft or some quick way to replenish tehir troops. Let's not forget many of the troops in Iraq have been there since the invasion: I don't think any would be eager to march to Tehran.

From a military perspective, Iran has a large, relatively modern fighting force (compared to Iraq's) and would certainly put up a fight. In addition, even if the invasion succeded, does anyone think an occupation would not face the same pitfalls as the one in Iraq?

Finally, invading Iran would confirm (in the minds of Muslims world wide) that the U.S is on a crusade against Islam. Terrorism, violence and strife would escalate.

In short, invading Iran would be utter folly: which is why I wouldn't put it past Bush and company to do it.

[takeanumber]

Dear takeanumber,

Thank you for coming here and farting. That last post was long-winded, with no substance and no point.

Go get a spoon.

[Black Dog]

Dear takeanumber,

Thank you for coming here and farting. That last post was long-winded, with no substance and no point.

Go get a spoon.

WTF?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

they'd probably need a draft or some quick way to replenish tehir troops.

Indeed, I have read the alledged draft bill. All US citizens 18-26 facing 'obligatory service' for a period of 2 years. Conscientious Objectors can serve in a support capacity, no combat.

From a military perspective, Iran has a large, relatively modern fighting force (compared to Iraq's) and would certainly put up a fight

This would be much more to the US' liking.Their weaponry is far more suited to face a conventional force than an insurgency.

Finally, invading Iran would confirm (in the minds of Muslims world wide) that the U.S is on a crusade against Islam. Terrorism, violence and strife would escalate

According to many in the US, (and those on the right wing) this is only because of the 'terrorists', while the bulk of Iranians would dance for joy at 'being liberated'.

[ceemes]

According to many in the US, (and those on the right wing) this is only because of the 'terrorists', while the bulk of Iranians would dance for joy at 'being liberated'.

Just like they are in Iraq eh?...funnily enough, about the only time Iraqi's seem to be dancing in the streets is usually around the burning carcus of a US military vehicle......

Going into Iran when neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are secure would be foolish in the extreme.....that being so, I will put my money on the boy idiot Bush to just that if the America electoric suffers from a massive brain meltdown and re(s)elects him.

[August1991]

Just like they are in Iraq eh?...funnily enough, about the only time Iraqi's seem to be dancing in the streets is usually around the burning carcus of a US military vehicle......

That would be your impression if you only watch or listen to the CBC.

There are about as many people in Iraq as in Canada. Canada seems to be a pretty complicated country; PEI sure ain't Toronto. What do you think (know) about Iraq?

[socrates]

the first step to nuculear proliferation would be to make treatys you really couldnt back out of in the first place. I also think there should be a teaty not only to stop making nuculear weapons but to destroy tem also.then if we can get most of the major countries(and the smaller ones) we can "perswade" the nations that dont agree to sign the treaty any way.

[socrates]

sorry ignore my last reply

[barbarosa]

please don't talk about nuke treaties to me. i feel sick when America freely polices the world uncontested.why should other countries have to give up thier nukes ?america simply wants to either spy on other countries with thier "weapons inspectors" or be the only country with nukes for reasons unknown to me. when will other countries realise this. One thing is for sure America will Have its downfall very soon and when it does it will simply fade away much like the Byzantium,only a shadow of its former glory

what did we do in 5th period?

[socrates]

we ahhhhhhhhh did that silent study thing were everyone just sat there