NationStates Jolt Archive

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran will stay in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but that could change if the country is forced to give up its nuclear fuel program, the Islamic republic's top negotiator was quoted as saying.

The United States and European Union want Iran to abandon all work related to uranium enrichment, arguing Iran cannot be trusted with such sensitive technology, but also offering incentives in return.

Tensions worsened in August when Iran, which insists its nuclear programme is strictly peaceful, formally rejected any such demands and ended a freeze on uranium conversion -- a precursor to enrichment, which in turn can be diverted to military uses.

The resolution said Iran could avoid penalties by halting conversion, fully cooperating with IAEA inspectors and returning to the EU talks.

Iran has so far refused to do so, arguing that nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes is a "right" enshrined by the NPT and saying that offers of nuclear fuel from abroad cannot be relied upon.

"Internationally there is no guarantee that we can get nuclear fuel. In the past 18 years Iranian scientists have worked on nuclear technology and it is a big achievement," Larijani was quoted as saying.

"The issue the United States has with us is not only about the nuclear issue. It is a war and if we give in to it, tomorrow it will be about human rights, then Hezbollah, democracy and other issues they will use as pretext," Larijani argued.

Iran has already threatened to respond to the resolution by ending compliance with the NPT's additional protocol -- which gives the IAEA more inspection powers -- and resuming enrichment
...sniped...

Nifty, but that doesn't mean atmospheric spectrometry readings should stop being taken to look for the signature of bomb-fuel enrichment.

You can't have a "tough but fair" system of international nuclear regulation when someone violates the treaty by waving their new bombs around - or worse, actually using one. You have to accost them before they reach the point of having a finished weapon.

Speaking of waving new bombs around, THAT GOES FOR YOU TOO, RUMMY.

Nifty, but that doesn't mean atmospheric spectrometry readings should stop being taken to look for the signature of bomb-fuel enrichment.When will tha IAEA ask to perform atmospheric spectrometry readings for Israel or Korea?

...never.

When will tha IAEA ask to perform atmospheric spectrometry readings for Israel?

Interesting fact: once a nation has nuclear bombs, the IAEA is rather superfluous. Add every other nation with a nuclear bomb to your list - your anti-Israel racist bias is showing.

When will tha IAEA ask to perform atmospheric spectrometry readings for Israel?
Why bother? Everyone knows that they make bombs.

Why bother? Everyone knows that they make bombs.that is the reason why Iran want to have nukes too.

Spectrometry is about "are these people making bombs?"

When you already know, what's the point of looking? The purpose of the Dimona plant was known for decades. It was a joke among Israelis - anyone visiting Israel could have found out for himself just by talking to people. It wouldn't have worked if you'd looked like a tourist, but if you'd posed as a resident of one of the communities of immigrants from North America - a group that usually has limited command of Hebrew and a distinctive (and annoying) accent to it, which would give you a cover story - you could've heard things.

I am sure that every intelligence agency in the world had people doing just that.

that is the reason why Iran want to have nukes too.
Actually, I gather Iran would want nukes whether Israel had them or not. Israel has a reasonably serious set of conventional armed forces, and Iran has always been itching to attack. A nuclear weapon (or weapons) would make that so much easier, and fewer good Muslims would have to die. Just, well, a lot of Arabs who happened to live in or near Israel. But they're almost all Sunnis anyway.

Israel's development of nuclear weapons was a reaction, not an initiative. Iran may be reacting by pursuing the bomb now, but it was only a matter of time anyway. [see: Lehrer, Thomas. "Who's next?"]

If there's MAD in the Near and Middle East, good. It means that wars are less likely to start, because if one does, everyone will suffer.

that is the reason why Iran want to have nukes too.
Actually, their stated reason over the past ten years, at least by hardliners, is to get the ability to attack Israel first with ICBMs.

That's why they developed the ICBMs. Now all they need is the warheads.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/hr_092100.html

Actually, their stated reason over the past ten years...can you find that BS on BBC? Asian/EU media? wikipedia? or some other unbiased source?

can you find that BS on BBC? Asian/EU media? wikipedia? or some other unbiased source?

Oh, you want to say that Iran doesn't have ICBMs? Doesn't work on them? Doesn't plan to target Israel?

Here, read this: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/

and here are their sources:

1. Iran's Ballistic Missile and Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs, Hearing before the International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services Subcommittee of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, September 21, 2000
2. "North Korea Seen Delaying Missile Deal with Iran," The Washington Times, 25, Dec. 1993, p. A3.
3. Gertz, Bill, "Iran Buys Arms From Russia," The Washington Times, pp. 1 & pA16.
4. "Iran Testing Chinese Missiles," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 23, June 1997, p. 65.
5. Gertz, Bill, "China agrees to deal with Iran on missiles," The Washington Times, 19, August 1999 p.?.
6. "Iran, Khatami details plans for 25 defense projects," Tehran (Reuters), The Washington Times, 29, Sept. 1999, p. ?.
7. Risen, James and Miller, Judith, "CIA tells Clinton an Iranian A-bomb can't be ruled out," The New York Times, 17, Jan. 2000, p. 1.
8. Walter, Pincus, "CIA not ruling out "possibility" Iran can build nuclear bomb," The Washington Post, 18 Jan. 2000, p. A8.
9. "1st. Secretary M. Gorbachev: considerations for Iranian space mission", "Gorbachev orders study of Soviet - Iranian space mission." Soviet Aerospace, 26, June 1989., p. ?.
10. Lippman, Thomas W., "Israel Presses U.S. To Sanction Russian Missile Firms Aiding Iran", The Washington Post, 25, Sept. 1997, p. A31.
11. Gertz, Bill, "Russia disregards pledge to curb Iran missile output", The Washington Times, 22, May 1997, p.A3.
* Quotes information from teh classified Defense Intelligence Agency report
12. Gertz, Bill, "Russia, China aid Iran's missile programs", The Washington Times, 10, Sept. 1997, pp.1 & A11.
* A detailed Israeli intelligence report given to teh CIA details the cooperaation between Iran with the Russians and Chinese...The CIA and DIA were apparently able to substantiate most of the Israeli report on Russia as well as the PRC and Chinese Great Wall Industries involvement.
13. Lippman, Thomas W. , "Israel presses U.S. to sanction Russia missile firms aiding Iran", The Washington Post, 25, Sept. 1997, p. A31.
14. Gertz, Bill, "Hill group seeks sanctions against Russia for aid to Iran", The Washington Times, 2, Oct.1997, p. A11.
* "...Pentagon officials subsequently said US Intelligence agencies had confirmed that Iran is building two missile systems based on the No-dong-1 missile..."
15. Gertz, Bill, "Russians admit to training Iranian missile technicians", The Washington Times, 3, Oct. 1997, p.A17.
* "The service (FSC) stopped an Iranian attempting to manufacture "Joints and parts for a liquid fueled missile engine" at NPO Trud. The parts were being built by the Russian company "under the guise as equipment for gas-pumping stations" the official said." Polyus and INOR, metal alloy producers, were also mentioned.
16. Hoffman, Davis, "Russia says it thwarted attempts by Iran to get missile technology", The Washington Post, 3, Oct. 1997, p. A35.
* "Thwarted", and Iranian attempt this year to have parts manufactured for a liquied fuel missile at a russian factory. The parts were being disguised as gas compressors or pumps. "...All had been detected at an early stages"... "and a stop had been put to them."
17. Gertz, Bill, "Russia sells Iran missile metals", The Washington Times, 20, Oct. 1997, pp. A1&A11.
* "High strength steel and special foil 620 kilograms" total was supplied to Iran by contract for its ballistic missile. INOR had already thermal treated the alloys so that the Iranian could process the materials for their specific use. These materials are used to shield guidance and instrumentation equipment.
18. Verbin, Anatoly, "Russia deports Iranian for trying to buy missile designs", The Washington Times, ( Reuters News Agency), 15, Nov. 1997, p. A8.
19. Gertz, Bill, "Russia conspiring with Iran on missiles", The Washington Times, 23, Feb. 1998, pp. A1 &A18.
* Indication of FSB duplicity cooperation with BSTU and its director for "provindg guidance systems, firing circuits, pyrotechnics or explosives" and solid propellant motor lectures at teh "persepolis joint missile education center" to teh Sanam Industrial Group department 140, which is in charge of the solid propellant missile program for Iran.
20. Gertz, Bill, "Russian Firms facing sanctions", The Washington Times, 17, July 1998, p. A8.
21. Gertz, Bill, "Russia says U.S. put on missile sting", The Washington Times, pp. A1 & A14.
* "One official siad the Moscow Aviation Institute is continuing to train Iranian missile technicians" (engineers and designers)
22. Hoffman, David, 'Russia Denounces U. S. Sanctions", The Washington Post, 12, January 1999, pp. A1, 7 A24.
23. Lippman, Thomas W., "Sanctions Imposed on 3 Russian Institutes, Thomas W. Lippman, The Washington Post, 13, January 1999, pp. A17, & A20.
* NIKIET Scientific Research & Design Institute of Power Technology for the reactor design institute; Mendeleyev University of Chemical and Technology Know-how on heavy water production, nuclear graphite production, research reactor design.
24. Timmerman, Kenneth, "Iran's deadly missile potential", The Washington Times, 16, July 1999, p. A15.
* "Iran is also working with North Korea to develop ICBM's and shorter range missiles and regularly sends teams to attend Norht Korean missile launches." A significant increase in activity at Sharoud, Iran's missile test site, suggests Iran will be launching a mult-stage missile
25. Hudson, Audrey, "Analyst fear U.S. helps Iran develop missiles via Moscow", 14, July 1999, Space News, p.?.
26. "Iran says missiles are for defense", The Washington Times, 19, July 1999, pp.A13.
27. Mulholland, David, "Iran-Russia ties prompt U.S. missile debate", Defense News, 26, July 1999, pp. 4.
28. Saradzhyan, Simon, "Leaks of rocket expertise to Iran alleged", Simon Saradzhyan, Space News, 24, April 2000, p. 17.
29. Gertz, Bill, "Firms in China, N. Korea hit with State sanctions', Bill Gertz, The Washington Times, 28, June 2001, pp. 1 & A18.
* The US State Department issues two year long government sanctions against North Korea's Changgwang Sinyong Corp. for providing No-dong-1 liquid fule rocket engines from the No-dong-1 missile program to Iran for its Shahab-3 and follow on programs.
# Iran's Ballistic Missile and Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs, hearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, September 21, 2000
# Iran - Special Weapons News Archive
# Iran PROLIFERATION: THREAT AND RESPONSE - 1997 US Department of Defense, November 25, 1997
# Aaron Karp Technological Pathways to Ballistic Missiles in Iran" Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Appendix III: Unclassified Working Papers
# Iran: Headed for a National Deterrent? Exploring U.S. Missile Defense Requirements in 2010: What Are the Policy and Technology Challenges? Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, April 1997
# Lessons of Iranian Missile Programs for U.S. Nonproliferation Policy by Aaron Karp The Nonproliferation Review Spring-Summer 1998, Volume 5 • Number 3
# Iran - Ballistic Missile Programmes from CDISS
# Missile Threat from Iran By Kenneth R. Timmerman Reader's Digest January 1998

Don't bother trying, Sierra. Nothing that comes out of Israeli or US intelligence can possibly be right.

:rolleyes:

Of course, if we apply the same standard to news media, then nothing that comes out of the news media - BBC included - can be trusted.

Oh, you want to say that Iran doesn't have ICBMs? Doesn't work on them? Doesn't plan to target Israel?I am wondering about your "Attack Israel First" statement

It's not so unrealistic to imagine that Iran might try a first strike, as it is unequivocally opposed to the existence of that state and, in fact, actively supports efforts to kill its citizens.

After the Iran-Contra deal, American-made missiles started landing in Israel. Guess why?

...nothing that comes out of the news media - BBC included - can be trusted.about the Middel-East...BBC has a really good record...Most of the world Media has a fair record...

I said "If you apply the same standard to the news media", meaning the standard I believe you were applying to intelligence agencies: i.e., if they have ever printed anything with partisan bias, they can never again be trusted.

Actually, their stated reason over the past ten years, at least by hardliners, is to get the ability to attack Israel first with ICBMs.


Oh yes your right. Because of course the Iranian leadership is actively looking to get wiped from the face of the earth.. they are mindless automotans, ideologues bent on the destruction of capitalism.. oh whoops.. might have meant Stalin there- sorry got the assumptions confused again! :eek:

Odd how the assumptions are so similar though.... hmmm

Oh yes your right. Because of course the Iranian leadership is actively looking to get wiped from the face of the earth.. they are mindless automotans, ideologues bent on the destruction of capitalism.. oh whoops.. might have meant Stalin there- sorry got the assumptions confused again! :eek:

Odd how the assumptions are so similar though.... hmmm

They are not ALL mindless. Just some of them.

Remember Curtis LeMay, here in the US? Same type of people. He was the main advocate of the active USE of nuclear weapons by the US, and continually flaunted Presidential nuclear authority.

They are not ALL mindless. Just some of them.

I'd agree with you there- but they don't get into power enough. Iran is a state (an actor if you will).

The primary goal of EVERY actor is survival on the international stage- sometimes that means going to war if they feel threatened, sometimes it means they start an arms race etc etc. But never will an actor go out of its way to provoke a situation where it will lead to its destruction. Actors are rational (granted people are not- but a person in charge invariably is)

Now Stalin was a lone dictator/autocrat- a paranoid, delusional madman- yet still he would not do something to endanger the survival of the state.

Iran is the same- the only outcome from attacking say, Israel first- would be its quick and final destruction. That is not a rational move- and therefore the actor is not going to do that.

All states are rational actors.

All states are rational actors.

I guess that's why Saddam, in the 1991 Gulf War, didn't retreat from Kuwait when the world asked him to, and half the world's armies were sitting outside his door. Yep. Rational.

I guess that's why Saddam, in the 1991 Gulf War, didn't retreat from Kuwait when the world asked him to, and half the world's armies were sitting outside his door. Yep. Rational.
Or why Hitler invaded Poland... or why Kim il Sung invaded South Korea... true.

But (except for Hitler- a exceptional case i think you'll agree :D) did the then actions of Saddam or Kim il Sung lead to the destruction of the state? No.

One could say the same about many leaders and wars- they make assumptiond on what the world or their enemy will do- bad assumptions.

That is what is happening in Iran- people are making assumptions about their behaviour. Its a dangerous game- and rarely pays off in geopolitics.

Or why Hitler invaded Poland... or why Kim il Sung invaded South Korea... true.

But (except for Hitler- a exceptional case i think you'll agree :D) did the then actions of Saddam or Kim il Sung lead to the destruction of the state? No.

One could say the same about many leaders and wars- they make assumptiond on what the world or their enemy will do- bad assumptions.

That is what is happening in Iran- people are making assumptions about their behaviour. Its a dangerous game- and rarely pays off in geopolitics.

Which is why there's only talking at this point. I don't see anyone invading them or nuking them right now.

Which is why there's only talking at this point. I don't see anyone invading them or nuking them right now.

Agreed. But I don't see Iran invading or 'nuking' Israel right now either? ;) (I know they don't have nukes- i mean it in the ICBM way)

It wouldn't make sense to risk their own destruction- to gain what? Brownie points with their population? The resulting hardship encurred would quickly erode any support for the attack.

I'm just saying, it's illogical for Iran to attack first (without provocation). Iran is a state- and states are logical.

Agreed. But I don't see Iran invading or 'nuking' Israel right now either? ;) (I know they don't have nukes- i mean it in the ICBM way)

ICBM as in Intercontinental Ballistic missiles?

Iran needs only IRBMs to blast one and I think they have IRBMs which can be mated to nuke warheads. If not, the Chinese are always there to supply some, on the sly.

Besides, Iran does not need any Ballistic missiles to deliver nukes to Israel. They have their proxies, the Hezbollah, to do the job while they can say pretty denials. Hezbollah can smuggle some into Israeli cities and make demands and hold Israel to ransom and paralyse the nation. This is the scenario that Israel would want to avoid by pre-empting Iranian moves and attacking them.

Israel has a stated policy of denying nukes in the neighborhood. They WILL act if the US/UN don't.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=55689&headline=Don't~worry,~we'll~take~care~of~Iran~nukes:~Israel
Washington, September 30: If Washington and its allies do not stop Iran’s nuclear programmes by force if necessary, Israel will, three Israeli legislators visiting the US have warned.


“Israel will not live under the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb. We feel we are obliged to warn our friends that Israel should not be pushed into a situation where we see no other solution but to act unilaterally against Iran,” said Yosef Lapid, head of the Shinui party. Lapid and his colleagues Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee and Arieh Eldad, a member of the Israeli National Union party said conventional diplomacy will not work with Iran.


I'm just saying, it's illogical for Iran to attack first (without provocation). Iran is a state- and states are logical.

Rationality is subjective. What is rational to you may not be to another.

Plus, Iran has this martyrdom complex. We really dunno what goes on in Qom (the real seat of power) and if their rhetoric is just rhetoric or if they really believe the stuff they say.

ICBM as in Intercontinental Ballistic missiles?

Iran needs only IRBMs to blast one and I think they have IRBMs which can be mated to nuke warheads. If not, the Chinese are always there to supply some, on the sly. I only used ICBMs because Sierra did thats all.

Besides, Iran does not need any Ballistic missiles to deliver nukes to Israel. They have their proxies, the Hezbollah, to do the job while they can say pretty denials. Hezbollah can smuggle some into Israeli cities and make demands and hold Israel to ransom and paralyse the nation. This is the scenario that Israel would want to avoid by pre-empting Iranian moves and attacking them. The odds of that are HIGHLY unlikely. Such a provocation would result in war- the flimsy excuse of 'we didn't have anything to do with Hezb'allah'' will not hold in the international court.

Israel has a stated policy of denying nukes in the neighborhood. They WILL act if the US/UN don't. Yeah they do- at least having another country in that rough part of the world will balance out the power. Having said that- i nukes are mainly used as deterrents- not offensive weapons.

Rationality is subjective. What is rational to you may not be to another.
I disagree- Not in politics- states are rational. It is pretty obvious to one state that pi**ing off a nuclear power would result in their destruction. You don't give the state of Iran enough credit.

Plus, Iran has this martyrdom complex. We really dunno what goes on in Qom (the real seat of power) and if their rhetoric is just rhetoric or if they really believe the stuff they say. One might say the same about Washington, the Kremlin, Westminster etc etc. They are the government and act in the best interest of the people- even in the theocracy there are 'checks' and 'balances' to make sure no single nutter has his finger on the buttons so to speak.

^

"The issue the United States has with us is not only about the nuclear issue. It is a war and if we give in to it, tomorrow it will be about human rights, then Hezbollah, democracy and other issues they will use as pretext," Larijani argued


Yeah, we wouldn't want them to give up their right to terrorism, theocratic misrule, torture, and execution of homosexuals. :rolleyes:

"The issue the United States has with us is not only about the nuclear issue. It is a war and if we give in to it, tomorrow it will be about human rights, then Hezbollah, democracy and other issues they will use as pretext," Larijani argued


Yeah, we wouldn't want them to give up their right to terrorism, theocratic misrule, torture, and execution of homosexuals. :rolleyes:

And what gives you the right to tell others how they should be governed?

And what gives you the right to tell others how they should be governed?


A more advanced civilization and greater military force.

A more advanced civilization and greater military force.
Fair enough. At least your honest and forthcoming about it :D

I disagree with the first point unless you mean techn. speaking.- but thats just my own opinion.

Fair enough. At least your honest and forthcoming about it :D

I disagree with the first point unless you mean techn. speaking.- but thats just my own opinion.
No, I mean that the USA at least pays lip service to the idea that church and state should be separate and all people should be treated equally. It seems the Scandinavian countries actually live up to those ideas. The US protects speech and the press.

If you compare western civilization to Iran Iran looks pretty primitive and barbaric, and I want the Iranian people to share in the freedom we in the west take for granted.

about the Middel-East...BBC has a really good record...Most of the world Media has a fair record...
If "fair" and "really good" mean "Yeah, we told lies that fit our ideology a couple of times, but then we said we were sorry and told the truth", then this statement is accurate.

No, I mean that the USA at least pays lip service to the idea that church and state should be separate and all people should be treated equally. It seems the Scandinavian countries actually live up to those ideas. The US protects speech and the press. Hmmm... i'd be careful about that last line. A lot of things can be borderline

If you compare western civilization to Iran Iran looks pretty primitive and barbaric, and I want the Iranian people to share in the freedom we in the west take for granted.

Looks barbaric from sitting in your Starbucks, reading your copy of the National Enquirer, listening to your iPod and tapping your Nikes off of the table...... ;)

If the Iranians want freedom they'll let you know. The majority seem to be content enough under the current system. Western Liberal democracy isn't the be all and end all- the UAE has nicely fused a Islamic style govt with some Western aspects- their people don't want anything else from the West.

If you want to start shareing the freedoms you in the West take for granted... try looking though the African continent first- i think they're in much more of a need for that.... oh wait they're only black :eek:

If "fair" and "really good" mean "Yeah, we told lies that fit our ideology a couple of times, but then we said we were sorry and told the truth", then this statement is accurate.

What 'ideology' does the BBC have? Honesty? A drive for the truth?

Looks barbaric from sitting in your Starbucks, reading your copy of the National Enquirer, listening to your iPod and tapping your Nikes off of the table...... ;)

If the Iranians want freedom they'll let you know. The majority seem to be content enough under the current system. Western Liberal democracy isn't the be all and end all- the UAE has nicely fused a Islamic style govt with some Western aspects- their people don't want anything else from the West.

If you want to start shareing the freedoms you in the West take for granted... try looking though the African continent first- i think they're in much more of a need for that.... oh wait they're only black :eek:
What makes you think that I consider black people unworthy of freedom and democracy? Hell, if I were in charge our military wouldn't be in Iraq it would be in Sudan liberating the people of Darfur.

What makes you think that I consider black people unworthy of freedom and democracy? Hell, if I were in charge our military wouldn't be in Iraq it would be in Sudan liberating the people of Darfur.
Oh i didn't mean you personally! I meant Western govts in general. There is an inherent racism underlying the foreign policy of nearly all Western govts.

Africa's been a sh*thole for long enough but half of the world decides to tramp into Iraq and now maybe Iran. Gee, i dunno- i woulda though Sudan, Congo, Angola, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone et al would deserve the same 'treatment' of enjoying the spread of 'freedom'.

What 'ideology' does the BBC have? Honesty? A drive for the truth?
To start with, they don't like Israel, independent from anything else. They've also spread disinformation about battles between the Israeli army and militants (yes, they're militants and not terrorists when they're shooting at soldiers), saying that there were massacres.

Somehow my definition of massacre is not "bloody battle that leaves the ground strewn with body parts from both sides", but what the hell do I know.

The majority [of Iranians] seem to be content enough under the current system.
How many have you spoken with outside of the constraints that their government puts on them? Many Iranians no longer live in Iran because of the way the government treated them. Azar Nafisi is a great example; look her up on Amazon.com sometime.

To start with, they don't like Israel,

Awwww..... :(

Many Iranians no longer live in Iran because of the way the government treated them.

What that?... You can leave a country if you don't like living there?... Shocking...

Awwww..... :(
:D :D :cool: :D

What that?... You can leave a country if you don't like living there?... Shocking...hahaha...

outnumbered by the Anti-Palestine crowd...and still kicking their asses...

good Job.

about the Middel-East...BBC has a really good record...Most of the world Media has a fair record...

...as judged by whom, the Arab League?

hahaha...

outnumbered by the Anti-Palestine crowd...and still kicking their asses...

good Job.
*blushes*

Well, when you stick to logic, there's very little that can be argued with.(Calmly too i might add)
Its when assumptions are brought into it and hypotheticals that start the flames and yelling! :)

I'm enjoying this debate actually- its quite good- and thanks to DCD and Sierra for good debatable points.

Besides, Iran does not need any Ballistic missiles to deliver nukes to Israel. They have their proxies, the Hezbollah, to do the job while they can say pretty denials. Hezbollah can smuggle some into Israeli cities and make demands and hold Israel to ransom and paralyse the nation. This is the scenario that Israel would want to avoid by pre-empting Iranian moves and attacking them. The odds of that are HIGHLY unlikely. Such a provocation would result in war- the flimsy excuse of 'we didn't have anything to do with Hezb'allah'' will not hold in the international court.


Nations don't wait for International courts to guarentee their national security or look after their national interests. Israel certainly does not.

Yeah they do- at least having another country in that rough part of the world will balance out the power. Having said that- i nukes are mainly used as deterrents- not offensive weapons.

Well a nuclear Shi'ite Iran will make a Sunni/Wahabbi Saudi to wanna go nuclear. Are you prepared to give them the same justification that you are giving Iran now?

Rationality is subjective. What is rational to you may not be to another.
I disagree- Not in politics- states are rational. It is pretty obvious to one state that pi**ing off a nuclear power would result in their destruction. You don't give the state of Iran enough credit.

Being overt nuclear powers did not stop Pakistanis from infiltrating Indian territory which led to the Kargil war.

Pakistani leaders still maintain that their decision to infiltrate Kargil was a rational decision. Musharraf came to power that his decision (he was the planner and the architect of the operation) was correct and that what could have been a victory for Pakistan was undermined by Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff capitulating to diplomatic pressure.

So, here is a clear example. What is irrational (provoking a nuclear India) to me is perfectly rational to a Paki army leader who has his fingers on Paki nukes.

What say now?

Why cannot this happen in Iran, about whom we know much lesser than the Paki power structure?

Nations don't wait for International courts to guarentee their national security or look after their national interests. Israel certainly does not.Iran has as much rights as Israel.

Iran has as much rights as Israel.

Not while having Hezbollah proxies and saying at the same time "we will nuke Israel".

Nations don't wait for International courts to guarentee their national security or look after their national interests. Israel certainly does not.

I didn't mean court in the legal sense- more international/state opinion- leading to pressure and inevitable war.


Well a nuclear Shi'ite Iran will make a Sunni/Wahabbi Saudi to wanna go nuclear. Are you prepared to give them the same justification that you are giving Iran now?

Frankly yes- there is no right in saying "i'm allowed a big stick but no one esle is"- either everyone has them or no one does- level playing field.



Being overt nuclear powers did not stop Pakistanis from infiltrating Indian territory which led to the Kargil war.

Pakistani leaders still maintain that their decision to infiltrate Kargil was a rational decision. Musharraf came to power that his decision (he was the planner and the architect of the operation) was correct and that what could have been a victory for Pakistan was undermined by Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff capitulating to diplomatic pressure.

So, here is a clear example. What is irrational (provoking a nuclear India) to me is perfectly rational to a Paki army leader who has his fingers on Paki nukes.


What say now?
I say that the state of Pakistan still exists- the actions of it did not lead to its destruction. Whereas the aforementioned 'assumed' actions of a nuclear Iran would inevitably lead to its destruction by attacking Israel first.

Secondly, did Musharraf indicate whether nuclear weapons would be used, or whether conventional weapons only were to be used? (I don't actually know this- do you?) Its important because this dictates the response of the other power.

Thirdly, i know it might not mean much- but in your instance, Pakistan and India share a land border- Iran and Israel do not. Again, there is no logic to Iran attacking Israel first.

Iran attacking America on the other hand is more likely (still highly UNlikely at any rate) given the aggressive recent rhetoric from the Bush Admin. This could have the effect of forcing Iran into a corner- and we all know what desperate animals do in corners... stupid things.


Why cannot this happen in Iran, about whom we know much lesser than the Paki power structure?
It is precisely because of the unknown Iranian power structure that one cannot assume to know their exact intentions- one cannot compare them to a system you are already familiar with. They must be treated with care and caution. NOT assuming they will do something rash- as this will only force thiem to DO something rash.


^

http://img103.imageshack.us/my.php?image=alq10te.jpg

http://img103.imageshack.us/my.php?image=alq10te.jpg
LOL! :D
Think i saw that just today.

Always knew U2 music would turn you into a terrorist! :p

the bbc is not unbiased

its not got the nickname the blair broadcasting channel for nothing

Well a nuclear Shi'ite Iran will make a Sunni/Wahabbi Saudi to wanna go nuclear. Are you prepared to give them the same justification that you are giving Iran now?

Frankly yes- there is no right in saying "i'm allowed a big stick but no one esle is"- either everyone has them or no one does- level playing field.

You mean, as in all nations should have nuke weapons with delivery systems to boot ?

There are 3 positions here

1. Everybody has nukes - worst case scenario. I hope you are not advocating this

2. Nobody has nukes - best case scenario, but the least possible one. No over nuke nation is going to give up nukes

3. Prevent more nuke nations - Contain proliferation, Cap and roll back wannabe proxies, and prevent any more wannabes.

Take a pick. I am for the third option because it is the only realistic and stable option of the three. Letting in another country will open the door for all.

I say that the state of Pakistan still exists- the actions of it did not lead to its destruction.

It could have - on two occasions.

Once during Kargil war, at which time atleast once warheads were mated to missiles.

Again during India's mobilization to war in 2002 following the attack on Indian parliament by Pakistani terrorists. At this time too warheads were mated to missiles.

The Army chief Padmanabhan later said that there was actual shooting and we would have crossed the border and full scale war (possibly leading to nuke exchange) if not for American intervention and intimidation.


Whereas the aforementioned 'assumed' actions of a nuclear Iran would inevitably lead to its destruction by attacking Israel first.

MAD type doctrines are weakened by this martyrdom complex of Iran. I am assuming you know about the whole "waiting for Imam Mehdi to appear" thing and "he will appear to save us during Armageddon" thing that many in Iran (including leaders) seriously believe.


Secondly, did Musharraf indicate whether nuclear weapons would be used, or whether conventional weapons only were to be used? (I don't actually know this- do you?) Its important because this dictates the response of the other power.

Yes. Atleast once during Kargil war. Nukes were indeed mated. Dunno what happened during the other incident in 2002. Americans were supposedly in control by then. Not much is clear on this due to the obviously sensitive nature of it.

Bluntly put, it is only nukes that embolden the Pakis to support terrorism against India in Kashmir and elsewhere. Its jihadi policy and covert proxy war against India were started around late 80s - the same time it acquired a functioning nuke.

Given Iran's support to terrorists like Hizbollah et al, what guarentee you have that the above will not be repeated?

Has Iran repudiated their support to terrorist groups targetting Israeli civilians?

Why should not Israel pre-empt this threat?

Thirdly, i know it might not mean much- but in your instance, Pakistan and India share a land border- Iran and Israel do not. Again, there is no logic to Iran attacking Israel first.

Yes Iran and Israel share border. The border of the faithful and the infidel. The border of Darul Islam and Darul Harb.

There is no logic for Iran to support Palestinian terrorists either. But they do. Like I said, your logic is not their logic. Logic too is subjective.

I,m tired of hearing Isreal is fighting Terrorists when they themselves started out that way, former prime minister Yitzhak shamir was a TERRORIST leader of the stern gang.
What comes around gos around i say.

I,m tired of hearing Isreal is fighting Terrorists when they themselves started out that way, former prime minister Yitzhak shamir was a TERRORIST leader of the stern gang.
What comes around gos around i say.
I prefer Israeli terrorists like Sharon to Nazis. Hell, I even prefer Palestinian terrorists to Nazis. Your side lost. Real Americans along with Brits, Canadians, and even a handfull of French kicked your asses. Just drop the failed ideology.

EDIT: I forgot the commie Soviets and the poor, starving Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto that helped spill Nazi blood. Good for them.

DCD,

Stop feeding trolls.

Mongoose,

Where art thou?

Mongoose,

Where art thou?

I HAVE a life you know!
:p
There are 3 positions here

1. Everybody has nukes - worst case scenario. I hope you are not advocating this

2. Nobody has nukes - best case scenario, but the least possible one. No over nuke nation is going to give up nukes

3. Prevent more nuke nations - Contain proliferation, Cap and roll back wannabe proxies, and prevent any more wannabes.

Yes, I do agree with your summary.
1 Geopolitics has gotten so dangerous in the past decade or so that I wouldn't throw out the thought of MAD on a global scale- shocking yeah i know, stupid? definetly- but think about it: During the Cold War, the world was so frightened, it was actually a rather safe place! Neither state was stupid enough to risk a nuclear war. Maybe if EVERYONE had a nuke pointing at someone else, they'd be SO petrified, nothing would get done! (or we'd all die and the 'experiment' would start over again :p )

2 A hippie idealist world, that won't happen- a shame because it would be nice.

3 Not exactly fair though given that you might be put under enormous international pressure BEFORE you get them- but then when you do, you are treated like an equal power- India, Pakistan, N. Korea et al. So you can see the attraction of saying "Well, if they could do it- so can we. The end benefits far outweigh the short-term pressure". Also, from their perspective (bar the NPT) what right has one sovereign state to say to another "Nope, you can't do that"? A bigger army? Well, thats going back to a pre-WW1 geopolitical arena- FAR more dangerous you'll agree!


MAD type doctrines are weakened by this martyrdom complex of Iran. I am assuming you know about the whole "waiting for Imam Mehdi to appear" thing and "he will appear to save us during Armageddon" thing that many in Iran (including leaders) seriously believe.

Possibly. I'd be willing to entertain that notion, IF we knew more about what they would do. It is still an assumption that they have a 'martydom complex' in regards to foreign policy. The largest section of Iranian society is the young under 25, university educated, middle class- if this so called 'complex' was true- it should have appeared well before this more tolerant generation grew up. It should have occured in the 1980's- but it saw no attacks against Israel- only a traditional, historical rivalry with neighbours Iraq renewed, this time under the guise of 'Islamic Revolution'.
Again, i'm going to say that the leaders are inherently rational on a policy level. Stalin was a maniac, a deluded madman at home and abroad- yet STILL his foreign policy was not 'self destructive'- one would have thought so given his personality and the ideology. But no, he was rational on the world stage- so too, in my humble opinion :p, are the Iranians.

Given Iran's support to terrorists like Hizbollah et al, what guarentee you have that the above will not be repeated?

Has Iran repudiated their support to terrorist groups targetting Israeli civilians?

Why should not Israel pre-empt this threat?

Again, to be fair, the Iranian govt would (i suspect) have no desire for WMDs to 'escape' into the hands of those groups. The CIA coined term 'blowback' helped found their Revolution, and helped the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism first in Afghanistan (and now Iraq). I doubt they would be so fond to give away tech that would be so easily used against them in the near future.
Of course, i agree- no guarantee can be given. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.....

On a basic level re Israel? Pre emption is a tricky thing to prove (look at Iraq and the WMDs). They would start a potential Middle East war- possibly spreading outward, and harshly affecting their own people in the process. It will probably rely on US/EU/UN interference to maintain the 'watch' on the Iran/Hezb'ollah/WMDs linkage.

Yes Iran and Israel share border. The border of the faithful and the infidel. The border of Darul Islam and Darul Harb
Iranians are a different breed- Persians, not Arabs. They don't like being thought as that. When i go abroad, foreigns autom. think i'm English merely because i speak the lang.... I find it irritating and a tad offensive. I can see why it irritates the Iranians I know when they are confused with 'normal' Arabs.

Like I said, your logic is not their logic. Logic too is subjective.
Agreed to a certain extent. Its a shame i'm not in power :p I suppose we can only hope the leaders on all sides can think with logic :)

p.s Thanks for a good debate- you make good, and interesting points :)

I prefer Israeli terrorists like Sharon to Nazis. Hell, I even prefer Palestinian terrorists to Nazis. Your side lost. Real Americans along with Brits, Canadians, and even a handfull of French kicked your asses. Just drop the failed ideology.

EDIT: I forgot the commie Soviets and the poor, starving Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto that helped spill Nazi blood. Good for them.
I don,t agree with you and i,m a troll?
Zionism is...racist,it is nationalist,and it is Bibilcally inspired(rather than spirtuly inspired) .being a fundamentalist movement,Zionism is not categorically different from Nazism .only when we understand Zionism in its nationalist and racist context will we begin to comprehend the depths of its atrocitices.
And i,m so glad you mentioned the british while they were fighting to liberate Jews from Hitlers Death camps the future Isrealy Prime Minister was blowing them up.
and are you a drunk commie? so whats in a name in a game.

3. Prevent more nuke nations -

I am for the third option because it is the only realistic and stable option of the three. Letting in another country will open the door for all.you would have some credibility.... had you Posted that BEFORE India got its Nukes...

you would have some credibility.... had you Posted that BEFORE India got its Nukes...
Before May 1974? Well... I think it was quite difficult for Aryavatha to post on the Internet forum then. :rolleyes:

Before May 1974? Well... I think it was quite difficult for Aryavatha to post on the Internet forum then. :rolleyes:

Ergo, the post never had credibility in the first place :p

Before May 1974? Well... I think it was quite difficult for Aryavatha to post on the Internet forum then. :rolleyes:

lol..thanks for the laugh. :D

But do you notice that the NPT community have still not accepted us as a legitimate nuke weapons state. We are still viewed as proliferators even though we have an impeccable record on non-proliferation.

Their logic is that we proliferated to ourselves. :confused: I kid you not.

Their logic is that we proliferated to ourselves. :confused: I kid you not.

Thereby, all member states of the NPT treaty who have nuclear arms are violators of the agreement no? Interesting, some have already broken the treaty the moment their signatures were on it. :p

All I know is Iran is set up to be the most dominant nation is the region . I care very much if Iran has nukes . It would be a huge mistake . No more Nukes ...never ...ever ..thought I would say that . We should be finding ways of getting rid of the dammed things not making more . I hate to say it but its going to take one being used to wake some people up . Iran having nukes is a cause for war .

But do you notice that the NPT community have still not accepted us as a legitimate nuke weapons state. Did it matter to India? nope.

Acceptacion by the International Community...was never enough of a concern to stop the Indian_Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The Beginning:
As early as June 26, 1946, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, India's soon to be Prime Minister announced "As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection....."

(Disclaimer...the same for Israel, NK, Pakistan, etc)

Look, I am tired of making this point again and again.

Iran cannot have a nuke bomb while on the same time maintaining their proxies Hezbullah and a rhetoric of "we're gonna destroy so and so country" all the while being signatories to NPT which legally binds them not to make nuke weapons.

Let Iran announce withdrawal from NPT.

Let Iran tone down rhetoric and give up on their terrorist proxies.

Then I am confortable with the idea of Iran having nukes.

We have suffered enough from one terrorist nation (Pakistan) which is belligerent due to having protection of nukes. It has also proliferated to other irresponsible nations like Libya, N.Korea and Lord knows who else.

I am not going to see a repeat of that with Iran.

Israel offered to bomb the nascent Pakistani nuke program and all it asked for is to offer refuelling facilities in India and the Indian PM refused due to various reasons and we are still rueing that we missed the chance.

Not again. I will root for Israeli action to take out Iranian nuke weapons program.

And remember Bush ain't gonna be president after two years. A nuke Iran will be there forever. See past Bush.

...

But do you notice that the NPT community have still not accepted us as a legitimate nuke weapons state. We are still viewed as proliferators even though we have an impeccable record on non-proliferation.

Their logic is that we proliferated to ourselves. :confused: I kid you not.
IIRC there were some accusations of nuclear proliferation against Canada back then. No matter how you slice it, though, India has shown remarkable restraint with its nuclear weapons and certainly has not attemted to sell its bomb to some unsavoury regime.

But what about the starving russians.. they have thousands of nukes(not counting out of work scientests) they would sell a nuke quiker then a junebug getting off a hot griddle in summer time.

But what about the starving russians.. they have thousands of nukes(not counting out of work scientests) they would sell a nuke quiker then a junebug getting off a hot griddle in summer time.
1) The Russians are not starving, that's for certain.

2) The continuing presence of New York and London on the map of the world speaks against the possibility of illegal nuclear transfer by the Russian Armed Forces.

3) Russia (to be exact, the USSR) proliferated in the past. We helped the Chinese a lot with their nuclear programme back in the 1950s.

4) Some of our nuclear scientists may have helped Iran and North Korea.

Real Americans along with Brits, Canadians, and even a handfull of French kicked your asses. Just drop the failed ideology.

EDIT: I forgot the commie Soviets and the poor, starving Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto that helped spill Nazi blood. Good for them.

Don't you mean Soviets and British, along with Canadians, Americans, Australians and French, kicked their arses?
Get the priority right in accordance with who fought the most ;)

No matter how you slice it, though, India has shown remarkable restraint with its nuclear weapons and certainly has not attemted to sell its bomb to some unsavoury regime.

Not so according to the NPT folks. Especially Michael Krepon, David Albright and Stephen Cohen types.

See
http://www.house.gov/hasc/CDR/Cohen27Sep05.pdf
and here
http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/30inter1.htm?q=tp&file=.htm
We define nonproliferation in different ways -- the Indians point to their great record of not transferring nuclear technologies and also, of course, point to Pakistan and China.

For many Americans, the fact that India went nuclear is a nonproliferation disaster. I don't share that passion, but clearly it did some damage to the nonproliferation regime. Whether it is justified or not is another question, but India cannot simply say they are great on nonproliferation because in fact they were a major proliferator :confused: .

You see his line of argument. Everybody knows we have not proliferated to anyone. We have an impeccable record in that. But he says we are a major proliferator. That can only mean that he views that we have proliferated to ourselves and somehow this is a non-proliferation disaster. :confused:

The NPT needs a major overhaul. It is long overdue. The NPT community is afraid of the changes that will be forced on them due to the Indo-US nuclear deal and they are opposing this unmindful of the change in reality.

I hope this deal passes through the US congress. Then anybody can sell us the much needed nuke fuel. We are looking to import Plutonium from you guys mainly, from disassembled Russian Pu warheads and use them to seed Thorium reactors because we have Thorium in abundance. :) This will also solve your problem of disposing the Pu safely. ;)

2) The continuing presence of New York and London on the map of the world speaks against the possibility of illegal nuclear transfer by the Russian Armed Forces.

3) Russia (to be exact, the USSR) proliferated in the past. We helped the Chinese a lot with their nuclear programme back in the 1950s.

4) Some of our nuclear scientists may have helped Iran and North Korea.so... what is the difference between "transfer" and "proliferation"