NationStates Jolt Archive

WTF? On this guy's watch the IAEA allowed N. Korea to go nuclear, Pakistan and N. Korea to sell nuclear weapons technology, and he's taking diplomatic pressure off of Iran allowing them to progress with their nuclear weapons program. How does being incompetant and bringing the world a little closer to nuclear war earn one a Nobel peace prize?

Bringing the world closer to nuclear war? Has he been prodding Washington to threaten nuclear war on other nations as a first strike tactic too?

It was either him or Bono. 'Nuff said. :p

It was either him or Bono. 'Nuff said. :p
Bono: bad music and sunglasses to save the world.

Bringing the world closer to nuclear war? Has he been prodding Washington to threaten nuclear war on other nations as a first strike tactic too?
Um, can we at least try to stick to the subject? BTW, Washington's been trying to limit nuclear proliferation. ElBeradai seems to encourage it.

I think the idea is that for valiantly struggling against the forces of aggression, proliferation and pointless saber-rattling he is being awarded this prize.

Then again, Mr George W. Bush was nominated for the prize and the late Yassir Arafat was actually awarded it, so who knows?

I think Mr Elbaradei does a decent job, given the resources (or lack thereof) he has to work with. He can't really command armies to tackle hostile governments. If a country's policy climate is nearly numb to outside concerns (read: North Korea), there's not much he can do short of telling the Chinese to stop selling electricity and fuel to them. Fat chance of that happening, too.

As for Iran, another country largely insensitive to international opinion, well... my point of view is this: We don't have any real leverage with which to press them. So if they want to create a MAD structure in the Near and Middle East, good for them, they're welcome to it. Fat lot of good it did us during the cold war. Their main opponent has enough firepower to gas, infect, irradiate or just blow up millions of Persians, if provoked, not to mention the arming of Kurdish militias. Iran isn't going to shoot first, unless its government totally loses its collective mind.

Granted, we almost shot first several times... and the US and the Soviet Union and their allies together had enough firepower to wipe out civilization as we know it. But it's just a difference of degree, isn't it? ;)

Bono: bad music and sunglasses to save the world.
U2 has some good songs. Desire, Pride in the name of love, and Bullet in the blue sky are pretty good tunes. Give credit where credit is due.

Bush was also nominated for the Peace Prize, by Blair. I think it was voted down quite quickly...

WTF? On this guy's watch the IAEA allowed N. Korea to go nuclear, Pakistan and N. Korea to sell nuclear weapons technology, and he's taking diplomatic pressure off of Iran allowing them to progress with their nuclear weapons program. How does being incompetant and bringing the world a little closer to nuclear war earn one a Nobel peace prize?You see why Bush isn't getting it? :p
Anyway, Baradei has been going against nuclear proliferation without coming up with doctrines that call for their use, so in a way, he's being peaceful.

Washington's been trying to limit nuclear proliferation.

The States has become the only Western nation to advocate the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike, rather than purely for retaliation. Somehow, I think that makes them more of a threat to world peace...

The States has become the only Western nation to advocate the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike, rather than purely for retaliation. Somehow, I think that makes them more of a threat to world peace...
It's not much different than a cop using his gun if an armed suspect brandishes his. Since the IAEA is completely worthless in preventing the spread on nuclear weapons to rogue states the US has to play world cop. Anyway, your posts have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Simply attacking the US's policies doesn't make ElBeradai any more worthy of a nobel peace prize.

Bush was also nominated for the Peace Prize, by Blair. I think it was voted down quite quickly...
Not by Mr Blair, but Jan Simonsen, a right-wing Norwegian parliamentarian. In fact, he nominated both Mssrs Bush and Blair for the prize.

Freerepublic.com has a Reuters article hosted which Reuters apparently no longer has up. Strange that I would thank people of their political orientation for such favors, but stranger things have happened.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1068699/posts

Ah, sorry. It was one of my friends who told me, and I should know better than to trust him (he lies almost as much as I do)...

(he lies almost as much as I do)...
I think I'll pretend I didn't just see that.

It's the rest of the world telling US in the us that,

'we know your gov't is a sack of lying bturds'

'take a hint'





that's my guess.
he and others, including now exhonorated ex-weapons inspector and former
US marine, card-carrying Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, Scott Ritter,
tried to tell us Iraq had no weapons. that, if not quantitatively disarmed,
they certainly were qualititatively disarmed. Iraq did not have the infrastructure to reconstitute any wmds of any sort. AND, if any chemi
or bio weapons were sitting around from the past they'd would have been
useless sludge because the longest shelf life of any of them was 5 years,
because they naturally break down. .
unfortunately the US press acted simply as stenographers for gov't
instead of investigative journalists.

It's not much different than a cop using his gun if an armed suspect brandishes his. Since the IAEA is completely worthless in preventing the spread on nuclear weapons to rogue states the US has to play world cop. Anyway, your posts have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Simply attacking the US's policies doesn't make ElBeradai any more worthy of a nobel peace prize.More like a corrupt cop though...

It's not much different than a cop using his gun if an armed suspect brandishes his. Since the IAEA is completely worthless in preventing the spread on nuclear weapons to rogue states the US has to play world cop. Anyway, your posts have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Simply attacking the US's policies doesn't make ElBeradai any more worthy of a nobel peace prize.
So threatening the use of nuclear first strike in addition to hardline opposition to the removement of their own nuclear arsenal is some sort of deterrent for other nations to stop pursuing nuclear weapons?

And you obviously didn't get my first post, but seeing your following posts, it obviously wouldn't have mattered if you did.

So threatening the use of nuclear first strike in addition to hardline opposition to the removement of their own nuclear arsenal is some sort of deterrent for other nations to stop pursuing nuclear weapons?

And you obviously didn't get my first post, but seeing your following posts, it obviously wouldn't have mattered if you did.

Obviously, the non-violent methods of getting people to stop developing their own nuclear weapons are not working.

If we're talking about the IAEA (and that's the thread topic), then let's stick to discussing the methods used by the IAEA - which all appear useless.

They didn't stop Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and soon, Iran.

More like a corrupt cop though...
So I guess this thread's getting hijacked with anti-USA posts. Nice. Really classy.

So threatening the use of nuclear first strike in addition to hardline opposition to the removement of their own nuclear arsenal is some sort of deterrent for other nations to stop pursuing nuclear weapons?

And you obviously didn't get my first post, but seeing your following posts, it obviously wouldn't have mattered if you did.
Diplomacy requires credible threats as well as potential rewards. When negotiating with a nation that wants to build a nuclear arsenal because they think it will give them immunity from foreign military intervention one must convince them that developing those weapons won't protect them, but rather guarantee that they'll be attacked.

So I guess this thread's getting hijacked with anti-USA posts. Nice. Really classy.

If you'll notice, the Nobel Peace Prize is less an award for an actual person who is actually promoting peace. It's more of a political statement by a country, rather than an international award to a truly peacemaking individual.

You should see the sad state of affairs for literature. That's far too political as well.

So I guess this thread's getting hijacked with anti-USA posts. Nice. Really classy.
Oh be quiet. It's my right as an American to my opinion and bringing my own anology to add to yours is by no means of a malicious intent.
Some people believe that, throughout history, the US would be better described as a corrupt vigilante than a world policeman. You're free to disagree.
As for hijacking. I apologize. I felt I had to add something to that "world cop" image you displayed.

So I guess this thread's getting hijacked with anti-USA posts. Nice. Really classy.
I don't know about that. My concern here with the cop analogy is this.

The United States is signatory (through acts of Congress) to treaties restricting the deployment of existing nuclear weapons and development of new ones. Our nuclear doctrine has also typically been restrained, with the first-strike option only to be used if and when it becomes clear that the US is under imminent threat of nuclear attack from such and such a site.

For the United States government - the people you and I and everyone else in the country elected - to be rattling the nuclear saber, in addition to pushing for the development of new, more tactically powerful nuclear weapons is akin to a police officer saying he's satisfied with his 10mm sidearm and promising not to replace it with anything real special, nor will he shoot first unless he sees someone pointing a gun at him, but then turning around and trying to buy bigger and better guns along with waving his 10mm about and threatening to shoot people if they point a gun at him.

The reason I point out the re-emphasis of the preventative first strike doctrine is this: when you have nuclear weapons and can send them anywhere in the world within the space of a few hours, it goes without saying that you will shoot first if you feel you must. Repeating it goes beyond the level of a warning and becomes a threat.

Um, can we at least try to stick to the subject? BTW, Washington's been trying to limit nuclear proliferation. ElBeradai seems to encourage it.
Erm...DUH!

You tell me why the IAEA was set up. Go on, look it up.

To, omfg here it comes, proliferate nuclear technology! Just not weapons, but nuclear reactors and the fuel cycle, they are supposed to give countries assistance with such efforts.

WTF? On this guy's watch the IAEA allowed N. Korea to go nuclear, Pakistan and N. Korea to sell nuclear weapons technology, and he's taking diplomatic pressure off of Iran allowing them to progress with their nuclear weapons program. How does being incompetant and bringing the world a little closer to nuclear war earn one a Nobel peace prize?
Sure, his main qualification was that he was anti-U.S. If the Nobel club was really interested in reducing nukes, they would have voted the prize to Sam Nunn. He's actually worked to reduce stockpiles.

Erm...DUH!

You tell me why the IAEA was set up. Go on, look it up.

To, omfg here it comes, proliferate nuclear technology! Just not weapons, but nuclear reactors and the fuel cycle, they are supposed to give countries assistance with such efforts.
Exactly my point. The IAEA is supposed to promote the PEACEFULL use of the atom. While peacefull nuclear options have been offered to both N. Korea and Iran, both nations have refused them and chosen to pursue a nuclear weapons program and the IAEA has done nothing to prevent it.

Exactly my point. The IAEA is supposed to promote the PEACEFULL use of the atom. While peacefull nuclear options have been offered to both N. Korea and Iran, both nations have refused them and chosen to pursue a nuclear weapons program and the IAEA has done nothing to prevent it.
North Korea, clearly, yes. Iran, absolutely not. There is not one shred of evidence, just mistrust on the part of the US and UK, and the burden of proof is on them.

Exactly my point. The IAEA is supposed to promote the PEACEFULL use of the atom. While peacefull nuclear options have been offered to both N. Korea and Iran, both nations have refused them and chosen to pursue a nuclear weapons program and the IAEA has done nothing to prevent it.Iran has not publicly been pursuing a weapons program. They claim it's for peaceful purposes: to produce power.

Iran has not publicly been pursuing a weapons program. They claim it's for peaceful purposes: to produce power.
IIRC, there are some enrichment questions. Which even the IAEA raised.

Doesn't in and of itself mean "weapons program", but there are also some locations that the Iranians will not allow the IAEA to inspect.

That doesn't in and of itself mean "weapons program", but there is the North Korean experience to remember.

Began with detection of enrichment activities. Proceeded to keeping the IAEA out of certain sites. And then...

Well. Don't fault the US for trying to learn something from history.

North Korea, clearly, yes. Iran, absolutely not. There is not one shred of evidence, just mistrust on the part of the US and UK, and the burden of proof is on them.
[QUOTE=See Link Below]Iran has repeatedly claimed that its nuclear program is intended solely for civilian energy purposes. In response to recent accusations to the contrary, Iran's president Mohammad Khatami vigorously declared that "Iran will never move towards getting access to nuclear weapons." But ironically, Khatami's statement came during a military parade commemorating the development of the Shahab-3 missile, a new weapon that would be able to deliver a nuclear payload against Israel or U.S. forces in the Gulf. At this same event, banners were displayed that carried such messages as "Israel must be wiped off the map," and "we shall crush America under our feet." Similar sentiments have been expressed by other officials at the highest levels of the Iranian government. Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former Iranian president and current chairman of Iran's top religious authority, the Expediency Council, has publicly stated that Muslim nations should develop nuclear weapons to annihilate the Jewish state.

Basic economic indicators also belie Iran's proclamations of peaceful intent. Brenda Shaffer, head of Harvard's Caspian Studies Program, told the HPR that in the last 25 years, nuclear energy has become the most expensive form of electricity anywhere. Consequently, she concludes that "it makes absolutely no economic sense that [Iran] would be spending so much effort developing nuclear power when it has the second largest natural gas reserves in the world...It's pretty clear that it wants to have nuclear weapons."[QUOTE]



http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?ctype=article&item_id=1121

IIRC, there are some enrichment questions. Which even the IAEA raised.

Doesn't in and of itself mean "weapons program", but there are also some locations that the Iranians will not allow the IAEA to inspect.

That doesn't in and of itself mean "weapons program", but there is the North Korean experience to remember.

Began with detection of enrichment activities. Proceeded to keeping the IAEA out of certain sites. And then...

Well. Don't fault the US for trying to learn something from history.True, but consider that Iran has a weapons factory that has been sealed and is being supervised by the IAEA. This doesn't mean they don't have another or that they can be trusted, but it does cast some shadow on the hypothesis that it's all some plan to get weapons.

Iran has not publicly been pursuing a weapons program. They claim it's for peaceful purposes: to produce power.
Kind of hard to beleive when they're ignoring the possiblility of building reactors that won't produce plutonium that could be used in weapons and when one considers the fact that nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy one can produce.

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?ctype=article&item_id=1121Khatami isn't President anymore...

Kind of hard to beleive when they're ignoring the possiblility of building reactors that won't produce plutonium that could be used in weapons and when one considers the fact that nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy one can produce.Iran can afford things due to oil. Also, nuclear material won't run out anytime soon. Also, consider that their site for building weapons is sealed and monitored.

Khatami isn't President anymore...
Yeah, now they've elected a hardline conservative.

Oh, and the things I quoted from the link, excluding the Khatami quote, still provide evidence that Iran's not building reactors for peacefull purposes.

True, but consider that Iran has a weapons factory that has been sealed and is being supervised by the IAEA. This doesn't mean they don't have another or that they can be trusted, but it does cast some shadow on the hypothesis that it's all some plan to get weapons.

Some of it is peaceful power production, sure.

But, unless they are completely transparent, you have to assume that they are being secretive for a bad reason.

They refuse to be completely transparent.

There is no reason to be. They know that the matter will not make it past the Security Council, even if they do make a bomb.

Yeah, now they've elected a hardline conservative.

Oh, and the things I quoted from the link, excluding the Khatami quote, still provide evidence that Iran's not building reactors for peacefull purposes.The question is: How old is that source?

They refuse to be completely transparent.

There is no reason to be. They know that the matter will not make it past the Security Council, even if they do make a bomb.Yes there is: National Pride.
The same thing that keeps the US from joining the ICC is what's keeping Iran from letting foreigners run around on it's soil.

Yes there is: National Pride.
The same thing that keeps the US from joining the ICC is what's keeping Iran from letting foreigners run around on it's soil.

Kinda comes with signing and ratifying the NPT. The US hasn't ratified its acceptance of the ICC. If it had, it would have to go along with it.

Iran can afford things due to oil. Also, nuclear material won't run out anytime soon. Also, consider that their site for building weapons is sealed and monitored.
Thorium is three times as plentifull as Uranium, and it doesn't produce an isotope of plutonium fit for building nuclear weapons. But they won't build a thorium reactor. Russia offered to enrich their uranium and reprocess their spent fuel rods, but Iran didn't want to give them up. Why does anyone need spent fuel rods except to extract plutonium?

Right, and as soon as they're close enough to building the rest of their bomb they'll kick the inspectors out, process the plutonium they need, and assemble their weapon while the UN has it's thumb up it's ass wondering what to do next.

Kinda comes with signing and ratifying the NPT. The US hasn't ratified its acceptance of the ICC. If it had, it would have to go along with it.I wasn't hinting at the mechanism why the US wasn't in the ICC, I was hinting at the motivation.

The question is: How old is that source?
Fall 2004. About a year old. So what?

the US gov't made war,

people around the world tried to prevent it,(even in Anartica).
nukes can still exist and there not be war.
(although nukes existing still does not allow for justice or freedom.
we're under the thumbs of those with nukes, more so those with more)
(plus washington just announced their nuke policy:
to allow first strike nuke attack EVEN on a non-nuke holding country.
gee. we're not closer to nuclear analation, no. Superman couldn't get
rid of the nukes because the US wouldn't let him)

Bulltein of Atomic Scientists
have their dooms-day clock
and put it closer to midnight recently.
the clock will not go away until all nukes do.
we must lead by example, we, the self-professed, SELF-professed world leader. disarm we must, or die like the rest we will. radiation poisoning no one can get a shot for.

http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm

Fall 2004. About a year old. So what?I'm just saying it would have been nice to know. If this had been from the beginning of Khatami's term, the relevance would have been a bit lower, since there would have been plenty of time for them to start up their program again.
Note that they didn't start up their program a year ago, but a bit more recently.

Brenda Shaffer, head of Harvard's Caspian Studies Program, told the HPR that in the last 25 years, nuclear energy has become the most expensive form of electricity anywhere. Consequently, she concludes that "it makes absolutely no economic sense that [Iran] would be spending so much effort developing nuclear power when it has the second largest natural gas reserves in the world...It's pretty clear that it wants to have nuclear weapons."
Bollocks.

I know a few things about the energy industry, and I can tell you this, pinning the development of your electrical energy grid on natural gas is the most unbelievably stupid thing anyone can do. I am banging my head against the wall when I look at the decisions that have been made in the UK. Gas turbines burn natural gas fast, and once key fields decline, their decline rates are massive, you're looking at 10-30% annually, which is what Texas and the North Sea are seeing right now. You need energy diversity to guarantee system stability. And ideally you need energy independence, or as close to it as you can get, and that means if using nuclear power stations, having the whole fuel cycle in-house, not depending on Russia for your needs.

Thorium is three times as plentifull as Uranium, and it doesn't produce an isotope of plutonium fit for building nuclear weapons. But they won't build a thorium reactor. Russia offered to enrich their uranium and reprocess their spent fuel rods, but Iran didn't want to give them up. Why does anyone need spent fuel rods except to extract plutonium?

Right, and as soon as they're close enough to building the rest of their bomb they'll kick the inspectors out, process the plutonium they need, and assemble their weapon while the UN has it's thumb up it's ass wondering what to do next.

That strategy worked for North Korea. Of course, the better way would have been to be like Pakistan, and pretend to be a close ally of America, and hope no one notices what you're doing until you have one.

WTF? On this guy's watch the IAEA allowed N. Korea to go nuclear, Pakistan and N. Korea to sell nuclear weapons technology, and he's taking diplomatic pressure off of Iran allowing them to progress with their nuclear weapons program. How does being incompetant and bringing the world a little closer to nuclear war earn one a Nobel peace prize?

They gave the Nobel Peace prize to Yasser Arafat, and THIS suprises you?

That strategy worked for North Korea. Of course, the better way would have been to be like Pakistan, and pretend to be a close ally of America, and hope no one notices what you're doing until you have one.

Actually, what India and Pakistan both did was just bought the warheads and launch vehicles from the Russians, then kept them in warehouses until they could assemble silos. Remember, about half of the ex Soviet nuclear arsenal just up and disappeared between 1989 and 1998.

They gave the Nobel Peace prize to Yasser Arafat, and THIS suprises you?
Good point.

Good point.

Only kind I try to make.

Bollocks.

I know a few things about the energy industry, and I can tell you this, pinning the development of your electrical energy grid on natural gas is the most unbelievably stupid thing anyone can do. I am banging my head against the wall when I look at the decisions that have been made in the UK. Gas turbines burn natural gas fast, and once key fields decline, their decline rates are massive, you're looking at 10-30% annually, which is what Texas and the North Sea are seeing right now. You need energy diversity to guarantee system stability. And ideally you need energy independence, or as close to it as you can get, and that means if using nuclear power stations, having the whole fuel cycle in-house, not depending on Russia for your needs.
India's planning to build several thorium fueled nuclear reactors.
The isotopes of uranium and plutonium produced by thorium reactors are not suitable for nuclear weapons.
Thorium is three times as plentifull as uranium.
The question is why doesn't Iran build thorium reactors instead.
The answer is that Iran wants nuclear weapons.

Bollocks.

I know a few things about the energy industry, and I can tell you this, pinning the development of your electrical energy grid on natural gas is the most unbelievably stupid thing anyone can do. I am banging my head against the wall when I look at the decisions that have been made in the UK. Gas turbines burn natural gas fast, and once key fields decline, their decline rates are massive, you're looking at 10-30% annually, which is what Texas and the North Sea are seeing right now. You need energy diversity to guarantee system stability. And ideally you need energy independence, or as close to it as you can get, and that means if using nuclear power stations, having the whole fuel cycle in-house, not depending on Russia for your needs.

Makes you wonder why Clinton in the 1990s was so hot on forcing the power industry to switch to gas turbines to replace Phase 1 coal fired plants.

You can install scrubbers, and there's plenty of coal.

As you said, the natural gas runs out rather quickly.

Makes you wonder why Clinton in the 1990s was so hot on forcing the power industry to switch to gas turbines to replace Phase 1 coal fired plants.

You can install scrubbers, and there's plenty of coal.

As you said, the natural gas runs out rather quickly.
A quick fix which will bite the country on the ass later.

India's planning to build several thorium fueled nuclear reactors.
The isotopes of uranium and plutonium produced by thorium reactors are not suitable for nuclear weapons.
Thorium is three times as plentifull as uranium.
The question is why doesn't Iran build thorium reactors instead.
The answer is that Iran wants nuclear weapons.
India has the Thorium, Iran doesn't.
The Indian reactors are new original designs, the Iranians went for off-the-shelf technology, with which Russia could more easily render assistance.

The differences are due entirely to local considerations.

A quick fix which will bite the country on the ass later.

I don't know how many power conferences I went to in the 1990s that thought that the gas turbine thing was the stupidest idea on earth.

Only one advantage to a gas turbine - ramp up time - from start to having stable power is pretty quick compared to a coal burner and especially compared to a nuclear plant.

India has the Thorium, Iran doesn't.
The Indian reactors are new original designs, the Iranians went for off-the-shelf technology, with which Russia could more easily render assistance.

The differences are due entirely to local considerations.
I'm sure one of the local considerations was that the locals want to vaporize Telaviv and Washington DC.

I'm sure one of the local considerations was that the locals want to vaporize Telaviv and Washington DC.
What an absurd idea. :rolleyes:

People in the US openly discuss whether or not some country needs to be nuked, Axis of Evil speech included, people anywhere else aren't any different. Doesn't mean they'll go through with it.

What an absurd idea. :rolleyes:

People in the US openly discuss whether or not some country needs to be nuked, Axis of Evil speech included, people anywhere else aren't any different. Doesn't mean they'll go through with it.
Why take that chance with a nation that continues to sponsor international terrorism?

Why take that chance with a nation that continues to sponsor international terrorism?
Oh FFS, do you know how many revolutions and insurgencies the US sponsored? There isn't a nation on Earth which has sponsored more coups and terrorist organisations.

Oh FFS, do you know how many revolutions and insurgencies the US sponsored? There isn't a nation on Earth which has sponsored more coups and terrorist organisations.

But you forget - when the US does it, it's good(tm), and when someone else does it, it's evil(tm).

But you forget - when the US does it, it's good(tm), and when someone else does it, it's evil(tm).
I just hate the double standard. The US going around beating up on people for stuff which it has been doing better, for longer, with greater frequency. A bent cop does not rise above the ghetto scum just because he's got a uniform and a badge.

I just hate the double standard. The US going around beating up on people for stuff which it has been doing better, for longer, with greater frequency. A bent cop does not rise above the ghetto scum just because he's got a uniform and a badge.

Hey, I think we should go back to a simpler standard - one that served us well in the Cold War.

We let the UN, IAEA, etc., handle the proliferation of WMD problem. Yeah, we send them funds, inspectors - but we never, ever say anything. We just go along with whatever they report.

We don't invade anyone. If they make some nukes, that's the UNs problem - or their neighbors problem. So, we would just walk away from North Korea now and say, "fine, you have a nuke, just don't use it." And Iran can have one too.

And, we make it known that if we, or one of our allies, is hit with a WMD, when we identify the offender, we will nuke them off the face of the earth. Without warning.

And, we make it known that if we, or one of our allies, is hit with a WMD, when we identify the offender, we will nuke them off the face of the earth. Without warning.
Hey, I'm with you there. First striker is the bad guy. One has to make some sacrifices for one's principles, and if it happens to be my city, so be it.

Diplomacy requires credible threats as well as potential rewards. When negotiating with a nation that wants to build a nuclear arsenal because they think it will give them immunity from foreign military intervention one must convince them that developing those weapons won't protect them, but rather guarantee that they'll be attacked.

How about, oh, I don't know ,guaranteeing that they won't get attacked in the first place?

Your hypothetical cop is threatening somebody who is building a gun in his home which happens to be in a very rough (and armed) neighborhood by saying that if he did that, the cop would come in and blow his brains out.

That's no cop. That's judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one.

Hey, I'm with you there. First striker is the bad guy. One has to make some sacrifices for one's principles, and if it happens to be my city, so be it.

It also means I don't have to negotiate with people who have no intention of following through with agreements, making me look stupid.

It means that I don't have to send any more food aid to North Korea - if they want nukes, that's fine. I don't have to feed them while they make them.

It means that Iran is Israel's problem. If Iran wants to play missile tit-for-tat, they may bite off more than they can chew.

The first time we retaliate for a nuclear detonation on US soil, I don't imagine anyone will want to screw with us again.

Exactly my point. The IAEA is supposed to promote the PEACEFULL use of the atom. While peacefull nuclear options have been offered to both N. Korea and Iran, both nations have refused them and chosen to pursue a nuclear weapons program and the IAEA has done nothing to prevent it.

Oooh, you have definitive proof that they are pursuing nuclear weapons now? North Korea is more or less self admitted, but Iran to date denies this. The US is currently one of the few who believe that they are.

Considering that the both of them hate each other, I won't say that either of their viewpoints aren't biased.

But back on topic, if you know for a certainty that Iran ahas an active nuclear weapons program, why aren't you working for the CIA? Or is it because you can't back it up with anything other than conjecture and opinion?

It also means I don't have to negotiate with people who have no intention of following through with agreements, making me look stupid.

It means that I don't have to send any more food aid to North Korea - if they want nukes, that's fine. I don't have to feed them while they make them.

It means that Iran is Israel's problem. If Iran wants to play missile tit-for-tat, they may bite off more than they can chew.

The first time we retaliate for a nuclear detonation on US soil, I don't imagine anyone will want to screw with us again.

Quid pro quo. The idea behind treaties and negotiations is something for something. You don't want to deal with the North Koreans? Fine, that's North Korea's problem then. If you don't want to deal with someone, nobody is forcing you to do it with a gun to your head. At least not when you have a gun which you can point back.

The big question is whether any US administration from here to the end of time would be able to let go. Smart money says they won't.

It also means I don't have to negotiate with people who have no intention of following through with agreements, making me look stupid.

It means that I don't have to send any more food aid to North Korea - if they want nukes, that's fine. I don't have to feed them while they make them.

It means that Iran is Israel's problem. If Iran wants to play missile tit-for-tat, they may bite off more than they can chew.

The first time we retaliate for a nuclear detonation on US soil, I don't imagine anyone will want to screw with us again.
*Shrugs*

If North Korea starves, I won't lose any sleep over it. That's internal mismanagement, not my concern. And if Iran and Israel want to have a mutual war of annihilation, I don't want my tax money involved on either side. So yeah, I don't actually give a damn. I just don't want my side doing a first strike and ending up the bad guy. I'd sooner have a first strike on me than end up with Nazi War Guilt II.

But back on topic, if you know for a certainty that Iran ahas an active nuclear weapons program, why aren't you working for the CIA? Or is it because you can't back it up with anything other than conjecture and opinion?

Part of the idea behind the NPT is that you give up your right to refuse inspections. In depth inspections.

By all rights, Iran is in violation by refusing to let the IAEA inspectors see all the facilities they want.

We don't have to prove they have a nuclear weapons program, by the NPT. They have to prove to the world that they don't - by opening up to complete and unbridled inspection.

The poor guy isn't in a position to stop nuclear proliferation. The NPT is toothless, and its signatories, such as Russia, do nuclear deals behind everyone's back. I sincerely believe El Baredei wants to stop nuclear weapons proliferation, but he is vested with the same powers that a drone ant has in a colony. Nevertheless, he's a better pick than that Kenyan tree hugger.

The poor guy isn't in a position to stop nuclear proliferation. The NPT is toothless, and its signatories, such as Russia, do nuclear deals behind everyone's back. I sincerely believe El Baredei wants to stop nuclear weapons proliferation, but he is vested with the same powers that a drone ant has in a colony. Nevertheless, he's a better pick than that Kenyan tree hugger.
You don't mean Kofi "My Son Did It And I Had No F-ing Idea" Annan, do you?

You don't mean Kofi "My Son Did It And I Had No F-ing Idea" Annan, do you?
No. I meant Mohammed El-Baredei. Annan may be in a similar position, but he's a clear example of what a politician gets when he uses more power than he has.

Part of the idea behind the NPT is that you give up your right to refuse inspections. In depth inspections.

By all rights, Iran is in violation by refusing to let the IAEA inspectors see all the facilities they want.

We don't have to prove they have a nuclear weapons program, by the NPT. They have to prove to the world that they don't - by opening up to complete and unbridled inspection.

And at the same time, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack is it? I know ol' Rumsey used that kind of logic to peddle his war.

Tell you what. When citizens of the US give up their right to privacy because lack of evidence on their part is not evidence of lack of criminal activities is no longer a proper defence, I'll say that at least your living up to your leaders motto.

Get solid proof that they have a nuclear weapons program. Then you can claim that they have one. Otherwise, your just shooting the wind.

North Korea, clearly, yes. Iran, absolutely not. There is not one shred of evidence, just mistrust on the part of the US and UK, and the burden of proof is on them.

On the flip side, Iran isn't being cooperative in proving that it is for peaceful means.

This is a sad day that an idiotic organization that has ALLOWED for proliferation to actually happen to win this prize. :(

Kinda comes with signing and ratifying the NPT. The US hasn't ratified its acceptance of the ICC. If it had, it would have to go along with it.

For Iran, they have to comply with the NPT. For the US, Bush removed our signature from the ICC. Good. We don't need that body to prosecute our criminals. We do that ourselves.

If you'll notice, the Nobel Peace Prize is less an award for an actual person who is actually promoting peace. It's more of a political statement by a country, rather than an international award to a truly peacemaking individual.

You should see the sad state of affairs for literature. That's far too political as well.

How so?