NationStates Jolt Archive

Well atleast President Jacques Chirac of France belives so as is aparent from his comments on Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01france.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=41a193031cb1461e&hp&ex=1170392400&partner=homepage

Beliving that the possibility of an escalation between Iran and the west poses more of a danger than Iran actually having a bomb, Chirac seems to be outlining a far softer forgein policy which Iran will be taking note of.

Does Chirac have a point here ? Or is he missing the greater danger of nuclear proliferation via independent terrorist groups (which the Iranian government has been alegedly tired to) should they develop a weapon? As well as the possibility of greater regional tension and even more unthinkable a regional arms race as neighboring countries try to counter the rising power of Iran.

Well atleast President Jacques Chirac of France belives so as is aparent from his comments on Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01france.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=41a193031cb1461e&hp&ex=1170392400&partner=homepage

Beliving that the possibility of an escalation between Iran and the west poses more of a danger than Iran actually having a bomb, Chirac seems to be outlining a far softer forgein policy which Iran will be taking note of.

Does Chirac have a point here ? Or is he missing the greater danger of nuclear proliferation via independent terrorist groups (which the Iranian government has been alegedly tired to) should they develop a weapon? As well as the possibility of greater regional tension and even more unthinkable a regional arms race as neighboring countries try to counter the rising power of Iran.

Eyeing Iran over proliferation is somewhat ridiculous, in a world where people wander around with baggies of weapons-grade radioactives, hunting buyers.

With 'western' countries having stockpiles of nuclear weapons, I don't think that if Iran did have the weapon that it would use it. I think it wants it as a deterrent. So, for this reason, I see Chirac having a point.

It's not a world war until France surrenders!

With 'western' countries having stockpiles of nuclear weapons, I don't think that if Iran did have the weapon that it would use it. I think it wants it as a deterrent. So, for this reason, I see Chirac having a point.

Hence the words Plausible deniability.. why use a bomb yourself when you could have a third party do it for you?

We want to contain Iranian nuclear ambitions, as a nuclear armed Iran could bring about a regional arms race, regional war or general chaos. I'd fully expect a nuclear armed Iran would bring about a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, massive increases in the offensive Israeli nuclear stockpile and other such pleasures. It's no direct threat to the US, EU, Japan or PRC, instead the increase in the potential for instability and conflict in the region are the threats.

No, see, Iran DOES want them as a deterant. But the thing is, the UK, the US and Israel don't perticularly want a deterant from Iran. And to be honest, I can totally see why.

Iran, the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism, wants a nuclear deterrent. I see no problem with that. If Afghanistan had a nuclear deterrent we could have just glassed the place after 9/11 rather than tying up a bunch of soldiers and wasting money on trying to develop the place. Go ahead Iran, build a bomb and continue using your Qods agents and Hezbollah terrorists. We haven't nuked anyone since WWII and we could use the practice.


Yes I know, it's a dumb post. Still it illustrates one of the reasons I'm against Iran having a nuclear bomb.

I think this is the same situation as North Korea in the sense that Iran conventional weapons are far more dangerous than one or two poorly made atom bombs

Either way Chirac is right a nuclear Iran isn’t much of a bother other than the fact that it shows the west up

It's not a world war until France surrenders!

Really? You mean the one back in 1914 to 1918 didn't count? :rolleyes:

I like the way Jacques Chirac's names rhyme.

Anyone worried by nuclear terrorism should be more concerned with Russia's nuclear dumps. Sorry 'stockpiles'. Their about as secure as a baby with a security blanket.

Iran is surrounded by hostile neighbours. Pakistan to the East, Israel to the West, and the President Bush who is just itching to invade. All three have nuclear weapons. The west has sponsored the use of weapons of mass destruction upon Iran before. There is a very good set of reasons why Iran wants a nuclear deterrent.

Anyone worried by nuclear terrorism should be more concerned with Russia's nuclear dumps. Sorry 'stockpiles'. Their about as secure as a baby with a security blanket.

Iran is surrounded by hostile neighbours. Pakistan to the East, Israel to the West, and the President Bush who is just itching to invade. All three have nuclear weapons. The west has sponsored the use of weapons of mass destruction upon Iran before. There is a very good set of reasons why Iran wants a nuclear deterrent.

Im sure there are many good reasons why Iran would want a deterrent... though im not sure why we would want to give it to them!:confused:

though im not sure why we would want to give it to them!:confused:

well were not there doing it by themselves...

We want to contain Iranian nuclear ambitions, as a nuclear armed Iran could bring about a regional arms race, regional war or general chaos. I'd fully expect a nuclear armed Iran would bring about a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, massive increases in the offensive Israeli nuclear stockpile and other such pleasures. It's no direct threat to the US, EU, Japan or PRC, instead the increase in the potential for instability and conflict in the region are the threats.

The problem in that reasoning, is that it just doesn't work.

Firstly - because there has been, and is, already a nuclear arms race. The world isn't a big radioactive pancake yet.

Secondly - because proliferation doesn't automatically follow geographic boundaries. How many of the 'american' nations are nuclear?

Thirdly - because a nuclear deterrent seems likely to stabilise a region, rather than excite more chaos. Looking at nations that are nuclear powers... it certainly seems that the problems stay, at worst, level... if they don't reduce.

Also - Israel is in the region, and already has nuclear armaments, and the death spiral you seem to suggest hasn't happened.

Israel is in the region, and already has nuclear armaments, and the death spiral you seem to suggest hasn't happened.Only a question of time. Israel has a history of attacking its neighbors and blaming it on the neighbors.

Only a question of time. Israel has a history of attacking its neighbors and blaming it on the neighbors.

Like when?

Only a question of time. Israel has a history of attacking its neighbors and blaming it on the neighbors.

But, even with a nuclear Iran, it seems unlikely that 'conventional' emnities in the region are likely to 'go nuclear'. If anything - mutually assured destruction might be the threat that finally brought all sides together.

Im sure there are many good reasons why Iran would want a deterrent... though im not sure why we would want to give it to them!:confused:Because they're not as insane as a lot of people paint them. They value their lives and their society and wouldn't risk annilation for pretty much any issue.

It's much more useful to let Iran continue as a productive member of the global economy, than to invade just because you're worried that they might obtain weapons, which you think they might sell to terrorist groups.

Because they're not as insane as a lot of people paint them. They value their lives and their society and wouldn't risk annilation for pretty much any issue.

It's much more useful to let Iran continue as a productive member of the global economy, than to invade just because you're worried that they might obtain weapons, which you think they might sell to terrorist groups.

Especially in a post-Soviet Union world, where weapons-grade radioactives are already a commodity in the market.

Well atleast President Jacques Chirac of France belives so as is aparent from his comments on Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01france.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=41a193031cb1461e&hp&ex=1170392400&partner=homepage

Beliving that the possibility of an escalation between Iran and the west poses more of a danger than Iran actually having a bomb, Chirac seems to be outlining a far softer forgein policy which Iran will be taking note of.

Does Chirac have a point here ? Or is he missing the greater danger of nuclear proliferation via independent terrorist groups (which the Iranian government has been alegedly tired to) should they develop a weapon? As well as the possibility of greater regional tension and even more unthinkable a regional arms race as neighboring countries try to counter the rising power of Iran.

In my opinion Chirac has a point, even if they make a nuclear bomb they aint anything with it. They only make hemselves a bigger target. In my opinion that is what some nations (aint gonna point fingers) wont thats why they r complaining about it now, its another good way to put UN troops out on a problem countrey

Especially in a post-Soviet Union world, where weapons-grade radioactives are already a commodity in the market.

Last I heard, enriched plutonium wasn't an easily attainable substance...

Because they're not as insane as a lot of people paint them. They value their lives and their society and wouldn't risk annilation for pretty much any issue.

It's much more useful to let Iran continue as a productive member of the global economy, than to invade just because you're worried that they might obtain weapons, which you think they might sell to terrorist groups.

Their people need not be insane, just the current leader at the time.. and again, this position ignores the possibility of proliferation through terrorist organizations, from a country known for their support of terrorism. Such terrorist groups have already expressed great interest in attain such technologies, now they may have a means.

This is not to say, invasion is warrented.. but to say, passive acceptance (the aparent forgein policy of France) is not an acceptable or a responsible position either. I would say France has become as reckless as the United States in this regard.

The problem in that reasoning, is that it just doesn't work.

Firstly - because there has been, and is, already a nuclear arms race. The world isn't a big radioactive pancake yet.

All the same, arms races are bad things.

Secondly - because proliferation doesn't automatically follow geographic boundaries. How many of the 'american' nations are nuclear?
A combination of resource and regional politics issues.

Thirdly - because a nuclear deterrent seems likely to stabilise a region, rather than excite more chaos. Looking at nations that are nuclear powers... it certainly seems that the problems stay, at worst, level... if they don't reduce.
Most other nuclear powers seem to either have immense external pressure not to use their weapons, or they're risk averse.

Also - Israel is in the region, and already has nuclear armaments, and the death spiral you seem to suggest hasn't happened.

Israel doesn't scare the Arabs, it's too small to occupy vast quantities of their countries. Iran, on the other hand, is not.

But, even with a nuclear Iran, it seems unlikely that 'conventional' emnities in the region are likely to 'go nuclear'. If anything - mutually assured destruction might be the threat that finally brought all sides together.We've already heard nuclear threats from Israel. I have no doubts that a state that has so little regard for humans, especially non-Jews, would have a problem with nuking their assumed enemies. Look what weaponry Israel used in Lebanon to kill or injure as many as possible (e.g. fragmentation bombs). For Israelis the ends always justify the means, no matter how questionable the ends are.

For Israelis the ends always justify the means, no matter how questionable the ends are.

And if defeat didn't mean the complete destruction of Israel, maybe that could change.

And if defeat didn't mean the complete destruction of Israel, maybe that could change.

Don't expect Beiland to understand. He's completely biased against Israel. I suspect he's against Jews in general because of a vague post he made a while back, but I can't prove it. I can't prove David Duke hates blacks either.

Iran doesn't have to be our enemy. And quite frankly, I don't think we need any more large, Asian, Islamic enemies.

If I was in charge, I'd reopen all diplomatic channels with Iran and make an ally of them. Iran has one of the most well-educated, creative, moderate populations in the Greater Middle East, and since the Iraq War, they are now a (if not the) major regional player. We can oppose them, and have an uninvadeable enemy that will sponsor terrorist attacks against us at every oppurtunity. Or we can appease them, and have a new, very important ally.

All the same, arms races are bad things.

Not if you work in the arms industry.

Iran doesn't have to be our enemy. And quite frankly, I don't think we need any more large, Asian, Islamic enemies.

If I was in charge, I'd reopen all diplomatic channels with Iran and make an ally of them. Iran has one of the most well-educated, creative, moderate populations in the Greater Middle East, and since the Iraq War, they are now a (if not the) major regional player. We can oppose them, and have an uninvadeable enemy that will sponsor terrorist attacks against us at every oppurtunity. Or we can appease them, and have a new, very important ally.But Bush can never do that. Ahmadinejad is too much like him.

Iran doesn't have to be our enemy. And quite frankly, I don't think we need any more large, Asian, Islamic enemies.

If I was in charge, I'd reopen all diplomatic channels with Iran and make an ally of them. Iran has one of the most well-educated, creative, moderate populations in the Greater Middle East, and since the Iraq War, they are now a (if not the) major regional player. We can oppose them, and have an uninvadeable enemy that will sponsor terrorist attacks against us at every oppurtunity. Or we can appease them, and have a new, very important ally.

On the other hand they support almost every regional terrorist organization against us, they undermine our efforts to acheive regional stability, oppose our security and economic interests and swear to kill off our most hardened ally (who is not to mention only regional democracy) ... Israel.

Why again do we want them as an ally ?

And if we let proliferation spread to Iran, (as France would have us) what message does that send to any nation who might look to aquire this technology? Sure you can gain the most dangerous of weapons with no consequences ? Why even have a non proliferation treaty...

He has an extremely good point.

There is mutually assured destruction with Iran having nuclear weapons, a remarkable deterrent.

If the soviet Huns and the Americans could be at each other's throats for half a century without annihilating one another, Iran surely poses no real threat.

Iranian Persian Shiites are not suicide terrorists, and are not sand tribe savages.

He has an extremely good point.

There is mutually assured destruction with Iran having nuclear weapons, a remarkable deterrent.

If the soviet Huns and the Americans could be at each other's throats for half a century without annihilating one another, Iran surely poses no real threat.

Iranian Persian Shiites are not suicide terrorists, and are not sand tribe savages.

they only arm the persian shiites who are suicide terrorists, and those sand tribe savages you speak of. The problem isn't Iran itself, but who Iran sells to (as is the problem with North Korea)

But Bush can never do that. Ahmadinejad is too much like him.

True, but the next US President, and the next Iranian President, may have a better chance.

On the other hand they support almost every regional terrorist organization against us, they undermine our efforts to acheive regional stability, oppose our security and economic interests and swear to kill off our most hardened ally (who is not to mention only regional democracy) ... Israel.

Why again do we want them as an ally ?

And if we let proliferation spread to Iran, (as France would have us) what message does that send to any nation who might look to aquire this technology? Sure you can gain the most dangerous of weapons with no consequences ? Why even have a non proliferation treaty...

The Iranian government's role in supporting terrorism is overblown. Besides, any decent negotiator could quite easily get Iran to agree to not fund anti-Western terrorist organisations in exchange for diplomatic recognition. And (shock horror) you could probably pull an Iranian recognition of Israel in exchange for assistance in their nuclear program. Both parties have a lot to offer the other, the potential gains for diplomacy are huge.

As to what's the point of non-proliferation? Well, to appease the anti-nuclear lobbies in liberal democracies. Nuclear weapons have only ever stabilised relations, they are the primary reason why the last 60 years have been so relatively peaceful.

Like when?

I'd also like to hear an answer to this. It should be...amusing...

Like when?

It's stretching, but for Ossirak didn't they attack and blame it on Iraqi weapons ambitions?




And if defeat didn't mean the complete destruction of Israel, maybe that could change.

Don't expect Beiland to understand. He's completely biased against Israel. I suspect he's against Jews in general because of a vague post he made a while back, but I can't prove it. I can't prove David Duke hates blacks either.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you explained how not using fragmentation grenades in Lebanon caused the destruction of Israel, could you go over that again for me please?

Their people need not be insane, just the current leader at the time.. and again, this position ignores the possibility of proliferation through terrorist organizations, from a country known for their support of terrorism. Such terrorist groups have already expressed great interest in attain such technologies, now they may have a means.Ahmadinejad's power is extremely limited. He has no where near the power that a United States President has. Long term leaders tend to take a much more long term view of affairs, and are not so quick to take actions that may prejudice their future. I doubt Ali Khamenei would ever prejudice his position by allowing nuclear material to get into the hands of a terrorist group.

The CIA has sponsered terrorist organisations before, but never given them nuclear materials. Pakistan has backed Islamic militants in Kashmir, but never given them nuclear materials. It's a whole different ballpark. This is not to say, invasion is warrented.. but to say, passive acceptance (the aparent forgein policy of France) is not an acceptable or a responsible position either. I would say France has become as reckless as the United States in this regard.I think France's position is acceptable. If you treat someone in a certain way then they will normally moderate their behaviour accordingly. If Iran is treated like a rouge state with no perceived benefits from being part of the global economy then it is unlikely to friendly towards the west.

Treat Iran with respect and show them that there are tangible benefits to working with and trading with the west.

they only arm the persian shiites who are suicide terrorists, and those sand tribe savages you speak of. The problem isn't Iran itself, but who Iran sells to (as is the problem with North Korea)

Last time I checked all the suicide bombings in iraq have been by sunnis against shiites...

Also, hezbollah doesnt launch suicide attacks on israeli civilians...

What are you talking about?

It's stretching, but for Ossirak didn't they attack and blame it on Iraqi weapons ambitions? You're right, it's stretching a little.




I'm sorry, I missed the part where you explained how not using fragmentation grenades in Lebanon caused the destruction of Israel, could you go over that again for me please?

I was refering to the Arab-Israeli wars. Of those only the six day war can be seen as a preemptive action and that one was in response to massive military buildup on their borders and the fact that Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran.

Last time I checked all the suicide bombings in iraq have been by sunnis against shiites...

Also, hezbollah doesnt launch suicide attacks on israeli civilians...

What are you talking about?US and Israeli misinformation and propaganda. You know, them Muslims all the same...

Beliving that the possibility of an escalation between Iran and the west poses more of a danger than Iran actually having a bomb, Chirac seems to be outlining a far softer forgein policy which Iran will be taking note of.

Does Chirac have a point here ? Or is he missing the greater danger of nuclear proliferation via independent terrorist groups (which the Iranian government has been alegedly tired to) should they develop a weapon? As well as the possibility of greater regional tension and even more unthinkable a regional arms race as neighboring countries try to counter the rising power of Iran.

Chirac has a lot of points.

1.If the "war-on-terror" coalition believes that it is too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of an extremist, non-democratic muslim country as Bush says, why have the US allowed their ally Pakistan to build a nuclear arsenal? I recall that Pakistan is ruled by a military who has got the power through a coup and most taliban schools are located in Pakistan.

2.If the problem is nuclear proliferation, then I say that the middle-eastern/central asian area is ALREADY full of nukes. India has. Israel has. Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. China has. The US and the UK have a lot of forces (ships, subs, aircrafts) in that area who carry or might carry nuclear weapons. SO WHAT? Why must Iran remain a non-nuclear state, given that there are so many nukes around its borders?

Ok, a GENERAL nuclear disarming policy would be ideal, but a nuclear balance is better than no balance at all.

Naturally it would be better to have less, instead of more nuclear weapons in the world. That said, we cannot stop Iran, or other countries such as Israel, India and Pakistan from developing Nuclear weapons, without irresponsible acts, which would be far more dangerous and destabilizing.

Naturally it would be better to have less, instead of more nuclear weapons in the world. That said, we cannot stop Iran, or other countries such as Israel, India and Pakistan from developing Nuclear weapons, without irresponsible acts, which would be far more dangerous and destabilizing.

Extremely well put.

Last I heard, enriched plutonium wasn't an easily attainable substance...


Actually, what I was referring to was:

"A Russian man, authorities allege, tried to sell a small amount of nuclear-bomb grade uranium in a plastic bag in his jacket pocket... Details of the investigation, which also involved the FBI and Energy Department, were provided to The Associated Press by U.S. officials and Georgian Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili... Authorities say they do not know how the man acquired the nuclear material or if his claims of access to much larger quantities were true... Russian authorities have confirmed that weapons-grade uranium was confiscated from a Russian citizen in neighboring Georgia... Georgian attempts to trace the nuclear material since the arrest and confirm whether the man indeed had access to larger quantities have foundered from a lack of cooperation from Russia."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/25/world/main2397457.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_2397457

Last time I checked all the suicide bombings in iraq have been by sunnis against shiites...

Also, hezbollah doesnt launch suicide attacks on israeli civilians...

What are you talking about?

US and Israeli misinformation and propaganda. You know, them Muslims all the same...

Is this a dispute of the idea that Iran arms terrorist organizations ? Or are you just nit picking on my comments ... your right.. Iran dosn't directly arm suicide bombers.. just hezbollah, who trains and equpits palestineans who conduct suicide attacks. And in Iraq, Iran just funds and equpits the death squads... Is this the same US Israeli misinformation you claim ?

2.If the problem is nuclear proliferation, then I say that the middle-eastern/central asian area is ALREADY full of nukes. India has. Israel has. Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. China has. The US and the UK have a lot of forces (ships, subs, aircrafts) in that area who carry or might carry nuclear weapons. SO WHAT? Why must Iran remain a non-nuclear state, given that there are so many nukes around its borders?

Remember MAD (mutually assured Destruction) is only a theory which is effective when those participants are rational. I think many serious arguments could be made to question the overall rationality of the leadership in said arab nations. While India, Israel, Russia, and China all have nukes within the general region... these nations largely enjoy high levels of political stabilty and have a history of demostrated rational actions.

I think France's position is acceptable. If you treat someone in a certain way then they will normally moderate their behaviour accordingly. If Iran is treated like a rouge state with no perceived benefits from being part of the global economy then it is unlikely to friendly towards the west.

Treat Iran with respect and show them that there are tangible benefits to working with and trading with the west

But the cost of treating them "with respect" is to possibly allow them to maintain a nuclear program ? You would risk global security on a nation who has a history of deceiving the global community for the posibility that they would moderate their stance (instead of showing it as a victory over the west). While I can see the point your attempting to make, it seems like a very idealistic position. And that is just what I am pointing out is the fault of Chirac, as the amount of idealism he is touting is at an irrisponsible level where caution is thrown to the wind.

Well atleast President Jacques Chirac of France belives so as is aparent from his comments on Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01france.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=41a193031cb1461e&hp&ex=1170392400&partner=homepage

Beliving that the possibility of an escalation between Iran and the west poses more of a danger than Iran actually having a bomb, Chirac seems to be outlining a far softer forgein policy which Iran will be taking note of.

Does Chirac have a point here ? Or is he missing the greater danger of nuclear proliferation via independent terrorist groups (which the Iranian government has been alegedly tired to) should they develop a weapon? As well as the possibility of greater regional tension and even more unthinkable a regional arms race as neighboring countries try to counter the rising power of Iran.

Might as well have to learn to live with it, seeing as the USA is too discredited to do anything about it, and the Europeans are too cowardly.

Naturally it would be better to have less, instead of more nuclear weapons in the world. That said, we cannot stop Iran, or other countries such as Israel, India and Pakistan from developing Nuclear weapons, without irresponsible acts, which would be far more dangerous and destabilizing.

On the other hand, without showing a strong response against these nations persuing these technologies, you give warrent for every nation to persue them.. as they will see no consequence against it.

It comes down to one simple question, are you ok with every country having a nuke to use ? On its surface this seems reasonable... but you must take into account, that you have now so many more nukes which must be secured... that many more chances for rouge parties to aquire one.

I don't think Iran would be insane enough to attack Israel or sell nukes to terrorists. If they would, Israel, the USA, France and perhaps the UK would turn Iran into a smoking crater.

Besides, Al-Qaida is a radical sunni group, which considers Shiites (Iran is shiite) infedels.