NationStates Jolt Archive

linkage (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-satellite4-2009feb04,0,4385361.story)

It must be proof that they have nukes. :rolleyes:


I am starting to think Iranians can't even pass gas without being accused of developing a weapon.

I am starting to think Iranians can't even pass gas without being accused of developing a weapon.

That's chemical/biological, not nuclear.

if I was Iran I would of spent the money on fixing actual problems instead of dicking about with such popularity stunts

It must be proof that they have nukes. :rolleyes:

you do realize the first satellites happened to be launched on ICBM's right?

Iran sends up a satellite....


....America brings it back down :D

It must be proof that they have nukes. :rolleyes:

No, just that their missiles are getting better. Which of course will worry quite a few people.

ICBM's right? you mean russia. it was sputnik wasn't it?

ICBM's right? you mean russia. it was sputnik wasn't it?

The Yanks used Atlas to launch satellites.

They're still using Atlas family rockets to put stuff up there.

Awesome. They're finally reaching pre-Revolutionary levels of technological development.

Don't panic. It was probably sent up by a strong toss.

Don't panic. It was probably sent up by a strong toss.

I think the strings and Papier-mâché say otherwise ;)

I think the strings and Papier-mâché say otherwise ;)

I can't wait to see the next headline. "Iran lands on the moon!" (insert poorly-modified footage from a Smashing Pumpkins music video)

fartsniffage, for your infomation i am a "yank" as you say. are we ICBM's right after all? and your name is worse than mine.

fartsniffage, for your infomation i am a "yank" as you say. are we ICBM's right after all? and your name is worse than mine.

Lolwut?

Lolwut?

What he said.

Ill bet it was made from Legos.

Ill bet it was made from Legos.

I doubt it. I think they have laws about making structures from differently-coloured bricks.

I doubt it. I think they have laws about making structures from differently-coloured bricks.

Must have taken them forever to sort them all by color!

No, just that their missiles are getting better. Which of course will worry quite a few people.
Gizza bag o' crisps :p

i am not a man. and iran is too poor to have good nukes at this point.

i am not a man. and iran is too poor to have good nukes at this point.

North Korea, Pakistan, China and Russia must all be really rich then.

i am not a man. and iran is too poor to have good nukes at this point.

The Iranian space budget is $100,000,000 a year. Not really that bad for a country of their size.

china is not poor, in terms of GDP and the others probably can barely afford it. not sure though. those countries may have friends

It must be proof that they have nukes. :rolleyes:


I am starting to think Iranians can't even pass gas without being accused of developing a weapon.

The rocket technology required to boost a satellite into orbit is the classic dual-use technology. If you're able to achieve the boost and the precision to accurately place a satellite into orbit, that means you likely have the ability to deliver a small nuclear warhead within at least a regional range. While not necessarily evidence of nuclear ambitions, the strange manner in which Iran has treated the IAEA does force it's neighbors to ask questions.

The rocket technology required to boost a satellite into orbit is the classic dual-use technology. If you're able to achieve the boost and the precision to accurately place a satellite into orbit, that means you likely have the ability to deliver a small nuclear warhead within at least a regional range. While not necessarily evidence of nuclear ambitions, the strange manner in which Iran has treated the IAEA does force it's neighbors to ask questions.

No that is so they can beam their TV stations to everyone. I couldn't agree more. They will down play it and spin it. No, no it is a research satellite to do mapping. Be afraid. Israel better develop something to take it out. We can not do it. We could but we won't. Did anyone feel the temperature rise a little?

While not necessarily evidence of nuclear ambitions, the strange manner in which Iran has treated the IAEA does force it's neighbors to ask questions.

What "strange manner" are we talking about here ? Becoming obstinate after being one of the best (although sadly that does not mean much) adherents of the NPT for years, only to see how other countries, including the hated Israel, got nukes without anyone doing anything about it?

Treating the IAEA with any sort of respect or courtesy would be strange - no one else does ;)

With space research budgets, like so many things, it's not size that matters. How you use it is what's important. The soviet space budget was a fraction of that of the US, but still achieved many firsts and got more "bang for it's buck" by re-using existing design elements and gradual progression rather than introducing radical new designs. Since China, India, Pakistan and Iran all use Russian design elements, their costs will be much lower than the US which tries to maintain an independent programme and essentially re-invent the wheel.

No that is so they can beam their TV stations to everyone. I couldn't agree more. They will down play it and spin it. No, no it is a research satellite to do mapping. Be afraid. Israel better develop something to take it out. We can not do it. We could but we won't. Did anyone feel the temperature rise a little?

You are funny. :rolleyes:

The investment required to loft a satellite on your own is significant. Iran has a number of social and economic issues that require fairly rapidly attention--and which are far more important than boosting a satellite into orbit.

This doesn't mean that Iran shouldn't have satellites--it should have satellites. It just makes far more sense to utilize a contract service--such as that of Russia--because it is so much less expensive. Russia is a willing supplier of such services, and has economic ties with Iran. Why would Iran not embrace such an opportunity?

A major reason to not do this is to develop the dual-use technology for weapons delivery. Iran has historically shown a desire to develop Tactical and Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile systems. The delivery systems Iran currently has are inaccurate and not capable of lofting sufficiently large payloads to be cost-effective. By developing space-booster technology, though countries have developed missiles with sufficient throw weight to deliver large weapons loads.

Most of the nuclear powers have used these dual-use technologies developed by their space programs to be capable of delivering nuclear warheads. Why would Iran be any different?

Do they have enough Diplomacy Points to do that? (Cookie for whoever gets the reference)

Countries with manned spaceflight programs: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Human-spaceflight-countries.png

Countries with launch capabilities: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Space-launch-capability-countries-with-esa.png

Countries with Nuclear weapons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

Do we see a correlation here? Of the countries with space launch capabilities, only three are without nuclear weapons. The Ukraine inherited launch capability from the now defunct USSR--a nuclear power, so we can discount that one. Japan has a gigantic cultural stigma against them because of their recent history. That leaves only Iran who claims that their space program has nothing to do with nuclear weapons deliver, and no unique history with nuclear weapons.

The Yanks used Atlas to launch satellites.

They're still using Atlas family rockets to put stuff up there.

Both the R7 derivitives used today in Soyuz flights and the Proton booster are derived from ICBMs. In fact, the entire Soviet space program is derived from the Soviet Union's desire to counter the US's Strategic Bomber superiority. Satellite and manned flights were quite literally an afterthought in the mind of a few people who made it happen.

You are funny. :rolleyes:

The investment required to loft a satellite on your own is significant. Iran has a number of social and economic issues that require fairly rapidly attention--and which are far more important than boosting a satellite into orbit.

This doesn't mean that Iran shouldn't have satellites--it should have satellites. It just makes far more sense to utilize a contract service--such as that of Russia--because it is so much less expensive. Russia is a willing supplier of such services, and has economic ties with Iran. Why would Iran not embrace such an opportunity?

A major reason to not do this is to develop the dual-use technology for weapons delivery. Iran has historically shown a desire to develop Tactical and Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile systems. The delivery systems Iran currently has are inaccurate and not capable of lofting sufficiently large payloads to be cost-effective. By developing space-booster technology, though countries have developed missiles with sufficient throw weight to deliver large weapons loads.

Most of the nuclear powers have used these dual-use technologies developed by their space programs to be capable of delivering nuclear warheads. Why would Iran be any different?

I think you are right as well. They want this press / attention, I would say. They could have done it through a third party as you said. It just means we need to be extra vigilant. I think it is meant to be a threat and a rallying point. I wonder who might feel threatened about this action?

Anyone know off hand if space exploration is a stated aim of the Iranian government?

They could use communications as the reason.

So then we need to know what was on that satellite, was it in fact communication equipment or was it cameras for lack of a better word. It could also contain scientific equipment.


Cameras could be used for mapping. In a negative light spying.

Any booster capable of orbiting a satellite is an ICBM.

So, now, without any further proof necessary, we know they have ICBM capability.

It's only a short time before they have nuclear weapons, given the amount of HEU they are able to produce.

But I suppose the proof that some will want is the mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, or somewhere in the continental US - at which point, they'll say, "well, it's not solid proof of their intentions..."

<snip>

What's with your avatar? Elaborate joke?

What's with your avatar? Elaborate joke?

Not too elaborate.

Most people know me, but for any new guys that come along, they'll be confused (by name and avatar) as to whether or not I'm female, when it doesn't really make a difference.

Of course, to some on this forum, it's incredibly important, which makes the joke even funnier.

Not too elaborate.

Most people know me, but for any new guys that come along, they'll be confused (by name and avatar) as to whether or not I'm female, when it doesn't really make a difference.

Of course, to some on this forum, it's incredibly important, which makes the joke even funnier.

I think this reflects your self absorbed personality rather than anything anyone else actually thinks.

Any booster capable of orbiting a satellite is an ICBM.

So, now, without any further proof necessary, we know they have ICBM capability.

It's only a short time before they have nuclear weapons, given the amount of HEU they are able to produce.

But I suppose the proof that some will want is the mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, or somewhere in the continental US - at which point, they'll say, "well, it's not solid proof of their intentions..."

Extremely well said.

Real Americans™ would be lucky if Iran loaded ICBMs in their satellites.

Instead, they could pack it with transmitters that hijack all the digital signals in the world that makes every HDTV broadcast a call for prayer that activates the sleeper operative programming that all ebil mozlems in the world are born with and they stage a planetary jihad to turn the Earth into The Caliphate™.

:eek2:

But on a serious note, Japan has launched satellites and can anyone seriously accuse them of having a nuclear weapons program? Would be irony innit? Japan with nukes.

Satellite capabilities ≠ Nuclear weapon capabilities, mmkay?

So let's see.

1. Iran has said bad things about Israel.
2. Iran has a satellite rocket.
3. A satellite rocket could be used as a weapon delivery package.
4. Therefore we should prevent or otherwise discourage Iran from sending up satellites.

How about this.

1. Hotwife has said bad things about Muslims.
2. Hotwife has a gun.
3. A gun could be used to murder Muslims.
4. Therefore, Hotwife should be prevented or otherwise discouraged from owning a gun.

Makes sense no?

Any booster capable of orbiting a satellite is an ICBM.

So, now, without any further proof necessary, we know they have ICBM capability.

It's only a short time before they have nuclear weapons, given the amount of HEU they are able to produce.

But I suppose the proof that some will want is the mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, or somewhere in the continental US - at which point, they'll say, "well, it's not solid proof of their intentions..."

sad but true.

sad but true.

Yes, because sending up a communications satellite is totally comparable to nuking Israel and/or the United States.

It shows capability though. Couple things with how they are treating the IAEA, make everyone wonder just what precisely they are doing! Why hide things when they insist they have nothing to hide?

Out of curiosity how accurately could an orbiting satellite be deliberately crashed onto a terrestrial target?

So then we need to know what was on that satellite, was it in fact communication equipment or was it cameras for lack of a better word. It could also contain scientific equipment.


Cameras could be used for mapping. In a negative light spying.

I'm not worried about the satellite itself--while it's probably not being used for orbital reconnaissance, orbital reconnaissance satellites don't bother me.

After all, we have more than enough satellite reconnaissance capability with google earth and wikimapia than most states did just two decades ago.

It shows capability though.

So what, no one should have communications satellite technology?

Couple things with how they are treating the IAEA, make everyone wonder just what precisely they are doing! Why hide things when they insist they have nothing to hide?

If UN inspectors were investigating your country at the request of a heavily-armed, nuclear power who has labelled you "evil" and has just invaded and subdued one of your neighbors, are you saying you would treat the inspection with benign submission? No way! You'd be right here, screaming about the evil liberal UN world police sticking their noses where they didn't belong.

Out of curiosity how accurately could an orbiting satellite be deliberately crashed onto a terrestrial target?

Quite accurately if it could survive reentry. However, most (and by that i mean 99%) satellites cannot survive reentry.

If UN inspectors were investigating your country at the request of a heavily-armed, nuclear power...
Uh, the UN inspectors investigate nuclear facilities as part of the general obligations of any signatory to the non-proliferation treaty which Iran voluntary agreed to.

Quite accurately if it could survive reentry. However, most (and by that i mean 99%) satellites cannot survive reentry.

So presumably it would be possible to construct one that could survive re-entry that could be used as a weapon while claiming that it was an accident?

Uh, the UN inspectors investigate nuclear facilities as part of the general obligations of any signatory to the non-proliferation treaty which Iran voluntary agreed to.

And how many IAEA inspectors are investigating the US presently?

And how many IAEA inspectors are investigating the US presently?
There are five nations expressly exempted from the terms of the treaty (namely, the permanent members of the Security Council) and five nations which the treaty does not bind because they are non-signatories (India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and Cuba).

So presumably it would be possible to construct one that could survive re-entry that could be used as a weapon while claiming that it was an accident?

Presumably you could construct one that could survive re-entry and hit a target, but if you wanted to cause real damage you'd have to construct it very specifically to survive a stable reentry and still have enough mass to cause severe destruction - and that much would be obvious when it hit.

There are five nations expressly exempted from the terms of the treaty (namely, the permanent members of the Security Council) and five nations which the treaty does not bind because they are non-signatories (India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and Cuba).

Ah. So, the answer is - not a single one. And, of the signatories who aren't conveniently exempt from their own treaties (and who only coincidentally possess the largest nuclear weapons stockpiles known to mankind), only Iran is getting the third degree. Why?

Could it possibly be because there is an political agenda against Iran, largely fueled by the US?

If I were Iran I wouldn't treat the UN inspection with respect either. It's hypocrisy in action, insulting, and we all know Iran will be presumed guilty no matter WHAT they do. Hell, if I were Iran I wouldn't want to be a part of the NPT for this reason - but if they withdrew, Hotwife and the other Iran-haters would have a field day. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Out of curiosity how accurately could an orbiting satellite be deliberately crashed onto a terrestrial target?

Not that accurate.

If UN inspectors were investigating your country at the request of a heavily-armed, nuclear power who has labelled you "evil" and has just invaded and subdued one of your neighbors, are you saying you would treat the inspection with benign submission? No way! You'd be right here, screaming about the evil liberal UN world police sticking their noses where they didn't belong.

Except for the fact that by not having the inspections, people will be suspicious and more people would be calling for them as well as sanctions and other diplomatic tools being used to make Iran comply with inspections. And the IAEA is not part of the UN :rolleyes:

Presumably you could construct one that could survive re-entry and hit a target, but if you wanted to cause real damage you'd have to construct it very specifically to survive a stable reentry and still have enough mass to cause severe destruction - and that much would be obvious when it hit.

If they were powered by a nuclear reactor presumably they could contaminate an area?

Ah. So, the answer is - not a single one.

That is what the terms of the treaty specify. Apparently you want to argue that the terms are unfair, which is entirely irrelevant, since Iran agreed to them.
only Iran is getting the third degree. Why?

EVERY signatory to the treaty who operates any nuclear facilities is visited by the inspectors. Iran is the only country which obstructs the inspectors.
If I were Iran I wouldn't treat the UN inspection with respect either.

Violation, after agreeing to the treaty, is casus belli.
Hell, if I were Iran I wouldn't want to be a part of the NPT for this reason

But they are. If they were not a part of the NPT, they wouldn't have any nuclear facilities, because the technology was transferred to them under the terms of the treaty.

That is what the terms of the treaty specify. Apparently you want to argue that the terms are unfair, which is entirely irrelevant, since Iran agreed to them.

No, I am arguing that as the terms are unfair, AND the situation involved in pushing the 'inspection' is a biased political agenda on part of those countries who oppose Iran in general (namely the US), it is unreasonable to act surprised if Iran does not view the 'inspection' in a positive light.


Violation, after agreeing to the treaty, is casus belli.

In other words the United States can uniltaterally declare a nation in violation of the treaty and use it as an excuse to war.

Now why would anyone be opposed to that?

No, I am arguing that as the terms are unfair, AND the situation involved in pushing the 'inspection' is a biased political agenda on part of those countries who oppose Iran in general (namely the US), it is unreasonable to act surprised if Iran does not view the 'inspection' in a positive light.

In truth, it does not matter. The fact is, by not adhering to the terms of the treaty that they agreed to, the other members have full right to take whatever steps necessary to force them to comply with their treaty obilgations. That's a fact jack.

In other words the United States can uniltaterally declare a nation in violation of the treaty and use it as an excuse to war.

Um actually no! Not in this case. Sorry!

Now why would anyone be opposed to that?

Because there is a time for war and a time for peace. Frankly, we should begin to bring stiffer consequences to Iran for failing to uphold their obligations under the NPT!

In truth, it does not matter. The fact is, by not adhering to the terms of the treaty that they agreed to, the other members have full right to take whatever steps necessary to force them to comply with their treaty obilgations.

Oh? Is that in the Non Proliferation Treaty? "If the US declares you in violation, you have the legal right to have your nation invaded?"

That's a fact jack.

No, not even if you say so!

Um actually no! Not in this case. Sorry!

Mm, yes, in this case. It was a non-consensus decision by the Board of Directors, with 12 abstentions. I note that the decision was not "and now we can bomb you lol" as you seem to think/hope, but since you maintain it is, it does translate to the US essentially just declaring Iran in violation.

Because there is a time for war and a time for peace. Frankly, we should begin to bring stiffer consequences to Iran for failing to uphold their obligations under the NPT!

There's a time for war and a time for peace, and it just so happens that you're calling for war at all times.

If they were powered by a nuclear reactor presumably they could contaminate an area?

Now you're making it *really* obvious.

No, I am arguing that as the terms are unfair, AND the situation involved in pushing the 'inspection' is a biased political agenda...
The situation involved in pushing this inspection is that it is a routine duty required of every signatory except the Security Council members, a duty routinely complied with by everybody else.
In other words the United States can uniltaterally declare a nation in violation of the treaty and use it as an excuse to war.

No. The Security Council, not any single nation, would declare the violation. Of the Council members, Russia and (to a lesser extent) China are more sympathetic to Iran's position than the US is. But continued outright defiance is bound to get Iran declared in violation sooner or later.

Oh? Is that in the Non Proliferation Treaty? "If the US declares you in violation, you have the legal right to have your nation invaded?"

Please show me where I said anything about invasion! You really have a screwed up mind there. No it is not just the US that has voiced concerns over this. Britain, France, the EU and Iran's neighbors have grave concerns and are voicing them. They want something done about it. So this is not just a US affair. You can leave that tin foil hat on your way out.

Mm, yes, in this case. It was a non-consensus decision by the Board of Directors, with 12 abstentions. I note that the decision was not "and now we can bomb you lol" as you seem to think/hope, but since you maintain it is, it does translate to the US essentially just declaring Iran in violation.

It is not just the US saying it. The EU and Iran's neighbors are suspicious and asking for full inspections that Iran is blocking.

There's a time for war and a time for peace, and it just so happens that you're calling for war at all times.

Um no I am not. Please point to a post where I am advocating war.

But on a serious note, Japan has launched satellites and can anyone seriously accuse them of having a nuclear weapons program? Would be irony innit? Japan with nukes.

Satellite capabilities ≠ Nuclear weapon capabilities, mmkay?

Japan, though, is the only exception. The US, Russia (and Ukraine, both through USSR program), China, India, Israel and ESA (France and UK) are the other countries with satellite capability. What I see here is a trend.

Further, my concern isn't that they have nuclear weapons capabilities, because they can orbit a satellite. It's that they can develop the ability to deliver a weapon on an IRBM-type system.

I wonder if its more or less technologically innovative than Sputnik...

Ah. So, the answer is - not a single one. And, of the signatories who aren't conveniently exempt from their own treaties (and who only coincidentally possess the largest nuclear weapons stockpiles known to mankind), only Iran is getting the third degree. Why?



The IAEA was set up by the Big Powers (especially the US) to limit the spread of nuclear weapons around the world, by incentivizing the non-development of nuclear weapons. States were required to join the IAEA and accept its limitations on use to receive peaceful nuclear technology from the US through Atoms for Peace, although some of them abused what they received.

As it stands, nuclear weapons are phenomenally dangerous and should be eliminated--not proliferated. As undesirable as it is for the disparity to exist, it's far better for this to be the case, then for nuclear weapons to proliferate around the world--it's the best we can do for now, and we should work towards abolition in the future.

The IAEA was set up by the Big Powers (especially the US) to limit the spread of nuclear weapons around the world, by incentivizing the non-development of nuclear weapons. States were required to join the IAEA and accept its limitations on use to receive peaceful nuclear technology from the US through Atoms for Peace, although some of them abused what they received.

Some of them are being abused for what they received too.

Anyway, you don't have to give me a history lesson. I'm aware of this, that's why I've correctly called it hypocrisy in action.

As it stands, nuclear weapons are phenomenally dangerous and should be eliminated--not proliferated. As undesirable as it is for the disparity to exist, it's far better for this to be the case, then for nuclear weapons to proliferate around the world--it's the best we can do for now, and we should work towards abolition in the future.

The disparity makes it more likely that they will be used. Case in point, they were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because not only could they not retaliate in kind, but they couldn't retaliate whatsoever.

This disgusting moral hypocrisy is enough to condemn any efforts - especially if the efforts are used to justify war (at least in certain people's minds).

The genie is out of the bottle. It can't go back in. Even you say we should "work towards abolition in the future." In some conveniently vague time that will never happen! Show me any other situation where an exceptionally efficient and useful (and military) technology was discovered, and then stopped from being used ever again?

It's unreasonable in the extreme to even pretend that disarmament is possible. Not until peace is achieved. You don't get peace by thumping your chest at the "axis of evil" and seizing upon communications satellites as equivalent to nuclear detonations on the US, or anything as a "casus belli" which reflects only on the warlike and again, hypocritical nature of the so-called security council.

What gets me is the same people who condemn the UN as an evil/weak/liberal/communist/world police/conspiracy are the first ones to seize upon UN violations as a justification for war. Flippity-floppity.

Some of them are being abused for what they received too.

They are or were in violation of the initial agreement--that's not abuse.

Anyway, you don't have to give me a history lesson. I'm aware of this, that's why I've correctly called it hypocrisy in action.

You are ignoring the legitimate concerns and positive outcomes derived from limiting the spread of nuclear weapons, I do feel you are in desperate need of a history lesson.
I don't find the hypocrisy desirable, but I find it far more desirable than what you seem to be advocating.



The disparity makes it more likely that they will be used. Case in point, they were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because not only could they not retaliate in kind, but they couldn't retaliate whatsoever.

World War II was an international, general war in which tens of millions of human beings lost their lives in a conflict between the powerful nation-states of the era. Such a situation in the international environment period is not even remotely similar to what currently exists. Interstate war, especially amongst the major powers, has been, essentially, eradicated. Your comparison has no external validity.

The genie is out of the bottle. It can't go back in. Even you say we should "work towards abolition in the future." In some conveniently vague time that will never happen! Show me any other situation where an exceptionally efficient and useful (and military) technology was discovered, and then stopped from being used ever again?

Nuclear weapons are qualitatively different from any other military technology every developed because of their efficient destructive capacity, and their ability to "salt the earth" where they are used.

It's unreasonable in the extreme to even pretend that disarmament is possible. Not until peace is achieved.

Disarmament is the only realistic option to achieve peace--otherwise the development of further nuclear weapons will increase hostility and mistrust between states, and guarantee a lack of peace.

You don't get peace by thumping your chest at the "axis of evil" and seizing upon communications satellites as equivalent to nuclear detonations on the US, or anything as a "casus belli" which reflects only on the warlike and again, hypocritical nature of the so-called security council.

Where on Earth is this hooey coming from? Who has declared this a casus belli? Who wants war with Iran?

What gets me is the same people who condemn the UN as an evil/weak/liberal/communist/world police/conspiracy are the first ones to seize upon UN violations as a justification for war. Flippity-floppity.

I'm certainly not.

i am a monarchist.........let the former shar's son be the new shar of iran.....but as a constitutional monarch, like the queen of england..............as a figurehead.....head of state. i dont like presidents.....that are here, then gone..............people need a head of state that is there......and a family that obviously produces an heir (directly or indirectly) that can can take over procedings on death or as a regent.

the crap that goes with republican types...for instance........the royal family cost too much........they take too much money.........they cost this ......they cost that...........its bull crap..........presidents cost a hell of a lot more..........they need protection.........a constitutional monarch lives on peppercorn......yes of course they are protected and live well.........but dont need the same security and expense as a president that can do a hell of a lot of damage with their power in 4 years.........a monarch needs the people to like and respect them.....if a president isnt to their liking....they get rid..........so a monarch is cheaper in the long run.

everyone likes a bit of pomp and regalia.........admit it.......lol

and as for nuclear...........do you honestly think we would get to know?......look at the weapons of mass destruction FORMER PRESIDENT G W BUSH found in iraq?......total waste of tax payers money in the usa the uk and the european union, never mind the knock on effect for the rest of the world through peacekeepers etc with the un. look at the global financial mess......people play at being big and they fall.......people need more than that.

The disparity makes it more likely that they will be used. Case in point, they were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because not only could they not retaliate in kind, but they couldn't retaliate whatsoever.

If I had a dime for everytime I heard this lame excuse of a reason, I would be a rich man.

They are or were in violation of the initial agreement--that's not abuse.

That they came under such intense and public scrutiny at a time when the US needed someone to sabre-rattle against is not just coincidence.


You are ignoring the legitimate concerns and positive outcomes derived from limiting the spread of nuclear weapons, I do feel you are in desperate need of a history lesson.
I don't find the hypocrisy desirable, but I find it far more desirable than what you seem to be advocating.

I advocate common sense. Nations are going to develop nuclear technologies. In secret. For their own interests. Every nation that has them has done this. The only way to prevent it, ultimately, is through warfare.

World War II was an international, general war in which tens of millions of human beings lost their lives in a conflict between the powerful nation-states of the era. Such a situation in the international environment period is not even remotely similar to what currently exists. Interstate war, especially amongst the major powers, has been, essentially, eradicated. Your comparison has no external validity.


My comparison is the only known case of nuclear weapons being used in war.

Since that's, you know, the subject at hand, it's relevant and the only relevant example. And the point, which you seem to have deliberately missed, is that a disparity in nuclear weapons means one can avoid MAD and get away with, say, using nuclear weapons.

This is why nuclear weapons are called nuclear deterrents. They deter nuclear attacks. Without them, nuclear attacks can come depending on the whim of the attacker.

Nuclear weapons are qualitatively different from any other military technology every developed because of their efficient destructive capacity, and their ability to "salt the earth" where they are used.


This only makes them yet more desirable and that much more impossible to 'eliminate.'

Disarmament is the only realistic option to achieve peace--otherwise the development of further nuclear weapons will increase hostility and mistrust between states, and guarantee a lack of peace.

How many times have Russia and the US gone to war, since both sides got nuclear weapons? For that matter, how many wars have occurred between nuclear states? And what was the intensity and scope of those conflicts compared to ones in pre-nuclear technological history?

Where on Earth is this hooey coming from? Who has declared this a casus belli? Who wants war with Iran?

Tmutarakhan, Corneliu 2 and Hotwife. You replied to my post without seeing what I was replying to? That would explain a few things.

That they came under such intense and public scrutiny at a time when the US needed someone to sabre-rattle against is not just coincidence.

That's why we let the EU negotiate with Iran before doing anything else. Yea I call that sabre-rattling. NOT! Only when all other efforts failed did we go to the UNSC!

Tmutarakhan, Corneliu 2 and Hotwife. You replied to my post without seeing what I was replying to? That would explain a few things.

Please prove I want a war with Iran. So far you have failed to present it!

So presumably it would be possible to construct one that could survive re-entry that could be used as a weapon while claiming that it was an accident?

It wouldn't be very accurate actually. The shape of most satellites promises funny ballistic trajectories once its in terminal descent (assuming it survived re-entry mostly intact). De-orbiting satellites as a weapon is also very, very, expensive.

Except for the fact that by not having the inspections, people will be suspicious and more people would be calling for them as well as sanctions and other diplomatic tools being used to make Iran comply with inspections.

People already are doing that.

Tell me, what is their incentive to cooperate again?

What's to be gained by NOT cooperating?

What's to be gained by NOT cooperating?

Not letting foreigners who are basically at the beck and call of the "hated west" (basically their enemies) into their country and snoop around their nuclear facilities.

What western nation would comply with those demands?

So you are basically saying it is ok for them to flaunt International Law which calls for inspections?

So you are basically saying it is ok for them to flaunt International Law which calls for inspections?

You mean like International Law that deals with prisoners of war? Didn't you use to go on and on about how the constitution and international law didn't need to apply to 'enemy combatants'?

So you are basically saying it is ok for them to flaunt International Law which calls for inspections?

Assuming international law really means jack, where did I say it was ok? Im telling you why they do it, not whether I agree with their decision or not.

If they are not wearing armbands or uniforms as prescribed for in the Geneva Conventions...

If they are not wearing armbands or uniforms as prescribed for in the Geneva Conventions...

Without derailing the thread, that would make them civies. The Geneva Convention splits people into two groups. Despite what Neocons wish, there is no third catagorey.


Otherwise, youre basically saying international law only applies to non-western countries.

Which is basically the case now. Well, its only enforced on non-western countries.

You are right about two different groups and that we should not derail the thread. Shall we continue with the thread?

If they are not wearing armbands or uniforms as prescribed for in the Geneva Conventions...

then they're civilians!

No, wait, that means we have to give them trials...

You are right about two different groups and that we should not derail the thread. Shall we continue with the thread?

In either case, there is little cause for worry. Even if Iran did have nuclear ambitions, it's first use won't be on any soil but it's own to make sure that it works.

It'd be terribly embarrassing to launch a missile at any of Iran's enemies declare their imminent and inescapable destruction, and watch it go splat instead of boom.

What western nation would comply with those demands?
Most of the IAEA's inspections are in Germany, Japan, and Canada, these being the signatories with the largest nuclear energy programs besides the Security Council members.

In truth, it does not matter. The fact is, by not adhering to the terms of the treaty that they agreed to, the other members have full right to take whatever steps necessary to force them to comply with their treaty obilgations. That's a fact jack.

Except that those other member nations refuse to do that if it concerns any nation that is not Iran.
And if you are going to claim that no other signee has violated the NPT in the last few decades, you may now travel to Iran and explain exactly how certain countries in their region got nukes. They would be very interested - they have after all been asking for an investigation for well over a decade.

Except that those other member nations refuse to do that if it concerns any nation that is not Iran.
But there ISN'T any other nation besides Iran which has agreed to the treaty, acquired nuclear technology as part of the benefits of being within the treaty, and then refuses to abide by the terms.
EDIT: looking into the history, in the past both Argentina and Brazil were obstructive of the IAEA also; but that was back when Latin America was considerably more unstable (Chile too, under Pinochet, was suspected though not proven to be looking into such options) and it does not seem that either country is up to anything along those lines nowadays.
And if you are going to claim that no other signee has violated the NPT in the last few decades, you may now travel to Iran and explain exactly how certain countries in their region got nukes. They would be very interested - they have after all been asking for an investigation for well over a decade.
If you are referring to Israel, Pakistan, and India, they had to do it without any of the technology transfers which signatories to the treaty are entitled to. They are among the non-signatories (the others are North Korea, which belonged for a while and then withdrew; and Cuba, which as far as we know has never pursued its own nuclear-weapons program, but reserves the right to do so).
EDIT: it's like this. Iran has driven a car off the lot, and now won't pay for it. Israel, India, and Pakistan aren't paying for their cars, but-- they built theirs themselves. Yes, of course espionage was involved (as well as independent research), but the thing is: however much spies are despised, there isn't actually any international treaty banning espionage (everybody does it, and everybody knows everybody does it). Iran, however, is under a treaty banning precisely what they are doing; and they have accepted the benefits of the treaty.

If you are referring to Israel, Pakistan, and India, they had to do it without any of the technology transfers which signatories to the treaty are entitled to.

According to the treaty, signees were not allowed to help them, yes.
So Israel, Pakistan and India "had to" do it without technology transfers, as you stated.

And yet it seems public knowledge that they didn't. That they did in fact receive help from signees. Which Iran has wanted to be investigated for years; but some signees for some odd reason do not.

And yet it seems public knowledge that they didn't.
No it does not. If you have any information on the subject, then share your sources, but I assure you that this member of the public, at least, has no knowledge of anything of the sort. As I recall, the US has imprisoned Israeli spies for decades, refusing pleas for leniency by multiple Israeli Prime Ministers, because of suspicions they were involved in setting up Dimona (in stark contrast to the usual tenor of US-Israeli relations); and there was a fairly large stink when the Bush Administration finally overturned a decades-long prohibition on any co-operation whatsoever with India regarding nuclear technology (on grounds that the horse had long since left the barn; but the counter-argument was that this should not be rewarded). In the cases of Pakistan and North Korea, Chinese assistance was commonly suspected but always furiously denied by the Chinese government (a collaborative effort between the Pakistanis and North Koreans is more likely). That's all I know about it, and I think I am better informed than the average member of "the public".