Iran

[Pangloss]

hmmm..... All this talk about nuclear bombs. What about leading by example? Shouldn't America, China and Russia talks about destroying their nukes before telling other to do so?

 

Why stop there? Why not toss into your requirements the elimination of our dependence on foreign oil, our "meddling" in the affairs of other countries, settle our debts and trade disputes, and a litany of other complaints against the US while we're at it?

 

Which might end up, at the end of the day, with the US taking care of those things, and Iran holding nuclear weapons.

 

Hmmm.....

[pcs]

hmmm..... All this talk about nuclear bombs. What about leading by example? Shouldn't America, China and Russia talks about destroying their nukes before telling other to do so?

 

Why?

[FreeThinker]

Why?

 

America is the only country that has used a nuclear weapon. As far as I am concerned, we are all on an equal playing field. What makes the 'nuclear powers' more superior to the developing nations? If its ok for one, its ok for all.

[pcs]

America is the only country that has used a nuclear weapon. As far as I am concerned, we are all on an equal playing field. What makes the 'nuclear powers' more superior to the developing nations? If its ok for one, its ok for all.

 

The fact I live here and love it is good enough for me. So how do you go about persuading Americans like me?

[FreeThinker]

There is people who live in Iran and love it. How do you persuade them? What makes you 'better' than you Iranian counterpart?

[Bettina]

America is the only country that has used a nuclear weapon. As far as I am concerned, we are all on an equal playing field. What makes the 'nuclear powers' more superior to the developing nations? If its ok for one, its ok for all.

 

Countrys like Iran are controlled by religious fanatical mullahs whose mindset is far different than the USA, China, and Russia to name a few. Iran has also called for the destruction of Israel at any costs. I don't know where you come from because your profile is non-existent but I would think you would realize something like this without being told.

 

Bettina

[FreeThinker]

Countrys like Iran are controlled by religious fanatical mullahs whose mindset is far different than the USA' date=' China, and Russia to name a few.

[/quote']

 

And you know this how? Western media?

 

Iran has also called for the destruction of Israel at any costs. I don't know where you come from because your profile is non-existent but I would think you would realize something like this without being told.

 

Bettina

 

But surely the right thing to do would be to disarm Israel of its nuclear weapons. It is no secret that the Jews dont like Arabs. If people who did not like me had nuclear weapons, I would want their destruction too.

 

 

FreeThinking

 

PS. I am from Australia

[pcs]

But surely the right thing to do would be to disarm Israel of its nuclear weapons. It is no secret that the Jews dont like Arabs. If people who did not like me had nuclear weapons, I would want their destruction too.

 

Yes, Arabs must defend themselves against Jewish suicide attacks deliberately targeting civilians.

[FreeThinker]

Yes, The Jews must defend themselves against the might of the Arab army.

 

People , there is more than one view to every situation.

[Bettina]

And you know this how? Western media?

 

No...from here. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/374EC486-CA69-43C0-9313-C1057E17BDC2.htm

 

 

But surely the right thing to do would be to disarm Israel of its nuclear weapons. It is no secret that the Jews dont like Arabs. If people who did not like me had nuclear weapons' date=' I would want their destruction too.[/quote']

 

Like the posts above mine said.... Yes we must prevent Jewish suicide bombers. You have it backwards.... Its the Arabs who hate the Jews. There are Iranians and Arabs that work peacefully inside Israel. How many Jews work in Iran.

 

P.S. Sorry I lost my temper.

 

Bettina

[Bettina]

Yes' date=' The Jews must defend themselves against the might of the Arab army.

 

People , there is more than one view to every situation.[/quote']

 

Sorry, the might of the Arab army is not the issue. Its Nukes in the hands of religious mullahs.... You didn't read what I posted.

 

Bettina

[Pangloss]

Do I need to repeat my question, "FreeThinker"?

[Pangloss]

hmmm..... All this talk about nuclear bombs. What about leading by example? Shouldn't America, China and Russia talks about destroying their nukes before telling other to do so?

 

Why stop there? Why not toss into your requirements the elimination of our dependence on foreign oil, our "meddling" in the affairs of other countries, settle our debts and trade disputes, and a litany of other complaints against the US while we're at it?

 

Which might end up, at the end of the day, with the US taking care of those things, and Iran holding nuclear weapons.

 

Hmmm.....

[pcs]

Yes, The Jews must defend themselves against the might of the Arab army.

 

They have, five times since 1947.

[FreeThinker]

I really dont understand where the argument is coming from.

 

Iran is run by religious fanatics? So is America!

 

Why should one coountry have all the rights to rule over others? What gives America the right to tell other nations that they are not allowed to develope nuclear bombs? If there was a agreement between ALL nations to destroy their nuclear arsenal than yes, I agree. As longs as one country has them, everyone else has the right to develpe their own.

[JustStuit]

Some other nations have lost their right to bear nuclear in the view of world/US/UN and America is strong enough to try to take it away.

[Pangloss]

I really dont understand where the argument is coming from.

 

Iran is run by religious fanatics? So is America!

 

Why should one coountry have all the rights to rule over others? What gives America the right to tell other nations that they are not allowed to develope nuclear bombs? If there was a agreement between ALL nations to destroy their nuclear arsenal than yes' date=' I agree. As longs as one country has them, everyone else has the right to develpe their own.[/quote']

 

With apologies to the ghost of Charles Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. But let me see if I can help you out a bit, since you say you don't understand.

 

What you may not be aware of is that there exists half a century of international case law, signed treaties, and established doctrinal and common debate positions that support the continued existence of nuclear weapons by a small collection of nations including (but certainly not limited to) the United States. The main line of reasoning lies in the solidity and rational discourse that all but one of these nations (USSR) has exhibited since these debates took place.

 

Is that rational? Is that fair? That's up to each individual to decide, and certainly you're not the only person who doesn't think so. But to say that Iran deserves them because everyone else has them is just two wrongs making a right. And it's worse, because Iran is not like those other nations. Not even close.

 

Iran is not stable, peaceful, constitutional, or prosperous. It exists under a spate of international sanctions, its leadership spouts, almost daily, the kind of nationalist and aggressive rhetoric the likes of which the world has scarcely seen since the 1930s, and a veritable litany of complaints have been lodged regarding human rights in that country. And this has been going on for decades.

 

So if I may respectfully suggest a more reasonable position, perhaps we should reduce and eventually eliminate existing nuclear arsenals, and meanwhile continue to ensure that no other nation, especially a nation as shaky and irrational as Iran, acquires them. Wouldn't that be a more rational course of action?

 

As I say, I respect your right to have a different opinion. But if you want to convince me that it makes sense to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, then you're going to have to explain to me why it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

[bascule]

Iran has done nothing but lie about their nuclear program. They bought ultracentrifuge designs designed to produce weapons grade uranium from the former head of the international nuclear black market, and have purchased ICBM designs from North Korea, the whole time claiming their intent is peaceful nuclear power.

 

If they're flat out lying to the world about their nuclear program, how the hell can they be trusted with nuclear weapons?

[Jim]

I really dont understand where the argument is coming from.

 

Iran is run by religious fanatics? So is America!

 

Why should one coountry have all the rights to rule over others? What gives America the right to tell other nations that they are not allowed to develope nuclear bombs? If there was a agreement between ALL nations to destroy their nuclear arsenal than yes' date=' I agree. As longs as one country has them, everyone else has the right to develpe their own.[/quote']

 

I toyed with the notion of starting a thread on this concept but since it's 4:30 and I can't sleep and I've already started two threads, I distrust myself. Let me ask it here then and we can move it to anothe home if some interesting arguements develop.

 

What interests me about this post isn't the apparent premise that religious freedom in Iran is equivalent to religioius freedom in America. I'm not really too interested in the question of whether the ever present and always amorphous term "rights" can be applied to the question of what country we want to have the ability to end life as we know it on this planet. I would like to debate the issue of the morality of the use of nukes to end WWII someday but I'm in a permanent holding pattern to argue with Bascule on Iraq so I'll save that for another night when I can't sleep.

 

I was interested by the assumption that the world would be better off if every country completely disarmed itself of nuclear weapons. I've never understood the belief that complete disarmament of the existing nuclear powers would decrease the risk of a nuclear war. Obviously, some regimes we never want to be able to destroy entire United States cities.

 

However, the wisdom of preventing hostile and unstable regimes from acquiring WMDs does not mean the world would be safer if Harry Potter waved his wand to evaporate all nukes on th planet but left us with the capability of producing nukes. This kind of fantasy scenario would be extremely dangerous with each nation suddenly at the mercy of whichever former nuclear power rearmed. Survival instinct would create an immediate rush to renuclearize (if that is a word) with the possibility that one nation would believe that it had an ephemeral ability to "win" the war on one day which it might "lose" the next.

 

In the absense of some future effective form of SDI, is some form of mutually assured destruction always going to be necessary? If complete disarmament is a fantasy at best and a nightmare at worst, is the best we can achieve to keep MAD in the hands of the more or less stable and hopefully one day 100% democratic (*grumbles again about Google*) governments?

[FreeThinker]

The fundamental question here is: do super powers with nuclear weapons make the world a safer place? I think not.

 

Lets take a hypothetical scenario. Iran develops a nuclear weapon and strikes a European City. In retaliation, that country strikes back. We all know the chain reaction that would result from this scenario. However, if only one country managed to develop a nuclear weapon and it was launched, the whole world could launch a counter attack ( non nuclear) on that nation. Two wrongs do not make a right, and retaliating with nuclear weapons will cause a worst problem than the one it was trying to solve.

 

But I think if there was a world pact for destruction of all nuclear weapons, it would be very difficult for any nation to develop the weapons. Of course the pact would come with regular inspections of countries and all the necessary steps to stop any development of nuclear bombs. We have seen in the past that super powers can use nuclear weapons for a lot less than nuclear retaliation.

 

No empire in the history of earth has managed to stay united. The Romans, Ottomans and more recently USSR broke apart. If we have any superpower in possession of nuclear weapons the whole world depends on the stability of that nation. A civil war in America could turn the entire world into chaos.

 

To stop ‘former super powered from re-arming’ itself with nuclear weapons the pact could allow, for example, full inspections by a group of scientists selected from a number of countries. This is just one example of course, the law could be enforced a number of ways.

 

The reason Iran is lying about their nuclear program is because they have to! How else would they develop nuclear bombs? When you have Israel armed to its teeth, how else would you protect you children but arm yourself? If Israel is disarmed, we would have a stronger case for disarming any of the Arab countries.

 

I believe the best we can do at present is work to disarm all nations of nuclear weapons. If such talks were in progress, it would be easier to stop countries like Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal. All nations in the world look after their own children. While these countries are militarily less equipped compared to the superpowers, they are played like pawns. Look at Pakistan and India, no one bothers them because they posses nuclear weapons. Today it seems like Nuclear weapons guarantee that you will not be invaded by a *superpower*. There is two ways we can get an even playing field :1) disarm everyone or 2) arm everyone. No nation in the world will sit back and watch America control the world, and why should they?

[doG]

I was interested by the assumption that the world would be better off if every country completely disarmed itself of nuclear weapons. I've never understood the belief that complete disarmament of the existing nuclear powers would decrease the risk of a nuclear war. Obviously, some regimes we never want to be able to destroy entire United States cities.

One scenario causes a problem with this. It is often said, "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." The same scenario comes up with total disarmament. A rogue entity does not care about any international pact, they will work in secret to their own means. OTOH, allowing any nation to have nuclear weapons is no guarantee that this won't happen either, look at Iran. Would Iran necessarily give up their desire if Israel is disarmed? I would not trust that they would because they have already stated that Israel should be wiped off the map, not because Israel has nuclear weapons, just because Israel is there. This leads me to believe that Iran would pursue the weapons necessary to effect this desire regardless of the armament of anyone else. For this to work would require absolute certainty that no one could operate a clandestine research facility and I can't imagine any and every sovereign nation giving the level of inspection access required to the rest of the world to guarantee this.

[Bettina]

However, if only one country managed to develop a nuclear weapon and it was launched, the whole world could launch a counter attack ( non nuclear) on that nation.

 

Suppose the developer of the nuke is unknown and was not the one who launched it in the first place... What would you do then?

 

Bettina

[Jim]

The fundamental question here is: do super powers with nuclear weapons make the world a safer place? I think not.

 

I'd say it a bit differently: Given that we cannot disinvent the capacity to build nuclear weapons' date=' what manner of deployment of the weapons reduces the risk of catastrophe?

 

As I'll discuss in response to the rest of your post, I do not believe the zero deployment scenario promotes safety, even if it were possible.

Lets take a hypothetical scenario. Iran develops a nuclear weapon and strikes a European City. In retaliation, that country strikes back. We all know the chain reaction that would result from this scenario. However, if only one country managed to develop a nuclear weapon and it was launched, the whole world could launch a counter attack ( non nuclear) on that nation. Two wrongs do not make a right, and retaliating with nuclear weapons will cause a worst problem than the one it was trying to solve.

Agreed that you have less risk if the developer only develops a single weapon. This assumption is premised on the notion that there can be an effective inspection and monitoring regime that would prevent breakout.

But I think if there was a world pact for destruction of all nuclear weapons' date=' it would be very difficult for any nation to develop the weapons. Of course the pact would come with regular inspections of countries and all the necessary steps to stop any development of nuclear bombs. We have seen in the past that super powers can use nuclear weapons for a lot less than nuclear retaliation.

[/quote']

To avoid a breakout, you would need to have an inspection regime which (i) every nuclear power on the world agrees to and (ii) would provide something close to a 100% assurance that other nations are staying nuclear free. Again, it is extremely unlikely that the U.S., Israel, France, Britain, China, India, Pakistan, et al., will give up this power. However, assume you do and using current governmental systems, you put your inspection regime in place.

 

How are you going to assure India that Pakistan is complying? How do you monitor a country with the geography and political system of China?

 

There are a lot of technical questions here that none of us know the immediate answers: With a stockpile of secreted enriched fuels, how long would it take a country such as the United States or China to renuclearize?

 

But the question isn't merely how long it would take to build bombs. The question is how long it would take to build bombs and position them on delivery platforms that could dominate the globe. In this analysis, the United States and sometime in this century, China, would dominate.

 

Suppose we have all disarmed and you have succeeded in destroying not just weapons but also stockpiles of weapons grade materials. Suppose, even that you have somehow agreed and enforced the elimination of delivery systems (submarines with missile platforms, MIRVs, etc).

 

We now live in a completely nuclear free world without weapons, materials or delivery platforms.

 

However, tensions remain. Incident occurs and distrust will ensue. You reference a historical time scale, so apply that to these issues and at some point things are going to go to hell. For example, the inspection program, rightly or wrongly, might lose its credibility. China might insist that Tawain give up all pretense of sovereignty. You could have an outright race; in fact, on a historical time scale, that much is a certainty.

 

However, let's assume that doesn't happen. China merely waits 30-60 years until it is strong enough and the United States is weak enough that both countries have a high degree of condifence that China could develop these systems before the United States could ever mount a serious response.

 

Even if China did not simply announce that it was rescinding the treaty, the global politics would drastically change with the knowledge by the United States that we could not prevent the Chinese from developing these systems and medevializing the United States. Of course, the United States would never let it go so far. At some point, we would have to renounce the agreement and act before some other Country got too far ahead.

 

Again, it is the process of renuclearization which I most fear. Now everyone knows that using nukes is the end of civilization. That might not be the case during a process of rapid renuclearization.

 

This is me thinking for about 15 minutes on a Sunday morning. Can you imagine what the think tanks around the world could make of these complexities? What is the impact of a technology of SDI? What about viruses and hacking and the way such a war would be fought in 30 years? There are a lot of unknowns but any way you slice it, complete disarmanent seems a dangerous fantasy.

 

Moreover, all of this assumes that you have a valid inspection regime which I think is implausible. We have a hard enough time guaranteeing inspections even when we are focused only on emerging countries that are in the developmental stages. I do not see how we could possibly monitor China.

 

No empire in the history of earth has managed to stay united. The Romans' date=' Ottomans and more recently USSR broke apart. If we have any superpower in possession of nuclear weapons the whole world depends on the stability of that nation. A civil war in America could turn the entire world into chaos.

[/Quote']

Obviously, the risk you are describing only increases if more countries acquire nukes.

 

On a historical time scale, you are right that the United States could implode like any other country. However, the risks of complete disarmament are equally grave on an historical time scale.

 

To stop ‘former super powered from re-arming’ itself with nuclear weapons the pact could allow' date=' for example, full inspections by a group of scientists selected from a number of countries. This is just one example of course, the law could be enforced a number of ways.

[/quote']

I cannot envision the structure you are proposing which preserves the sovereignty of nations and which can cover a country the size the the former USSR, the United States or China.

The reason Iran is lying about their nuclear program is because they have to! How else would they develop nuclear bombs? When you have Israel armed to its teeth' date=' how else would you protect you children but arm yourself? If Israel is disarmed, we would have a stronger case for disarming any of the Arab countries.

[/quote']

I do not condemn any country on moral grounds for wanting to arm itself.

I believe the best we can do at present is work to disarm all nations of nuclear weapons.

What does it mean to say we will "work to disarm?" If this means reducing weapons to the point that we only have 3X overkill instead of whatever it is now (60X)' date=' sure but what good does that do other than save money? However, the real questions is whether we will retain the ability to turn any country that attacks us into rubble fit only for cockroaches. (Another legitimate question is whether we should advance counterforce - the ability to target nukes - technologies.)

 

If such talks were in progress, it would be easier to stop countries like Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal.

 

A huge assumption. As long as Israel has nukes, and probably so long as Israel exists and possibly as long as the United Sates exists, Iran will want nukes.

There is two ways we can get an even playing field :1) disarm everyone or 2) arm everyone. No nation in the world will sit back and watch America control the world' date=' and why should they?[/quote']

 

First, note that you agree that your "work to disarm" approach means nothing. Either the United States and China retain the ability to destroy life as we know it or they don't.

 

You provide sketchy arguments as to why the "disarm everyone" approach could ever happen. However, you assume that this approach, even if acheivable, would be safer. I see it as far riskier as it creates the possibility of break out with severe risks as countries race to rearm. Mutually assured destruction kept the peace for 60 years. I'm afraid it is the best that we have and we have no choice but to try to reduce risk by keeping any other country, especially those who are unstable and hostile to the United States, from acquiring nukes.

[Jim]

One scenario causes a problem with this. It is often said, "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."

 

A good analogy. It would be like placing a single loaded weapon in a glass case in the middle of a stereotypical 19th western bar. At some point, a rancher or a sheep herder is just gonna have to break that glass.

[Bettina]

A good analogy. It would be like placing a single loaded weapon in a glass case in the middle of a stereotypical 19th western bar. At some point, a rancher or a sheep herder is just gonna have to break that glass.

 

Yes, but I worry more that Rancher will shoot Sheepherder because Sheepherder refused to say his morning prayers.

 

Bettina