Discussion in 'World Events' started by S.A.M., Dec 9, 2011.
are you asserting there is a "double standard"?
... why is that seemingly controversial?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Of course. It's explicitly codified in a treaty signed and ratified by over 180 countries, including Iran and the USA, and on the books for decades now.
Because the vast majority of people, worldwide, hold that nuclear non-proliferation is more important than avoiding the double-standards in question. That is why almost every country in the world has signed and ratified the NPT. The suggestion that it is preferable to avoid a double-standard by endorsing nuclear proliferation is a controversial one, evinced only by a very small minority of people.
Quite frankly, I expect that CptBork himself supports non-proliferation efforts and the NPT. I suspect that he simply forgot about the fundamental role of such a double-standard in the NPT, and so in global non-proliferation efforts generally. The way to get rid of the double standard, is to have everyone get rid of all of their nukes, not to have everyone acquire nukes. The superficial consistency of the latter approach is no justification for the hazards it presents.
those that believe you will disarm your nukes.
those that know the haves do not negotiate in good faith
of course. so why iran does what it is doing ought not to befuddle anyone. aside from the hypocrites, that is
No. Again, let me correct the distortion re said invasion. A European Union investigation into this war found that Tbilisi triggered the conflict and Russia subsequently overstepped the mark in retaliation. What remains clear is the swift and decisive termination of this conflict by the Russia military.
Hmm. Pot, kettle, black stuff. Enough said.
That borders them. Not like thousands of miles away. Etc.
Absolutely. I am referring to the consistent and gentle voice of Lavrov, repeatedly rejecting military force as a means of diplomatic resolution.
Whatever. The US intervention into Afghanistan has been and is utterly unsuccessful - in every which way.
This is a relatively new but increasingly influential entity - it is not going away and its obviously a bulwark against NATO and the West.
The Russians have made it quite clear, and repeatedly, that they want clear and unambiguous guarantees that the missile shield/s are not aimed at Russia. Such guarantees are not forthcoming. What should they do? Throw a party? Or gear up for defense?
Russia is entitled to self defense, no?
Undoubtedly. And Russia is attempting to counter such.
I was listening to the radio on my way to work today and I missed the first part of the program - but it seemed to suggest that leaders in Iran were spooked over the landing of the spy plane. It seemed they had/have no idea how it was landed in Iran. Being as paranoid as ever, some even suggested the US did it??? Other are worried a covert war is being waged, as we speak.
Hard to say with Iran, they're all paranoid over the inevitable invasion... errr I mean.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ron Paul 2012 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
My research indicates Iran signed that treaty in 1974 while the Shah was still in power- if that's true, it could hardly be called "freely signed and ratified". Furthermore, the major nuclear powers should have disarmed by now if they were complying with the treaty in good faith. I don't like the idea of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons or having undeclared, uninspected elements in its program, but I don't think it's sufficient justification for invading their territory and bombing their facilities, nor worth the long-term troubles it will cause.
I think the treaty should be enforced with vigour, but only via sanctions, not direct physical force (unless Iran initiates violence in response to said sanctions).
Agreed, but I don't think we can morally assume the right to limit it by whatever means we personally deem appropriate. Maybe I would have felt differently if there had been no Iraq invasion over nonexistent WMD's, but it happened, the people responsible haven't been punished, and now many Iranians, right or wrong, feel that actually possessing WMD's is the only way to protect themselves from the same outcome. Unless there's specific, credible intel regarding an imminent Iranian nuclear attack, I don't think we have the legitimacy to initiate force leading to a catastrophic regional confrontation. Their mullahs are doubtlessly insane, but on a national level Iran is still entitled to a degree of sovereignty just like anyone else, so I think containment is the best option. Remember that if it hadn't been for CIA meddling in the first place with the overthrow of Mossadeq, there probably wouldn't be a hostile theocracy ruling that country today, so how many times does the US get to dictate their internal politics with impunity?
(yawn) so nobody wants to attack Iran here. I was sorta hoping for a scuffle, but oh well. Good posts here, and may such reason prevail in the "real" world through the new year and beyond. Salaams all.
I don't think anyone wants to, but it may be inevitable. If they have a revolution like Egypt, that may change.
There's a cliff x kilometers from any of us, but not one needs to take a jump. Good. Agreed.
Capt, I agree with, and appreciate your sentiment outlined here.
please pay attention Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, but there is a fire behind us and if we don't jump, we may get burned.
Or, believe that endorsing the NPT will better approximate that ideal than the alternative, at least.
US nuclear stockpile has been reduced by about 85% since the NPT went into effect, BTW. The Russian stockpile is down by about 60% (since they spent about half of the intervening time undertaking a massive nuclear buildup, until they went bankrupt). The main threat to substantial achievement of nuclear disarmament is proliferation amongst states outside the NPT-designated nuclear powers.
Nobody with a pair of eyes and a working brain thinks that geopolitical negotiations are a matter of "good faith." They're determined by interest, power and constraints. The point being that the NPT provides a reasonably strong incentive for the USA (and other nuclear powers) to reduce their nuclear arms, in order to keep the non-nuclear states on board and prevent proliferation amongst them. If you endorse proliferation in order to poke the nuclear states in the eyes, the result will be the dissolution of the NPT and widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. The existing nuclear weapons states will have little incentive not to build up their stockpiles and develop more advanced and deadly nuclear weapons. How that will be good for the "have nots" is not apparent to me. The only utility of such a suggestion appears to be as a rhetorical prop for recalcitrant naysayers.
Did someone evince some "befuddlement" somewhere?
Not that your statement there follows from the quote you put in front of it, that I can see.
Characterize it however you want - that was still an invasion.
And the conflict hasn't gone anywhere - Georgia and Russia are still hostile towards each other, Russian troops are still occupying Georgian territory for the express purpose of annexation, diplomatic relations between the two have been severed, re-armament is taking place.
So, again, you explicitly accept and endorse the premise that all states bordering Russia are within their privileged "sphere of influence," and they can rightly bully those states around. You openly reject the sovereignty of all states which border Russia.
Lavrov is great and all, but he's just a pretty face for the foreigners. He doesn't have any pull in Russian policy-making. Putin calls the shots.
You are trafficking in hollow assertion here - hollow assertion which conveniently conforms to your predetermined worldview.
Not impressed by those empty assertions. I don't think you know much of anything at all about the SCO - you're just projecting your fantasies onto it.
Russia's trumped up hysteria over a system that their massive arsenal could easily overwhelm, and their un-meetable demands in light of such, are nothing more than a political tactic to pursue an aggressive posture while retaining some deniability amongst the gullible.
Of course. But, how is targetting nuclear missiles at Europe "self defense?" Nobody is targetting them with nuclear missiles.
So you agree that this is an attempt by Russia to re-assert military dominance over its neighbors. Excellent.
When governments change, what happens is that they can either keep existing international agreements and treaties (if they like them), or they can dump ones they don't like. The Ayatollah chose to keep the NPT. If you want to be pedantic, you can say this isn't "signed and ratified," but the effect is the same. Iran has been free to withdraw at any time since then, as well, but has chosen not to. Iran (or, anyway, its government) openly endorses the NPT - it's the entire basis of their case that they have a right to nuclear technology and associated imports and assistance. If they withdraw from the NPT, they have no grounds on which to demand that any other country recognize their right to nuclear power.
How do you figure?
Aren't the massive reductions that have taken place a pretty good start?
If you're of the view that this situation abrogates the treaty, and that states should respond by withdrawing and building nuclear weapons, then I'm again puzzled at your determination to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
I think there is a basic, systemic problem with the total disarmament goal, and it exists regardless of how good the faith of the nuclear weapons states is. To wit: you can't un-invent nuclear weapons, so unless and until you can be sure that nobody else is going to build them (which you can't do, even in principle), there will be a huge disincentive for the nuclear weapons states to totally eliminate their arsenals. Because to do so would be to hand enormous geopolitical power to whatever spoiler states decide to build/retain nukes. The fact that there are now 4 nuclear weapons states outside of the NPT heightens this further. If the nuclear weapons states in the NPT complied tomorrow and eliminated all of their arsenals, you'd be left with India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel as the world's only nuclear powers. Does that sound like a stable, hopeful situation?
So probably we won't see complete nuclear disarmament until such a time as new, more terrible types of weapons are invented which render nuclear weapons obsolete. Which will not represent much of an advance, from the disarmament point of view.
You're probably right. Which is likely why the response to such seems to be, on the one hand, UN sanctions and, on the other, black ops involving cyberwar, assassination, etc.
Did someone suggest that we can or should do that?
Nah, they're cold, calculating politicians. Which may not be exclusive of being insane, but it does rule out much irrationality.
How does resistance to Iranian nuclear weapons add up to "dictate their internal politics with impunity?" There's nothing exclusively "internal" about nuclear development. Even just nuclear power development has major weapons implications. The two are not really separable.
The continuing saga of Iranian war games and how they spook the west
And just for a change a debate from India on the India-Iran-Israel situation, because our media is less "free" than in the west
only you don't give a fuck about ending those
why would he he doesn't have any real power. the only reason he is still in power is because of people like you who don't actually understand the who has any power give him credence.
I realize that, the Mullahs have the actual power. But he's a convenient figurehead to scorn and ridicule.
Israeli sexism isn't my biggest concern, and the Saudis need us as a market for their oil, so they aren't going to piss us off.
Separate names with a comma.