Iran

[Celumnaz]

We are in that process. We just don't need some of them and the maintinance is costly. We have some better stuff... Nukes are so Cold War Era. I guess maybe when we're done upgrading we can just give a few away to 3rd world countries.

[PadawanOsswe]

Nah,Russia has the nuclear black market covered.

[Stellar]

It's like it's ok to have nukes if you are an ally of US(US wouldn't like any of its allies getting too strong though), if not then it's war, that's what changes.

What are you talking about? The US hasnt declared war on Russia or China...

While the US may not like a non allied country having nukes (who would?), the US doesnt do anything to those countries which had them before the non proliferation treaty. The countries attempting to get them now, however, are wrong in doing so, and any country is within their right to prevent it.

US just doesn't seem to like the strength of it's opposition growing,

Would you?

it wants to nip it's opponent's advancements in the bud, all it wants is a pretext, if the reason is not nukes then it would have been something like "we know they're hiding Osama there".

Prove it. You dont know that that's the case at all.

If that's not dictating, what is?

That is no more dictating than a police officer saying that if someone commits a crime, he will be punished.

US is just enforcing laws for the sole purpose of its own benefit to suit its short term and long term plans for the future, nothing else.

Whats your point? The nuclear non proliferation treaty is there TO benefit the majority of the world. The US wanting that benefit instead of another possible threat is not wrong at all. The US is perfectly within their right to uphold the treaty, as is any country.

I ask you again, tell me really, is Iran really a threat to US. You gotta be kidding.

Any country posessing such a weapon, particularly one which chants "death to the west" and has a very aggressive attitude towards them, is a threat.

Economically, technologically, militiary strength wise, etc etc etc, does Iran come anywhere even close to US in ANY category, let alone matching or even bettering US.

They are strong enough to pose a great threat to US forces in Iraq. You dont have to be technologically advanced or have superior numbers to pose a threat. Afterall, look at the insurgents in Iraq, or even Al Qaida suported by the previous Afghan regime. And once you have a nuke, the threat is even greater.

Iran can't even make a slightest dent in US armour, in fact, a civilian from Iran would sense far more danger imagining an invasion by a superpower like US.

So, I suppose that the insurgents can simply be ignored? Aswell as terrorists? Afterall, they are even worse off than Iran...

Everybody has a right to form his opinions, don't you think?

So why do you deny the US the right to their own opinion? Thats quite hypocritical.

Don't tell me you believe every kindergarten kid of Iran will be firing a nuke at US. lol

Where did you get this from? My point was that the Iran regime, given a nuke, would have the ability to use it. Those americans here who cry out "nuke em all" dont, therefor your analogie is faulty.

I see it and I know it.

Oh really? Mind showing me the proof then? If you dont have that proof, that means you dont really know it at all.

US should try to know what other countries REALLY think of it. Many countries are dependent on US, one way or the other, trade wise, economically and so on, so no country can openly voice their opinion and see their bilateral relationship with US getting affected, though I'm sure more countries will voice out sooner or later.

So how would you know what their stance is? Whatever the reason they support it doesnt negate the fact that they support it.

Believe me with the amount of enemies US is making, with the attitude it's showing, it would be hard to imagine its future once the other countries become economically stronger and more independent.

Especially if one of those countries gets nukes, right?

In your last post, you sounded as if everybody in Iran is a terrorist or something.

I did no such thing.

Something similar Bush confidently once said "we have concrete evidence that Iraq has WMDs", no "what ifs" at all. Well...now you tell me, where are those WMDs? And now US says "we didn't find WMDs, but hey, Saddam was a moron anyways".

The case with Iran is being corroborated by multiple countries, and Iran is not making much effort to hide their desire.

So going by the same logic, America should also be invaded, don't you think? You ask me why? Simple, Bush is a moron, that's why.

Maybe you should stop modifying facts in order to appear right. The US never said they did it because SH is a moron.

Ridiculous isn't it?

Whats rediculous is how you're rewriting history, and then using your own version to support some non existant point of yours.

So are the reasons US gives to the world to justify itself.

Ahh, but these reasons arent given by the US, these reasons are given by the treaty itsself. The treaty is ment to ban the development of nuclear weapons.

I just find it funny why US thinks it deserves to have them and others don't.

1. So what if they do?

2. Can you support that allegation?

Tell me something, will US consider giving up its nukes for world peace? It will never happen.

If world peace was assured then quite possibly. None of us know the answer, so whats your point?

[Celumnaz]

Why does it do that with the quotes? It's happened to me before too. I look and it looks like all your quotes are fine. Sad cause it distracts and confuses your points aesthetically and ya'll have a good dialogue going.

[aquatus1]

If you have more than ten quotes, it will do that.

If you have more than ten quotes, you should also be thinking about a more elegant way of replying.

[Bone_Collector]

mmm...Stellar's quote format seems fine, wonder why it's not working though. Anyways, back on topic...

The US hasnt declared war on Russia or China...

It hasn't, for obvious reasons of course but I'd like to see them try(kidding). US is very vary of both these countries, especially China.

That is no more dictating than a police officer saying that if someone commits a crime, he will be punished.

And US is the self declared police officer of this world.

Would you?

No, I wouldn't but that doesn't mean I'd declare war and go invade the country just because they don't agree with me.

Any country posessing such a weapon, particularly one which chants "death to the west" and has a very aggressive attitude towards them, is a threat.

It's the same with US, it too has nuclear weapons, in fact far more advanced ones and I've heard many Americans say nuke Iran.

So why do you deny the US the right to their own opinion? Thats quite hypocritical.

US is forcing its opinions on others, that's what's different.

Where did you get this from? My point was that the Iran regime, given a nuke, would have the ability to use it. Those americans here who cry out "nuke em all" dont, therefor your analogie is faulty.

Show me proof where the Iran regime officially said that they'll nuke US.

Oh really? Mind showing me the proof then?

Open your eyes and look, you'll find it everywhere, for that matter, look at posts in this very forum from members who come from countries other than US.

So what if they do?

Similarly, so what if other countries do?

If world peace was assured then quite possibly.

If world peace was assured? That's another way of saying NO WAY.

Ahh, but these reasons arent given by the US, these reasons are given by the treaty itsself. The treaty is ment to ban the development of nuclear weapons.

Whats your point? The nuclear non proliferation treaty is there TO benefit the majority of the world. The US wanting that benefit instead of another possible threat is not wrong at all. The US is perfectly within their right to uphold the treaty, as is any country.

Any country posessing such a weapon, particularly one which chants "death to the west" and has a very aggressive attitude towards them, is a threat.

Well Stellar, since you seem to be so held up with the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty talk, let me begin by saying that it is very very biased. It is mainly designed to assist the existing superpowers to be THE superpowers for a long long time, there is no other motive behind it.

The Treaty says that only those countries which already have nuclear weapons(at that time) may have them (that is the US, Russia, the UK, France and China). Now, that is sooooo soooooo biased and ridiculous, I ask you, why can't these countries give up their nukes as well? They can keep their nukes because they are superpowers and that's all, nobody has a right to question it. Wow! What a fair treaty.

The other countries that signed this treaty, did so because of the pressure created by the big bullies and also because of their dependence on them, nothing else. They just couldn't say no and invite the wrath of these superpowers, do you really believe any country would willingly sign such a biased treaty?

All that is written in the treaty will just be like writing on water when the balance of power shifts, the treaty will then be only a worthless peace of paper, it was never willingly signed by a majority of countries anyways.

And as I've said before, when it comes to national security, no treaty really matters, let alone such a biased treaty. While you can say that according to that ******** treaty US can attack any country which doesn't adhere to it, but it DOESN'T necessarily make it right. Now, did you get my point?

actually Lord Umbarger said that we are in the proccess of disarming a few of our nukes.

Do you actually believe that?

Edited December 23, 2005 by Bone_Collector

[Erikl]

The Treaty says that only those countries which already have nuclear weapons(at that time) may have them (that is the US, Russia, the UK, France and China). Now, that is sooooo soooooo biased and ridiculous, I ask you, why can't these countries give up their nukes as well? They can keep their nukes because they are superpowers and that's all, nobody has a right to question it. Wow! What a fair treaty.

Wrong.

France is no longer a super-power, China wasn't a super-power when it got nukes from Russia, and the UK is no longer the global empire it was during the 40s and 50s.

I think it's quite fine that the law doesn't include countries which already had nukes - because if it was, it would have been criminalizing those countries unfairly.

I mean when they got nukes, it was all legal and fine, and then just because the "world bullies", as you call them, passed a law, they would have become criminal states.

What kind of fairness is that?

And on a side note, when some pro-Iran people will come to thise thread and start bringing up the case that Israel has nukes as well - Israel, if it has nukes, got them together with France (allegly, we and the french assisted eachother in developing nuclear abilities), which would make our nukes older than the treaty, and thus legal, as opposed to Iran which already signed the treaty and is now attempting to get nukes anyhow.

As for the question itself - I have no idea whether or not we are on the verge of a war.

I hope not.

But I guess the coming months will be the judge of that.

Time, it seems, is running against us all.

[PadawanOsswe]

Do you actually believe that?

yeah, nukes cant last forever so we are dismantleing a few of our "Cold War Era" nukes.

[pbarosso]

ok, guy from india:

us can fight wars on two fronts. remember WWII? we give a crap what happens in the world because in the past we get sucked in to play clean up. so now instead of an isolationalist view we are taking a more involved view to maintain the world stability.

and if you dont like it, too bad. our country just so happens to be on earth with the rest of the irresponsible rabble. we are looking out for ourselves.

and you cant even get along in kashmir.

i think it will be pakistan china and india fighting it out over resources. namely oil.

the us is the worlds largest consumer nation. we suck up everyone elses resources at a substantially cheaper rate than we can make it and then when everyone else is bone dry we got our reserves up in alaska and texas, and while we develope alternative energy, the rest of the world has to buy it or copy us. the same thing happened with computers and the microprocessor. we invented it, then produced it. then when we found out we could save money by making it overseas, we did. on and on and on. untill there is WWIII and then when we need steel we just go recycle our vast automobile junkyards and build whatever we need. at a way cheaper rate than buying steel anywhere-only labor costs.

we are the juggernaut. its only a matter of time if we can hold together as a country. but the feds wont let disintegration happen, so they adjust the interest rate so people can refinance and buy their toys, keeping them happy for awhile. and then in ten years retire because they own two or three houses, if they were smart.

hey its not too late to move here u know.........

[Bone_Collector]

Wrong.

France is no longer a super-power, China wasn't a super-power when it got nukes from Russia, and the UK is no longer the global empire it was during the 40s and 50s.

I said, the treaty was designed to assist the already nuke holding countries to be superpowers for a long time. Holding nukes itself gives a kind of superpower status to a country, don't you think?

I think it's quite fine that the law doesn't include countries which already had nukes - because if it was, it would have been criminalizing those countries unfairly.

I mean when they got nukes, it was all legal and fine, and then just because the "world bullies", as you call them, passed a law, they would have become criminal states.

What kind of fairness is that?

Erikl, I'm sorry but I really find that plain ridiculous and even funny. Just because a few countries got the nukes first doesn't give them the right to say others can't. When they got nukes, it was legal and fine for them, not anybody else.What is legal, isn't necessarily right. A law is fair only if it applies to all, with absolutely no exceptions. These countries wouldn't give up their nukes but expect every other country not to consider developing them.Wow!

yeah, nukes cant last forever so we are dismantleing a few of our "Cold War Era" nukes.

Dismantling a few rusty nukes doesn't mean anything. So long as you have the technical know-how, it's fairly easy to develop new ones, for that matter even better ones.

ok, guy from india:

us can fight wars on two fronts. remember WWII? we give a crap what happens in the world because in the past we get sucked in to play clean up. so now instead of an isolationalist view we are taking a more involved view to maintain the world stability.

and if you dont like it, too bad. our country just so happens to be on earth with the rest of the irresponsible rabble. we are looking out for ourselves.

and you cant even get along in kashmir.

i think it will be pakistan china and india fighting it out over resources. namely oil.

the us is the worlds largest consumer nation. we suck up everyone elses resources at a substantially cheaper rate than we can make it and then when everyone else is bone dry we got our reserves up in alaska and texas, and while we develope alternative energy, the rest of the world has to buy it or copy us. the same thing happened with computers and the microprocessor. we invented it, then produced it. then when we found out we could save money by making it overseas, we did. on and on and on. untill there is WWIII and then when we need steel we just go recycle our vast automobile junkyards and build whatever we need. at a way cheaper rate than buying steel anywhere-only labor costs.

we are the juggernaut. its only a matter of time if we can hold together as a country. but the feds wont let disintegration happen, so they adjust the interest rate so people can refinance and buy their toys, keeping them happy for awhile. and then in ten years retire because they own two or three houses, if they were smart.

Ok, guy from US, that was one hell of a patriotic post but I fail to see what it has to do with this topic.

and you cant even get along in kashmir.

And, you can't get along with any country in this world.

we are the juggernaut. its only a matter of time if we can hold together as a country.

Yes you are the juggernaut right now but you won't be forever. It won't happen today,

it won't happen tomorrow but one day you will surely be overthrown by the sheer strength of your opposition.

hey its not too late to move here u know.........

Thanks for your generous offer but I'm quite happy where I am right now.

[Erikl]

Erikl, I'm sorry but I really find that plain ridiculous and even funny. Just because a few countries got the nukes first doesn't give them the right to say others can't. When they got nukes, it was legal and fine for them, not anybody else.What is legal, isn't necessarily right. A law is fair only if it applies to all, with absolutely no exceptions. These countries wouldn't give up their nukes but expect every other country not to consider developing them.Wow!

Not legal, simply NOT illegal.

There's a difference, u'd surely agree .

Those countries, regardless of their ideology, saw what the new weapon can do, and understood that their dangerous nuclear arms race will end with a certain mutual destruction.

Being that none of them could agree upon dismantling their entire nuclear arsenal (because of existing mutual lack of trust), the best they managed to do is to ban any further distribution of these weapons.

And because there were other countries around the world with these weapons already in existance, which were indpendent from these countries (the US\Britain, and the USSR), there wasn't much they could say regarding their nukes.

You might find it funny, I don't - it's a very serious matter, which distinguishes a state from being a criminal state, or a legitimate entity.

The fact that the non-superpower countries who had nukes before the treay still have them is actually the best proof that this treat is fair and not playing to the hands of these "bullies" (the US and the USSR).

If those two had it their ways, France, China and possibly Israel wouldn't have nuclear weapons (Britain is an exception because it was an original participant in the "Manhattan Project" which gave the world it's first nuclear weapon).

[Erikl]

Also keep in mind that both Pakistan and India developed nukes and got sanctioned by the US because of that, yet the United States didn't invade them, hence your logic is flawed.

The agendas against Iran and N. Korea are simply that their regimes are fanatical and pose a threat to other countries.

While I agree both India and Pakistan pose a threat to eachother, they are lead by sane regimes which aren't lead by some fanatical ideological pattern.

[Bone_Collector]

(because of existing mutual lack of trust),

But they expect other countries to trust them.

May I ask what need did these countries see, when they first developed the nukes and how different is it from the need of other countries?

Not just Iran, if ANY country senses a threat from another country, especially a country which has nukes, then it will surely look to get the nukes as well; treaty or no treaty. When national security is under threat, no treaty actually matters, let alone a totally biased one. I personally think such nukes shouldn't have been developed in the first place.

You might find it funny, I don't

I found what you said to be funny, not the topic.

which distinguishes a state from being a criminal state, or a legitimate entity.

Who are these countries with their self suited so-called laws to decide, which is a criminal state and which is not?

Also keep in mind that both Pakistan and India developed nukes and got sanctioned by the US because of that, yet the United States didn't invade them, hence your logic is flawed.

The agendas against Iran and N. Korea are simply that their regimes are fanatical and pose a threat to other countries.

While I agree both India and Pakistan pose a threat to eachother, they are lead by sane regimes which aren't lead by some fanatical ideological pattern.

India has always rejected the so-called linchpin of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as a blatantly discriminatory regime, composed of two groups - the five treaty-sanctioned nuclear 'haves' and the rest - the nuclear 'have nots'. Simply put, India has never had any intention of being in the lesser tier because she views herself as destined for a far more important role. Thus, if her perceived peers had nuclear weapons, then so would India. If they gave them up, then so would India. India is a nuclear weapon state. This is a reality that cannot be denied. It is not a conferment that we seek; nor is it a status for others to grant. India and Pakistan are rivals and sense a threat from each other and have looked to arm themselves with the best weaponry to secure themselves, because BOTH the countries have powerful weapons, they hesitate to wage a full-fledged war with each other and this is exactly the reason why there is still some peace between them.

Edited December 27, 2005 by Bone_Collector

[Erikl]

Who are these countries with their self suited so-called laws to decide, which is a criminal state and which is not?

India has always rejected the so-called linchpin of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as a blatantly discriminatory regime, composed of two groups - the five treaty-sanctioned nuclear 'haves' and the rest - the nuclear 'have nots'. Simply put, India has never had any intention of being in the lesser tier because she views herself as destined for a far more important role. Thus, if her perceived peers had nuclear weapons, then so would India. If they gave them up, then so would India. India is a nuclear weapon state. This is a reality that cannot be denied. It is not a conferment that we seek; nor is it a status for others to grant. India and Pakistan are rivals and sense a threat from each other and have looked to arm themselves with the best weaponry to secure themselves, because BOTH the countries have powerful weapons, they hesitate to wage a full-fledged war with each other and this is exactly the reason why there is still some peace between them.

This is a totally different catagory - countries which didn't sign the treaty in first place, with the clear intention of becoming nuclear powers in the future.

It proves, again, that the treay is fair - countries which didn't sign the treaty weren't sanctioned and no one has attempted to do anything against them as a result of them no agreeing with the treay.

On the other hand, countries which signed the treay, are still signed on it, and are attempting to develop nukes, are criminal states (Iran is still signed on the treay yet it develops nuclear weapons).

For example, India and Pakistan were sanctioned by the US, but because they didn't break any treaty, no other UN member was compelled to sanction them, and indeed Russia, China and Europe didn't join the sanctions.

N. Korea on the other hand, even though it pulled out of the treaty, is being sanctioned for many other reasons.

Like wise, Zimbabue is not sanctioned by the world because of WMD, but because of it's grave human rights violation.

The EU have sanctioned selling arms to China in the past not because of it's nukes, but because of it being a dictatorship.

The US have chosen to sanction India and Pakistan because it didn't see them becoming nuclear states a good thing for it's agenda.