I Do Not Trust The Feds Or Brits To Tell Me Who Is Trying To Get A Bomb

[DistressedAmerican]

They have lost all credibility. Yet, they expect us to just keep trusting the same people that told us that Saddam was buying Yellow Cake? The ego on these folks is amazing!

Fucks.:nuke:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10701666/

Paper: Iran shopping the world for nuke parts
Syria, Pakistan also developing weapons programs , intelligence report says

LONDON - Iran is secretly trying to obtain technology and expertise needed to build a nuclear weapon, according to a leaked intelligence report that threatens to deepen a rift with the West over its nuclear program.

Tehran’s nuclear purchasing plans stretch from Europe to North Korea and the former Soviet states, Britain’s Guardian newspaper said, citing a report by an unnamed European intelligence agency.

The 55-page report, dated July 1, 2005, draws on material gathered by British, French, German and Belgian agencies and has been used to brief European government ministers, the newspaper said.

The leaked report comes as Iran and the West remain locked in a standoff over Tehran’s nuclear program.

The United States and the European Union fear Iran’s civilian nuclear power program is a cover for making nuclear weapons. Iran says it needs nuclear technology to generate electricity.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. Do you trust the IAEA?

Because they seem to be in agreement.

[julianer]

2. About what?

Iran is acting, as far as I can tell, entirely within the law as defined by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It is within its rights to develop a civilian nuclear industry. It has the right to expect help from present nuclear powers if it foregoes the development of nuclear weapons - all part of the NNPT agreement, all scrupulously abided by as far as Iran is concerned.

Those in breach of the NNPT are the usual suspects - the US, UK and France who are definitely in breach of the NNPT - they have not disarmed their nuclear arsenals and they have not offered help to Iran to develop its civilian nuclear industry.

As far as I can tell Iran is perfectly within its legal rights to take the US/UK to the IAEA and the Security Council, but not the other way around.

=======

Key Provisions of the NPT

Under Article I, the nuclear weapon states undertake not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Under Article II, each non-nuclear-weapon state pledges not to receive, manufacture, or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive assistance in their manufacture.

Article III obliges each non-nuclear-weapon state to accept comprehensive international safeguards through agreements negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The intent of these safeguards is to deter and detect the diversion of nuclear material for nuclear explosive purposes.

Under Article IV, parties may engage in peaceful nuclear programs in a manner consistent with Articles I and II and are expected to assist the nuclear programs of other parties, with special attention to the needs of developing countries.

Article VI obligates all parties to pursue good-faith negotiations on effective measures relating to ending the nuclear arms race at an early date, to nuclear disarmament, and to achieving a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Article VII recognizes the right of any group of states to conclude regional treaties ensuring the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. Hmm...

It is within its rights to develop a civilian nuclear industry.

Except that the IAEA suggests not-so-subtly that this is't what they're doing. Give me one good reason, one logical argument or economic argument for why a huge net oil exporter has any reason to build nuclear power generation capacity. Hell, the IAEA itself asked Iran not to resume enrichment activity.

As for throwing the book at the US and other western countries for ignoring article VI, I'd love to see it happen. But that still doesn't mean I want Iran to have the bomb. And if it comes to it, I'd rather Iran not have the bomb than see the West disarm.

[julianer]

4. Global warming

technology offshoots; better educated population.

There's three reasons. Another would be - they are a sovereign nation who can do what they like within the bounds of international law. So far no one has been able to come up with any convincing evidence that Iran is breaking any law. There's an awful lot of 'intelligence' and general noise trying to create that impression in the public mind, though.

And the main reason they would want to get a nuclear weapon would be that they have already been threatened by a foreign power and, under law, they have the right to defend themselves.

I didn't say I expected the western nations to be held to account for breaches of the laws they have signed - I'm not naive - I'm merely pointing out the legal facts in order to prepare people's arguments against the warmongers.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Well, fine.

Looking forward to the day when Hezbollah has the bomb. No wonder people don't trust Democrats on national security issues.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. If it's any consolation to you, julianer is British

so you don't have to take their comments as affecting Democratic votes in the US. But Hezbollah is really a red herring - countries do not give their nuclear weapons to any groups they basically control. The USA did not give the bomb to South Vietnam, even when it was about to be conquered as a country. It never gave the bomb to any of the Latin American regimes it supported, including those it back coups to put in power. Russia did not give the bomb to guerilla groups it sponsored.

The question is how reliable Iran itself is. I feel less confident about that now, since the new president does seem irresponsible, but MAD still applies to Iran - it knows that if it uses a bomb for anything other than retaliation, it will be destroyed. As long as there are some intelligent people who can veto the use of the bomb in the Iranian state, we should be OK.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. Thanks for your comments.

You are of course right about Hezbollah, but I doubt that Israel would see it that way, and that's really the problem.

As long as there are some intelligent people who can veto the use of the bomb in the Iranian state, we should be OK.

Unfortunately, I don't think it can work that way. MAD only applies if both countries have weapons. If one country can prevent the other from acquiring them, then it can prevent MAD from becoming a reality.

If Iran gets close to having nukes, Israel WILL attack them, and then we will be in a world of shit. Iran has already threatened Israel repeatedly, and has made itself a party to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict through its financial and military support of Palestinian militants and terrorists. Because of this, Israel would likely see themselves as well within their rights of self-defense were Iran to acquire (or come close to acquiring) nuclear weapons. This is the situation that must be prevented. Sharon and Bush's actions on this subject have done far more harm than good, but Iran has brought this problem upon itself, and if it really wants a peaceful nuclear program then it needs to be flexible. So far it has been anything but.

[BushOut06]

7. Sounds like freeper talking points to me

As I've said before, even if Iran were developing nukes - which there is NO hard evidence of that - why is it okay for Israel to have them, but not Iran? Because Israel is the "good guy" and Iran the "bad guy"?

Is the mere possibility that Iran might be developing nukes enough justification to start a war with them? One which could very easily cripple our economy and spread throughout the entire region? Do you really want to risk World War III over the chance that Iran might be persuing nukes?

If Iran does develop nukes and uses them against the United States or one of our allies, then we could take action against them. But launching a preemptive strike (which woudln't even be effective unless you used nukes) is the WRONG answer in this case.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. Okay...

As I've said before, even if Iran were developing nukes

Which they are.

which there is NO hard evidence of that

Please take your head out of the sand. Hell, if I were president of Iran, I'd want nukes because...

why is it okay for Israel to have them, but not Iran?

It isn't. But that still doesn't mean it's OK for Iran to have them. Putting pressure on Israel to disarm would be a start wrt getting Iran to stop its program.

Because Israel is the "good guy" and Iran the "bad guy"?

Good or bad is irrelevant. Nobody should have these weapons. Period. But yes, some people are worse than others.


Is the mere possibility that Iran might be developing nukes enough justification to start a war with them?

Of course not. No reasonable person would suggest that it was.

One which could very easily cripple our economy and spread throughout the entire region?

And, at current time, would be impossible due to Bush's horrible bungling of his other war.

Do you really want to risk World War III over the chance that Iran might be persuing nukes?

No. Nor do I want a government run by a bunch of anti-semites, whose leader has a penchant for holocaust denial and a love of people who blow up school children, to have nuclear weapons. Those thoughts are not contradictory.


If Iran does develop nukes and uses them against the United States or one of our allies, then we could take action against them.

Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. The EU and the IAEA are in agreement with me on this issue. Why aren't you?

But launching a preemptive strike (which woudln't even be effective unless you used nukes) is the WRONG answer in this case.

Of course it is. And doing nothing and allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is also the WRONG answer. Several people in this thread appear to be taking the position that Iran isn't developing its program for military uses. And I happen to think that's nonsense.

Sounds like freeper talking points to me

I'm not even going to dignify that with the response it deserves because it'd get the rest of my post deleted.