anyone still believe Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by DrKF
Put another way, I think Israel possessing nuclear weapons is destabalising for the region and illegal under national law and for good reason. There is no doubt in my mind that Iran ought to be stopped from achieving a nuclear capacity. Besides the disinegenuity of 'facts on the ground', and with the stability of the region and the wider world at stake, ought I ...[text shortened]... ons[/i] that insist upon a level of equality that I'd be keen to hear others' views upon...

First of all, Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. As such, there is nothing illegal about Israel developing or having nuclear weapons.

Second of all, the very fact that Israel has possessed nukes for at least 2 and a half decades and has never once threatened to use them or use that ability in any diplomatic manner illustrates that they are capable of handling them responsibly. If I were confident that Iran would never use them or threaten to use them, I wouldn't be so afraid of them having nukes.

Originally posted by sh76
Interference in the form of bombing the Iranian reactors (if that's even feasible) depends on what you believe Iranian motives are. The way I see it, there are (more or less) 5 possibilities:

1) Iran is being truthful and is really not seeking to develop nuclear weapons

2) Iran is developing nuclear weapons because they want to level the diplomatic playin analyses in the history of the World. I wouldn't want to have to make the decision.

Six, perhaps - it's sabre-rattling. There's little indication - despite obvious and deep penetration of the programme - that Iran is close to having a viable nuclear capability. At present, however, they are far enough along to warrant close scrutiny - which is all part of sabre-rattling. How far is the belligerent attitude you are expressing playing in to that hand?

So the question is whether this is a hot or a cold war. I know that my lack of belligerence runs the risk of me 'doing a Chamberlain', really I do.

I just hope that every time I am reminded of the very real dangers that are posed by a nuclear Iran, you take stock and realise that adding so belligerent and dualistic a narrative to the 'war' in the fertile crescent (I put it in quotes because perhaps something so ever-present throughout history ought not to have so exceptional a title as 'war'😉 isn't necessarily helpful.

Originally posted by sh76
First of all, Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. As such, there is nothing illegal about Israel developing or having nuclear weapons.

Second of all, the very fact that Israel has possessed nukes for at least 2 and a half decades and has never once threatened to use them or use that ability in any diplomatic manner illustrates that they are capable of hand ...[text shortened]... ran would never use them or threaten to use them, I wouldn't be so afraid of them having nukes.

What view have you towards Israel's refusal to sign the NPT? It might not be illegal to hold nuclear weapons, but is is moral? Is it reasonable?

Originally posted by DrKF
Six, perhaps - it's sabre-rattling. There's little indication - despite obvious and deep penetration of the programme - that Iran is close to having a viable nuclear capability. At present, however, they are far enough along to warrant close scrutiny - which is all part of sabre-rattling. How far is the belligerent attitude you are expressing playing in to that ...[text shortened]... t history ought not to have so exceptional a title as 'war'😉 isn't necessarily helpful.

If you're confident that it's all just sabre-rattling, then you're right.

I'm not going to accuse you of doing a Chamberlain. Historical analogies only take you so far. Each situation has to be addressed on its merits.

In any case, I don't claim to know the "right" answer. I do, however, think it's naive to simply dismiss the question.

Is my attitude belligerent? I don't think of it that way. I have nothing against Iran or most of its people. I am afraid of my cousins in Jerusalem dying in a nuclear inferno. That's the long and short of it. I don't think that's necessarily belligerent.

Originally posted by DrKF
What view have you towards Israel's refusal to sign the NPT? It might not be illegal to hold nuclear weapons, but is is moral? Is it reasonable?

Israel views it as a necessity as a last ditch defense in the face or extermination and as a counterweight for when (and it's when, not it) one of its many many blood enemies develops them.

I think that Israel giving up its nukes without a stone cold guarantee that the likes of Iran will never get nukes would be criminal neglect of its people's safety.

Originally posted by sh76
If you're confident that it's all just sabre-rattling, then you're right.

I'm not going to accuse you of doing a Chamberlain. Historical analogies only take you so far. Each situation has to be addressed on its merits.

In any case, I don't claim to know the "right" answer. I do, however, think it's naive to simply dismiss the question.

Is my attitude ...[text shortened]... erno. That's the long and short of it. I don't think that's necessarily belligerent.

Apologies, then - but if not billegerent, it's certainly dualistic, and that's always a worry to me. I suppose part of what you said before was correct - about the physical and emotional disconnect - but taking a longer view, as someone not directly affected, I just hope everyone can step back from the dualistic precipice (war/not war) and take a different view.

You're right: historical analogies only go so far. And they are better suited to rhetoric than reasonable discussion. So I said the question is whether it's a hot or a cold war. Because both are always sold as hot, after all.

Originally posted by sh76
Israel views it as a necessity as a last ditch defense in the face or extermination and as a counterweight for when (and it's when, not it) one of its many many blood enemies develops them.

I think that Israel giving up its nukes without a stone cold guarantee that the likes of Iran will never get nukes would be criminal neglect of its people's safety.

That's what I mean about the disingenuousness of 'facts on the ground'. There's no doubt in my mind that it is a historical fact that Israel nuclearly (sic, ahem) arming itself was a provocative and escalatory act. I appreciate you are partisan in this, but as a general moral principle would Iran have been justified in bombing Israel's nuclear faciilties as they approached weaponisation?

Originally posted by DrKF
Not at all. But why does Israel have nuclear weapons?

You and sh76 have completely covered this since I've had a chance to respond, so I'll just be succinct.

I don't care one way or the other about Israel having nukes, since Israel has given me no reason to believe they would ever use them in any way other than self defense.

As for Iran, the mere possibility of items 3, 4, 5 on sh76's list is enough for military action in my view.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
You and sh76 have completely covered this since I've had a chance to respond, so I'll just be succinct.

I don't care one way or the other about Israel having nukes, since Israel has given me no reason to believe they would ever use them in any way other than self defense.

As for Iran, the mere possibility of items 3, 4, 5 on sh76's list is enough for military action in my view.

Okay, see if I get this right:

Israel has nukes. You think this is fine.
Iran wants nukes. You think this is not find.
Right?

Israel says they have no intention to use their nukes if they are not attacked.
Iran says they have no intention to use their nukes if they are not attacked.
Right?

Israel is not attacked. They are infact attacking their closest neighbour right now.
Iran, on the other hand, is attacked by threats of invasion by USA. Israel is saying they will attack Iran. Iran is in a constant threat.
Right?

Result: If we judge the two countries by the same standard, then we see that Israel should disarm their nukes because they are a threat in the region. Iran shouldn't continue with their nuclear program so they will not be the same threat.

Originally posted by sh76

5) Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs want the bombs so that they can immediately nuke Tel Avi and New York and go soaring straight to Heaven and claim their 72 virgins.

I am deathly afraid that 5 is a possibility. It sounds so horrible that you dismiss it out of hand. But, if you take MA's words at face value, I don't see how you can dismiss the possibility.

Do you really?
Do you really, really, really, think that Ahmadinejad actually believes there are 72 virgins in heaven waiting for him?

Do you really think the Mullah's have much say in the matter?
Considerin the Supreme leader, the council of gardens and the assembly of experts keep each other in balance, do you really think that Ahmed Jusef from suburbia really has anything to say?

And something else you should do is look at Persian / Arabian / Farsi mannerisms.
The use of language is more flamboyant and less to the point that what we're used to in the West. And some of the translations we receive are very much direct translations, rather than "jist" translations. And that, especially in the Arab world, doesn't make matters any clearer.

Originally posted by shavixmir
something else you should do is look at Persian / Arabian / Farsi mannerisms. The use of language is more flamboyant and less to the point that what we're used to in the West.

Sshh. You're just adding to the list the Parking Lotteers are brandishing.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Okay, see if I get this right:

Israel has nukes. You think this is fine.
Iran wants nukes. You think this is not find.
Right?

Israel says they have no intention to use their nukes if they are not attacked.
Iran says they have no intention to use their nukes if they are not attacked.
Right?

Israel is not attacked. They are infact attacking the ...[text shortened]... region. Iran shouldn't continue with their nuclear program so they will not be the same threat.

As usual your analysis is just super.

YouTube&feature=fvw

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
As usual your analysis is just super.

Thank you. 🙂

So can we now stop every country in the region to have nukes? Or else we cannot hinder anyone getting them.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Thank you. 🙂

So can we now stop every country in the region to have nukes? Or else we cannot hinder anyone getting them.

Having nuclear weapons automatically puts a nation in the nuke club. They don't want nations to join uninvitedly.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Having nuclear weapons automatically puts a nation in the nuke club. They don't want nations to join uninvitedly.

Is North Korea in the nuke club? Really?
I thought only those who signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was considered members of that club.

Israel has not signed, North Korea hasn't either. That make the two countries equally good.