26 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhy does it have to start with anyone? Granting the premise that it's possible to create a World without nukes, why can we try to get every country to abandon its nukes at the same time?
Because Israel is the only nuclear country in the region. If they have nukes, then Iran should have to, according to Iran, for the sake of terror balance. So Israel is a good start.
Furthermore - Israel is a country without supervision from IAEA, they have not signed the NPT treaty. Therefore they are in the same league as North Korea. Do we trust Isra d let IAEA in, and then sign the NPT treaty. Then we can force Iran to do the same. Not before.
Also, Israel is not the only nuclear power in the region. Pakistan is in the region as well.
Israel has not used or threatened to use nuclear weapons in the, oh, say, 25 years since they've had them. Are you confident that Iran will go 25 years without doing so once they get their nukes?
Another important difference is that Iran is ruled fundamentally by religious nuts. Israel is not. The "mutually assured destruction" concept has relevance with regard to Israel, as it did with the USA and USSR. If you think that you're getting 72 virgins when you die to further the cause of the religion, MAD is an incentive, not an inhibition.
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm sure Israel wouldn't like it. The others wouldn't care so much I guess, Iran hasn't shown much signs of agression towards its neighbours.
This is the logic the Iranian regime is using to justify their activities on the nuclear weapons front.
How do you think Israel feels about an Iran armed with nuclear weapons and long distance missiles that can easily reach the country?
How do you think Egypt, Jordan, Irak, Saudi-Arabia, the Gulf states and even Turkey feel about a nuclear armed Iran ?
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasNow that the technology is known, trying to eliminate nuclear weapons is highly dangerous. The first country to secretly re-invent them would use them to their own advantage -- as the US did during WWII.
Well, first of all Israel must get rid of their nukes. Because if they don't, Iran want to have theirs.
Without the Israeli nukes, Iran is more easily persuaded to stop their nuke program.
I'm glad you think this is a charming idea though. And I agree. A world without nuclear weapons is a better world.
So paradoxically, trying to eliminate them practically ensures future nuclear holocausts.
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraKazetNagorra: "The others wouldn't care so much I guess, ..... "
I'm sure Israel wouldn't like it. The others wouldn't care so much I guess, Iran hasn't shown much signs of agression towards its neighbours.
Your guess is wrong. They fear an Iran with nuclear arms as much as Israel does though they are not direct targets. ( Key words: nuclear fall out and political and militairy dominance of Iran at the cost of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
KazetNagorra: "Iran hasn't shown much signs of agression towards its neighbours.
Ask Iraq about the meddling in Iraqi affairs by the Iranian regime. Ask Egypt about Hamas in the Gaza strip. Ask Libanon about Hezbollah. Of course you don't have to ask Israel.
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by FabianFnas"Well, first of all Israel must get rid of their nukes. Because if they don't, Iran want to have theirs.
Well, first of all Israel must get rid of their nukes. Because if they don't, Iran want to have theirs.
Without the Israeli nukes, Iran is more easily persuaded to stop their nuke program.
I'm glad you think this is a charming idea though. And I agree. A world without nuclear weapons is a better world.
Without the Israeli nukes, Iran is more easily persuaded to stop their nuke program."
What makes you think so ?
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76"The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament."
Non-proliferation is not the same as elimination of the weapons.
If getting rid of all nukes forever were possible, it would be a great idea. But, when everyone has the incentive to keep the last ones for themselves, I don't see how you're going to get rid of them all together.
Read the above ..... and keep in mind that you have to start somewhere to achieve your goals. Achieving general and complete disarmament is a hell of a job and still very very far away, but they are working on it and we all should support it, not in a naive ideological idealistic way, but in an honest, sensible and practical way.
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by spruce112358Read the treaty.
Now that the technology is known, trying to eliminate nuclear weapons is highly dangerous. The first country to secretly re-invent them would use them to their own advantage -- as the US did during WWII.
So paradoxically, trying to eliminate them practically ensures future nuclear holocausts.
30 Aug 09
Originally posted by spruce112358Nonsense.
Now that the technology is known, trying to eliminate nuclear weapons is highly dangerous. The first country to secretly re-invent them would use them to their own advantage -- as the US did during WWII.
So paradoxically, trying to eliminate them practically ensures future nuclear holocausts.
http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/2D415EE45C5FAE07C12571800055232B?OpenDocument
http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/BF18ABFEFE5D344DC1256F3100311CE9?OpenDocument
30 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWe have to start somewhere.
"Well, first of all Israel must get rid of their nukes. Because if they don't, Iran want to have theirs.
Without the Israeli nukes, Iran is more easily persuaded to stop their nuke program."
What makes you think so ?[/b]
There are two ways: (1) Israel and Iran can both have nukes. Or (2) Neither of them can have nukes.
If Israel have nukes, then Iran can very well have their nukes. And everyone else in the region.
I don't want Iran (or anyone else in the region) to have nukes, then we have to stop those who already have nukes in the region.
Israel have nukes. They have to stop their nukes. Simple as that.
If Israel is afraid of a future with Iran having nukes, then Israel should begin to disarm their nukes themselves. Then the future is safer for everyone.
30 Aug 09
Originally posted by FabianFnas1) What makes you think Iran would abandon its quest for nukes if Israel disarms?
We have to start somewhere.
There are two ways: (1) Israel and Iran can both have nukes. Or (2) Neither of them can have nukes.
If Israel have nukes, then Iran can very well have their nukes. And everyone else in the region.
I don't want Iran (or anyone else in the region) to have nukes, then we have to stop those who already have nukes in the reg ...[text shortened]... en Israel should begin to disarm their nukes themselves. Then the future is safer for everyone.
2) Your limitation to the "region" is arbitrary. In any case, Pakistan is also in the region. Should they have to disarm too?
30 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76(1) I don't. But I do know that Iran don't want to be without if others in their neighbourhodd has if they can have nukes.
1) What makes you think Iran would abandon its quest for nukes if Israel disarms?
2) Your limitation to the "region" is arbitrary. In any case, Pakistan is also in the region. Should they have to disarm too?
(2) Yes. But I don't think Pakistan is any threat to Iran, and that the there is a balance between India and Pakistan.
Actually, I don't want any country to have nukes, but in the first hand those countriens outside the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or NPT, India, Pakistan, North Korea, or Israel. If those countries dearm themselves a good step is taken. But now we're talking about Iran and Israel.
