USGovt to further step up sanctions on Iran.

[Anarchist420]

[Link]

76 tyrannical Senators support this even though Iran has been said to be building nukes since 1992. If they have been trying to build nukes since 1992, yet have not attacked American civilians, then... isn't it safe to assume that the govt of Iran is too inefficient to hurt Americans? Why isn't guarding our borders enough?

 

[Craig234]

Anarchist, those are poor arguments from an isolationist ideology.

No, it isn't safe to assume the government of Iran is too inefficient to hurt Americans. A better question is whether they want to - I think we're more dangerous to them.

Bottom line there's an issue of power, and nuclear weapons play into that equation, and Saddam taught a lesson about the price of not having them.

We're pursuing a rather selfish and one-sided policy of 'one set of rules for us, and one set for you'.

Funny thing is, some of that is based on understating our aggression and overstating the danger of Iran; but some is based on accurate risks.

It's a tricky situation, and what's right has little to do with the outcome. Is there having weapons and that escalating to a nuclear exchange right? Is the US (and its ally Israel) dominating the region more and more right? More examples like the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia we support for our own benefit?

No one involved is likely to try to do what's 'right'. It all comes down to getting the best situation for their interests they can. If that takes war, so be it.

Our best bet IMO is to try to approach them with some plan for a deal everyone can accept, whatever that may be. Instead we're gradually moving to war.

You ask why guarding our borders isn't enough. Two answers. One is the issue of power in the region I mentioned. Another is that a nuclear weapon can be smuggled here.

 

[Anarchist420]

Thanks for the kind reply Craig

A nuclear weapon could be smuggled here, but the govt also sacrifices by an invasion of Iran.

I just don't think that they have nukes and even if they did, it's not a real problem.

 

[Craig234]

Thanks for the kind reply Craig

Same to you.

A nuclear weapon could be smuggled here, but the govt also sacrifices by an invasion of Iran.

I just don't think that they have nukes and even if they did, it's not a real problem.

The question was whether a nuclear armed Iran could pose any danger to the US.

Yes, they could. But the actual issue is the battle for power between nations.

The US's military power, nuclear and otherwise, poses a pretty big risk to Iran. We weren't shy about taking their democracy away to install a dictator.

The thing is, nukes are dangerous - a real answer would be getting rid of ours, also.

Instead of doing that, we've gotten very comfortable with our nuclear arsenal being a permanent fixture.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Iran's (leadership) actions toward many of it's neighbors are a big reason for concern about that country having nukes.

As much as they say they are not interested, their actions have shown otherwise. Cause for concern.

While they also may be sane enough to not use a nuke on another they can use it as leverage it via a proxy.

 

[smackababy]

Iran's (leadership) actions toward many of it's neighbors are a big reason for concern about that country having nukes.

As much as they say they are not interested, their actions have shown otherwise. Cause for concern.

While they also may be sane enough to not use a nuke on another they can use it as leverage it via a proxy.

Ahmadinejad has openly stated he wants to blow Israel off the map. While he is the outgoing president, it is prudent we let Iran's incoming leadership prove they don't share the same "goals" before we let them have access to nuclear material.

 

[Craig234]

Iran's (leadership) actions toward many of it's neighbors are a big reason for concern about that country having nukes.

As much as they say they are not interested, their actions have shown otherwise. Cause for concern.

While they also may be sane enough to not use a nuke on another they can use it as leverage it via a proxy.

A problem for the right on this is their inability to distinguish between "Iran poses a threat to others" and "it's in our interests to get more by destroying Iran".

We could get rid of the Iranian nuclear threat immediately, if we removed OUR nuclear weapons, and others such as Israel did, removing the threat they pose to Iran.

So we're not blameless in this game, if our goal is to take it all, not 'peace and justice'.

There really can't be much question that the start of the nuclear danger is us.

Everyone else wants nukes because someone else has them, so they need them for their security. And the first and largest someone else is us.

It's a bit like the Cuban Missile crisis logic - it's ok for us to put nuclear missiles on the border of the USSR, but it's worth threatening global nucelar war for them to do the same.

And somehow we're the victim in that scenario. This is called the arrogance of power.

But that's how it plays out. We force outcomes we like not because they're fair, but because we have the power to do so.

Saddam was executed not for his crimes against his own people, a period in which we supported him, but for not doing as we told him to.

Sadly, many Americans today, I suspect, are happy if the US abuses our power to get results good for us around the world, with no concern for justice to slow that down.

I recall how those Americans dismissed the possibility of the US doing anything wrong with the immediate response simply of spouting a phrase, "blame America first!"

With that phrase, it became impossible for there ever to be a wrong done by the US for those people. No matter how wrong the action - "blame America first!" dismissed it.

For the US, there is no history of the US replacing Iran's democracy with a dictator for decades. For Iran, that history exists.

Rather, all that matters now is our weakening Iran - surrounding them with US proxies, massive sanctions and the denial of nuclear weapons for their own defense.

All of which leads to increasing demands they not arm any of our adversaries - while we continue to arm our allies - on pain of war, just as with Iraq.

 

[Craig234]

Ahmadinejad has openly stated he wants to blow Israel off the map. While he is the outgoing president, it is prudent we let Iran's incoming leadership prove they don't share the same "goals" before we let them have access to nuclear material.

First, no he didn't.

Second, we are not about to change our position on Iranian nukes no matter their "goals".

 

[smackababy]

First, no he didn't.

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.

People want to claim this was a translation error, however, the presidential website and professional Iranian translators disagree on the error.

The Iranian presidential website stated: "the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map," and "the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map."

Now, that is not a direct threat of war, but the tone is quite clear. The fact that Iran does not have the means to achieve this (yet) is what really kept this from being more than just a "controversy" and a real thread of war.

Second, we are not about to change our position on Iranian nukes no matter their "goals".

Iran wants, and for good reason, access to nuclear power. The UN does not support this, nor does the US. If Iran's new leadership can prove they want only a means for reliable power and not means to create nuclear weapons, that position might change.

 

[EagleKeeper]

There is a difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

Many times the world community has offered to help with the power issue. Each time. Iran says no.

That implies that it is NOT peaceful power that they want.

 

[Craig234]

Everything I wrote refers to nuclear weapons, not power.

Nucler weapons are not only offensive, they are extremely valuable as defense.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is a difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

Many times the world community has offered to help with the power issue. Each time. Iran says no.

That implies that it is NOT peaceful power that they want.

I don't trust Iran, but timing is important. The new guy is coming in. If it were me I'd hold off on new sanctions for a bit to see how things shake out. You can always get out the club later.

 

[woolfe9998]

I support both sanctions and continued efforts at negotiation, particularly given that they have a new President -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/07/w...esident-says-nuclear-talks-could-succeed.html

who is making some guarded but conciliatory remarks so far. I think if we ignore this overture then the new sanctions won't look so good.

 

[fskimospy]

Everyone knows that Ahmadinejad didn't actually wield any power over whether or not Iran pursued nukes, right?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Everything I wrote refers to nuclear weapons, not power.

Nucler weapons are not only offensive, they are extremely valuable as defense.

Yet Iran has been claiming that they want the nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. That would be for power, not weapons.

Which is it?
Or are you not letting Iran pull the wool over your eyes and know that they want nuclear technology for weapons.

Apparently you also do not believe what Iran is spouting. :thumbsup:

 

[EagleKeeper]

Everyone knows that Ahmadinejad didn't actually wield any power over whether or not Iran pursued nukes, right?

No, he was just a mouthpiece for those who controlled the power.

Anything he stated was with their approval.

 

[Craig234]

Yet Iran has been claiming that they want the nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. That would be for power, not weapons.

Which is it?
Or are you not letting Iran pull the wool over your eyes and know that they want nuclear technology for weapons.

Apparently you also do not believe what Iran is spouting. :thumbsup:

For this discussion I'm assuming Iran wants nuclear weapons.

Outside this discussion, I certainly think it'd make sense for them to want them.

I haven't really looked that closely into the issue of evidence they are actively pursuing them despite saying they only want nuclear power. It's plausible at least.

But that's not the only issue. Why don't they have as much right as we do to them?

 

[Craig234]

There's a danger in diplomacy when you say, 'WE'D love peace, but THEY don't', and the other side calls your bluff and says 'sure we do'. Then, you might get exposed.

It sounds great to say you only want peace - every country says that and only goes to war with the greatest regrets - but overplaying that card shows up some lies.

But when are there repercussions for unnecessary war by us? Were there for Vietnam? For Grenada? There are for some others - look at Saddam.

And if this is all leading to a significant war on Iran in coming years, there probably will not be repercussions for that, either, any more than there were for Iraq.

 

[Caravaggio]

For this discussion I'm assuming Iran wants nuclear weapons.

Agreed, their U 235 enrichment programme implies that weapons are one of their aims.

Outside this discussion, I certainly think it'd make sense for them to want them.

Certainly. Nations with nuclear weapons command attention on the world's stage.

I haven't really looked that closely into the issue of evidence they are actively pursuing them despite saying they only want nuclear power. It's plausible at least.

Nations trying to build nuclear bombs rarely announce the fact. When the US and UK were co-operating on the 1943 Manhattan Project they were very cagey about its successes and failures. (Source, Jim Baggott, Atomic, The First War of Physics, 2009)

But that's not the only issue. Why don't they have as much right as we do to them?

A fair point. You have already noted British and American duplicity in removing the first democratically elected Iranian president and replacing him with a pro-west puppet. Once safely in power the US gave the Shah plutonium and advice on a plutonium extraction plant. (1976, Gerald Ford. See wiki). After the Iranian revolution the USSR became the friendly nuclear tutor for the new theocracy. Their 'Persepolis' programme offered advice on nuclear power generation.

What does all this tell us about the ethics of international relations? I venture to suggest that it implies that powerful states act like unprincipled psychopaths, defending their worst allies (for the merest advantage), and criticising as venal, those who desire the things the more powerful states already possess and have already used on human targets. This is hypocrisy raised to the level of an art form.

The US demands that Iran submits to regular IAEA inspection. But when the UN voted for IAEA inspection of Israel's nuclear facilities in September 2009, the US was strangely silent on the matter and brushed Israel's nukes under the carpet.
One law for them, another for us. US inspectors said that they had been thwarted by Israeli scientists, but the correspondence remained private, not so their concerns about Iran.

In the matter of Syria we see that Russia acts as a mirror image of the US. It blocks censure of Syria without overtly supporting its client state.

 

[piasabird]

There was just a case of a man trying to smuggle plutonium on a plane to Iran in the soles of his shoes. They caught him somehow. Maybe it interfered with the scanner or something or maybe the shoe came apart. This shows Iran is trying to smuggle in enough material to make a nuclear device. I am under the understanding that it takes a substantial amought of weapons grade fissionable material.

Interesting story. I think this was a sting operation but someone tried to make a deal for the stuff.

http://www.newser.com/story/173086/cops-smuggler-at-jfk-had-uranium-in-shoes.html

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't buy the argument that because other nations have nuclear weapons, everyone else should be entitled to them as well. It reminds of kindergarten where Johnny shouldn't bring a lollypop unless he has one for everyone because otherwise it isn't "fair." Except this lollypop can vaporize millions of people.

The fact of the matter is, various nations have acquired nuclear weapons in the past. The US has had them since 1945. Israel has had theirs since probably 1969. Other nations have unfortunately acquired them at different times, most in the distant past.

Nations with existing nuclear arsenals aren't going to disarm without a multi-lateral agreement for total world disarmament. Since this is not happening or going to happen in the foreseeable future, we need to face the question of what to do about other nations with nuclear ambitions. It troubles me greatly to hear people arguing in favor of nuclear proliferation on the grounds of "fairness." I honestly am stunned by this argument.

I'd like to see all nuclear weapons that exist in this world disappear, and the technology to build them erased from memory. If I had been around at the time Israel or any of these other nations acquired them, I would have opposed it then just as I now oppose Iran acquiring them. Yet it happened anyway. Now we need to focus on making sure it doesn't happen again, and again, and again, instead of making excuses for it. I honestly don't give a damn how "fair" this is. The more countries that have nukes, the greater the chance they get used in anger, and absolutely nothing else matters when weighed against that possibility.

Oh and by the way, there sure as hell has been plenty of "wrongs" perpetrated by the US. None of it justifies allowing Iran or anyone else to acquire these hideous weapons. Enough countries have them already. This issue is not as complicated as some make it sound. There really shouldn't be any disagreement about nuclear non-proliferation, but here it is, coming from the left no less. Of all the things we disagree about, I'm stunned that we cannot agree that other nations should be prevented from having nuclear weapons.

 

[Caravaggio]

I don't buy the argument that because other nations have nuclear weapons, everyone else should be entitled to them as well.

Who is making that argument in this thread? I’m certainly not making the jump from ‘is’ to ‘ought’

It reminds of kindergarten where Johnny shouldn't bring a lollypop unless he has one for everyone because otherwise it isn't "fair." Except this lollypop can vaporize millions of people.

Please pardon the mixed metaphor but your “Johnny and the lollypop” analogy is a ‘straw man’ of your own construction. We all know what uranium/plutonium bombs can do, we have all seen the pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The fact of the matter is, various nations have acquired nuclear weapons in the past. The US has had them since 1945. Israel has had theirs since probably 1969. Other nations have unfortunately acquired them at different times, most in the distant past.

Do you count Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons as “unfortunate” or perfectly reasonable and thus now time-honoured? Is it OK for Israel to have nukes because it never signed the nuclear NPT? Not all acquisitions are lost in the mist of time. Korea became a nuclear weapons nation as recently as 2009.

Nations with existing nuclear arsenals aren't going to disarm without a multi-lateral agreement for total world disarmament. Since this is not happening or going to happen in the foreseeable future, we need to face the question of what to do about other nations with nuclear ambitions.

That is a counsel of despair and a completely hypocritical argument. It is tantamount to saying, to develop further your playground metaphor, that since we cannot influence the ‘big school bullies’ we might as well beat up on the weaker kids! The weaker kids know that they will not get bullied if they get nukes!
This is not to say that every nation ‘should’ HAVE nukes, it is an argument that explains why many nations are rational to WANT nukes. If the ‘big boys’ strut about the yard announcing who they are going to bomb next, whilst simultaneously saying their nukes are ‘non negotiable’, then they represent, at the very least, a very poor example of ‘moral’ guidance.

It troubles me greatly to hear people arguing in favor of nuclear proliferation on the grounds of "fairness." I honestly am stunned by this argument.

Once again, who on this thread is making an argument in favour of nuclear proliferation?

You seem to be arguing for the status quo ante, as if all nuclear weapons currently on the world’s stage are necessary evils but the next one (Iran, in this context) will be the ‘game changer’? Pakistan, a failed Muslim state on the threshold of collapse, has nuclear weapons, for ‘goodness’ sake. Could it really get any worse than that?

I'd like to see all nuclear weapons that exist in this world disappear, and the technology to build them erased from memory.

I think we both know that neither event will come to pass in our lifetimes. Fancy another $10 bet? Inventions cannot be ‘disinvented’.

If I had been around at the time Israel or any of these other nations acquired them, I would have opposed it then just as I now oppose Iran acquiring them. Yet it happened anyway.

So, the case of a tiny nation like Israel ‘getting away with it’, despite your gallant and principled opposition, seems to provide a perfect motive for Iran, with ten times her population, to give it a go?

The more countries that have nukes, the greater the chance they get used in anger…

History is against you there. Only one nation has dropped nukes on human targets and they were the only nation that had them at that time.
When America realised that Russia was close to producing a nuclear weapon in 1949, because of infiltration of the Manhattan project by Claus Fuchs and the Rosenbergs, General Curtis LeMay announced that a whole nation might need to be sacrificed in a nuclear war to preserve “world peace”(see wiki).. There is little doubt that the nation he had in mind was the soon to be nuclear, USSR. With the exception of the Cuba missile crisis of 1962, which forced the USSR to withdraw nukes from Cuba and the USA to take ICBMs from Turkey, the world has had far fewer ‘nuclear’ than ‘conventional’ threats to peace.

Oh and by the way, there sure as hell has been plenty of "wrongs" perpetrated by the US. None of it justifies allowing Iran or anyone else to acquire these hideous weapons.

Those two statements are not joined. The first is a comment on US history. The second sentence has to do with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. How are these two statements linked?
If Iran is not justified in having these ‘hideous weapons’, is Israel so justified?

If neither is justified, then no nation is justified in having “hideous weapons”.

If Israel is justified in having them and Iran is not, then the onus is on you to say what features of Israel make her possession of the ‘hideous weapons’ you acknowledge she has, justified, while Iran’s ambition is verboten.

My post 19, a distorted version to which you seem to be responding, did not single out the USA for criticism. I specifically mentioned the UK and Russia as being equally venal and hypocritical.
My post had nothing to do with ‘fairness’ or playground games. I was pointing out that it is grossly hypocritical and inconsistent for nations with nuclear arms (that they refuse to stop developing) to urge others who want them to abandon attempts to acquire them.

 

[Anarchist420]

Everyone knows that Ahmadinejad didn't actually wield any power over whether or not Iran pursued nukes, right?

Even if that's true, Ahmedinejad was still the brains behind their policy... he made things happen (or at least helped).

Craig made some good points about them wanting nukes, but I'm not sure they prove it. I don't know why they would pre-emptively nuke us. Israel may or may not be at risk, but the reason they're dealing with people they don't want to is because their State is too centralized and militaristic. Some Israelis realize that the State is illegitimate, but sadly it's not a majority.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Nations with existing nuclear arsenals aren't going to disarm without a multi-lateral agreement for total world disarmament. Since this is not happening or going to happen in the foreseeable future, we need to face the question of what to do about other nations with nuclear ambitions. It troubles me greatly to hear people arguing in favor of nuclear proliferation on the grounds of "fairness." I honestly am stunned by this argument.

I'm rather surprised that you are. It's not that those in nations with nuclear weapons are saying "we have them so others should be able to as well". It's that they are recognizing that the people in those nations are likely to feel that way. Because pretty much anyone would. It's little more than a classic application of the Golden Rule.

Or, to use your analogy, it's all well and good for the 10 kids who already have lollipops to decide nobody else should have them, but it would not be realistic to think Johnny would be happy with that state of affairs.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm rather surprised that you are. It's not that those in nations with nuclear weapons are saying "we have them so others should be able to as well". It's that they are recognizing that the people in those nations are likely to feel that way. Because pretty much anyone would. It's little more than a classic application of the Golden Rule.

Or, to use your analogy, it's all well and good for the 10 kids who already have lollipops to decide nobody else should have them, but it would not be realistic to think Johnny would be happy with that state of affairs.

I guess my argument is that they are totally entitled to feel that way, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop them. (or try)