Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Getting China to Sanction Iran

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by DOR View Post
    So, back to the question: Why is Iran a special case, deserving threats of war?
    I want to address this question again. Iran is NOT A SPECIAL CASE.

    China and Israel were both threatened with war because of their nuclear arsenal. North Korea was threatened with war because of their nuclear weapons program.

    China became a member of the NPT. Israel was smart enough to shut the hell up. And North Korea was too stupid to build a bomb. Iran is not a special case by any historic measure.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      Goes to show that DOR has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. When examining the events in detail, it was more luck than design that we don't have mushroom clouds growing all over the place. And he wants to add irresponsible idiotic mullahs to this equation.

      Even China is doing everything she can to stop it, including ceasing all nuclear trade and providing evidence to put sanctions into place to stop such an event. To say China is unconcerned with Iranian nukes go against all evidence the Chinese themselves willingly provided.
      Then why the irresponsible behavior with Pakistan's nukes?

      Comment


      • #48
        Because India started it.

        Simply put, if the US was going to have non-NPT nuclear weapons allies, then so shall the USSR.
        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 02 Aug 12,, 20:51.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
          Then why the irresponsible behavior with Pakistan's nukes?
          Pakistan wasn't a threat to western interests at the time. It had been an ally for most of the cold war after all. Pakistan acquiring nukes back then was no different than Israel acquiring them.
          No one was thinking seriously about mad mullahs aside from the ones in Iran.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            Because India started it.

            Simply put, if the US was going to have non-NPT nuclear weapons allies, then so shall the USSR.
            Then the same argument could be made to Israel and Iran. After all, Israel is allowed to have the nuclear ambiguity and yet threaten its neighbors or launch pre-emptive strikes.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
              Then the same argument could be made to Israel and Iran.
              No, it cannot because Israel was never part of the NPT. There is no ambiguity about Iran's obligations.

              Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
              After all, Israel is allowed to have the nuclear ambiguity and yet threaten its neighbors or launch pre-emptive strikes.
              Israel never threatened anyone with nuclear weapons and has been stated, it was (and is) under direct nuclear threat from Moscow.

              Comment


              • #52
                I don’t have a military background, but what I do have is a very good civilian one. Go ahead and rip me a new one regarding anything I’m silly enough to say on the actual details of a combat operations, but please don’t make the mistake of thinking that I haven’t been paying close attention to the issues under discussion for the past 30+ years.

                The entire point of nuclear weapons is to provide a credible threat so as to deter an opponent. MAD was for nuke-on-nuke threats; strategic ambiguity was, and is a refinement meant to deal with another level of threat.

                This source, for example, says “NATO observes the principle of ‘strategic ambiguity’ by not articulating under what circumstances it would consider nuclear weapons employment.”
                kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/.../02_paulauskasSep09.pdf

                Here we have Harry Truman employing the concept to the question of what the US might do in response to threats to Turkey: Harry S. Truman, "Special Message to the Congress on Greece and Turkey: The Truman Doctrine" (12 March 1947)

                The concept is still popular. This source (albeit not a great one) states, “In 2003 New Delhi adopted a nuclear doctrine comparable to the United States’ strategic ambiguity regarding response to a chemical or biological attack.” www.debatecoaches.org/files/download/895


                I’m not arguing for Iran’s right to violate an international treaty without good cause. What I am saying is (1) the US is over-reacting; (2) there are circumstances in which any nation-state will discard formal treaties in favor of self preservation; and (3) if Iran had a deliverable nuclear weapon, it would be highly unlikely to use it.


                Dial it back, gents.
                Trust me?
                I'm an economist!

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by DOR View Post
                  Double Edge,

                  If possession of nuclear weapons is mainly to prevent outside forces from compelling regime change, then such possession falls within the rights of a nation-state. Nevermind the NPT; this is real world stuff.

                  Yes, a nuclear armed Iran will create anxiety among its neighbors. But, that’s not exactly an unusual state of affairs. I’d be anxious as hell if I ran a country in that part of the world! More to the point, I don’t see how launching a military attack would enhance peace and stability in the region. Quite the opposite, I think.

                  If conducting a nuclear test justifies military attack, then I doubt anyone would have signed the NPT in the first place. Retroactively asserting that some signatories have the right to enforce a treaty with force of arms isn’t all that strong of an argument, nor one with great historical support. The only one I can think of is the USSR asserting its “right” to invade its neighbors if they seemed to be moving away from communism (Czechoslovakia, Hungary, et al).
                  The reformers in Iran were sidelined by 2004 and the conservatives took over in 2005. The Iranian hard line view always is that the west is looking to institute regime change in Iran. Its a powerful idea given the events of '53. The western hard line response to this is to conclude that Iran will therefore develop a bomb.

                  Hardliners on both sides have hijacked the conversation since 2005. Things have been static as the hard liners on both sides still rule the roost. The goal should be to dial back this rhetoric from both sides. It will take a lot of work.

                  Once you dial back then Iran has no need to pursue nukes because the west isn't looking to instigate regime change in Iran.

                  Now we can talk about the NPT. It is real world stuff. There are only 3 holdouts in the entire world that did not sign it. So there has been an overwhelming globally positive response to the NPT. Countries signed it because at the time 60s-70s there was a strong fear that WW3 would break out. The desire was and still is to live in a nuke free world.

                  So disarmament became the mantra. How to do it. The two war fighting powers had to keep on adding nukes to their arsenal every time a new nuke power came to be. So everybody else had to agree not to pursue nukes or assist others in the endeavour, this way the two super powers could start reducing their arsenals. And they have a great deal since the 70s.

                  The NPT was to last till '95, when '95 rolled over it was decided to extend the NPT into perpetuity. Those that signed the NPT agreed to foreclose on the nuke option permanently. No signatory baulked at the time.

                  The NPT does not say that a country is liable to an attack should they conduct a test, it just gets a country to pledge they will not pursue nukes or assist others. There is no enforcement mechanism built into the NPT, there is no arbitration process provided for either. Its up to the great powers to decide what is to be done. The P5 is duty bound to preserve stability in the world. It follows from there that they would act should they deem it necessary. The cold war and even after provides ample evidence here.

                  Originally posted by DOR View Post
                  That's the best argument I've heard.
                  Credit goes to the Israeli's. I took one of their ideas to its logical conclusion

                  In the Israel attack thread the idea was proposed that in the hypothetical event that Israel launched an attack on Iran that Iran would not lash out at its neighbours but only strike back at Israel. Reason being Iran would not want to broaden the conflict in the interests of its own survivial.

                  In that case then best way for Iran to prevent any attack is not give any reasons to anybody in the first place ie not go for a bomb.
                  Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Aug 12,, 10:46.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by DOR View Post
                    The entire point of nuclear weapons is to provide a credible threat so as to deter an opponent. MAD was for nuke-on-nuke threats; strategic ambiguity was, and is a refinement meant to deal with another level of threat.
                    Wrong. Nuclear weapons don't know what to do. People decide how to use them. Their potential use in a conventional conflict gives the country that has them an immense advantage. A nuke-armed country can be an aggressor and demand capitulation on threat of nuking.


                    I’m not arguing for Iran’s right to violate an international treaty without good cause. What I am saying is (1) the US is over-reacting; (2) there are circumstances in which any nation-state will discard formal treaties in favor of self preservation; and (3) if Iran had a deliverable nuclear weapon, it would be highly unlikely to use it.
                    Number 1 is in the eye of the beholder; the burden is on you to prove the US is overreacting.

                    Number 2 is correct in principle, but nations have also been known to dump treaties to clear the way for aggression. Hitler's Germany comes to mind.

                    Number 3 is unprovable; that being the case why tempt fate, especially with a regional wannabee theocracy.


                    You say you have followed these issues for years, and I have no reason to doubt you. But you have a tendency to apply intellectualized concepts in sanitized scenarios. Where you recognize reality you reject it, often with intellectual concept of fairness. The truth is, there is absolutely no way to guarantee that Iran would follow your strict precepts for the allowable use of nuclear weapons. Besides which, the momentum, albeit slow, is toward eliminating nuclear weapons. Why would we want to add another trigger to those we already have if we could prevent it?
                    Last edited by JAD_333; 03 Aug 12,, 17:24.
                    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by DOR View Post
                      I don’t have a military background, but what I do have is a very good civilian one. Go ahead and rip me a new one regarding anything I’m silly enough to say on the actual details of a combat operations, but please don’t make the mistake of thinking that I haven’t been paying close attention to the issues under discussion for the past 30+ years.
                      That's just it. There are things that I knew you knew from CDF days and yet, you make fanboy mistakes that I cannot comprehend how you miss it.

                      Originally posted by DOR View Post
                      The entire point of nuclear weapons is to provide a credible threat so as to deter an opponent.
                      Here is one example. You knew the primary objective of a Soviet strike in 1972-74 was Lop Nor. China's pitiful small arsenal was deterring no one. In fact, it was inviting a Soviet strike. In fact, you knew Brezhnev asked Nixon for US support to attack China's fledgeling nuclear weapons program. You also knew that Nixon said no. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what would have happened had Nixon said yes.

                      Originally posted by DOR View Post
                      MAD was for nuke-on-nuke threats; strategic ambiguity was, and is a refinement meant to deal with another level of threat.
                      And here is an extremely fanboyish mistake. China at the time at most had 12 warheads. The Soviets had over 30,000. There is no MAD here. None. Nadda. Zilch. On top of that, China's rockets at the time were liquid fueled, taking hours to be ready for launch.

                      The disadvantage was so great that Field Marshall Nie ignored Lin Bao's orders to ready the rockets for nuclear launch. Nie would rather lose the entire Chinese nuclear arsenal than to invite massive Soviet response.

                      You should have known all of this. Maybe not the rockets but most certainly Lin Bao, Nie, Nixon, and Brezhnev.

                      Originally posted by DOR View Post
                      This source, for example, says “NATO observes the principle of ‘strategic ambiguity’ by not articulating under what circumstances it would consider nuclear weapons employment.”
                      kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/.../02_paulauskasSep09.pdf
                      I repeat. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE DEPLOYMENT OF BIOCHEMS.

                      From Not with Impunity: Assessing US Policy for Retaliating to a Chemical or Biological Attack

                      Under the United States policy of Proportional Response, an attack upon the United States or its Allies would trigger a force-equivalent counter-attack. Since the United States only maintains nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction, it is the stated policy that the United States will regard all WMD attacks (Biological, Chemical, or Nuclear) as a nuclear attack and will respond to any WMD attack with a nuclear strike.
                      Originally posted by DOR View Post
                      I’m not arguing for Iran’s right to violate an international treaty without good cause.
                      And here is EXACTLY where you have NOT being paying attention. Iran HAS BEEN CAUGHT RED HANDED with nuclear weapons blueprint and weapons design and testing while under the tenets of the NPT. In short, you are EXACTLY ARGUING for Iran to violate the NPT at whim while enjoying its benefits. Do you actually think that Iran could keep her reactors going without spare parts and control software?

                      Originally posted by DOR View Post
                      What I am saying is (1) the US is over-reacting;
                      What is over-reacting? That Iran has violated the NPT? That Iran has continually refused to come clean? That secret research facilities (Qom) were revealed only after US intel found them out?

                      Originally posted by DOR View Post
                      (2) there are circumstances in which any nation-state will discard formal treaties in favor of self preservation;
                      What about deliberate underhanded violation of the NPT while demanding all the benefits of the NPT and then screaming bloody murder when got caught red handed?

                      Originally posted by DOR View Post
                      and (3) if Iran had a deliverable nuclear weapon, it would be highly unlikely to use it.
                      Why should the West allow them such a weapon? I will rephrase. Why should Russia, China, the UK, France, and the US allow Iran to get away with a nuke that she cheated, lie, stole, and violated the very treaty that gave her the technology to get a nuke? Why should the N5 reward Iran for her violations of the NPT?

                      Originally posted by DOR View Post
                      Dial it back, gents.
                      Bring up your game.
                      Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 04 Aug 12,, 00:18.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        JAD_333,

                        When it comes to nuclear warfighting, weapons reduction talks or strategic ambiguity it’s all theoretical. OK, it isn’t, but there is scant real world experience as to the response options when a nuclear power uses such weapons against a non-nuclear one, and none for exchanges between two or more nuclear powers. We’re all talking theory, not practice.

                        The practice is “we almost did X, but not quite.”

                        Hence, my phrasing: “highly unlikely.”
                        Trust me?
                        I'm an economist!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by DOR View Post
                          JAD_333,

                          When it comes to nuclear warfighting, weapons reduction talks or strategic ambiguity it’s all theoretical. OK, it isn’t, but there is scant real world experience as to the response options when a nuclear power uses such weapons against a non-nuclear one, and none for exchanges between two or more nuclear powers. We’re all talking theory, not practice.

                          The practice is “we almost did X, but not quite.”

                          Hence, my phrasing: “highly unlikely.”
                          I understand. One can argue theory successfully, as you have done to some extent. But in practical application, real world conditions often prevent theory from turning out as projected. Since we are speaking of nuclear weapons in this case, it seems to me prudent not to test the theory and indeed to prevent it from being carried out. What if you are wrong?
                          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            No, it cannot because Israel was never part of the NPT. There is no ambiguity about Iran's obligations.

                            Israel never threatened anyone with nuclear weapons and has been stated, it was (and is) under direct nuclear threat from Moscow.
                            Yes Israel has threatened implicitly. Israel was allowed to enjoy benefits of nuclear trade without being forced to sign on to NPT. India could not enjoy said benefits, hence the need for India 123 agreement. India had to jump through several hurdles while Israel was given a free pass.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                              Yes Israel has threatened implicitly. Israel was allowed to enjoy benefits of nuclear trade without being forced to sign on to NPT. India could not enjoy said benefits, hence the need for India 123 agreement. India had to jump through several hurdles while Israel was given a free pass.
                              No, Israel HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN A FREE PASS. Dimona was an early 1950 French design and has not been upgraded since. Come on, Hitesh, a simple google would have given you that answer.

                              And Israel dares not threaten anyone with nukes. The last time such a suggestion was made. Soviet boomers came knocking at her door.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post


                                And here is EXACTLY where you have NOT being paying attention. Iran HAS BEEN CAUGHT RED HANDED with nuclear weapons blueprint and weapons design and testing while under the tenets of the NPT. In short, you are EXACTLY ARGUING for Iran to violate the NPT at whim while enjoying its benefits. Do you actually think that Iran could keep her reactors going without spare parts and control software?

                                What is over-reacting? That Iran has violated the NPT? That Iran has continually refused to come clean? That secret research facilities (Qom) were revealed only after US intel found them out?

                                What about deliberate underhanded violation of the NPT while demanding all the benefits of the NPT and then screaming bloody murder when got caught red handed?

                                Why should the West allow them such a weapon? I will rephrase. Why should Russia, China, the UK, France, and the US allow Iran to get away with a nuke that she cheated, lie, stole, and violated the very treaty that gave her the technology to get a nuke? Why should the N5 reward Iran for her violations of the NPT?

                                Bring up your game.
                                So was Israel but she was not punished. Israel lied to France and Britain about its nuclear efforts even though NPT was not in force but yet, Israel gave its word to France and Britain that it wouldn't develop nuclear weapons. Now the cat is out of the bag and what does Israel do? Criticize Iran for violating NPT and egging on others to attack Iran. It is this sheer hypocrisy that I cannot stand.

                                You say that Iran cannot have its cake and eat it. Well, neither can Israel.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X