Geneva deal reached

[JAD_333]

Well there was a time when both countries were sanctioned. But both of them kind of earned there right by just being stubborn and also useful in some other ways.

There's a reason they were never put through the wringer like Iran. India got the bomb to deter Pakistan and China. Pakistan got the bomb to neutralize India's deterrent. Now, why does Iran want the bomb? To deter or attack Israel? Maybe. To deter the Saudis, the Iraqis, the Kuwaitis--all of the ME--the Russians, the US, China, Afghans? From what? Iran's only possible motive, other than to deter Israel, is regional hegemony and control of the Straights of Hormuz. And there is a powerful religious motivation in their policies, no matter how much the elected leadership tries to contain it. No wonder most of the world disapproves.

[Officer of Engineers]

Firstly, the five official nuclear powers openly practise what Iran is assumed to be doing, that is: the violation of the treaty. The Iranian nuclear program is legitimate in accordance with Article IV of the NPT – to and only to the extent that it is limited to the peaceful and civile usage of nuclear energy. What is more critical is the upgrading of existing nuclear weapons stockpiles. Five official nuclear powers are obliged to disarm. None of the nuclear powers has done so todate. On the contrary they strive to make the stockpile up to date. And this is a clear breach of Article IV.

Wrong. Four of the Five Nuclear Weapons powers have disarmed. From a high of 60,000+ warheads to less than 5,000 today. China is the only country to increase her arsenal - from 12 to ~200. However, in terms of megatonage, she has reduced the size of arsenal.

Secondly, the political reality is such that the essence of the treaty has alredy been violated. Amidst the furore about Iran, what is usually forgotten is that apart from the five officially recognised nuclear powers there are four other non-nuclear weapons states that possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. None of these states is authorized by the NPT to possess nuclear weapons.

False point. India, Pakistan, and Israel never signed the NPT. North Korea signed herself out. Iran not only signed of her own free will, re-affirm after the Revolution, and stayed in by her own choice, all the while cheating to get nukes.

The rest of this is non-sequitor. You based your post on two wrong assumptions. The rest are red herring.

[Officer of Engineers]

Iran is useful too, if you ask India, China or anyone else who buys enormous quantities of oil from them. Countries which don't depend on them for oil, would obviously have no problem calling for "International" sanctions against Iran, which is exactly what they did.

Well, it worked, didn't it? China, especially, since she and Russia both turned Iran in about their weapons program. Especially China when she reported to IAEA that Iran tried to buy heavy water from her.

[ajhax]

Iran’s or any other country’s right to nuclear weapons?
All nations are entitled to possess nuclear WMD –
So, then, why should Iran have a right to nuclear weapons?

You don't have a "right" or "entitlement" to anything if others don't agree to provide you the right.

blunt contradiction

It's actually very simple. If you sign NPT don't build nukes.

already lost it validity.
So far, so good. In fact, the NPT, on which the non-proliferation regime is founded on, has already lost its validity on account of two main reasons:

If Iran is allowed to build nukes, then yes NPT will loose its usefulness.

Firstly, the five official nuclear powers openly practise what Iran is assumed to be doing, that is: the violation of the treaty.

That's not a violation. The five countries are allowed to have nukes. If you believe it's unfair, well don't sign it or come out of it like North Korea.

Secondly, the political reality is such that the essence of the treaty has alredy been violated.

The three countries never signed NPT. So invalid point.

However, three of these states – India, Pakistan and Israel – are not only tolerated, but are also supported by the official nuclear powers. In addition, India and USA have a treaty on nuclear cooperation that de facto legitimises the Indian nuclear weapons program and recognises India as an official nuclear power.

As I said, having nukes is not a right. You have to buy/grab it. Grab it if you can but there would be consequences.

One could argue, that neither India, nor Pakistan, nor Israel (nor North Korea, that resigned from the NPT in 2003) are members of the NPT. So, the restrictions of the NPT are not binding them. My two retorts are: Firstly, the NPT constitutes a global non-proliferation regime that binds all its members. And this means, that, as stated in the cited Articles, none of the signatories is allowed to cooperate with non-nuclear power states (no matter whether they are signatories or not) in a way that could enable them to go nuclear. Otherwise, and this is my second reply, Iran had just to resign the NPT to legally become a nuclear weapons state – like India, Pakistan or Israel. And that is not convincing. That is why the world did not recognize North Korea when it resigned from the NPT with this argument. Otherwise it would, as it has already done, violate the essence of the NPT.

North Korea is not violating NPT. It's just that nobody wants a nuclear NK.

[ajhax]

There's a reason they were never put through the wringer like Iran. India got the bomb to deter Pakistan and China. Pakistan got the bomb to neutralize India's deterrent. Now, why does Iran want the bomb? To deter or attack Israel? Maybe. To deter the Saudis, the Iraqis, the Kuwaitis--all of the ME--the Russians, the US, China, Afghans? From what? Iran's only possible motive, other than to deter Israel, is regional hegemony and control of the Straights of Hormuz. And there is a powerful religious motivation in their policies, no matter how much the elected leadership tries to contain it. No wonder most of the world disapproves.

That's why I replied to Firestorm: "How harmful is nuclear India?". Or even Pakistan before becoming a terrorist hellhole. Though I am not sure of Israel.

[ajhax]

However, in terms of megatonage, she has reduced the size of arsenal.

Interesting. Is there an open source reference for it?

[Officer of Engineers]

There is absolutely no arguement that the NPT works. None. It is a voluntary treaty. No one is forced to sign. There are benefits to signing. Don't like it? Don't sign. No longer working for you? Sign out.

Not only has the world seen disarmament, anyone suggesting that getting of 55,000+ warheads is not disarmament, you have not lived under that cloud, we have not added to nuclear weapons states. There are 37-62 countries (depending on your measure) who can produce nukes and the rockets to carry them within a year. Not one of these countries have chosen to do so.

Iran, despite her breaches to the treaty still technically not assembled a weapon though I believe they have the plans and a working design already.

The IAEA gave Iran an out by calling her violations non-compliance but technically, she has still yet to assemble a nuke.

This being all said, only two countries. Two countries who gave the world a bunch of headaches in NPT non-compliance. Iran and North Korea and North Korea signed herself out.

In face of these facts, to say the NPT is not functional ... just ignores reality.

[Officer of Engineers]

Interesting. Is there an open source reference for it?

Simple math. 12 rockets at 5 megatons each = 60 megatons. 200 rockets at 60-120 kt each = 24 megatons.

[Defcon5]

Looking back now, a very big mistake on their part. Ask yourself this. Which has protected Israel more? The US or nukes?

last

Israel never created the nukes for what has transpired in the last 30 years. For what could have happened before,

It is NOT the right of a soverign government to risk the lives of their people for the sake of ego.

Ego? I see it as national imperative. If having nukes is a matter of ego, what gigantic proportions of ego does the US have?

1) No one forced Iran to sign.
2) It is far from an unfair arrangement.
3) The NPT works whether you like it or not.

1. Times have changed, security situations have changed. Regimes have changed.
2. So says the countries holding the nukes
3. Worked in the favor of the countries holding them.

What the hell are you talking about? Both nucelar weapons powers and non-nuclear weapons powers have been declaring war against one another ever since Hiroshima.

Not really, Nukes have always prevented all of them crossing the 'lakshman rekha' line.

Define Iran's needs for nukes.

Protect itself from Israel, Saudi Arabia and a very possible US attack.

India for all intents and purposes signed the NPT. Nuclear proliferation is NOT going to happen because of India.

We signed it on our own terms. After we achieved our strategic objectives. NPT as far as we are concerned, has failed.

[JAD_333]

Opposition to Iran’s nukes reveals more than conventional hypocrisy or a refusal to concede that the chain reaction started by the Manhattan Project is unstoppable. Any nation that decides to acquire nuclear weapons will do so. It’s no longer a matter of if or how but of when. And any nation that acquires the weapon will live by the same calculus of deterrence that nuclear powers have lived with since the 1950s. All nations are entitled to possess nuclear WMD – not inspite of, but because of the NPT.

You do pretty good for a devil's advocate.

The above statement was in part replied to by OoE.

My two cents is that the statement errs in taking a fatalistic view of proliferation. The NPT aims to prevent proliferation from the baseline status quo at the time it was adopted. There was never any provision to freeze that baseline. The NPT signatories accepted that baseline. To now say it justifies building a nuclear arsenal is hypocrisy.

[Defcon5]

i) India, Pakistan and Israel have never signed NPT. They never agreed to never develop nuclear weapons. But Iran did.

In other words, development of nuclear weapons by India, Pakistan and Israel is not a betrayal. But if Iran does, it is.

ii) If Iran has a right to develop nuclear weapons by hook or crook then other nations (Israel, SA, USA) also have a right to stop an adversary from developing it. Right of the sovereign government to protect its citizens goes both ways.

Strategic imperatives change. NPT countries have never gone in full disarmament as they have promised. Promises also goes both ways. The Second pillar of NPT is testament to its failure

Without a full scale war it is not possible to stop it, if Iran wishes it to be so.

[Firestorm]

There is absolutely no arguement that the NPT works. None. It is a voluntary treaty. No one is forced to sign. There are benefits to signing. Don't like it? Don't sign. No longer working for you? Sign out.

I asked this before. Would anything be different for Iran today had they not been a signatory to the NPT? Their nuclear program would still be perceived to be a threat to two US allies - Israel and SA, and they still would have been "put through the wringer" as JAD puts it.

[Defcon5]

You do pretty good for a devil's advocate.

The above statement was in part replied to by OoE.

My two cents is that the statement errs in taking a fatalistic view of proliferation. The NPT aims to prevent proliferation from the baseline status quo at the time it was adopted. There was never any provision to freeze that baseline. The NPT signatories accepted that baseline. To now say it justifies building a nuclear arsenal is hypocrisy.

An arbitary time decided for the greatest benefit for the people who possessed WMD at that point of time. Baseline time suits nobody but the creators of it, to achieve their primacy on the world. That will not happen, going forward as India has shown.

[Firestorm]

That's why I replied to Firestorm: "How harmful is nuclear India?". Or even Pakistan before becoming a terrorist hellhole. Though I am not sure of Israel.

Well then its not really a question of cheating on the NPT is it? If India or Pakistan had been deemed "harmful" by "international powers" (read the US), they would be in the same position as Iran, despite not signing the NPT. Attempts were made with the Sanctions, which were lifted solely because they weren't having the desired effect, not because India/Pakistan's nuclear programs were seen as justified. India and Pakistan escaped because it is easier to weather sanctions when you don't depend on oil exports for your survival. Not being signatories to the NPT isn't what saved them.

[ajhax]

Ego? I see it as national imperative.

What's the national imperative for Iran? Just curious.

If having nukes is a matter of ego, what gigantic proportions of ego does the US have?

US was in middle of WW2. It was a necessity not ego.

Not really, Nukes have always prevented all of them crossing the 'lakshman rekha' line.

She survived because of the skill and might of her conventional military and support of her allies (UK, France and later US). She didn't had nukes in 48 and 67.

We signed it on our own terms. After we achieved our strategic objectives. NPT as far as we are concerned, has failed.

How it has failed?