Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 196

Thread: Geneva deal reached

  1. #91
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The second a nuke is used in combat, the NPT is null and void. Within context, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact had access to both American and Soviet nukes respectively. The writers of the Treaty deemed the Treaty's aim is to prevent nuclear war ... and that is another thing NOT ONE OF YOU CAN ARGUE AGAINST. The NPT has prevented nuclear war. However, the writers of the Treaty, both Soviet and American, deemed the Treaty to be null and void once nuclear exchange occurs. For any nuclear weapons power to use a nuke, they void the NPT for everybody else.

    That is how Canada, Turkey, Italy, the Dutch can deliver American nuclear weapons in the event of war.

    For any power to waste this advantage over Chechnya or Vietnam or Afghanistan is tantamount handing a weapons free to everybody else.
    So Chechnya, Afghanistan etc. weren't "worth it". What happens if some country is and that country has no means of protecting itself? BOOM - Mushroom clouds. At the end of the day it is MAD which prevents nuclear war. You can ensure it by getting your own deterrent, or convincing someone else to provide you with an umbrella. What do you think would have happened if the US had removed their umbrella from Canada or Australia during the Cold War? You guys would have gone nuclear in a matter of days. NPT or no NPT.

  2. #92
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    So Chechnya, Afghanistan etc. weren't "worth it".
    Why do people ALWAYS forget about USSR-China and USSR-Israel? China was NOT under the US umbrella during the 70s.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    What happens if some country is and that country has no means of protecting itself? BOOM - Mushroom clouds.
    You mean like Vietnam, Chechnya, Angola, Afghanistan? Not only no mushroom clouds, they won their wars. They WON their wars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    At the end of the day it is MAD which prevents nuclear war.
    No doubt but you're missing the point. For a NPT nuclear weapons power to use a nuke, the NPT is null and void. For Moscow to use a nuke on Israel or China, it better be worth it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    You can ensure it by getting your own deterrent, or convincing someone else to provide you with an umbrella. What do you think would have happened if the US had removed their umbrella from Canada or Australia during the Cold War? You guys would have gone nuclear in a matter of days. NPT or no NPT.
    Then we sign out but also at the end of the day, other countries must be able to trust our signatures. If our signature on the NPT is worth squat, then what of our signatures on trade and money treaties?

  3. #93
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Why do people ALWAYS forget about USSR-China and USSR-Israel? China was NOT under the US umbrella during the 70s.
    There have been discussions on this forum about how Nixon made it clear to the Soviets that they had no assurance of what the US might or might not do if they attacked China. Israel was a US ally. In both cases, US nukes deterred the Soviets. In China's case, they had their own nukes as well, though not enough to deter the Soviets by themselves perhaps.

    You mean like Vietnam, Chechnya, Angola, Afghanistan? Not only no mushroom clouds, they won their wars. They WON their wars.
    I thought we just established that these countries weren't worth it. Lets examine them anyway-

    The US couldn't have justified nuking Vietnam to its own people. They had problems justifying the war itself.

    The Chinese couldn't have been sure of how the Soviets might react. Not to mention that the dispute with Vietnam itself wasn't worth using nukes for.

    And the Vietnamese had half their country overrun by the Chinese before they "won".

    As for Chechnya, why would the Russians nuke territory which they claimed as part of their own country? And what is Chechnya's situation today, BTW? AFter their "victory"?

    Afghanistan won because of US support and the huge internal problems within the USSR. The Russians wanted to occupy it anyway. It hardly served their purposes to nuke them.

    And all these countries were completely at the mercy of the nuclear power attacking them. They could do nothing, by themselves, to deter them. Nor did they have any allies to cover them. They would have been utterly helpless had the cost-benefit analysis of using nukes gone the other way.

    No doubt but you're missing the point. For a NPT nuclear weapons power to use a nuke, the NPT is null and void. For Moscow to use a nuke on Israel or China, it better be worth it.

    Then we sign out but also at the end of the day, other countries must be able to trust our signatures. If our signature on the NPT is worth squat, then what of our signatures on trade and money treaties?
    Well this is exactly why India never signed. We did not have the luxury of a nuclear umbrella, unlike you. The Iranians signed when there was no nuclear threat to them. Now they do. From two different neighbors. I don't agree with their methods (using the NPT to get materials), but I understand where they are coming from. the NPT is not totally useless. But it is also deeply flawed.
    Last edited by Firestorm; 25 Nov 13, at 23:48.

  4. #94
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    There have been discussions on this forum about how Nixon made it clear to the Soviets that they had no assurance of what the US might or might not do if they attacked China.
    I've discussed this at the strategic level but no one here ever got to the operational level. At the operational level, transfer of American nukes to NATO delivery vehicles, ie German, Canadian, Dutch, Italian, Turk, etc, would have occurred as tensions increased. At the time, the triggers were mechanical, meaning the nukes would have been armed before the planes took off. That is tantamount the end of the NPT. The Americans would have just transferred and NATO members have accepted nuclear weapons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    Israel was a US ally. In both cases, US nukes deterred the Soviets. In China's case, they had their own nukes as well, though not enough to deter the Soviets by themselves perhaps.
    And the Soviets would have also transfer nukes to their Czech and East German allies. Do you see why now the Soviets did not go through with it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    The US couldn't have justified nuking Vietnam to its own people. They had problems justifying the war itself.
    So the US would rather lose the war than to threaten nuclear destruction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    The Chinese couldn't have been sure of how the Soviets might react. Not to mention that the dispute with Vietnam itself wasn't worth using nukes for.
    So, the Chinese rather lose the war before threatening nukes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    And the Vietnamese had half their country overrun by the Chinese before they "won".
    Three provinces. Not half their country. Nitpicking to be sure but it was a ferious fight to which the Chinese, while achieving their OPOBJs, got the dirty end of the stick.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    As for Chechnya, why would the Russians nuke territory which they claimed as part of their own country?
    After Beslan? I wouldn't blame them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    And what is Chechnya's situation today, BTW? AFter their "victory"?
    That's the 3rd Chechen War.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    Afghanistan won because of US support and the huge internal problems within the USSR. The Russians wanted to occupy it anyway. It hardly served their purposes to nuke them.
    So, Russia would rather lose the war than to threaten nuclear destruction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    And all these countries were completely at the mercy of the nuclear power attacking them. They could do nothing, by themselves, to deter them. Nor did they have any allies to cover them. They would have been utterly helpless had the cost-benefit analysis of using nukes gone the other way.
    The point which you are not getting is that the cost-benefit analysis was never there. So, all these helpless countries with no way to fight back and let's face it, we are not going to fight a nuclear war over them. Moscow could have nuked Afghanistan but we were not going to trade Bonn for Kabul.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    Well this is exactly why India never signed.
    I have absolutely no problem with India's position. India was honourable enough and smart enough not to risk her signature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    We did not have the luxury of a nuclear umbrella, unlike you.
    You had a defacto but not a dejour Soviet nuclear umbrella but now, I honestly think very few of your strategic thinkers saw it. I also completely understand India's position on the NPT. While I do not agree with her not signing the NPT, I also do not disagree with her not signing the NPT.

    That cannot be said of Iran.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    The Iranians signed when there was no nuclear threat to them.
    Err yes, they had the Soviet threat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    Now they do. From two different neighbors. I don't agree with their methods (using the NPT to get materials), but I understand where they are coming from.
    Who? The Pakistanis? They gave Iran her nuke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    the NPT is not totally useless. But it is also deeply flawed.
    The legal language is deeply flawed. Transfer of nuclear weapons to NATO and Warsaw Pact members in times of war ... but the spirit of the treaty. It worked and is working. Fifty-five thousand plus warheads gone. Eight nuclear weapons state instead of 40+ (I'm not counting North Korea). Those are extremely impressive numbers since the height of the Cold War when anybody and everybody was working on nukes.

  5. #95
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    Exactly....NPT was created against India, and it failed miserably
    What? Your history is whacked. The first to use the NPT against anyone was Moscow against China, then it was Moscow against Israel. Both times, Moscow threatened nuclear war. Both China and Israel chickened out.

    India was not even on the map.

  6. #96
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 11
    Location
    God's own country
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    What? Your history is whacked. The first to use the NPT against anyone was Moscow against China, then it was Moscow against Israel. Both times, Moscow threatened nuclear war. Both China and Israel chickened out.

    India was not even on the map.
    The baseline year on NPT was made for a reason.

  7. #97
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 11
    Location
    God's own country
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    To be threatened by the Soviet juggernaut? You do know that Soviet boomer captains had standing orders to nuke Israel the second she launches a nuke. Your history is lacking.
    Good reason for Israel to have nukes, therefore good enough reason for Iran to have one.

    To be a target?
    Iran is a target regardless.

    Not ego. Fear. You're way too young to understand. Those of us who lived through those years remember the warhead gap. The Soviets outnumbered us by 10,000 to 20,000 nukes. We feared that we would not be able to hit back hard enough to stop them.

    I have not said this in a long time and you young ones have absolutely no idea. The job of nukes is to burn babies. Do you know how sick and how scared we were when we worry that we could not burn enough of their babies while they burn too many of ours?

    We got out of that insanity. You want to jump back in.
    Today you threaten others without bombs with war if not adhered to your geo political interests or a western rule book. India doesnt agree, we won that battle. NPT is unfair program, just for the fact that BiG 5 never ever serious contemplated complete disarmament. Therefore making the whole idea of NPT as null void.
    Sign out then.
    Says the NSG who includes far more non-nuclear countries than weapons power.
    Not every country has geo political responsibilities or threats as Iran or India does.

    Our technology. Our uranium. Our heavy water. Our rules. Don't like it? Sign out.
    That is a Jurassic thinking, Iran and India would have made their own without any western input. We arent some dumb civilizations with no history of scientific achievements.

    Again, what the hell are you talking about.

    USSR-China, USSR-Israel, USSR-South Africa, US-China, Pakistan-India, the list of nuclear weapons powers who went to war against one another.
    The reason North Korea and Pakistan is not being attacked.
    Israel is out of range. Saudi Arabia is a military joke. Iranian test devices are going to do squat all before a US attack.
    Missile range is a matter of time.

    Your terms includes no new testing. Three countries out of 62 others is hardly an indication of failure.
    No country in those list is of the same stature as that of India. UK have no business having any nukes or P5 positions.
    We have working nukes and we have working matured missile program. We have it covered.

  8. #98
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    The baseline year on NPT was made for a reason.
    And the NPT came into force well before SMILING BUDDHA! By the time of SMILING BUDDHA, the Soviets were ready to march on Lop Nor because of the NPT.

    You're thinking of the NSG which came into being because of SMILING BUDDHA but India has nothing to do with the creation of the NPT nor its enforecement.

  9. #99
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    Good reason for Israel to have nukes,
    Wrong. Good reason for Israel NOT to have nukes. They were scared shitless since their nukes can't reach Moscow, not even today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    therefore good enough reason for Iran to have one.
    Fine. Sign out of the NPT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    Iran is a target regardless.
    Iran is a target because she made herself out to be a target. Or were you too young to remember that Israel and Iran were allies during the Iran-Iraq War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    Today you threaten others without bombs with war if not adhered to your geo political interests or a western rule book.
    Get a grip. The last time we threaten anyone with nukes was a during the Kuwait War and that was to warn Saddam that if he used biochems, then our standard response was nukes. Not one of the N5 has threaten anyone with nukes since the end of the Cold War, not even each other. Your history is really whacked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    India doesnt agree, we won that battle.
    What battle? You did not sign the NPT and, therefore, not obligated to its tenets, even though India is extremely pro non-nuclear proliferation. She's even argued that Iran should abide by the NPT since Iran signed and ratified the NPT. In short, India has demanded that Iran lived up to her NPT commitments. How's that in your shorts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    NPT is unfair program, just for the fact that BiG 5 never ever serious contemplated complete disarmament.
    Fifty-five thousand warheads gone and you're saying there's no disarmament? What world are you living in?

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    Therefore making the whole idea of NPT as null void.
    37+ countries disagrees including Brazil, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, South Africa, Egypt ... or are they all stooges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    Not every country has geo political responsibilities or threats as Iran or India does.
    Baloney. Every country has geo political responsibilities and threats. Canada faced the entire Soviet bomber force. We're the first line of defence against them as they come over the North Pole to attack the US. You really want to measure dick?

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    That is a Jurassic thinking, Iran and India would have made their own without any western input. We arent some dumb civilizations with no history of scientific achievements.
    But you didn't. Our technology. Our rules. Don't like them. Go do your own stuff. We're not stopping you. The NSG didn't go on hands and knees begging you to accept our exemption. You're the one who jumped through hoops to get it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    The reason North Korea and Pakistan is not being attacked.
    North Korea is not being attacked because she has duds. We're not going to war over duds. Pakistan also tested duds.

    We're not attacking North Korea the same reason you're not attacking Pakistan. It's not because we can't win that war. It's because we will win that war and inherit the mess that is both North Korea and Pakistan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    Missile range is a matter of time.
    Wake me up when they test one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    No country in those list is of the same stature as that of India. UK have no business having any nukes or P5 positions.
    Now we get to the real reason about your post. Envy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    We have working nukes and we have working matured missile program. We have it covered.
    Good for you. Nobody is stopping you. Nobody wants to stop you. Yet, India is negotiating the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty.

    You and your government have two different sets of ideas.

  10. #100
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    An arbitary time decided for the greatest benefit for the people who possessed WMD at that point of time.
    To some extent you are right. Not so in your implied interpretation of the motives of the nuclear club in 1968, when the NPT came about. You must remember, if you are old enough, that world sentiment in the 1960s looked with horror upon the huge stockpiles of nuclear warheads accumulating in the hands of the superpowers and some of their close allies. By then, both sides, the US and the Soviets, were expressing a philosophical willingness to reduce their stockpiles. At about the same time, members of the nuclear club began promoting the peaceful uses of atomic energy to countries that had no nuclear weapons. One of the fears inherent in that was that those countries might use the resources provided to them to develop nuclear weapons.

    So, the world faced two goals: 1) to reduce already existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons and 2) to prevent non-nuclear countries from buying reactors and fissionable material intended for peaceful purposes and later using them to build nuclear weapons. The NPT has met both goals, although the first has yet to be completely accomplished and the second is under stress.

    This is what you call 'for the benefit' of the nuclear club. Few, if any, of the signatories of the NPT would agree with you. They signed precisely because they also wanted to suppress the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and they are the countries that insisted on pledges from members of the nuclear club to reduce and eventually eliminate their stockpiles of nukes. Thanks to the NPT there has been no proliferation among its members and stockpiles have been reduced.

    Now you and others come along, arguing that the NPT should be turned on its head, that Iran, an NPT signatory, is entitled to nuclear weapons because a few of the original signatories still possess them. The argument is dead on arrival, because Iran's goal is not to seek the same treatment simply for the sake of justice, but to alter the balance of power in the ME and to exert a compelling influence in the region. Deterrence? From what? No serious observer believes for one minute that Iran could deter an attack by Russia, the US or China by threatening nuclear retaliation. It is laughable to think so. Israel? Israel is no threat to a non-nuclear Iran. Any war between them would be in the context of a larger ME conflict or an attack on the 'bastard state of Israel', to use the Grand Ayatollah's words.


    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.
    This argument flies in the face of reality. The US, Russia, China, etal, do not need the NPT to maintain their 'primacy'. The treaty members need it to prevent other nations from trying to establish primacy.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  11. #101
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,214
    Some interesting tidbits some of you may not have read about

    - the proposed interim agreement was largely hammered out by two US mid-level officials, one from State and one from the NSC, working in direct contact with Iranian counterparts

    - the negotiations took place mostly in Oman

    - the French foreign minister had a tizzy fit over being presented a 'fait accompli'

    - a day or two before the Geneva meeting the word was 'no deal' and the foreign ministers of the negotiating countries were going to scrub their trip to Geneva as a waste of time, but when they heard the Russian foreign minister would attend, they changed their mind

    - then word came that the deal was on

    - since the interim agreement was signed, the Iranians have already been arguing over interpretation of part of it

    - also the Iranians are already pushing to expand relaxation of sanctions in small ways...haggling, so to speak

    - the copy of the interim agreement released publicly in Iran is different in some ways from the copy released in the US

    - the Iranian people have been celebrating the agreement reportedly as a big win for Iran, but quick polls say their elation has to do pocketbook issues--they see an end to the economic suffering brought on by sanctions.

    - the dollar value of the partial lifting of sanctions is estimated to be about $110 billion... (nice shot in the arm)

    - Obama is given credit for organizing the sanction regime from the beginning

    - Iranians in the street are said to want better relations with the US

    - hardliners in Iran are blasting the interim agreement as a 'give-away'

    - conservative newspapers in Iran are attacking Hassan Rouhani for making a bad deal (that's what some here are saying about Obama)

    - Rouhani says he had full backing of the Grand Ayatollah to negotiate the deal (who didn't know that?)
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  12. #102

    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Posts
    5
    Something that I have never really been able to understand -

    - Iran and the US had a very cordial relationship during the Shah . Is Israel and KSA can cozy up, there is no reason why US/Israel cannot have normal relations with the current regime in Iran.
    - Outside of the US, the largest Jewish population is in Iran.
    - The US and Vietnam fought a war - however relations are now normal between them. Iran and the US have never fought a war. There was the hostage crisis but its now been more than 30 yrs post that event.
    - Al qaeda did not have Iran's support
    - At best, Iran has a military which cannot threaten the US and Israel .
    - Despite its efforts, it cannot be a nuke power.( Russia, India would also be alarmed not just the US and Israel)

    So the question is - why so much noise, why so many sanctions , why is it such a big deal in dealing with Iran?

    Apologies for the newbie question.

  13. #103
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    Quote Originally Posted by harish123 View Post
    - Outside of the US, the largest Jewish population is in Iran.
    Your statement is incorrect. Outside of Israel and the US the largest Jewish population is in France (~600,000). At the most Iran has ~25,000 Jews. My homeland of Ukraine has almost six times that number (143,000).

  14. #104

    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Posts
    5
    Ah sorry, it should have read -
    Iran is believed to have the largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel .
    My bad.

  15. #105
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    11,223
    Interesting to know.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    - the copy of the interim agreement released publicly in Iran is different in some ways from the copy released in the US
    But as far as the board's concerned this bit we've got to get straight.

    Interpretations can be spun for domestic political expediency. But not the text itself.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Shotguns and the Geneva Convention
    By Ironduke in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06 Aug 17,, 19:43
  2. Iran @ Geneva
    By Minskaya in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 22 Nov 13,, 13:12
  3. New Deal on Bush tax cuts reached............
    By MIKEMUN in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 13 Dec 10,, 00:52
  4. Geneva Convention Turns 60
    By Merlin in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12 Aug 09,, 16:52
  5. US detainees to get Geneva rights
    By troung in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12 Jul 06,, 05:20

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •