Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Geneva deal reached
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostSo Chechnya, Afghanistan etc. weren't "worth it".
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostWhat happens if some country is and that country has no means of protecting itself? BOOM - Mushroom clouds.
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostAt the end of the day it is MAD which prevents nuclear war.
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostYou 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostWhy do people ALWAYS forget about USSR-China and USSR-Israel? China was NOT under the US umbrella during the 70s.
You mean like Vietnam, Chechnya, Angola, Afghanistan? Not only no mushroom clouds, they won their wars. They WON their wars.
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?Last edited by Firestorm; 25 Nov 13,, 23:48.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostThere 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.
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostIsrael 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.
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostThe US couldn't have justified nuking Vietnam to its own people. They had problems justifying the war itself.
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostThe 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.
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostAnd the Vietnamese had half their country overrun by the Chinese before they "won".
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostAs for Chechnya, why would the Russians nuke territory which they claimed as part of their own country?
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostAnd what is Chechnya's situation today, BTW? AFter their "victory"?
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostAfghanistan 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.
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostAnd 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.
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostWell this is exactly why India never signed.
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostWe did not have the luxury of a nuclear umbrella, unlike you.
That cannot be said of Iran.
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostThe Iranians signed when there was no nuclear threat to them.
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostNow 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.
Originally posted by Firestorm View Postthe NPT is not totally useless. But it is also deeply flawed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostExactly....NPT was created against India, and it failed miserably
India was not even on the map.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostWhat? 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostTo 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.
To be a target?
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.
Sign out then.
Says the NSG who includes far more non-nuclear countries than weapons power.
Our technology. Our uranium. Our heavy water. Our rules. Don't like it? Sign out.
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.
Israel is out of range. Saudi Arabia is a military joke. Iranian test devices are going to do squat all before a US attack.
Your terms includes no new testing. Three countries out of 62 others is hardly an indication of failure.
We have working nukes and we have working matured missile program. We have it covered.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostThe baseline year on NPT was made for a reason.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostGood reason for Israel to have nukes,
Originally posted by Defcon5 View Posttherefore good enough reason for Iran to have one.
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostIran is a target regardless.
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostToday you threaten others without bombs with war if not adhered to your geo political interests or a western rule book.
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostIndia doesnt agree, we won that battle.
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostNPT is unfair program, just for the fact that BiG 5 never ever serious contemplated complete disarmament.
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostTherefore making the whole idea of NPT as null void.
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostNot every country has geo political responsibilities or threats as Iran or India does.
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostThat 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.
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostThe reason North Korea and Pakistan is not being attacked.
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.
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostMissile range is a matter of time.
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostNo country in those list is of the same stature as that of India. UK have no business having any nukes or P5 positions.
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostWe have working nukes and we have working matured missile program. We have it covered.
You and your government have two different sets of ideas.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostAn arbitary time decided for the greatest benefit for the people who possessed WMD at that point of time.
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.To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
Comment
-
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
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by harish123 View Post- Outside of the US, the largest Jewish population is in Iran.sigpic
Comment
-
Interesting to know.
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
Interpretations can be spun for domestic political expediency. But not the text itself.
Comment
Comment