Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Iran’s right for N-technology.

  1. #1 Iran’s right for N-technology. 
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    What is the threat to the world if Iran develop nuclear technology?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Considering that Iran's supposed death-force, the Ayatollah, issued a fatwa stating any Muslim who builds, keeps or uses weapons of mass destruction explicitly naming nuclear weapons, will go to hell, I'm highly confident Iran is no real threat in that way.

    The Iranian nation holds tight beliefs against WMD, from Islamic traditions of ethical warfare, and their suffering chemical bombardment during war with Iraq. Part of their identity is that they don't stoop to such lows.

    Attempts by Western military minds to understand Iranians by "what would I do in their position" are going to be totally out of whack, and really betray more about the speculator's dark worldview than anything.


    What makes Iran a nuclear threat is the fact it sits atop huge reserves of easily extracted uranium, and plans to compete with established nuclear tech & fuel exporters. The plan is to dominate nuclear energy and even regional power generation, in the future, just as Iran dominates the declining oil resource today. Thus the insistence on domestic mastery of the entire fuel cycle.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    It does mean that west’s interest in Iran is quit selfish?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    That makes a lot of sense. The USA is getting so energy greedy these days, because we're used to getting it so easily, and it's starting to get difficult to get at. I bet we want to attack Iran to get their uranium, just as much as their oil.


    Iraq was about to start trading in Euro's. (In a sense the oil for food program basically already allowed them to do that.) US war policy is all about economics at the government level. At the people level, it's all about the War on Terror.

    That's why the government has to lie so much about nuclear threats and etc.... It's the only way to get the people to go along with its policies. I imagine most of the upper level government people kind of know the whole nuke thing is BS, (but you can't talk economics with Americans. They're too undereducated to understand it.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Saddam declared the US dollar "enemy currency" and was going to use oil to undermine it. He was challenging the world to pick: US dollars or Euros.

    Bush did pledge to defend the American way of life at all costs. Few people understand what that really means in today's world. He couldn't just get up and say, "We're going to bomb the crap out of this country, to protect the dollar. We must kill to sustain our debts." It sounds so weird. But I wonder... if Americans had it all set out honestly, would they not vote war for basically financial ends?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    Quite interesting tips!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Considering that Iran's supposed death-force, the Ayatollah, issued a fatwa stating any Muslim who builds, keeps or uses weapons of mass destruction explicitly naming nuclear weapons, will go to hell, I'm highly confident Iran is no real threat in that way.
    Well, as a statement from someone who has no friggin' second thoughts to send "martyr" batallions of teenagers into the mindfields to clear a path for the following stormtroopers this seems to be a little...welll...hard to believe. And when it comes down to the line they would also have no second thoughts about using nukes on everybody they consider to be "the enemy".
    I also dislike the Isreali having approxmiately 200 nuclear warheads as well as the Pakistanis playing with fire just to sahow off their big balls. But the more idiots down in this region have nuclear weapons the higher the risk of someone pressing the button an starting something of which afterwards all parties involved will say: "WE did not want this but our enemies made us do it"
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Attempts by Western military minds to understand Iranians by "what would I do in their position" are going to be totally out of whack, and really betray more about the speculator's dark worldview than anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    The truth is as you people wrote above; protecting those approximately 200 nuclear warheads as well as the natural resource like oil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Attempts by Western military minds to understand Iranians by "what would I do in their position" are going to be totally out of whack, and really betray more about the speculator's dark worldview than anything.
    So you say when "threatened" the Iranians would be extremely cool, relaxed and layd back and go through lengthy talks with the "agressor"?
    Given the general tendency towards violence of people adhering to the abrahamitic flavour of monotheism and ample proof from the past I highly doubt that. And getting a whiff of Ahmadinejad's (you remember, the posterboy of Iranian anger) "We must wipe Isreal off the face of the earth" hatred-filled speaches I'd say I rather not have another bunch of morons beeing able to jumpstart WW III.
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Wow you're a hostile fellow. Wouldn't you rather have an intelligent conversation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Wow you're a hostile fellow. Wouldn't you rather have an intelligent conversation?
    Please define "intelligent conversation".
    Please define "hostile".
    And what makes you think that I am hostile by stating the unmistakeable facts:

    - Ahmadinejad has on numerous occasions stated his oppinion that "Isreal has to be wipe off the face of the earth" giving me a clue to his mindset rather than exposing my "dark and twisted mind"
    - The tendency towards violence of all three abrahamitic religions can be seen by the number of wars having been started with the "My god is better than your's and thus I will kill you"-cry. Beginning with the crusades to the Indian-Pakistan conflict over some shitty piece of land (yeah, right) beginning the progromes on both sides after 1947
    - The danger of someone pushing "THE" button increases with the number of parties having such a button.

    And now gimme a reason if someone does not intend to use a weapon, why he's gotta have it.
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    And now gimme a reason if someone does not intend to use a weapon, why he's gotta have it.
    The sad answer is as a deterrent and a childish show of might. The situation between the former USSR and the USA was the classic example. Neither side would dare fire nuclear missiles at the other, since doing so would destroy both countries. But on the other side, nobody believes (well not me at least) that the USA will ever launch nuclear missiles at another country again, so in light of that there aren't any good justifications for having nuclear weapons. Nuclear power stations though....
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Wow you're a hostile fellow. Wouldn't you rather have an intelligent conversation?
    Please define "intelligent conversation".
    Please define "hostile".
    And what makes you think that I am hostile by stating the unmistakeable facts:

    - Ahmadinejad has on numerous occasions stated his oppinion that "Isreal has to be wipe off the face of the earth" giving me a clue to his mindset rather than exposing my "dark and twisted mind"
    - The tendency towards violence of all three abrahamitic religions can be seen by the number of wars having been started with the "My god is better than your's and thus I will kill you"-cry. Beginning with the crusades to the Indian-Pakistan conflict over some shitty piece of land (yeah, right) beginning the progromes on both sides after 1947
    - The danger of someone pushing "THE" button increases with the number of parties having such a button.

    And now gimme a reason if someone does not intend to use a weapon, why he's gotta have it.
    *sigh*

    I hesitate to challenge you, for fear you'll just grow more fanatical. I built so many fanatics running up to invasion of Iraq, with my crazy talk of WMD being an illusion, and so forth. But here goes...


    Ahmadinejad opposes the Zionist state. He believes that a Jewish state occupying what he calls Palestine cannot represent the people, and should be abolished. Israel itself proves it cant' represent the people, by the fact it frankly strains to run down and contain the growing Palestinian population. There is real open talk among Israeli politicians about this rising demographic "problem" threatening to overwhelm the Jewish nation, and what kind of ultimate solution might be necessary. What Ahmadinejad did say is that the "Zionist entity" (dogmatic Iranian code for state of Israel) should be "erased from the map". He went on to say the fate of a new country should be decided by elections open to all who belong to this proposed Israeli/Palestinian reunification. And that is existentially threatening to Israel, of course, but not necessarily threatening to the Jews, Christians, and Muslims who call those lands home.

    I can't see Ahmadinejad's statement being any more genocidal than if he said the Iraqi Ba'ath party should be annihilated and free elections held (which no doubt he did often).


    "The tendency towards violence of all three abrahamitic religions"
    Other religions and ideologies may excuse violence as well. I think that you're smart enough to see a tangible economic/political motive, with belief serving moral cover where it can be twisted to service.



    "The danger of someone pushing "THE" button increases with the number of parties having such a button."
    I agree. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty addresses that very well. I want to say a few things about the Treaty now because (no offense) your earlier statements Zitterbewegung suggest you may have a funny view of it.

    The first thing to understand about the NPT is that it is a treaty freely entered by different parties. It is not an imposed law. Each state ratifies the treaty expecting tangible benefits for doing so. The NPT is essentially a bargain struck between the nuclear weapon states and the non-nuclear states.

    Main points of the NPT are that all parties pledge to work in good faith towards disarmament, and not to use peaceful nuclear technology for weapons. This is why even puny little countries have ratified the Treaty. Countries like Russia and the US uphold their end of the NPT by disarming. They are secure to disarm because other states are not acquiring nuclear weapons. The goal is complete disarmament. It doesn't take much imagination to see that once nukes are out of the equation any state threatening a return to nuclear weapons must be a pariah state and sanctioned to hell if not invaded and regime-changed by popular coalition.

    Secondary points of NPT are that non-nuclear countries have a right to peaceful nuclear technology (e.g. energy), and safeguards are expected. Every country with nuclear tech is required by treaty to share and promote development in other countries. We have the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to help. The IAEA also guards against weaponization. It is supposed to be nosy and also helpful. All parties are supposed to be nosy and helpful.

    The NPT has performed fairly well. A few states have opted out of the Treaty, seeing they were either getting a raw deal or reckoned they'd do better without it: North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, India. Without accountability to IAEA these easily built nukes. Also a few states fail their end of the agreement, by continuing to wave the nuclear threat over countries, and sabotaging peaceful nuclear development. Of course a deal collapses when one side scorns its commitments - why would the other side keep up half of the bargain?

    I hope I've illuminated the issue of non-proliferation.

    Iran remains a NPT signatory and has gone over and above IAEA requirements. It has indulged an endless stream of frivolous accusations, multiple nuclear states twisting IAEA as crowbar to sabotage development. The country isn't even asking for Western assistance (required by NPT) or disarmament (also required). Plainly the only reason Iran doesn't toss the Treaty out a window at this stage is that would be excuse for hostile states to commence bombing.

    I think Iran's principled position regarding nuclear development infuriates some people.

    The worst causality in this is the NPT itself.



    "And now gimme a reason if someone does not intend to use a weapon, why he's gotta have it."
    Did you know that Iran is now rationing domestic gas?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
    The tendency towards violence of all three abrahamitic religions can be seen by the number of wars having been started with the "My god is better than yours and thus I will kill you"-cry. Beginning with the crusades to the Indian-Pakistan conflict over some shitty piece of land (yeah, right) beginning the progromes on both sides after 1947
    Excellent

    Quote Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
    The danger of someone pushing "THE" button increases with the number of parties having such a button.
    Toning muscle improve them, fluxing muscle destroy them
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3
    No one says better about nuclear Iran than this guy from Israel: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/nuclear-populism.htm Some very simple things about Iranian nukes which most of us tend to ignore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    The USA has 500 Minuteman II ICMBs squatting in silos, Each with 5 independently target warheads. 2500 heavy nukes. It has how many nuclear attack sumbariners, each Boomer with 200+ nukes? Strategic heavy bomber flights in the air 24 hours a day, all nuke-armed.

    There is no ethical or logical reason why any country shouldn’t bear nuclear arms as long as the USA does.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    There is no ethical or logical reason why any country shouldn’t bear nuclear arms as long as the USA does.
    True on one level, but the Iranians have their own peculiar ethics. After the revolution, Khomeini declared nuclear energy anti-Islamic and had the Bushehr reactor project shut down (started in 1974, it's expected to come online later this year). Apparently economic reality set in and now domestic nuclear advancement is supposed to stir national pride. Or maybe the young Islamic state rejected it by association with the Shah and (great irony) earlier American lobbying monarchist Iran to buy US-made reactors.

    I sense that nuclear technology is upsetting to Islam, which would judge it spiritually significant, one way or the other.

    The current president says nuclear weapons proved their worthlessness last century and are irrelevant to this one. For examples he cites the USSR collapsing just the same, and small countries standing up to and fighting nuclear-superpowers just the same. He dismisses nukes as a non-issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    There is no ethical or logical reason why any country shouldn’t bear nuclear arms as long as the USA does.


    Is there?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    "Sak" asked: What is the threat to the world if Iran develop nuclear technology?

    They'd be able to defend themselves against the USA.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    There is no ethical or logical reason why any country shouldn’t bear nuclear arms as long as the USA does.


    Is there?
    Nuclear weapons are patently unethical IMHO. But also IMHO the way war is done today is so brazenly cowardly we cannot even think straight about cowardice. To many folks the end justifies the means, and better demoralize (AKA terrorize) from secure distance, detached from the unsightly business-end. So ballistic missiles are preferred. Nuclear weapon ethics are FUBAR. My admittedly weird opinions.

    "Logically" I think the non-proliferation treaty has a chance yet. We're all waiting for the nuclear weapon states to make serious steps toward their part of the bargain. Everybody knows what the big obstacle is. Perhaps some special combination of internal/external events will sway them to the positive course. We've been holding our breaths a long time.

    Regarding recent US push to strengthen Eastern European shield, of course if two parties are diminishing their swords it doesn't build trust for one to raise a shield. That guarantees the other party will stop disarming or even rearm to counterbalance the shield. So we ask why does the US desire this outcome. I think it makes an excellent case for keeping nuclear missiles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 if I may 
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    I think the debate was the same when India came to want the Nuclear weapon, everyone was against it. Now they have it. Have they done any big trouble since?


    On the same time Arabic countries do have a super powerful neighbour which is Israel. Maybe, as an Arab I would feel threatened and in this case I would want to achieve the same level of superiority.


    Or maybe it is a question of pride, like Chinese and Russians ruling all around. Letting the rest of the world know that they are back on there feet and now want to be part of the higher grounds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    There is no ethical or logical reason why any country shouldn’t bear nuclear arms as long as the USA does.


    Is there?

    Someone has to bear nuclear weapons. Otherwise, well..... it's like the saying : "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king."

    If everyone disarms, the first country to (secretly) get a nuke online could make demands for whatever one-sided concessions it wanted, and everyone else would pretty much have to give it to them.

    No. Madd is here to stay. It's part of the human condition, and always will be until the end of time. We can (hopefully) adapt to it, but it's absolutely impossible to change it.

    The trouble is, if too many people have the bomb, then none of them feel accountable as individuals for what they do with it. And Madd is a situation where you quite necessarily must have a sense of personal accountability. (Because without personal accountability, who do you retaliate against?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If everyone disarms, the first country to (secretly) get a nuke online could make demands for whatever one-sided concessions it wanted, and everyone else would pretty much have to give it to them.
    Well suppose you have some armed sites under international jurisdiction, with safeguards and even self-destruct (non-catastrophic) in case of illegal attempt to hijack command of the site (e.g. by host country). Then after states (i.e. military players) prove disarmament they join the anti-nuclear club and enjoy equal say in if/how these weapons are used against a rogue power developing or retaining nuclear weapons. Naturally the treaty-governed weapons would be limited to strike only in the direst circumstance, namely a rogue state making nuclear threats or attacks.

    Orgs like NATO work kinda like that, but they are politically aligned. I propose a universal umbrella organisation, non-aligned.

    Heck, you could make the sites essentially bombs dug into major cities. So plant one in Tehran and one in Washington, to go off in case of bad behavior, as strictly and reasonably spelled out by treaty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    So, a single nuclear power that isn't a country. I could see that working, so long as everyone trusted them enough.

    I'd make the rules very simple: If you build and test a nuclear warhead, that alone triggers MADD whether you launch it or not.

    I don't know if the UN has enough credibility for people to trust them with that, but it would be a really good idea to build an organization people would trust enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I don't know if the UN has enough credibility
    This concept of UN credibility comes of the popular notion UN is an authority in itself. Like a lawmaker, cop, or judge. It is not. It is the collection of agreements between states, and a forum for negotiating, enacting, and evaluating those agreements, between sovereign states. So credibility depends on the state parties to any particular treaty.

    We make international agreements (law, order) stick by crafting treaties offering incentive for all parties to sign into and uphold. It is possible to create treaties with teeth as well, and they needn't be death pacts to ensure compliance.

    Every state desires security, so that's one great incentive. On the other hand, certain states have no real need for collective security themselves, and even desire insecurity in other states. They undercut multilateral cooperation with bilateral deals or outright unilateral action. This damages the "credibility of the UN", especially when the upshot is individual states forced to take unilateral action of their own in this lawless & conflicted environment.

    Sadly, I feel the citizens of many countries are afraid to enter binding multilateral agreements. It's not just due to ignorance of how such agreements work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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