Does Iran (or North Korea) have a right to develop nuclear weapons? Both countries have good reason to feel threatened by a country with a huge nuclear arsenal and has used nuclear weapons in war before.
Well, North Korea has one so its no longer a question. Iran does not have the ‘right’ to develop on IMHO since they signed on to the NNPT and should honor that.
‘Right’ however has little to do with it…its a matter of can Iran develop it in the face of such strong, um, international opposition, or not? I’d say that yes…they probably will be able to suffer through the endless notes and wrist slaps from the UN and muddle through to get the thing. Unless Israel decides to crash the party of course.
-XT
Do they have the right as a sovereign country to develop nukes? I suppose so with these caveats:
- Iran signed the NNPT and violated it.
- Iran is one fo the world’s largest state sponsors of terrorist organizations
- The US has the right to defend itself from an imminent threat (and yes, I think Iran has proven to be an imminent…hell a current…threat with the current regime).
FTR I hate that Bush got us into Iraq. I think, using his reasoning for going after Iraq, that Iran is a far greater threat. Even moreso today. Of the three “Axis of Evil” countries Iraq was far and away the smallest threat if it even was one at all. Iraq was just the easiest to go after.
North Korea SAYS they have one, and the rest of the world seems to think it’s prudent to assume they do. But they have never tested a nuclear weapon, so it’s not actually certain they do or that if they do it would even work.
Iran has a legal right to nuclear energy. That is what they are claiming to be trying to do. I am not in a position to say that is not what they are doing.
They say they want to cut down on internal use of petroleum to extend the export life of the oil they have.
Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so it has agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea was a signatory to this treaty but withdrew from it in 2003, having given the specified three months notice specified under the terms of the treaty.
Hell no.
And the argument that Iran has to ‘protect itself’ is spurious. It’d be like saying that criminals need to ‘protect themselves’ from those they attack.
The whole ‘axis of evil’ thing doesn’t matter either. That would be like saying that criminals who are put on the Most Wanted list now have a right to heavy weapons.
Does Iran then have a right to protect itself from what it sees as an imminent threat.? Or is that a right we limit to ourselves. If I were running Iran ,I might think the US was coming for me. There are people like you who find it a good idea. In the interest of self preservation, what moves would you suggest. ?What can it do to defend itself but not step over a line you draw for it.? Tricky for them ?
:rolleyes:
Does the neighberhood rapist have a right to protect himself from the police? Or is that a right we limit to law abiding citizens?
And you could either act to deter that, or provoke it.
I find it amusing that for all your talk about negotiation, now you’re championing a country arming itself with nukes. It’s good to see that your politics are on a sliding scale.
In the interest of the rapist’s self preservation, what moves would you suggest? Stopping raping people, or carrying anthrax?
Erm… not step over that line?
But I guess negotiation is for those you oppose, and nukes are for those you support.
Are you asking a question? Because, no, stopping funding, arming, and directing terrorists isn’t all that hard.
Its not so much an issue about whether a sovereign nation has the “right” to arm itself as she sees fit. Its more than we are in such a shitty position to be shocked, shocked! We are perfectly cozy with India developing nukes. And when we catch Pakistan selling nuke tech on the open market, we issue a stern “tut! tut!”. And, of course, Israel.
The moral high ground is a mite thin.
Nope, as signatories to the NNPT they signed away such rights. That is the deal as old a Ike’s Atoms For Peace program.
You do realize that they could say the same about America ? We’ve done them far more harm with less reason than they have to us. The Shah comes to mind.
So every single Iranian is a criminal in your eyes ? Should we just kill them all ? From your rhetoric, I find it easy to believe you’d support that.
Do you honestly need me to define the tu quoque fallacy for you?
No, you just made that up.
No, that’s just you creating a strawman because you can’t/don’t want to discuss the actual argument.
I’m not very surprised at what it takes to make you believe certain things.
I have no idea how you get from the premise that Iran shouldn’t be allowed WMD to saying that we should commit genocide. Care to elaborate how preventing a country from getting WMD means you should murder everybody in the nation, or should I be afraid to even ask?
Wait a minute… was that balderdash about genocide due to me saying that Iran could stand in as a criminal in an analogy?
So when you say
are you saying that all Americans were responsible for the Shah, and/or they should all be murdered?
Is there intellectual honesty to this argument, or are you just throwing stones?
No, that’s you claiming they have no right to protect themselves from us because they are just like criminals.
I’m pointing out that since we’ve attacked them before and have made repeated threats, it’s perfectly reasonable for them to want to defend themselves from us. They’d be fools not to.
Nope, you’re still lying.
Or quote, anywhere, at all, that I’ve said that not allowing Iran to have nukes means we should kill them all? You can’t, can you? Because you’re lying. I never said that, I never implied it. You’re just making stuff up.
And much like I thought, you’ve abandoned intellectual honesty in favor of these hollow arguments and lies.
You say that America is guilty of something, but don’t extend that to American citizens. I say Iran is guilty of something, you extend that to Iranian citizens and accuse me of supporting genocide or say that it’s a probable view I hold.
Whatever.
I’m done with you.
If you feel like arguing honestly, let me know.
Life’s too short for these games.
Prove it.
You compared them to rapists, and said they have no right to protect themselves.
No, I’m not lying. You are just incapable of admitting that anyone can honestly disagree with you.
India, Israel, and Pakistan never signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty so have never been bound by it. Iran did and is. If the Iranian government feels it’s no longer in their best interest to withdraw from the treaty they can do as North Korea did.
Okay, I changed gears in the middle of that last sentence and ended up missing the turn. It should have been: “If the Iranian government feels it’s no longer in their best interest to be bound by the treaty they can withdraw from it as North Korea did.”
True. I suppose they feel that withdrawing might prompt an immediate attack, while avoiding doing so gives them breathing space. If they honestly feel that obeying a treaty will destroy them, you could argue that it’s ethical for them to ignore it.
OTOH, they could simply feel that they can ignore any and all obligations to infidels, as Allah is on their side. Rather like America feels about God and treaties . . .