# Double standard regarding nukes? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 4, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586 "2009-10-04T20:39:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/41 "2009-10-07T16:23:08Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Not according to [Wiki.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran) I’m not sure the wiki entirely rules the possibility out. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/42 "2009-10-07T16:24:49Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > You may sneer, **BG** , but Cole has been known to prevaricate whenever it lets him harp on his favorite object of hatred. His views are sufficiently skewed as to be useless and intrinsically untrustworthy. I’ve been reading his blog since before we invaded Iraq. He’s one of the most knowledgeable Arab world pundits about. Which of his views are so skewed exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Henrichek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@Henrichek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henrichek)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/43 "2009-10-07T17:01:05Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Not to toot my own horn, but I’ve worked in the foreign policy field for some time and my graduate studies included arms control. I feel as though my opinion is somewhat informed on these types of matters. > > And for the record, it isn’t the US “calling out” Iran. The matter of uranium enrichment has gone to the UN Security Council, and they have adopted resolutions since 2006 calling for Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA and instituting sanctions on Iran due to to this whole situation. > > To **Squink** ’s worry that Iran’s nuclear program is just like Iraq and WMD, in that the US made unsubstantiated claims that others rejected and we ended up going to war, one can clearly note that this process has wide international support and is proceeding with inspections to ascertain the facts. I certainly don’t mean to imply that I have better knowledge than you in these matters, as I am just an interested observer who follow the news, but it would be nice if you could point out where I go wrong. Upon reading the IAEA’s latest report, it seemed like Iran is cooperating with the inspectors as prescribed by the NPT sans Additional Protocol. What current agreement binds them to comply with the AP if it has not passed their parliament? Even if it had passed, they could withdraw from it, like the US did from the ABM treaty in 2002. I just see Iran’s acts sometimes presented as illegal in the media (like in the article you previously linked to), but is it really? What law have they broken that they are bound by? It is of course somewhat of a nitpick, as the international community can impose whatever sanctions they want regardless of treaties. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/44 "2009-10-07T17:57:50Z")
> [@Henrichek](#): > > What current agreement binds them to comply with the AP if it has not passed their parliament? Even if it had passed, they could withdraw from it, like the US did from the ABM treaty in 2002. > > I just see Iran’s acts sometimes presented as illegal in the media (like in the article you previously linked to), but is it really? What law have they broken that they are bound by? It is of course somewhat of a nitpick, as the international community can impose whatever sanctions they want regardless of treaties. You don’t get to withdraw from UN Security Council resolutions. I also question why you believe that the IAEA gave Iran a clean bill of health. The recent report clearly states that Iran hasn’t stopped enrichment activities, as the Security Council directed in 2006. ---
**Author:** ![Henrichek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@Henrichek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henrichek)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/45 "2009-10-07T18:07:43Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You don’t get to withdraw from UN Security Council resolutions. > > I also question why you believe that the IAEA gave Iran a clean bill of health. The recent report clearly states that Iran hasn’t stopped enrichment activities, as the Security Council directed in 2006. So you mean that their acts are illegal because they break the AP which USA, Russia, France, etc., have decided they must follow? I see that it works that way practically though. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/46 "2009-10-07T18:10:02Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > I’m not sure the wiki entirely rules the possibility out. Well, at any rate, it makes no mention of Iran withdrawing from the protocols at any point, which I’m sure would be included if it had happened. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/47 "2009-10-07T18:42:51Z")
> [@Henrichek](#): > > So you mean that their acts are illegal because they break the AP which USA, Russia, France, etc., have decided they must follow? I see that it works that way practically though. You’re getting hung up on the Additional Protocol. Let’s set it aside for a moment. Iran is a member of the NPT. Regardless of the additional reporting under the protocols, Iran still is under the obligation to cooperate with the IAEA and to issue accurate safeguards agreements to declare what exactly they are doing. The protocol is relevant to the extent that additional activities and inspections would be allowed – something that Iran apparently does not want. For your convenience, I’ve quoted part of the conclusion of the IAEA’s most recent report: > [@](#): > > Contrary to the requests of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has neither implemented the Additional Protocol nor cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues of concern which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. Regrettably, the Agency has not been able to engage Iran in any substantive discussions about these outstanding issues for over a year. The Agency believes that it has provided Iran with sufficient access to documentation in its possession to enable Iran to respond substantively to the questions raised by the Agency. Members of the NPT are simply not allowed to tell the IAEA to go pound sand when they ask questions about why military S&T institutes are conducting nuclear research. ---
**Author:** ![Henrichek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@Henrichek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henrichek)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/48 "2009-10-07T18:44:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, at any rate, it makes no mention of Iran withdrawing from the protocols at any point, which I’m sure would be included if it had happened. [http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/051017/2005101737.html](http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/051017/2005101737.html) It’s also mentioned in [Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#International_Atomic_Energy_Agency) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/49 "2009-10-07T18:45:06Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > I’m not sure the wiki entirely rules the possibility out. Well, at any rate, it makes no mention of Iran withdrawing from the protocols at any point, which I’m sure would be included if it had happened. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/50 "2009-10-07T19:20:46Z")
Oh, sorry about this, but I forgot this thread existed till recently. A few notes on Juan Cole: [[The Volokh Conspiracy - Juan Cole, not an anti-Semite:](http://volokh.com/posts/1107009094.shtml)](The Volokh Conspiracy) It’s not his knowledge I dismiss, but his character and attitudes I question. He might have a point, but (to deliberately invoke Godwin), Hitler probably knew something I don’t about Poland. Doesn’t mean I can profitably use his knowledge: it comes too tainted by virtue of his views to be useful. He’s not insane, but he’s definitely dubious and always inclined to make judgements based on his reconceptions. And I defintiely think he’s an antisemite. I used to try reading him until I got sick of it. let me simply say he’s freakishly _obsessed_ with Jews. And Volokh Conspirators, while not unbiased themselves, are extremely academic and usually neutral. They’re not neccessarily very strongly for any group or not, and include a wide range of people. At worst, they are theoretically (but not always practically) Libertarian. ---
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/51 "2009-10-07T19:36:38Z")
The bit I don’t understand, is how the ‘legitimate’ nuclear armed countries are not deemed to be in breach of Article VI of the NPT? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/52 "2009-10-07T20:04:06Z")
> [@Sandwich](#): > > The bit I don’t understand, is how the ‘legitimate’ nuclear armed countries are not deemed to be in breach of Article VI of the NPT? This requirement is so squishy that it is hard to see that any country could really be in violation of it. If you read it carefully, it really requires that countries negotiate in good faith – as opposed to actually reach an agreement. And the largest nuclear powers, the US and Russia, have been reducing their nuclear stockpiles for more than 20 years now. You’ll also note that the provision requires all state parties to negotiate in good faith on general and complete disarmament. Not just nuclear disarmament, COMPLETE disarmament. Now, by show of hands, who is holding their breath for that one? ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/53 "2009-10-07T20:20:39Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Oh, sorry about this, but I forgot this thread existed till recently. > > A few notes on Juan Cole: [http://volokh.com/posts/1107009094.shtml](http://The%20Volokh%20Conspiracy) > > It’s not his knowledge I dismiss, but his character and attitudes I question. He might have a point, but (to deliberately invoke Godwin), Hitler probably knew something I don’t about Poland. Doesn’t mean I can profitably use his knowledge: it comes too tainted by virtue of his views to be useful. He’s not insane, but he’s definitely dubious and always inclined to make judgements based on his reconceptions. And I defintiely think he’s an antisemite. I used to try reading him until I got sick of it. let me simply say he’s freakishly _obsessed_ with Jews. > > And Volokh Conspirators, while not unbiased themselves, are extremely academic and usually neutral. They’re not neccessarily very strongly for any group or not, and include a wide range of people. At worst, they are theoretically (but not always practically) Libertarian. That’s a blog post that extrapolates antisemitism from a comment by Cole that Doug Feith is “Likudnik.” Feith is definitely on record as having strong Zionist views, his family are strongly linked with the Zionist movement. Likud is the party of the right and centre-right Zionists, it’s the amalgamation of those political parties. Unreconstructed Likudniks like Netanyahu are best buddies with Feith. So I think what he said is quite accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/54 "2009-10-07T20:23:41Z")
> [@](#): > > To Squink’s worry that Iran’s nuclear program is just like Iraq and WMD, in that the US made unsubstantiated claims that others rejected and we ended up going to war, one can clearly note that this process has wide international support and is proceeding with inspections to ascertain the facts. Not everyone rejected the bullshit claims, in fact I keep hearing that Everyone knew Iraq had WMD’s and WMD programs too. That’s how we built a 40 nation coalition to support our little conquest. So you see, it’s not a ‘worry’ I have, it’s a perception that the same lying bastards who lied to us the last time are going to continue to lie to us now. Occam’s razor is a handy guide sometimes, and I’ll not abandon it just because a bunch of people are jumping up and down saying “this time we really really really _really_ mean it.” Show me a half a gram of highly enriched uranium that someone’s smuggled out of Iran, unfaked satellite images a plutonium reprocessing facility, or even an efficient and large scale string of gas centrifuges. Without something like that, the latest accusations are no better or worse than the ones made against Saddam. ---
**Author:** ![Henrichek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@Henrichek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henrichek)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/55 "2009-10-07T21:14:04Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You’re getting hung up on the Additional Protocol. Yes, because the recent news (like your CNN article) has been that Iran’s new facility broke the law by not being reported at the start of construction, which is an Additional Protocol requirement. I am not trying to argue that they might not have other violations, though I probably expressed myself badly in a previous post. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Let’s set it aside for a moment. Iran is a member of the NPT. Regardless of the additional reporting under the protocols, Iran still is under the obligation to cooperate with the IAEA and to issue accurate safeguards agreements to declare what exactly they are doing. The protocol is relevant to the extent that additional activities and inspections would be allowed – something that Iran apparently does not want. Sure. Do you know where the relevant safeguards requirements can be found? I’ve been looking around for a while but haven’t found a good source. The NPT itself doesn’t cover any of those details. > [@Ravenman](#): > > For your convenience, I’ve quoted part of the conclusion of the IAEA’s most recent report:Members of the NPT are simply not allowed to tell the IAEA to go pound sand when they ask questions about why military S&T institutes are conducting nuclear research. While they don’t seem to have any conclusive evidence of other nuclear research, I agree that they need to give answers to IAEA’s questions. They do note that other member nations’ restrictions of information to Iran are complicating the matter. I don’t know what nations they are referring to, or what kind of information that is not shared. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/56 "2009-10-07T21:35:01Z")
> [@Henrichek](#): > > Sure. Do you know where the relevant safeguards requirements can be found? [I think this is what you are looking for.](http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc153.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586/57 "2009-10-07T21:41:00Z")
> [@SweetLucy](#): > > I’m by no means a fan of Iran’s government, but I tend to believe their bark’s worse than their bite. Their leaders are fools, but not idiots. But something I’ve wondered for much of my life is…why is it supposedly OK for the US and our allies to possess nuclear weapons, but for us to condemn other countries for wanting nukes. > > Being American, I give my country the benefit of the doubt that we would use nukes only in cases of absolute self-defense. I believe this despite the fact that I’ve never been 100% sold that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were truly necessary uses of the bomb. > > Who’s to say that Iran wouldn’t want nukes truly for self-defense? Maybe they really feel afraid that the US and/or Israel will nuke them first, and by the tone of a lot of our rhetoric perhaps that’s not an unreasonable fear. Iran has an official “anti-Israel day” at the end of Ramadan. Their president says: “confronting Israel is a national and religious duty”. They routinely chant “death to Israel” at cabinet meetings. Doesn’t sound like a stable country that should possess nuclear weapons to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-standard-regarding-nukes/512586.md?page=2)