I know there are other threads dealing with the issue of Iran having nukes. But what I really want to know is who the hell is the US to tell Iran they can’t have nukes? Can other countries decide what US can have or not have in its arsenal?
While US feels quite comfortable ignoring any international treaty it deems deleterious to its national security, it expects others to bow to international demands no matter what.
For many in the US ignoring international laws seem to be a point of pride in fact (the “it’s ‘un-American’ to put ‘UN’ before America” crowd). But, the logic doesn’t seem to hold when other countries exhibit the same freewheeling, maverick ways.
Iran is simply following US’ lead, and doing what it needs to in order to protect itself. So why shouldn’t they have the nukes? And what right does the US have in trying to intervene?
The The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was ratified in 1970 (Iran signed it in 1968). It basically says that apart from the existing nuclear nations (USA, Soviet Union [Russia now], UK, France*, and China), nobody else is allowed to have nuclear weapons. Apparently Cuba, India, Pakistan, and Israel are the only countries that didn’t sign. The treaty has been updated and reaffirmed a few times, most recently in 1995. Basically it boils down to: we didn’t want them to get nukes, nobody else did, and they said they wouldn’t.
** Why is it that France always get listed as a major power on any international treaty written between, say, 1945 and 1970? What did they do that was so special?*
The flip side of the treaty was that all the nuclear powers agreed they would not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power. So there was an incentive for non-nuclear powers to agree to forego nuclear weapon development.
This provision has been altered. Without naming names, back in 1991 a nuclear power announced a new “finding” - that biological and chemical weapons were Weapons of Mass Destruction and were the equivalent of nuclear weapons. This country was engaged in a military conflict with a non-nuclear power but announced it was prepared to use nuclear weapons against the non-nuclear power if it used biological or chemical weapons.
Since 1991, several previously non-nuclear powers have embarked on programs of nuclear weapon development.
I’m having a bit of a tough time lately determining what a “right” is. It seems some folks have some rights that others wouldn’t consider rights at all. In the case of the US, they have the right to intervene because they have the military and economic muscle to back it up. It’s like the old saying goes… in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Well, on the planet of savages, the mightiest military is king.
Iran shouldn’t seem so surprised at the US’s response considering Iran’s hostile attitude towards Israel. Drop that and the US will give about as much of a damn about Iran having nukes as they did about Pakistan having them.
I don’t think Iran is suprised. If they thought the US and others would be cool with their program, they wouldn’t have tried to hide it in the first place.
As for the “might makes right” argument, this is probably the best arguement that Iran and N. Korea have for attempting to build nukes in the first place. If they could be assured that they would be safe from the US military in the first place, then they wouldnt need a nuclear deterent. After all it is unlikely they could ever gather the military strength to use these offensivly without being creamed by the international community, as no one wants to see an actual nuclear war. But since they belive that the US is prescribing to a might makes right philosophy in their recent “illegal” (at least in the view of many countries) invasion of Iraq, they can justify their need for stronger weapons that will balance out the might of the US military.
I will also add that the Mullahs have provided a far more stable gov’t then the various transitory gov’ts of Pakistan. Also, to the best of my knowledge, the only military conflict they’ve entered into was the one they were forced into by the Iraqi invasion
They export terrorism eg Hamas and Hezbollah. Besides thats not the point, any extremist government should be stopped no matter what from obtaining Nuclear weapons. They’re not dumb enough to fight openly, they channel it in other ways, this nuclear research is to make sure the ‘umbrella’ for Islamic terrorism isn’t destroyed.
I’ll be delighted to receive a cite for Iran having ‘exported’ Hamas :rolleyes:
There is little that can be done to prevent nuclear proliferation now that the NPT has fallen into disrepute and the fault lies with the nuclear powers who have dishonoured their obligations under the treaty. Given recent events, the rational course for any state with the means is to acquire nuclear capability asap.
Apologies I didn’t mean the organisation, but the funding and weapons, but anyway its nice to know people like the idea of a fundamentalist state acquiring Nuclear technology. Truely excellent.
When I’m in my 40’s and hopefully still alive, if that sort of shit explodes in my face, I’ll know who to thank. You lot.
Why is this question always asked about France, and never, for instance, about the UK, despite both having essentially the same population, GNP and military capacity?
Attack unfriendly governments which try to build nuclear reactors. Or block them at every turn in them trying to build the bomb. I don’t like the prospect of Mullahs having the bomb, ever.
