Why Iran needs the Nuke

[Camelza]

Property is defined by law. Laws can change.

No. Property exists without laws. Everyone have a right to property, no matter what laws say. It's a concept that cannot be changed, just like freedom. And just like every human being has a right to be free, all human beings have a right to property.

so,you're contradicting with yourself,since a post before you said you actually support a government that used torture,violence,murderin as a way of retaining power and also allowed no other say other than it's own ...but you know it's okay since they were western allies

[Forster Keys]

No. Property exists without laws. Everyone have a right to property, no matter what laws say. It's a concept that cannot be changed, just like freedom. And just like every human being has a right to be free, all human beings have a right to property.

so,you're contradicting with yourself,since a post before you said you actually support a government that used torture,violence,murderin as a way of retaining power and also allowed no other say other than it's own ...but you know it's okay since they were western allies

Well if you're a dirty red it's obvious that those laws don't apply.

[Anacasppia]

I'd say the world should be gradually disarmed of all nuclear weapons and the knowledge to produce them utterly destroyed, but I doubt any existing nuclear weapon state, in particular China, is even willing to reduce its stockpile.

I'm actually extremely conflicted about that. Destroying knowledge of things is incredibly vile, to me. Even if it's awful to know.

If somehow I had the means to destroy all forms of weapons and the knowledge of them, I certainly would. Heh

[Risottia]

Property is defined by law. Laws can change.

No. Property exists without laws.

Without law, things are up for grabs.

Everyone have a right to property, no matter what laws say.

Wrong. There's a right to personal property because it's defined as a right in relevant texts, such as the UNDHR, the ECHR, or various Constitutions.

It's a concept that cannot be changed, just like freedom.

You are trying to argue that because YOU don't WANT it to be changed (which is a perfectly legitimate political stance), it CANNOT be changed (which is a claim about history and about how politics works). Historically, it has been changed - easy example, the laws about property of humans (slavery); or the laws about the personal property held by women. So, it CAN be changed and it HAS. Which proves you wrong, because of mixing up different categories.

And just like every human being has a right to be free, all human beings have a right to property.

And where is that right defined? Where is the meaning of "freedom" defined? In laws.
That's why laws are considered "sources of rights".

[Garboshia]

but do we want the US, UK, France and Isreal to be the only guys with weapons? 'Cause all four of those countries have done some messed up stuff and now your're saying we should let them do said stuff without any fear of consequences? Plus what about all the other democracies? shouldn't they get weapons too? You've discluded Canada, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Holland and Switzerland! Why shouldn't they get nuclear weapons?

Because they're all fucking signatories of the NPT. Everyone already agreed that international non-proliferation and disarmament were the way to go. That's international law, now.

Okay but the guy I'm replying to is saying that the US, UK, France and Isreal are the only nations deserving of nukes.

[Camelza]

so,you're contradicting with yourself,since a post before you said you actually support a government that used torture,violence,murderin as a way of retaining power and also allowed no other say other than it's own ...but you know it's okay since they were western allies

Well if you're a dirty red it's obvious that those laws don't apply.

most certainly! lefties aren't humans after all.

[Qanchia]

Property is defined by law. Laws can change.

No. Property exists without laws. Everyone have a right to property, no matter what laws say. It's a concept that cannot be changed, just like freedom. And just like every human being has a right to be free, all human beings have a right to property.

If freedom is a "concept that cannot be changed", then why shouldn't Iranians have the freedom to choose who governs their country?

[Anacasppia]

I'd say the world should be gradually disarmed of all nuclear weapons and the knowledge to produce them utterly destroyed, but I doubt any existing nuclear weapon state, in particular China, is even willing to reduce its stockpile.

Exactly! I like he idea of there being no more nukes. I know I said that they kept the cold war from getting hot but I have to admit that beyond that they haven't done much besides giving the more powerful nations in the world even more power. Unfortunatly no one will be willing to give up all that power and in the end nukes will be gone when they are no longer effective (example: if we perfect laser defense technology nukes and long ranged missles in general will become obsolete)

The good news: the US have made attempts to develop nuke defense technologies of this scale and if research was started on that again, it is perfectly plausible.
The bad news: Most countries are, ironically, against the development of such systems. Why? Because if one country had them and nobody else has, that one country would be in a position of dominance. Granted, countries could work together for everyone to install such systems, but from what we've seen no one is eager to cooperate here.

[Kalalification]

Then why do Russia, USA, China, Britain and France continue to maintain a rather huge stockpile? And why did North Korea suddenly disappear out of the crosshairs since they detonated a nuke?

As previously mentioned, disarmament between the largest NWS, the US and Russia, is tied to bilateral treaties. While the NPT encourages disarmament, it does not mandate it. Well, that's to be expected since it came about in the height of the Cold War. But disarmament happens, and is happening now.

As for the DPRK, I don't know what you're talking about. They've been under the same amount of scrutiny by the international community for their violation of the NPT as they've always been. They are a rogue state under heavy international sanctions.

It's not an "insane notion". It's realpolitik.

And when it violates international law, that makes it an international issue. As far as breaking international law goes, violating the NPT is probably the biggest fuck-up you can make. And even as a matter of realpolitik, it's extremely unlikely that acquiring nuclear weapons in the status quo nuclear climate would be beneficial. Certainly it wouldn't be for Iran.

Either everyone has to dismantle nuclear weapons, or everyone can get them. Because, you know, building a nuke isn't exactly difficult.

That's actually just wrong. NWS have historically been poles, either regional or international. While ideally no state would possess nuclear arms, keeping them out of the hands of small states is a good idea. In addition, keeping them out of the hands of anyone and everyone who doesn't already have them is a good idea. Disarmament is preferable, but combating proliferation is an absolute necessity.

Could you please point out where I did say that every country should have nuclear weapons?
So, try answering to my points instead of attacking the strawmen you fabricate.

It's no strawman. You may not believe it, but this thread is full of people who do.

[Gauntleted Fist]

No. Property exists without laws. Everyone have a right to property, no matter what laws say. It's a concept that cannot be changed, just like freedom. And just like every human being has a right to be free, all human beings have a right to property.

If freedom is a "concept that cannot be changed", then why shouldn't Iranians have the freedom to choose who governs their country?

Because they've been brainwashed into believing that their best interest are supported by electing the criminally insane.

Just like every other country's citizens on Earth.

[Garboshia]

Exactly! I like he idea of there being no more nukes. I know I said that they kept the cold war from getting hot but I have to admit that beyond that they haven't done much besides giving the more powerful nations in the world even more power. Unfortunatly no one will be willing to give up all that power and in the end nukes will be gone when they are no longer effective (example: if we perfect laser defense technology nukes and long ranged missles in general will become obsolete)

The good news: the US have made attempts to develop nuke defense technologies of this scale and if research was started on that again, it is perfectly plausible.
The bad news: Most countries are, ironically, against the development of such systems. Why? Because if one country had them and nobody else has, that one country would be in a position of dominance. Granted, countries could work together for everyone to install such systems, but from what we've seen no one is eager to cooperate here.

Oh... Well... Back to nuclear non-proliferation then!

[L Ron Cupboard]

They signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Why should they break international law?

Would the US actually let them withdraw from the treaty, like the US did with the ABM treaty?

[Gauntleted Fist]

They signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Why should they break international law?

Would the US actually let them withdraw from the treaty, like the US did with the ABM treaty?

The US actually couldn't stop Iran if it wanted to withdraw, considering the Security Council is pretty paralyzed with China and Russia becoming restive over recent US actions.

[Camelza]

If freedom is a "concept that cannot be changed", then why shouldn't Iranians have the freedom to choose who governs their country?

Because they've been brainwashed into believing that their best interest are supported by electing the criminally insane.

Just like every other country's citizens on Earth.

actually Iranians didn't vote for their current government

[Qanchia]

If freedom is a "concept that cannot be changed", then why shouldn't Iranians have the freedom to choose who governs their country?

Because they've been brainwashed into believing that their best interest are supported by electing the criminally insane.

Just like every other country's citizens on Earth.

So a concept that supposedly "cannot be changed" can actually be changed because a country on the other side of the world decides that the person whom the Iranian people have elected is "criminally insane", even though he was perfectly sane and doing exactly what the people elected him to do?

Because they've been brainwashed into believing that their best interest are supported by electing the criminally insane.

Just like every other country's citizens on Earth.

actually Iranians didn't vote for their current government

I was referring to the pre-CIA coup administration.

[Camelza]

I was referring to the pre-CIA coup administration.

oh,sorry then ..move on

[Gauntleted Fist]

actually Iranians didn't vote for their current government

So a concept that supposedly "cannot be changed" can actually be changed because a country on the other side of the world decides that the person whom the Iranian people have elected is "criminally insane", even though he was perfectly sane and doing exactly what the people elected him to do?

I don't know how to explain this so I'm just going to come out and say it, I was making fun of politicians. Not being serious.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Would the US actually let them withdraw from the treaty, like the US did with the ABM treaty?

The US actually couldn't stop Iran if it wanted to withdraw, considering the Security Council is pretty paralyzed with China and Russia becoming restive over recent US actions.

I seem to remember them threatening economic sanctions. Israel might be more likely to attempt to make military threats.

[Greater Mackonia]

Now this raises an interesting question.

The main arguments I hear in favor of nuclear weapons are that they "provide a deterrent".Well Iran is currently defying the demands of some of the major nuclear states on earth namely the USA,France and
Britain.The fact that all these countries posses nuclear weapons has not deterred Iran one bit.

Have nuclear weapons deterred Assad?....no he continues to slaughter his own people,did nuclear weapons deter Gadaffi?....no and did Saddam Hussein immediately cave in to the demands of George Bush and his petthe British prim minister....nope.

So if nuclear weapons do not provide a deterrent then why may I ask do we continue to waste so much money on them?.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Which is in violation of the test ban treaty.
And non-proliferation treaty.

The real point I'm making is that Iran has the right to have a nuke that works. Testing it safely once is just to prove that it works, if they can prove that it works without testing it an prove this to other nations then that way is more preferable to the former.

Which is still in violation of the test ban and proliferation treaties.
Which they are members of.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

They don't. They objectively don't.

Legally, they're party to the NNPT.
Then again, considering that almost every country is party to the NNPT, with the notable exceptions of North Korea, India and Pakistan, but including USA, Russia, Britain, France, PRC, and all the parties to the NATO nuclear sharing program, we could ask ourselves what the real meaning of that treaty is.

None of them are proliferating, however. The furore about the Trident replacement in our country is over the worry that it replaces it with a longer range, higher throw weight, less detectable or something else missile and whether it would violate NNPT.
In fact, nearly all NNPT signatories are downsizing their arsenals.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

The real point I'm making is that Iran has the right to have a nuke that works. Testing it safely once is just to prove that it works, if they can prove that it works without testing it an prove this to other nations then that way is more preferable to the former.

Which is still in violation of the test ban and proliferation treaties.
Which they are members of.

When the threat of having your nation taken away from you hangs on balance it calls for drastic measures. If Israel and the USA want to invade then Iran should leave the treaty. The consequences of leaving the treaty, I'm sure, would be less worse than say having your country bombed to the stone age by your enemies.

[Myrensis]

Oh boy, a strawman that doesn't actually refute my central criticism. Surely, because I don't support Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, I think we need to invade them.

What exactly was your central point then? Because your post said that Iran is fully entitled to nuclear energy, and I pointed out that thus far the only evidence anyone has come up with that they want an actual weapon is the fact that the figurehead President likes to badmouth Israel.

Iran is a theocratic islamofacist dictatorship that doesn't have any right to have a nuke. Iran's government should be replaced by a Western-led intervention to liberate the people of Iran, and to return the Shah of Iran to his rightful position as the head of state of Iran, and the leaders of the so called ''Islamic Republic'' should be tried for crimes against humanity and executed.

Because fascist human rights violating dictatorships are A OK if they're sympathetic to western business interests. You have a very peculiar idea of "liberation."

It worked just fine.

Yup, it worked out so brilliantly that your pet strongman was overthrown and instead of a socialist leaning democracy you got, as you put it, a 'theocratic islamofascist dictatorship'. But hey, second time is a charm right?

Mossadegh was a criminal who tried to steal foreign assets. When you commit a crime, you should be punished. Same with the ''Islamic Republic''. Its leadership has committed horrendous crimes, and they must be punished

Silly brown people, not realising that they only exist to make it easier for western interests to extract their resources and line their own pockets.

Just because doing something horrifically evil is supported by a large number of people does not make it a good thing for people in positions of power to do.

Seriously? Mossadegh threatening to cut off Britains profits from blatant exploitation of Iran is a "horrific evil"? When our response to was to prop up a tyrant who tortured, murdered, and imprisoned anyone who questioned him or threatened his authority? How delusional are you?

Let us not forget that Hitler was elected.

Wow....I'm sure the Holocaust survivors would have been comforted to know that Britain experienced the exact same sort of suffering they did when they were deprived of their oil profits.

Dictatorships don't deserve weapons.

Unless of course those weapons are provided by America or other western powers amirite? You recall that we sold weapons to Iran in the 80's so we could fund terr...errr...sorry, 'freedom fighters' in South America right?

No. Property exists without laws. Everyone have a right to property, no matter what laws say. It's a concept that cannot be changed, just like freedom. And just like every human being has a right to be free, all human beings have a right to property.

So how exactly did people living 3000 miles away acquire the inalienable right to Iran's oil resources?

So if nuclear weapons do not provide a deterrent then why may I ask do we continue to waste so much money on them?.

Nukes provide a defensive deterrent, they're not tremendously useful in a force projection sense, because telling Assad that we're going to nuke him if he doesn't sit at the negotiating table with the rebels would be A. insane, B. counterproductive..since you know, we'd be nuking the people we're trying to help too.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Now this raises an interesting question.

The main arguments I hear in favor of nuclear weapons are that they "provide a deterrent".Well Iran is currently defying the demands of some of the major nuclear states on earth namely the USA,France and
Britain.The fact that all these countries posses nuclear weapons has not deterred Iran one bit.

Have nuclear weapons deterred Assad?....no he continues to slaughter his own people,did nuclear weapons deter Gadaffi?....no and did Saddam Hussein immediately cave in to the demands of George Bush and his petthe British prim minister....nope.

So if nuclear weapons do not provide a deterrent then why may I ask do we continue to waste so much money on them?.

Because they provide deterrent only against people who have other nuclear weapons.
IIRC, the Russians never actually nuked America.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

So if nuclear weapons do not provide a deterrent then why may I ask do we continue to waste so much money on them?.

Nukes provide a defensive deterrent, they're not tremendously useful in a force projection sense, because telling Assad that we're going to nuke him if he doesn't sit at the negotiating table with the rebels would be A. insane, B. counterproductive..since you know, we'd be nuking the people we're trying to help too.

Of course they're useful in force projection. In total nuclear exchange, that is.
Because if you launch a first strike which knocks out most of their strategic armament in their launch unit, main military bases, power production, manufacturing, naval bases, tactical warhead stockpiles and if you've any warheads left over maybe their cities for good measure, you will have launched your arsenal, so they've no longer any of your missiles to engage and you should have mobilised your forces so they now have to go look for them to destroy them. This unfortunately leaves your own infrastructure and civilians well in the firing line, but you ought to have conscripted them anyway, and your infrastructure suddenly matters slightly less if you're fighting in another country. Assuming this country survived the exchange, sponge off their infrastructure.