Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
India has nuclear weapons, as does its rival neighbor Pakistan. India and Pakistan fought a series of direct wars after independence, and an even larger number of proxy wars via insurgency. Note that India-Pakistan relations have become more stable in the nuclear weapons era.
Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. Without a nuclear weapon, its ballistic missiles cannot deliver a nuclear strike.
There are 4 possible Gulf responses to Iranian development of a nuclear weapon (although there is no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon):
1) Israeli declaration of its nuclear weapons (near 100% certainty)
2) Extension of US nuclear umbrella (also near 100% certainty)
3) Pakistan-Saudi Arabian deal on nuclear deterrence (apparently already under negotiation) 4) Other nations (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey) spin up nuclear programs (likelihood near zero for Turkey and unlikely for Egypt and Saudi Arabia)
India has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Iran has threatened nuclear genocide to Israel as Israel will not disregard as rhetoric. Iran as I said for the 5th time, has a nuclear program that its violating.
Israel has never declared its nuclear weapons, so no, no 100% certainty. The Arab bloc never declared a nuclear arms race over Israel's alleged program, unlike Iran's. Iran wants to establish an empire, and that's it.
You links do not prove that Iran has cooperated with the IAEA into its suspected and unreported sites nor its 11 questions of its previous nuclear program. All your links state is that Iran has decided to negotiate with the JOPA because of sanctions to its economy and may come to a deal, which is now being scrutinized by France.
Iran is cooperating with IAEA and negotiating with the P5+1. So reporting, negotiations, and cooperation is occurring. Please provide some link to secret sites about which Iran is not being transparent. NCRI is both biased and unreliable.
As an NPT signatory, Iran is entitled to develop civilian nuclear power.
The entire point of the P5+1 and U.S Sanctions is its violations and lack of transparency of its nuclear program. Lets try this once more:
So, in other words, their missile program is complying with the UN Security Council Resolution?
Again, a ballistic missile program without a nuclear weapon is nothing for the world to fear. The most reliable and safest way to prevent a nuclear weapon is to negotiate, build confidence, and improve relations.
You are either being intellectually dishonest at this point or you seriously have reading comprehension problems. They are pursuing both and they are restricted from having both.
Quote:
Nuclear power will not create a hegemon. A nuclear weapon would not create a hegemon, because Israel and the United States have nuclear forces to deter Iran.
Saudi Arabia will attempt to undermine the Houthis in Yemen. That will happen with or without an Iranian nuclear program.
Syria is deeply in conflict. That is not because of the Iranian nuclear program, but because of the Syrian government, the Syrian people, and the War in Iraq.
Iraq has been deeply in conflict since the 2003 invasion.
The NPT remains enforceable.
Your strategies are not being heard in Tehran, as they are pursuing the nuclear hegemonic route. You can dismiss it with the countless sources of Iranian officials declaring its intentions if you must.
Once Iran accepts a crabby deal and obtains nuclear weapons, lets see how strong the NPT will last.
Quote:
Israel sells arms to Romania, Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Uruguay, South Africa, and many, many others. The arms trade is a major pillar of Israel's economy, raking in about $7.5 billion annually (national GDP is around $300 billion annually, so arms exports alone are around 2.5% of GDP). Israel's booming secretive arms trade - Al Jazeera English
Israel's alleged proxies have included Jundallah, the Free Syrian Army, MEK, PJAK, PKK and other Kurdish militants, and others.
Al Jazeera and alleged proxies, I'll trust The Onion over this breaking news.
Quote:
I am aware of the conditions and struggles of Jews before and after the foundation of Israel. That does not change the fact that Irgun used terrorism against residents of Palestine, both Jewish and non-Jewish.
Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in order to attack the British Mandate. They carried out a series of bombings and attacks against Palestinian Arabs and Bretons in the 30s and 40s.
Marxist.org? Poor grasp of history, off topic and back peddling of Iranian responsibility.
Quote:
"Lieberman is known for his strong language." That's rich--calling for nuclear attack on Gaza is "strong language." He was a lawmaker at the time, and he became the Foreign Minister shortly after. Again, it is not in question that Israel has nuclear weapons. That fact is widely recognized, in spite of the policy of "nuclear ambiguity." Gaza is not a country, either.
And you lose sight of geo-strategy and geo-Grand Strategy as a result.
Israel does not declare its nuclear program and he did not explicitly say so. I'm sure with a little digging, this quote was either faked or corrupted. Case closed.
How exactly are negotiations failing to prevent a future nuclear bomb when . . . there is no nuclear bomb? That seems like success to me.
I am done with the redundancy and your motivated reasoning. 5 posts later and you have not accepted IAEA's displeasure with Iran. 5 posts later and you still dishonestly reject the blood on Iran's hands from terror sponsorship and its desires for a nuclear hegemony. If you continue to debate a non-starter and the original essence of the negotiations, then we will no longer debate.
Yes, it does. All of your nonsense is based on a State's relationship with Israel.
There is no international law stating that a State has to get approval from Israel before engaging in nuclear energy research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Iran has threatened nuclear genocide to Israel as Israel will not disregard as rhetoric.
Not relevant.
Furthermore, I've never seen any evidence to that effect. What I have seen is gross mistranslations disseminated for purposes of propaganda and disinformation. You know, like the "Fatty bin-Laden" Video, only different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Iran as I said for the 5th time, has a nuclear program that its violating.
A nuclear energy program. You can't even get that right.
Nuclear Energy ≠ Nuclear Weapons
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Israel has never declared its nuclear weapons,...
That does not negate the fact that Israel stole deuterium and tritium in an espionage scheme from the US.
Or that Israel stole data on the BGM-109Gs.
Or that Israel sold data on the BGM-109Gs to Russia in exchange for exit-visas for Jews.
Or that Israel engaged in espionage against the US, stealing communication data and data on nuclear attack submarine capabilities of the US and Britain.
And that Israel sold that data to Russia in exchange for exit-visas for Jews, and who knows what else.
If anything, Israel is a greater threat to the US than Iran is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
You links do not prove that Iran has cooperated with the IAEA into its suspected and unreported sites nor its 11 questions of its previous nuclear program.
Nothing in the NPT should be construed as sacrificing one's security.
And nothing in the NPT governs ballistic missiles or other delivery systems.
That's where the IAEA is over-stepping its bounds.
The IAEA is not there to gather data on Iran's nuclear energy program, rather the IAEA is there to spy on Iran's ballistic and non-ballistic missile capabilities, including the potential for satellite deployment.
You do understand the problem, right?
No, you don't.
If you'd been in your Bradley watching Iraqi troop movements in real-time via satellite feed during the Gulf War, maybe you'd understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
You are either being intellectually dishonest at this point or you seriously have reading comprehension problems. They are pursuing both and they are restricted from having both.
The IAEA evidence proves Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. That evidence is the fact that Iran is enriching uranium to 15%.
If you have to ask why, then it's and admission that you have ZERO understanding of things-nuclear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Your research on this matter is very poor.
No amount of research you do could ever make up for your lack of knowledge.
India has nuclear weapons, as does its rival neighbor Pakistan. India and Pakistan fought a series of direct wars after independence, and an even larger number of proxy wars via insurgency. Note that India-Pakistan relations have become more stable in the nuclear weapons era.
And the role of China?
China and Pakistan are allies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. Without a nuclear weapon, its ballistic missiles cannot deliver a nuclear strike.
It's in bad form to talk over their heads as you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Again, a ballistic missile program without a nuclear weapon is nothing for the world to fear.
It is for the US.
Nothing in the NPT addresses delivery systems such as tubed field artillery, missile artillery or aircraft.
The specific wording is "...nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices..."
The situation is this:
The US abandoned the Pacific Plan circa 1968-1974 in favor of the its new Geo-Political Strategy.
The new Geo-Strategy calls for the US to control the petroleum/mineral crescent running from Libya to the Kamchatka Peninsula....imagine being able to drive from Tripoli to Vladivostok via Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Tashkent and seeing nothing but US flags and McDonald's and Starsux.
To achieve that, the US must have air, sea, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean to the 5 Central Asian States (Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan & Uzbekistan).
The only routes are through Iran or Afghanistan (with Pakistan as ally).
After 15 years, the US failed in Afghanistan.
The only two options left are Iran or the Baluchistan Gambit
US military superiority is smoke-n-mirrors, based entirely on its satellite and aerial recon capabilities. If Iranian missile capabilities are such that:
Iran can launch satellites negating the US technological advantage, then US loses
Iran has anti-satellite capabilities, then US loses
Iran has massed ballistic or non-ballistic conventional weapons, then US loses
Accurately assessing Iran's military capabilities is important, since Americans will not tolerate a large number of casualties.
If the Iranian option is out, then the US has no choice but to arm the Baluchs and foment revolution for an independence movement. An independent Baluchistan would give the US the access it needs, plus allow the US to operate at will in a renewed conflict in Afghanistan, without interference from the Pakis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
"Lieberman is known for his strong language." That's rich--calling for nuclear attack on Gaza is "strong language." He was a lawmaker at the time, and he became the Foreign Minister shortly after. Again, it is not in question that Israel has nuclear weapons. That fact is widely recognized, in spite of the policy of "nuclear ambiguity." Gaza is not a country, either.
Some people don't understand the importance of being rhetorical....
Obama has a lot of baggage concerning America. He believes this country has many past sins and it is deep rooted in his beliefs.
It does.
How about this...how about I bring an infantry battalion round to your community and escort a couple of guys in suits around who will harass and threaten and intimidate you into voting for Obama.
Would that be a sin?
Because that's exactly what you do in other States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Presidents can, and do, enter into long-term Executive Agreements. Here is a truncated list:
Status of Forces Agreements
Reciprocal trade agreements
Boundary agreements
Armistice Agreements
Agreements over Sinai
Vietnam peace agreement
Yalta & Potsdam
Strategic Partnership Agreements
Resolution of Iran hostage crisis
SALT I
Not a good list.
A better list would be JFKs Memorandum Of Understanding to deploy Jupiter missiles to Turkey. Or JFK's MOU to deploy Jupiter Missiles to Italy. Or Carter's agreement to deploy Pershing II and BGM-109G cruise missiles to Euro-States that were NATO members. Or Reagan's agreement to deployment those missiles specifically to Italy, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
Or nuclear weapons agreements between Greece, Turkey, Italy, Germany, Belgium, France, the Netherlands or the United Kingdom and the US, none of which were ratified or codified as treaties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
This and any other treaty should be subject to ratification.
It's not a treaty, no matter how much you protest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Executive agreements are between heads of state as heads of state--they are not between heads of state as individuals. As such, they do not end when one person's term ends. Article II, section 3, "he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers."
The (main) difference between a treaty and an Executive Agreement is that a treaty has at least the same status at law as a Congressional statute--meaning it is binding on every state and every judge. Article VI.
Further, the long practice of treaty negotiation in US history is this: the President negotiates a treaty. The treaty is brought before the Senate for "advice and consent" (read: debate and vote) and the President formally ratifies the treaty.
That's incorrect.
It is the Senate that approaches and advises the president on Treaties.
The States originally appointed Senators.
Why?
Your Constitution is a power-sharing arrangement between three groups: the People, the States and the federal government.
The people have the power to tax: all revenues bill must originate in the House.
What do the States get in return?
The power to approve/reject treaties and approve/reject appointments to The Cabinet (not the President's Cabinet....sorry...wrong).
It is the States who tell the President to go negotiate a treaty, not the President just goes and does it. The States tell the President they want a Friendship, Commerce & Navigation treaty with a foreign State; the President puts on his Chief Diplomat hat and goes to negotiate the basic framework; then the Secretary of State hammers out the details; and the Congress either approves or rejects it.
The difference between treaties and agreements is the enforcement mechanisms.
Treaties are government international laws, and have the same weight as a federal law, and generally specify punishments for violating the Treaty.
Agreements may or may not be government by international law; have no real weight; no mechanism of enforcement; and no punishment.
For example, Carter reached an agreement to deploy the Pershing II and BGM-109G GLCMs with certain Euro-States, but Reagan could have voided the agreement, with no penalty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Not ballistic missiles generally. Only ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear weapon. There is no public evidence of an Iranian missile program capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.
That's off base.
There is no difference.
The Pershing I, IA and II were intended to be nuclear only. No conventional warhead was ever built (and you can ignore the Federation of Ass-Clown Scientists and their silly nuclear, conventional or chemical classifications).
On the other hand, the Lance was intended to be both nuclear and conventional, but Congress (controlled by Democrats over the period in question) refused to allocate funding to build a conventional warhead.
The ACLMs, SLCMs and GLCMs were all originally intended to be conventional only, and were retro-fitted later with a modified PII warhead.
Not every missile design can be retro-fitted. The Nike-Ajax was originally conventional. The Army was unable to retro-fit any existing warheads, and all new warhead designs altered the performance specifications and characteristics of the missile, so the Nike-Hercules was built as a replacement.
That's one reason I keep asking the morons "What kind of nuke?"
Pakistan and India don't have the same kind of nukes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
They have short and medium range missiles which are not capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.
They are capable, but it would be pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Ballistic missiles can deliver conventional weapons in addition to unconventional weapons.
Iran's true capabilities are unknown with respect to its ballistic and non-ballistic missiles.
The US is greatly concerned with Iran's conventional capabilities, not its potential possible maybe perhaps nuclear capabilities.
Go look at seafloor charts for the Persian Gulf.
You got two carrier battle groups, plus an amphibious assault group, plus a British surface group in the Persian Gulf and the missiles start flying?
Them ships would run aground or collide or take the hit and sink. Doesn't really matter which.
Blackened charred bodies of US sailors floating around the Gulf won't go over too well on US TV...
Yes, it does. All of your nonsense is based on a State's relationship with Israel.
There is no international law stating that a State has to get approval from Israel before engaging in nuclear energy research.
Iran signed the NPT agreement and has violated the NPT by researching military venues. This has nothing to do with approval from Israel.
Quote:
Not relevant.
Furthermore, I've never seen any evidence to that effect. What I have seen is gross mistranslations disseminated for purposes of propaganda and disinformation. You know, like the "Fatty bin-Laden" Video, only different.
Not relevant!? Who are you again?
When one person threatens my life, I will take it seriously. Israel will also take threats seriously.
Save the miss translation speech, a simple google search will provide Iranian leadership threatening Israel.
Quote:
A nuclear energy program. You can't even get that right.
Nuclear Energy ≠ Nuclear Weapons
Please become up to date with the past 10 years of issues with Irans nuclear program.
Quote:
That does not negate the fact that Israel stole deuterium and tritium in an espionage scheme from the US.
Or that Israel stole data on the BGM-109Gs.
Or that Israel sold data on the BGM-109Gs to Russia in exchange for exit-visas for Jews.
Or that Israel engaged in espionage against the US, stealing communication data and data on nuclear attack submarine capabilities of the US and Britain.
And that Israel sold that data to Russia in exchange for exit-visas for Jews, and who knows what else.
If anything, Israel is a greater threat to the US than Iran is.
Nothing in the NPT should be construed as sacrificing one's security.
And nothing in the NPT governs ballistic missiles or other delivery systems.
That's where the IAEA is over-stepping its bounds.
The IAEA is not there to gather data on Iran's nuclear energy program, rather the IAEA is there to spy on Iran's ballistic and non-ballistic missile capabilities, including the potential for satellite deployment.
You do understand the problem, right?
No, you don't.
If you'd been in your Bradley watching Iraqi troop movements in real-time via satellite feed during the Gulf War, maybe you'd understand.
The IAEA evidence proves Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. That evidence is the fact that Iran is enriching uranium to 15%.
If you have to ask why, then it's and admission that you have ZERO understanding of things-nuclear.
No amount of research you do could ever make up for your lack of knowledge.
Iran signed the NPT agreement and has violated the NPT by researching military venues. This has nothing to do with approval from Israel.
Mixed, Iran has stated repeatedly that they are in compliance, as they can enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. I don't believe that is their intent for a second.
The other side of that is...neither are we really. Article VI of the treaty
Article VI of the treaty which “obligates the nuclear weapons states to liquidate their nuclear stockpiles and pursue complete disarmament." Funny...none of the nuclear armed countries are really in compliance with that.
Quote:
Not relevant!? Who are you again?
When one person threatens my life, I will take it seriously. Israel will also take threats seriously.
Save the miss translation speech, a simple google search will provide Iranian leadership threatening Israel.
My neighbor yells he hates my guts, and someday I will get mine. He has done this to all my other neighbors as well. He is apparently not the brightest. Do I then go grab a assault rifle, and shoot him?
Israel is trying to have us fight their battle for them. I have no interest in that.
Quote:
Please become up to date with the past 10 years of issues with Irans nuclear program.
You assume he isnt. While I disagree with Mircea a LOT, I mean a WHOLE LOT.....he seems to know this one pretty well. Better then I do I suspect.
Quote:
Lol... Ok buddy.
You have all the answers.
I encourage you to do more then roll over in your argument. Prove him wrong, facts, etc.
Mixed, Iran has stated repeatedly that they are in compliance, as they can enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. I don't believe that is their intent for a second.
The other side of that is...neither are we really. Article VI of the treaty
Article VI of the treaty which “obligates the nuclear weapons states to liquidate their nuclear stockpiles and pursue complete disarmament." Funny...none of the nuclear armed countries are really in compliance with that.
Quote:
My neighbor yells he hates my guts, and someday I will get mine. He has done this to all my other neighbors as well. He is apparently not the brightest. Do I then go grab a assault rifle, and shoot him?
Israel is trying to have us fight their battle for them. I have no interest in that.
You assume he isnt. While I disagree with Mircea a LOT, I mean a WHOLE LOT.....he seems to know this one pretty well. Better then I do I suspect.
I encourage you to do more then roll over in your argument. Prove him wrong, facts, etc.
Please review my 5+ pages of facts, sources, and critiques. I simply cannot repeat myself over and over and over. Specifically with Micea, if he refuses to acknowledge Iranian wrong doing, their is no basic ground to discuss anything.
Maybe you can prove your comment in bolded? No where in Bibi speech did he ask the U.S to go to war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
