North Korea & Iran, two states in need of "regime change"

[fuji]

There you have it.
They have no weapons.

It's generally believed that they don't yet have weapons. They may not even be actively working on weapons. What they are doing is building the infrastructure necessary to create weapons, and that cannot be allowed unless that infrastructure is subject to a level of inspection adequate to guarantee it is only being used for peaceful purposes.

Are under inspections to confirm they aren't using uranium for weapons.

No. The inspections they are subject to right now are UNABLE to confirm that. There is a huge difference between the IAEA saying "we found no evidence" and the IAEA saying "we found no evidence, after a thorough inspection". At the moment with the lax inspections Iran allows it is possible the IAEA found nothing only because Iran has it well hidden.

Fill compliance with the Additional Protocol would provide some suitable guarantees that Iran is not hiding anything. It's not voluntary or optional for Iran, it is mandatory.

The UN SC is holding them to an agreement they didn't ratify.

Yes, and for a fucking good reason.

 

[flubadub]

It's generally believed that they don't yet have weapons. They may not even be actively working on weapons. blah blah blah the rest is equivication.

Score 1 for Iran and peace in the world.

No. The inspections they are subject to right now are UNABLE to confirm that.

Incorrect. The inspections might hide the infrastructure to build the physical bomb, but the centrifuges and radioactive material required to arm a bomb cannot be easily hidden and that's what the inspections show. They are not making fuel for bombs. The inspections CONFIRM that Iran is not building bombs.
Score 2 for peace.

Fill compliance with the Additional Protocol would provide some suitable guarantees that Iran is not hiding anything. It's not voluntary or optional for Iran, it is mandatory.

So would allowing the fuel swap deal to go through. Then Iran wouldn't be refining uranium and we'd know how much they had. But the US derailed that plan. And don't forget, the last time they tried a fuel swap, France took Iran's money and then didn't give them the fuel. And now we have stuxnet, assasinations of scientists (I know that makes Fuji tremble with joy) and sanctions.

Israel is making a mockery of the NPT, and for that they are destroying our ability to peacefully regulate nuclear usage.
That is terrorism.

 

[fuji]

Incorrect. The inspections might hide the infrastructure to build the physical bomb, but the centrifuges and radioactive material required to arm a bomb cannot be easily hidden and that's what the inspections show.

You haven't got the slightest foggiest clue what you are talking about. You really know absolutely nothing.

They are not making fuel for bombs. The inspections CONFIRM that Iran is not building bombs.

No they don't. The inspectors have not said that. They have only said that they don't have any evidence of bomb building, they CANNOT confirm that there isn't any bomb building unless the Additional Protocol is implemented. That's the point.

 

[landscaper]

There you have it.
They have no weapons.
Building the wepons is the easy part , while techically difficult due to the precision required any competent lab witha machine shop and the correct tooling can manufacture weapons on short notice.
The difficult part is the infrastructure to produce the materials and the tooling to get to the next stage. That is what the international concern is.

Are under inspections to confirm they aren't using uranium for weapons.
The inspections have been delayed, avoided and in some cases infrastructure was built and not disclosed until after completion and activation. This is contrary to both the NPT as well as the spirit of the law.

The UN SC is holding them to an agreement they didn't ratify.The UNSC is probably within its mandate to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Those are a security concern like NO OTHER ON THE PLANET. The incidence of other countries producing nuclear weapons following the development of "peaceful power development " has resulted in the deployment of nuclear weapons in areas of problematic control.

And they didn't threaten anyone, other then one oft used misquote.

The quote exists , and regardless of the context the basis of the quote is the oft repeated destruction of Isreal as a goal of numerous countries and terrorist groups in that part of the world. The availability of nuclear weapons or even "just " enriched " uranium or plutonium that could included into a standard dirty bomb is enough to cause blood pressures to rise in most parts of the world.

As to an earlier comment from RLD that Iran does not threaten the states.

FEDEX delivers overnight all over the world and a bomb in a container is one of the biggest nightmares of security officers all over the world.

 

[rld]

FEDEX delivers overnight all over the world and a bomb in a container is one of the biggest nightmares of security officers all over the world.

If you believe this is the test for legal use of force in the international community, the fact that a country could fedex a bomb to another country at any time, than you argue that any country can legally attack any other country at any time.

 

[fuji]

If you believe this is the test for legal use of force in the international community, the fact that a country could fedex a bomb to another country at any time, than you argue that any country can legally attack any other country at any time.

It is. It's the same as massing an overwhelming invasion force on the border. You could order it to attack, but any sane defending general isn't going to wait for that.

You don't have to wait until you're dead to fight back.

If you want an example, it's very similar to the US threatening to go to war over the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

[rld]

It is. It's the same as massing an overwhelming invasion force on the border. You could order it to attack, but any sane defending general isn't going to wait for that.

You don't have to wait until you're dead to fight back.

If you want an example, it's very similar to the US threatening to go to war over the Cuban Missile Crisis.

If you accept the "fedex" standard than you accept international anarchy. You have danced into irrational territory to support your worldview.

 

[fuji]

If you accept the "fedex" standard than you accept international anarchy. You have danced into irrational territory to support your worldview.

So in your ridiculously twisted world view, it's fine for terrorists to have nuclear weapons. That's not a threat to anybody.

 

[landscaper]

If you believe this is the test for legal use of force in the international community, the fact that a country could fedex a bomb to another country at any time, than you argue that any country can legally attack any other country at any time.

My point here is that being an ocean and several continents awy from a country with no ICBM capability does not nessisarily make you immune from the concept of an attack with WMD. The security issue becomes more acute when other factors are included, in the case of Iran, the government leadership is questionable, the chains of command are debatable, and the existance of a group that considers a martyrs death a reward all add up to a serious security problem on this particular issue.

When you add a nuclear capability to a religious fundamentalist government that is within range of Isreal you have a serious concern. The reason being the Isrealis will not allow Iran to complete weapons. And Isreal attacking Iran could start a much more serious war with a whole variety of countries and fanatics.

My point is that Iran's nuclear ambitions must either be stopped now, prior to a weapons system becoming viable or the nuclear program must come under supervision od an outside body that everybody trusts. As with North Korea, India and PAkistan stopping developement after the fact is impossible, and of those three countries India is the only one that I would consider anything close to stable. Who controls the weapons inPakistan? That is a question that has been floating around ever since they were announced, and yes it is the same security issues as with Iran, fundamentalists, questionable lines of command and control and a fragmented society. Not the mix that I would consider helpful when bomb loads are measured in kilotonnes.

As for Iran , stalling for time seems to me to be the best option, there is a widely based middle class in Iran and they almost pulled of an upset in the last election, if they can pull it off next time out and maintain control of the government they can probably be reasoned with and bring the program under proper supervision. Failing that or in the event they seem to be gettting to far along, destroying the centrifuge sites and the infrastructure going ginto the development sites will slow the development down, the down side is it will make the zealots even more furious than they are now.

Big problem , thats the best I have at the moment, comments and improvments are welcomed.

 

[rld]

So in your ridiculously twisted world view, it's fine for terrorists to have nuclear weapons. That's not a threat to anybody.

Show me where I said it was okay for terrorists to have nuclear weapons.

 

[rld]

My point here is that being an ocean and several continents awy from a country with no ICBM capability does not nessisarily make you immune from the concept of an attack with WMD. The security issue becomes more acute when other factors are included, in the case of Iran, the government leadership is questionable, the chains of command are debatable, and the existance of a group that considers a martyrs death a reward all add up to a serious security problem on this particular issue.

When you add a nuclear capability to a religious fundamentalist government that is within range of Isreal you have a serious concern. The reason being the Isrealis will not allow Iran to complete weapons. And Isreal attacking Iran could start a much more serious war with a whole variety of countries and fanatics.

My point is that Iran's nuclear ambitions must either be stopped now, prior to a weapons system becoming viable or the nuclear program must come under supervision od an outside body that everybody trusts. As with North Korea, India and PAkistan stopping developement after the fact is impossible, and of those three countries India is the only one that I would consider anything close to stable. Who controls the weapons inPakistan? That is a question that has been floating around ever since they were announced, and yes it is the same security issues as with Iran, fundamentalists, questionable lines of command and control and a fragmented society. Not the mix that I would consider helpful when bomb loads are measured in kilotonnes.

As for Iran , stalling for time seems to me to be the best option, there is a widely based middle class in Iran and they almost pulled of an upset in the last election, if they can pull it off next time out and maintain control of the government they can probably be reasoned with and bring the program under proper supervision. Failing that or in the event they seem to be gettting to far along, destroying the centrifuge sites and the infrastructure going ginto the development sites will slow the development down, the down side is it will make the zealots even more furious than they are now.

Big problem , thats the best I have at the moment, comments and improvments are welcomed.

Personally I would be quite pleased if Iran did not develop nuclear weapons.

I agree that if the current regime in Iran had nuclear weapons would be a "concern."

I just don't agree that the current facts as we know them provide the basis in international law to use force against Iran.

There is, to my eye, some reason for optimism that the moderates in Iran are gaining ground, and we should be supporting them, and undermining the fundamentalist regime as much as the law will allow.

But without more than the US State Department, and Fuji, calling the country a terrorist regime, I don't think we are close to having a right to invade Iran.

 

[fuji]

Show me where I said it was okay for terrorists to have nuclear weapons.

Ok, so then would you agree state sponsors of terrorism must be prevented from acquiring them?

 

[fuji]

I just don't agree that the current facts as we know them provide the basis in international law to use force against Iran.

I think you have minimal understanding of international law in this regard. This situation is no different than the Cuban Missile Crisis: Nuclear weapons are being acquired by a state which, for whatever reason (terrorism, proximity), threatens the security of other nations. Those other nations at that point have an absolute, unquestioned, sovereign right to defend themselves against that threat.

It is not the same thing in any way shape or form as some minor missile attack. The force delivered by a nuclear weapon is huge, it's the equivalent of having an invasion force massing on your border--such an enormous level of destruction is possible that a pre-emptive strike is not only justified, but required.

 

[landscaper]

For those who said the US was not threatened by Iranian weapons...

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1714/iran-missiles-in-venezuela

 

[rld]

For those who said the US was not threatened by Iranian weapons...

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1714/iran-missiles-in-venezuela

That is interesting news. Never heard of it until now. But if Iran was putting nuclear missles on Venezulan soil I would see that as justification for the use of force. Now that means doing it...not talking about it.

But just thinking aloud here...that sure sounds a lot like advanced placement of medium range missiles in Europe...

 

[rld]

Ok, so then would you agree state sponsors of terrorism must be prevented from acquiring them?

I think it is in the best interests of international stability for all nations who do not have nuclear weapons to be prevented from acquiring them, and in the best interests of international stability if some nations that have them, lose them, permanently.

I don't think this justifies the use of force.

I am not trying to dodge your question, but the term "state sponsors of terrorism" I don't think gets us anywhere. It also is impractical, because from time to time Russia, China and the United States have effectively sponsored or backed groups I would call terrorist and groups and regimes that engaged in mass violations of human rights.

For instance, the US backed both the Contras and UNITA, both groups that engaged in actions that I would call terrorist. But the US did not give them nuclear weapons.

So, to my mind, the US in 70, 80s, and 90s was a state sponsor of terrorism, and since we simply cannot prevent them from having weapons and we need a rule or philosophy to prevent this, we simply cannot base our rule on such a subjective term like "state sponsor of terrorism".

 

[flubadub]

Well put, Rid.

Fuji and the Israeli plan puts a mockery on modern attempts at negotiating peace. Their refusal to sign onto the NPT and their insistence on the right to bomb anyone they feel might be threatening them makes any future attempts at negotiating global peace useless. Who is going to sign onto the NPT now, if Israel can avoid it and build bombs and threaten people with them, while signing nations get the legal hassles and abuse while trying to use the rights given to them under the NPT.

Further, Israel's continual ignoring of UN resolutions, secret deals with the US for absolution at the UN SC play down the usefulness of the UN, and again make it harder to achieve peace in the world. Similarly, the US's abuse of the ICC, with them forcing countries to sign off on any rights to take the US to the ICC, make the ICC way less legitmate then it should be. And again, the US's insistance on gulags, torture, rendition, targeted assisinations etc have given it the reputation of an empire, rather then a police force.

If Israel does decide to attack Iran, it will end the NPT, and create havoc with the remaining institutions we have to deal with peace, along with murdering tens of thousands.

Fuji has yet to state his motives, but this much is clear. His refusal to budge from Israeli propaganda talking points, as if he was a part of the Reut Institute, have made it clear that this is more about Israel's future ability to attack Iran over resources then it is Iran's ability to take out Israel. Israel will for many decades have a clear advantage in nuclear weapons, and any attack from Iran would be suicide, both sides clearly know. What nuclear weapons would do is make it very, very hard for Israel to invade Iran. Given that by 2025 Iran and Russia will have 50% of the worlds remaining oil, Iran will also hold considerable natural gas and uranium, it will be quite resource rich at that time.

 

[landscaper]

That is interesting news. Never heard of it until now. But if Iran was putting nuclear missles on Venezulan soil I would see that as justification for the use of force. Now that means doing it...not talking about it.

But just thinking aloud here...that sure sounds a lot like advanced placement of medium range missiles in Europe...

It showed up on another board I follow. It is going to cause Obama some serious problems given the way congress is now leaning. I am also of the opinion that this could very well be the North Korean negotiating system in operation, blow something up or threaten to and then demand negotiations.

Either way it is going to cause the States problems and it could very well cause hostilities to break out in south and central america, Chavez's neigbours are nervouse enough as it is, he just bought a regiment of T72's from the Russians about 8 months ago.... and people are going to be asking why a small country with no apparant enemies needs all those toys....

 

[flubadub]

Either way it is going to cause the States problems and it could very well cause hostilities to break out in south and central america, Chavez's neigbours are nervouse enough as it is, he just bought a regiment of T72's from the Russians about 8 months ago.... and people are going to be asking why a small country with no apparant enemies needs all those toys....

Because they have oil, and they nationalized it.
That made a bunch of people quite unhappy.

 

[fuji]

So the concept of sovereign nations is foreign to you?

Nope. Iran can freely choose not to sign the Additional Protocol, in which case other sovereign nations will eventually invade it and implement regime change.