22-04-2004 19:02									#61
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: So in terms of Nukes in the ME, should Iran drop out of the NPT and openly declare an intention o develop nukes? After all, they have an openyl nuclear neighbor, unlike Irsae, and face hostility from two other nuclear states (Israel and the US)-and they lack a conventional superiority againt them so heck, Iran has as many valid reasons for NUkes as Israel has. And heck, they already face US sanctions, sho big whoop.

In terms of geopoliticial worthiness, I think this would be a worthy canditate for a strategy.

I'd pursue nukes too, if I am some dictator, or such.

	22-04-2004 19:13									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Israel is not a dictatorship-it persued nukes. UK and the US and France, all ditto.

Iran, dictator or not, has a hundred reasons to get nukes. So does Egypt, Syria, Iraq, heck, everyone with real interests internationally that can afford nukes has a reason to get them if anyone else has them.

	22-04-2004 19:23									#63
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by GePap Iran, dictator or not, has a hundred reasons to get nukes. So does Egypt, Syria, Iraq, heck, everyone with real interests internationally that can afford nukes has a reason to get them if anyone else has them.

Yes, they have the full right to do so.

And we have the full right to bomb them.

	22-04-2004 19:28									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

NO, you don't. You see, Israel can have nukes becuase it never signed the NPT deal. Other states simply can leave the NPT deal and be free to make them if they aquiace to the consequences from members of the NPT. (so in that respect, as PLATO said, Israel get a free ride)

By your thinking, Syran and Egypt, in fact, any of your neighbors has every right to bomb diamona. So I assume you would understand it if a few Syrian SCUDS went off in the Israeli desert-I mean, they have every right.

	22-04-2004 19:41									#65
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: By your thinking, Syran and Egypt, in fact, any of your neighbors has every right to bomb diamona. So I assume you would understand it if a few Syrian SCUDS went off in the Israeli desert-I mean, they have every right.

More or less. Bombing Dimona now is pretty useless since it will cause total war and Israel will still have it's nukes. But if it were 1956 now and I was Egypt, I would've done everything within my power to destroy the reactor. For them, it is an existential threat.

	22-04-2004 19:48									#66
	Increase the size of your Attachments

So you are claiming one state has the right to start a full out war to destroy an enemy if that enemy is building up?

So by your logic, if Tommorrow the Syrians begun emptying their cities to save as many people as possible, then launched a full WMD attack on as Many Israeli cities as possible then no one could fault Syria for doing it (they had every right), only perhaps question their tactics in terms of their ability to actually win?

	22-04-2004 19:50									#67
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Azazel I am talking about a real law, you know, one that is enforced.

International law isn't real law? It is for every country that doesn't have a member of the UN Security Council to block any resolution enforcing the law. The fact that Israel is a special case, and international laws don't apply to it, just shows how protected it is by US bias.

	22-04-2004 19:53									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Drogue International law isn't real law?

Only to the extent states care to enforce it.

	22-04-2004 19:54									#69
	Tired of ads?

quote: Israel is not a dictatorship-it persued nukes. UK and the US and France, all ditto. Iran, dictator or not, has a hundred reasons to get nukes. So does Egypt, Syria, Iraq, heck, everyone with real interests internationally that can afford nukes has a reason to get them if anyone else has them.

different situation. Israel pursued nukes in the midst of the cold war, after being threatened with them by the SU, AND not recieving a nuclear umbrella from the US.

	22-04-2004 19:56									#70
	Full PM-box? Change here!

So THAT"S why the French gave you nukes!

	22-04-2004 19:58									#71
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Azazel different situation. Israel pursued nukes in the midst of the cold war, after being threatened with them by the SU, AND not recieving a nuclear umbrella from the US.

So?

why would Iran, dictatorship or not, NOT need nukes?

Are you saying If Israel make a final peacedeal with Syria, it will dismantle its nukes?

	22-04-2004 20:18									#72
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc So THAT"S why the French gave you nukes!

Hey you! Stop badmouthing us! We never gave nukes to anybody!

We sold them

	22-04-2004 20:37									#73
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Iran is certainly free to withdraw from the NPT and develop nukes. That much is clear in the treaty. However, the consequences of making both the US and Israel feel threatened would most likely not be in their best interests. I would imagine that the open development of nukes by Iran would draw some kind of ultimatum from the US regardless of who the Prez is. We have way to much interest in that area to let an openly hostile state develop nukes. Yes I am talking blood for oil. Our economic life could depend on containing Iran and the cost of that could be much greater in the long run than simply destroying their nuclear capability. Right choice?...Who knows-But I'll bet that would be the conventional wisdom.

	23-04-2004 00:13									#74
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: the real problem is that iran and at that time iraq were developping nukes of their own. and even the israeli governement saw the hypocrisy in protesting the fact that an islamic country was devlopping nukes, while they were building their own.

wrong.
Iraq under Saddam was warmongering and expansionist (Kuwait, Iran, anyone?) and used WMDs (against it's own, and iirc against Iran).

Iran is expansionist. It's first objective is the export of the Islamic (shiite) Revolution. Once it has nukes, it will be safe from any possible attack to stop its religious expansionism.

Iran currently funds Hezbullah, the Revolution Guards, palestinian terrorism.

	23-04-2004 00:23									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Let me explain to you peaceniks, why the current status quo when Israel supposedly has nukes and Arab states don't, is the best thing for peace in the ME.


What is the purpose of nukes? To deter a war.

Prior to 1973, The Arabs kept on attacking Israel. In 1973, Israel reportedly threatened to use nukes, and the USA and USSR urged Arab states to stop their advancement.

Since 1973, the ARab states have been reluctant to use military power against Israel, and instead have war by-proxy using Palestinian or Lebanese terrorist organizations.

So, Israel having nukes, is a deterrent to war in the ME. (With exceptions for Israeli started wars, like the 82 Lebanon campaign. But that can be solved using US pressure, since Israel is much dependant on the US right now that it ever was).

What if Iran has nukes?

Syria no longer fears to openly attack Israel, because Israel now can not use it's nukes or its full military power, because once Syria begins losing, Iran will threaten to use nukes.

	23-04-2004 00:26									#76
	Inflate your Upload Space

PLATO:

The US would have no right for any ultimatum period-we can't threaten states for actions totally within their sovereign rights, even if we dislike them. An attack of ours short of invasion would NOT end their drive for nukes, and in the end only assure Iran did get nukes at the end, simply to avoid another US attack.

Unless the US wants to claim states can go to war solely becuase their inetrest warrant it. Which of course would be to retroactively santion both of Saddam's invasions, since both were well within his sphere of interests.

	23-04-2004 00:28									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by GePap PLATO: The US would have no right for any ultimatum period-we can't threaten states for actions totally within their sovereign rights, even if we dislike them. An attack of ours short of invasion would NOT end their drive for nukes, and in the end only assure Iran did get nukes at the end, simply to avoid another US attack. Unless the US wants to claim states can go to war solely becuase their inetrest warrant it. Which of course would be to retroactively santion both of Saddam's invasions, since both were well within his sphere of interests.

I agree that they would have no legal right. Nonetheless...

	23-04-2004 00:31									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

They do matter-as the huge problem in Iraq shows today. Legitimacy of action matters. As I said, only a fully invasion would really allow the US to end fully any nuclear program-that would not occur. So any US attack or ultimatum would simply excelarate the drive to get them. Look at the fact the US has not had the legitimacy to think about hading NK an ultimatum for doing the very same thing.

Besides, the US would probalby not even be able to tell when Iran got nukes-just as we failed to catch the USSR, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea.

	23-04-2004 00:35									#79
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap They do matter-as the huge problem in Iraq shows today. Legitimacy of action matters. As I said, only a fully invasion would really allow the US to end fully any nuclear program-that would not occur. So any US attack or ultimatum would simply excelarate the drive to get them. Look at the fact the US has not had the legitimacy to think about hading NK an ultimatum for doing the very same thing. Besides, the US would probalby not even be able to tell when Iran got nukes-just as we failed to catch the USSR, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea.

Legitamacy? What would the world reaction be if we had KNOWN that Saddam had nukes? You wouldn't see the problems you see now...that's for sure.

My guess is that the world would come up with some way to make it legit for the US to clean up the problem, be happy we did it, and chastize us for being unilateral.

	23-04-2004 01:36									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

So have the Israelis acknowedged this chap as a hero yet for revealing to their arab neighbours that Israel has this great deterrent?

	23-04-2004 01:37									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: So? why would Iran, dictatorship or not, NOT need nukes? Are you saying If Israel make a final peacedeal with Syria, it will dismantle its nukes?

I am not saying that they don't need nukes! They sure as hell need them! I mean, Israel, and Pakistan, and Russia, and the US... With such a adventurous ( is that a neutral word? I don't want to spark a meaningless debate) administration in the White House, you can never be too safe! If I am Ayatollah #1, I'll sure do whatever I can to get them.

That doesn't mean that I am not a supporter of bombing the **** ouf of their nuclear program, if possible.

	23-04-2004 01:44									#82
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by PLATO Legitamacy? What would the world reaction be if we had KNOWN that Saddam had nukes? You wouldn't see the problems you see now...that's for sure.

Yes, but Saddam having nukes would have been against international law. If iran left the NPT it would not be illegal for them to have it.

quote: My guess is that the world would come up with some way to make it legit for the US to clean up the problem, be happy we did it, and chastize us for being unilateral.

I highly doubt it-no one was willing to Bat for Saddam becuase he was isolated and in the penalty box already. Iran is not, and I doubt the US would even get basing rights to invade Iran.

	23-04-2004 03:32									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: So have the Israelis acknowedged this chap as a hero yet for revealing to their arab neighbours that Israel has this great deterrent?

The arabs know that for quite some time before Vaanunu.

	23-04-2004 04:01									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: At the same time, he was studying philosophy at Ben Gurion University, which many experts say contributed to a change in ideals.

Looks like he's another one of ours.

Good on him. Nuclear weapons suck and the possession of them by rogue states like Israel is even worse.

Isn't it funny that someone with the moniker "PLATO" should be expounding a "might is right" philosophy, one that his famous namesake refuted in the Gorgias and Republic.

Come to think of it, Vanunu was probably reading those works.

	23-04-2004 06:34									#85
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Isn't it funny that someone with the moniker "PLATO" should be expounding a "might is right" philosophy, one that his famous namesake refuted in the Gorgias and Republic.

No, no. You misunderstand. I didn't say it was right...just that it was reality.

	23-04-2004 06:54									#86
	Support Apolyton

quote: No, no. You misunderstand. I didn't say it was right...just that it was reality.

Not true either. People have largely learned that it is a self defeating set of values, as will the Israelis in time.

	23-04-2004 07:06									#87
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by GePap So? why would Iran, dictatorship or not, NOT need nukes? Are you saying If Israel make a final peacedeal with Syria, it will dismantle its nukes?

Will the UK or France dismantle their nukes? They've got far less direct threat on them then Israel does, even with a peace treaty with Syria.

	23-04-2004 07:13									#88
	Full PM-box? Change here!

DP

	23-04-2004 07:15									#89
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

As to declaring nukes for deterrence - while declaring it would give more deterrent power, Israel already had enough deterrent powers when the leaders of certain countries were aware of the capability. Declaring it for the world would almost be like "gloating" (especially if you only intend to use the nukes as a last resort) and would just exacerbate tensions and put more pressure on those countries (especially pressure from it's peoples) to develop their own nukes - which would significantly lower the detterent power. Just look at history - US gets nukes, Russia, England, France and lastly China hurry up and get their own. Same thing with India/Pakistan.

	23-04-2004 07:45									#90
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

It's worth knowing for the hypocrisy value alone.