The War on (Nuclear) Proliferation

bonkey

If one is to believe the US Administration, then preventing nuclear proliferation is a serious priority.
It is simply untenable, we are informed, to allow any nation to obtain nuclear technology without the necessary safeguards and so forth. In its struggle against proliferation, the US has urged nations around the world to cooperate with it and each other in ensuring a better future.

To be honest, its hard to disagree with this policy. I don't agree with how they're going about it, and I'm not sure it can ultimately succeed, but international cooperation to limit the spread of weaponised nuclear technology....pretty much a good thing.

Iran announced its wish and intent to enrich, who offered to cooperate fully with the IAEA as per its treaty obligations. This was unacceptable. This cannot be allowed to continue. The threat of them "pulling a fast one" is simply too great.

This policy, I'm not so sure about, but I can accept that there is an argument to be made about how not all nations are equally untrustworthy and how the reality is that we must keep an especially close eye on them, despite any and all "all nations and peoples are equal" idealism we may have.

So when a nation like Switzerland approaches the US for help into investigations regarding a suspected international smuggling ring, with connections to Abdul Qadeer Khan (google if you don't know who he is) and the (now aborted) nuclear-weapons program in Libya...what would you imagine the response would be?

You got it in one: The US showed how serious they are in their prevention of proliferation, by ignoring the requests.

The cynic in me is wondering if its the case that nuclear proliferation is one of those things that must be stopped....but not too early in the process. There's little-to-no benefit to be had from preventing nations outright from effectively starting nuclear programs, compared to what can be gained from letting them get partway down the road and then hitting them like a ton o' bricks.

Sponge Bob

Jawzus Bonkey . I thought for an instant you were back as mod :eek: and were finally Declaring War on the dope propoganda wing of the Shinners and their thread proliferation in here . My heart sank .

Can you amend the title of the thread to "The War on Nuclear Proliferation" please , I don't want to ask that earthman to do it in case he bans me instead of a deserving dopey shinner ....

As for the Iranian issue the cat is out of the bag already I'd say.

Nobody will attack a proliferator once they manage their first test (Pakistan) or were fully prepared to do their first test as a live simulation (N Korea and Seoul) .

Libya is of course an ally in the coalition of the willing and non evil folks for the unending 1000 year something or other .....whatever and the Swiss are not !

bonkey

Sponge Bob wrote:

Jawzus Bonkey . I thought for an instant you were back as mod :eek:

:eek: is right.

Can you amend the title of the thread to "The War on Nuclear Proliferation" please , I don't want to ask that earthman to do it in case he bans me instead of a deserving dopey shinner ....

When you put things so eloquently, how could he possibly take offence?

But yeah....I edited it...just to keep you happy.

Brought flashbacks of when I was a mod....I need to go lie down.

jc

Sleipnir

The U.S. administration's stance on non-proliferation is a complete front in my opinion. It's designed purely to keep America as the superpower.

How can they decry Iran's attempts to create a nuclear weapon while at the same time agree a technology knowledge transfer on nuclear weaponry with Pakistan?
They also ignored India when they tested a nuclear weapon so now we have two huge countries with a history of military conflict who have nuclear weapons. No problem with proliferation there because niether are on the "axis of evil" (yet)

It's the nuclear club; nothing to do with preventing terrorists with getting them.

So Glad

Considering the amount of countries that have DEFINITLY done the west wrong with weapons of mass destruction, I can see no country that is a threat to me and my country. If I looked around at the world and based my fears on a country that has attacked before and with nuclear weapons, I would fear America, for lets not forget, America is the only country to have EVER used a nuclear bombs on other human beings. Who is the REAL threat?

In my opinion. We are in a peroid of peace. Who is REALLY trying to harm us an our possesions? Who REALLY hates "our freedoms", that we simply don't have anyway? There is no such thing as freedom to begin with because humans are not free beings within themselves.

What country has announced an attack on our soil, or even a full scale invasion? Every country wants peace. You hear it all the time, yet America is still shivering in its boots, pointing the finger to people, who up untill then, lived in relative peace. America is the only enemy of America. They need to work this out or else we will all become the enemy at one stage.

Sponge Bob

bonkey wrote:

:eek: is right. When you put things so eloquently, how could he possibly take offence?

Thanks Bonkey , feels good that Nuclear Proliferation is now Go and Dopey Shinner Proliferation Is Ongoing .

Moriarty

So Glad wrote:

Considering the amount of countries that have DEFINITLY done the west wrong with weapons of mass destruction, I can see no country that is a threat to me and my country. If I looked around at the world and based my fears on a country that has attacked before and with nuclear weapons, I would fear America, for lets not forget, America is the only country to have EVER used a nuclear bombs on other human beings. Who is the REAL threat?

You? Peter Pan? People who are unable to appreciate context or anything more than the most blindly obvious?

So Glad wrote:

In my opinion. We are in a peroid of peace.

I suppose the 21 ongoing wars just emphasise this glorious period of world peace..

So Glad wrote:

Who is REALLY trying to harm us an our possesions? Who REALLY hates "our freedoms", that we simply don't have anyway?

I dunno. Living in a perpetual No-One-Will-Ever-Hurt-Us frame of mind would seem to be pretty naive and wreckless from my perspective. There's little disputing that there are various people around the world involved in terrorisim who have 'The West' as their target. That includes ourselves and many countries we would count as allies. The disputable part would be exactly how much of a threat they are. I wouldn't be able to answer that for certain, and neither would you with any reliability as neither of us know exactly what the situation actually is.

So Glad wrote:

What country has announced an attack on our soil, or even a full scale invasion?

We saw how well sitting back and waiting for agressive nations to invade before reacting worked at the begining of WW2. Costly lessons have been learned well, I dare say.

mcgarnicle

So Glad wrote:

Considering the amount of countries that have DEFINITLY done the west wrong with weapons of mass destruction, I can see no country that is a threat to me and my country. If I looked around at the world and based my fears on a country that has attacked before and with nuclear weapons, I would fear America, for lets not forget, America is the only country to have EVER used a nuclear bombs on other human beings. Who is the REAL threat?

In my opinion. We are in a peroid of peace. Who is REALLY trying to harm us an our possesions? Who REALLY hates "our freedoms", that we simply don't have anyway? There is no such thing as freedom to begin with because humans are not free beings within themselves.

What country has announced an attack on our soil, or even a full scale invasion? Every country wants peace. You hear it all the time, yet America is still shivering in its boots, pointing the finger to people, who up untill then, lived in relative peace. America is the only enemy of America. They need to work this out or else we will all become the enemy at one stage.

Profound, all you need is a microphone, a sandwich board, some poorly written pamphlets and a nice spot on Henry Street...... then the revolution BEGINS!!!!!!!

Sponge Bob

The only 2 countries that gave up a viable Nuclear program were South Africa , voluntarily after Apartheid and Libya under strong pressure after Khan was arrested in Pakistan and spilled the beans .

SA had the bomb and _may_ have detonated one way down south in the Atlantic, possibly in conjuction with their then big mates in Israel.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/rsa/nuke/index.html

They were force to cancel other planned tests (not their build program now , just the test program) in the 1970s.

Great site below on the subject of WMD programs . Nuclear is only the tip of the iceberg , I think a rogue Bio program would probably be worse if it went wrong .

http://www.fas.org/

Gurgle

Moriarty wrote:

I suppose the 21 ongoing wars just emphasise this glorious period of world peace..

Afghanistan is currently peacefull then, thats good.

Moriarty wrote:

Living in a perpetual No-One-Will-Ever-Hurt-Us frame of mind would seem to be pretty naive and wreckless from my perspective.

Uh-huh.
Get your retaliation in first then?

Moriarty wrote:

There's little disputing that there are various people around the world involved in terrorisim who have 'The West' as their target.

Why?
Is it because the 'west' has for the last century left them to follow their own destiny, providing technological help, famine relief, even peace-keeping forces when needed?
Or is it because the 'west' has interfered and taken advantage in every possible way, pillaging natural resources, funding coups, arming rebels, more recently enforcing 'regime changes'.

Victor

Gurgle wrote:

Afghanistan is currently peacefull then, thats good.

Huh?

wikipedia wrote:

2001-present United States invasion of Afghanistan

Actually that list is rather stale as a "war" list, with several of the conflicts very low level or in peace talks.

Gurgle

Victor wrote:

Huh?

doh!

Moriarty

Gurgle wrote:

Uh-huh.
Get your retaliation in first then?

Did I say that? No. I said it's wise to keep an eye on potential threats instead of walking around with our heads in the clouds oblivious to any possible future problems.

Gurgle wrote:

Why?
Is it because the 'west' has for the last century left them to follow their own destiny, providing technological help, famine relief, even peace-keeping forces when needed?
Or is it because the 'west' has interfered and taken advantage in every possible way, pillaging natural resources, funding coups, arming rebels, more recently enforcing 'regime changes'.

That's all pretty much irrelevant in a strictly security-centric approach. Or do you advocate that war, pestilence and famine be brought on us unopposed by them to restore the natural balance of suffering? The fact remains that there are still people out there wishing to cause harm to various western societies.

Gurgle

Moriarty wrote:

Or do you advocate that war, pestilence and famine be brought on us unopposed by them to restore the natural balance of suffering?The fact remains that there are still people out there wishing to cause harm to various western societies.

Do you believe there is a credible threat to Ireland from Iraq having nukes?

Where have you heard anybody justify terrorism as 'restoring the balance of suffering'?

Do you honestly believe that:

If the 'West' had never interfered in middle-eastern politics, there would be this problem now?

Further interference (read: military action) is going to make it better?

Maybe going to the table with Iran saying 'What are you worried about? How can we relieve your fears?' would be a bit more constructive.

Instead, the message being clearly broadcast to every potential enemy is 'Build Nukes, before its too late'.

Every military attack leaves innocent people dead.
What could possibly be a stronger motive for a suicide bomber than burying his family?

Modo06

Nuclear Weapons.... oh what to do?? maybe everybody should get one that way we are all equal. Its obvious i think to everybody no matter how US dress it up that they want to be the only hyperpower in the world. I have watched this saga unfold from quite a distance and i think that Iran are holding all the Aces! The UN are trying to give all the sweeteners but they aint going to work. Iran are playin hardball. They have as much to fear from the US as the US do from Iran. I really believe that Tony Blairs suggestion of a have a central point were all the uranium is enriched and they given upon request is a truly good idea that deserves some thought.

Moriarty

Gurgle wrote:

Do you believe there is a credible threat to Ireland from Iraq having nukes?

Where did I (or anyone else) mention Iraq?

Gurgle wrote:

Where have you heard anybody justify terrorism as 'restoring the balance of suffering'?

Nowhere. I'm making the point that past actions are pretty much irrelevant when you're talking specifically about security policy.

Gurgle wrote:

Do you honestly believe that:

If the 'West' had never interfered in middle-eastern politics, there would be this problem now?

Further interference (read: military action) is going to make it better?

No, I don't believe that and I didn't say that either. I'm saying that when you're talking about protecting your country from external threats, how people became hostile is fairly irrelevant to actually protecting against them in the present day. The history lessons are for the political and diplomatic sides of government - the branches which actually decide how to conduct future relations around the world.

Gurgle wrote:

Maybe going to the table with Iran saying 'What are you worried about? How can we relieve your fears?' would be a bit more constructive.

It could be. Then again, the EU, Russia and the US were in talks with Iran for years about the nuclear issue before it heated up noticeably earlier this year. Apparently that didn't do much to resolve the matter.

Gurgle wrote:

Instead, the message being clearly broadcast to every potential enemy is 'Build Nukes, before its too late'.

That message was obviously there years ago though, since all these nuclear programs are well advanced. A. Q. Khan's network was operating for many years trading nuclear secrets before it was discovered. This isn't a recent (ie. it predates 9/11 and afghanistan/iraq invasions) development.

Gurgle wrote:

Every military attack leaves innocent people dead.
What could possibly be a stronger motive for a suicide bomber than burying his family?

I'd agree. It's not as black and white as that though. Political and military leaders don't usually send troops into a meatgrinder for no reason at all. They obviously believe that their course of action is better than leaving things be.

bk

It is quiet well known in military circles that the US military and government have two goals at the moment:

1) Nuclear Primacy

This means the ability to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against any country, to be able to destroy that countries military infrastructure, so that it can't retaliate.

2) Ensure no other military power raises to match US military power like happened in the Communist days when we had Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).

The US involvement in Iran has a lot to do with the second goal and ensuring that no Middle Eastern power has the ability to block US access and control over oil there.

bonkey

Moriarty wrote:

I'm saying that when you're talking about protecting your country from external threats, how people became hostile is fairly irrelevant to actually protecting against them in the present day.

Why do you believe this is always the case? Is it not like saying that it doesn't ever matter how someone got ill, all that matters is curing the symptoms?

Could it not be the case, for example, that the external threat can be negated (ar least partially if not totally) by dealing with the causes it became a threat in the first place?

The history lessons are for the political and diplomatic sides of government - the branches which actually decide how to conduct future relations around the world.

They'd also be the branches currently deciding what course of action needs to be taken in dealing with threats (perceived and real). You can't seperate the two.

It could be. Then again, the EU, Russia and the US were in talks with Iran for years about the nuclear issue before it heated up noticeably earlier this year. Apparently that didn't do much to resolve the matter.

Look at the latest "offering" from the US. Once again its a case of "give us what we want (stop enriching), and we'll discuss how to reward you". Iran is asking for negotiations on the opposite grounds - "let us agree what Iran must do to be allowed continue with enrichment". Iran was (and probably still is) quite happy to sit through such impasse-defined negotiations while it continues with its enrichment plans.

Neither side seems interested in moving to resolve the matter, but Iran is in the position that while the stalemate remains, it is little different to Iran having negotiated what it wants - the ability to continue.

This is the dilema facing the other powers. They want Iran to back down, but there doesn't seem to be a carrot that will do the trick and they're (apparently) not willing to consider any other option than ultimately replacing the carrot with another stick.

RedPlanet

Modo06 wrote:

I really believe that Tony Blairs suggestion of a have a central point were all the uranium is enriched and they given upon request is a truly good idea that deserves some thought.

Sounds interesting.
But could become a political football.
Besides, we all know USA would never give up their uranium enrichment to some collection of foreign powers.

Modo06

bbc.co.uk/news
On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said "as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table".

I think Iran should wait till the US are at the table. Its typical stall tactics from the US. If Iran do come to the table and stop enrichment the politcal proccess will draw out for months, by which the time the US will be able to regroup as they start pulling forces out of Iraq. Maybe im being to negative and this is a genuine effort to come to some sort of agreement.

Manic Moran

I think it's something of a compromise position. Until now, the US has refused to sit at the same table as Iran, relying solely on the intermediaries of the EU.

All it's asking Iran to do now is comply with the existing requests of the international community and work with the IAEA in the same manner that Iran had been doing before announcing non-compliance, before going to face-to-face talks. It really doesn't seem that unreasonable a position to me.

NTM

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

I think it's something of a compromise position.

Indeed. Something of a compromise position, but not much.

Until now, the US has refused to sit at the same table as Iran, relying solely on the intermediaries of the EU.

Yup. And now what they're saying is that they're willing to sit at the same table to negotiate after Iran has given them what they want.

I really don't understand this "capitulate and then we'll negotiate" approach.

Right now, while Iran continues with its enrichment activities, any stalling of the talks process (without them being completely abandoned) is to Iran's benefit. The US is basically saynig that the only conditions it will negotiate under is a reversal of this situation, where it gets what it wants in advance, and then where every stalling of the negotiations is subsequently to the US' benefit.

All it's asking Iran to do now is comply with the existing requests of the international community

Thats not true. All its asking Iran to do is to accept that the conditions of the international treaty it signed are not, in fact, applicable because the international community has informally decided so.

At the same time, its complaining that while this impasse has been reached, Iran isn't living up to its side of the exact same treaty by allowing the IAEA in.

So its "pay what you agreed to pay, but you're not getting what this payment is supposed to buy".

and work with the IAEA in the same manner that Iran had been doing before announcing non-compliance,

Iran's reason to work with the IAEA in the first place is the very treaty that explicitly gives it permission to carry out enrichment. In refusing to accept Iran's right to enrichment, the international community gave Iran every possible excuse to stop complying with the treaty that was no longer being honoured.

Its still trying to be spun as a situation where Iran should honour its requirements under the treaty, even while being explicitly refused the benefits that honouring these requirements is supposed to entail.

It really doesn't seem that unreasonable a position to me.

I guess its a matter of perspective.

Rice was very clear yesterday that this "US will come to the table" is no offer of normalisation of relations, nor anything other than a one-off, very short-term offer to deal with a specific problem.

That problem is that the US wants Iran to honour one half a treaty whilst refusing to engage in activities that such honouring fo the treaty is supposed to allow it to do, in order to negotiate how to lose those rights permanently.

Fundamentally, I don't see what Iran gains from this, so I don't see how its not unreasonable.

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

I think it's something of a compromise position. Until now, the US has refused to sit at the same table as Iran, relying solely on the intermediaries of the EU.

All it's asking Iran to do now is comply with the existing requests of the international community and work with the IAEA in the same manner that Iran had been doing before announcing non-compliance, before going to face-to-face talks. It really doesn't seem that unreasonable a position to me.

NTM

Would USA do the same thing in the reverse?
You know, say...close down Guantanamo Bay because (certain countries) of the international community request it?
Actually that's not really comparing like with like since Iran are perfectly entitled to enrich uranium.
The point is, USA would not discontinue anything just because a handful of unfriendlies request it.
It would be "weak".

Gurgle

Manic Moran wrote:

All it's asking Iran to do now is comply with the existing requests of the international community

Iraq complied with the requests of the international community.
They destroyed all WMD.
They allowed inspectors in to confirm that.
The international community in the form of the UN never authorised military action.
And just how well has that worked out for Iraq?
Would you, as an Iranian follow their example?

North Korea built nukes.
Hows that working out for them?
Are they looking out the window waiting for the US tanks to roll into Pyongyang?

Iran's policy is a direct reaction to the current state of international politics.

Jimboo_Jones

Manic Moran wrote:

All it's asking Iran to do now is comply with the existing requests of the international community and work with the IAEA in the same manner that Iran had been doing before announcing non-compliance, before going to face-to-face talks. It really doesn't seem that unreasonable a position to me.

NTM

Last time Iran stopped enrichment for serveral months, and the talks that they had during that time lead to absolutly nothing. So Iran are now being asked to stop all enrichment again, then get it verified, then the US will at least sit at the same table as them.

I also guess that America would be able to drag the process of verifying that Iran had indeed stopped enrichment for many months, if not years, before they would have to actually sit at the same table with them. Then of course they could just turn to Iran offer them nothing.

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

Would USA do the same thing in the reverse?
You know, say...close down Guantanamo Bay because (certain countries) of the international community request it?

More relevantly, would they close Guantanamo in order to negotiate what to be given in return for closing Guantanamo?

Gurgle

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

America would be able to drag the process of verifying that Iran had indeed stopped enrichment for many months, if not years

or announce that they had evidence of Iran building/stockpiling/using WMDs and invade.

Its easy to prove you have something, you show it.
How do you prove you don't have something?

Manic Moran

What is the goal of either Iran or the US on this?

Iran, presumably, will either have the goal of peaceful nuclear power, or of nuclear weapons. In the case of the former, then the demand is not that enrichment be stopped, it's just that the IAEA be allowed to make sure that it's not going to weapons production. So meeting the US position doesn't stop them. If it's the latter, then meeting the US position could be an issue for them. Even if the requirement were that Iran stop all enrichment, with or without international monitoring, what does Iran lose in the short term? Six months more reliance on fuel oil instead of the atom? Is that such a big deal in the great scheme of things? It's not an irreversible situation.

On the other hand, what is in it for the US to create an unreachable position? Create an excuse to invade? I think it's pretty self-evident that the US is not in a position to casually invade another country right now. There is little point in the US creating a Cassus Belli to invade if it can't really do it even if the excuse exists, except in a most egregious circumstance. Similarly, it can't be seen to be just knuckling under. "Oh, you're working towards a bomb, OK, we'll jump on one leg and bark like a dog just to get you to talk about not making a bomb, even if as we're talking, you're still making one. And by the time you've made it, we still haven't agreed how big the flags should be on our tables" (That agreement took some weeks in Panmunjom, if you think I'm being facaetious). With sufficient time, the end result could be a nearly irreversible situation of Iran having nukes.

NTM

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

Iran, presumably, will either have the goal of peaceful nuclear power, or of nuclear weapons. In the case of the former, then the demand is not that enrichment be stopped, it's just that the IAEA be allowed to make sure that it's not going to weapons production.

Where is this coming from? None of the players have said that they're perfectly happy to allow Iran to continue enrichment for peaceful purposes. They have all said that Iran cannot be trusted to continue enrichment even for peaceful purposes because they do not believe its intentions are purely peaceful/energy-related.

The US has said that Iran has consistently failed to supply assurances that its only for peaceful purposes, but I'm not sure what it qualifies as assurances given that Iran has repeatedly stated that this is its goal....but I've never seen any nation put a hurdle up and say "meet these conditions and we've no problem with you continuing."

If anyone, indeed, has set such a target, its Iran. Iran has offered to allow the IAEA back in, to inspect and monitor its enrichment process to the milligram, as long as it can continue with the enrichment. This is Iran's opening position in negotiations and its the one the other players refuse point-blank to consider.

So seriously...where is this notion that "if its for peaceful purposes, they'd be allowed to continue" coming from? At a guess, if it has been said by the west, its never been qualified with how Iran can prove its only for peaceful purposes.

Again, it would be the classic situation of "prove its not for weapons research". Just like Saddam was asked to "prove you don't have WMDs". You can't prove such things.

what does Iran lose in the short term?

Its strong negotiating position, which is fundamentally what the US et al want to take off it.

I've even seen a number of commentaries which assert that the whole issue is about negotiating positions because the only significant impact of Iran obtaining nuclear weaponry is the shift in negotiating strength such an acquisition would bring.

More importantly, Iran gains nothing....so what reason is there for it to comply? Because it makes the US Administration happier peopel? Given the two nation's history in the last 3 decades, that would seem counter-intuitive.

It's not an irreversible situation.

By that token, neither is the US position. There's no question that Iran is years away from a nuke even if the enrichment is for weaponisation, so why are the other players so adamant that Iran needs to stop now and quickly in order to negotiate? Its not that urgent, nor would any agreement to commence negotiations while processing continues be any more irreversible than Iran meeting the demands would be.

On the other hand, what is in it for the US to create an unreachable position?

Quite a lot, not least of which is getting a chunk of international big boys on its side in its almost-30-year-old policy of opposing everything Iranian.

Create an excuse to invade? I think it's pretty self-evident that the US is not in a position to casually invade another country right now.

You wouldn't see the need to go to war coupled for the first time in livibng memory with the lack of resources to do so as a gain?

Not even for the PNAC and its dreams of a slow military buildup brought about by....wait a minute.....

There is little point in the US creating a Cassus Belli to invade if it can't really do it even if the excuse exists, except in a most egregious circumstance.

And there's even less point in the US turning around and saying "the Iranians can do what they want...we don't really care about proliferation". So they're kinda stuck twixt Iraq and a hard place.

Similarly, it can't be seen to be just knuckling under. "Oh, you're working towards a bomb,

It would be a help if they could show Iran is working towards a bomb (not was working towards....not wishes it had one...but is actively trying to acquire one). Thus far, the allegations that this must be for weapons research has even less evidentiary support than the existence of Iraqi WMDs had.

But Iran hasn't been beaten up and boxed in like Iraq was, so its scary enough that we seem to be willing to jettison the burden of proof in favour of believing the scary threats again.

With sufficient time, the end result could be a nearly irreversible situation of Iran having nukes.

Indeed. The sufficient time being apparently put at about 5 years to acquire a whole first bomb....by the very experts that are advising the likes of Mr. Bush & co.