Question for US posters

getcover

This morning on Morning ireland, I heard a report that Hilary Clinton said yesterday that Iran was entitled to use nuclear power for heating etc., but Iran was not entitled to have nuclear weapons.
Now the report distinctly said she used the word "entitle".
Is it really up to the US Government to decide what an independent soverign country is entitled to and what it is not entitled to?

CathalMc

The UN security council has passed multiple resolutions calling for the halt of uranium enrichment in Iran, including sanctions packages, and deadlines-with-incentives packages.

The US is operating multilaterally on this as one of a number of countries in the security council who passed the resolutions. Iran, as a member state of the UN, has agreed to obey the resolutions of the security council under UN Charter Chapter V, Article 25.

ChocolateSauce

If we accept that there are certain tihngs within our societies to which we are not entitled- like dangerous weapons - we must also accept that there are some things which countries are not entitled to.

The current situation where some countries do have nukes and others do not is a hand-me-down from another time, which is slowly being addressed. Ideally, I think nuclear weapons should be illegal everywhere- as should any weapon designed to kill civillians.

bonkey

getcover wrote: »

Is it really up to the US Government to decide what an independent soverign country is entitled to and what it is not entitled to?

Nope...but they're not doing so in this case.

Iran is a signatory of the NPT. It is this treaty which defines what its entitlements are and are not.

Manic Moran

Iran was not entitled to have nuclear weapons.
Now the report distinctly said she used the word "entitle".
Is it really up to the US Government to decide what an independent soverign country is entitled to and what it is not entitled to?

I believe she was stating the official policy of the UN. You can argue that it's not the UN's position to grant entitlements either, mind, but it is much less controversial.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The current situation where some countries do have nukes and others do not is a hand-me-down from another time, which is slowly being addressed. Ideally, I think nuclear weapons should be illegal everywhere- as should any weapon designed to kill civillians.

How do you distinguish between a weapon designed to kill civilians, and a weapon designed to kill soldiers? I mean, I'm comparing the Beretta M9 that I have on my hip, with the Beretta 92FSB I can buy down the local gun shop, and I'm not really seeing the difference. And, frankly, I'd much rather have ammunition for said pistol which is designed for killing civilians in it: Expanding ammunition has been banned for military use, but it's much more effective against unarmoured targets at close range.

NTM

Overheal

As Cathal said, Iran is a member state and enjoys privileges afforded by the UN. Similarly its also bound to some Terms and Conditions.

I know it sounds hypocritical of the SecState of the US to say it but afaik we havent been building up the program since the cold war. there have been updates and all that but im not so sure about proliferation - thats what Iran is trying to do.

ChocolateSauce

Manic Moran wrote: »

I believe she was stating the official policy of the UN. You can argue that it's not the UN's position to grant entitlements either, mind, but it is much less controversial.



How do you distinguish between a weapon designed to kill civilians, and a weapon designed to kill soldiers? I mean, I'm comparing the Beretta M9 that I have on my hip, with the Beretta 92FSB I can buy down the local gun shop, and I'm not really seeing the difference. And, frankly, I'd much rather have ammunition for said pistol which is designed for killing civilians in it: Expanding ammunition has been banned for military use, but it's much more effective against unarmoured targets at close range.

NTM

I was referring specifically to military weapons, like biological ones, cluster bombs, and so on. The issue of domestic weapons is a different one, although I don't see the wisdom in allowing civilians easy access to assault weapons.

Overheal

Civilians have the right to arms in most countries (...) for lots of reasons. First being for national defense, but also balance of power issues. A government, in control of the Police and Military, will historically almost always bully around a populace that cannot defend itself. For instance if the Irish marched on the Dail, what would happen to that crowd if the gards were ordered to fire shots in the air? How many would disperse? Now take it back to the Tea Party Express: if DC police fired warning shots, how quickly do you think it would become a bloodbath from confusion? Which is exactly why DC police would never do that.

On a geopolitical scale, that is the very same Cold War issue. USA and USSR both had/have nukes. If one fires the other fires and Everyone Dies. If one has Nukes it will bully the other or simply just kill the other.

Something to think about. Im hungry so im not gonna meat out the rest. you know where I was going with this lecture

Manic Moran

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I was referring specifically to military weapons, like biological ones, cluster bombs, and so on.

Here's your problem though. Those weapons are designed for military purposes. Sure you can use them on civilians, but you can use a military-issue sidearm on civilians as well, if you had a mind to. Even nukes don't come purely on the civilian scale, tactical nukes are designed to be used, as the name implies, on the battlefield. (That said, I don't mind seeing biological weapons removed from stocks, but it's still valid to say they have a viable military use)

The issue of domestic weapons is a different one, although I don't see the wisdom in allowing civilians easy access to assault weapons.

What's an assault weapon?

By definition, isn't using any weapon an assault?

NTM