Iran Nuclear Deal Near, Diplomats Say

[Athanasius68]

Which, of course, is not something that I did say.

Quite frankly I'd be just as happy if all of the nuclear weapons in the world were turned into chocolate ice cream.

Would you please tell me when the government of the United States of America was put in charge of what every country in the world may, or may not, do?

I didn't say that you were indifferent to a nuclear armed Iran. I asked if you were.
Stating contentment with all nukes being turned into chocolate ice cream is a dodge.
That isn't the issue. The issue is a nuclear armed Iran.

If there is as much reason to be concerned about a nuclear armed Iran as a nuclear armed Canada, so be it.
But I don't think you think that would be true.
I certainly wouldn't think so.

So we apply different values of concern of who has nukes.

And which leads into the question asked-- if not the USA trying to keep rogue countries from getting nukes, then who? Canada? The UK?
How about Russia or China?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I didn't say that you were indifferent to a nuclear armed Iran. I asked if you were.
Stating contentment with all nukes being turned into chocolate ice cream is a dodge.
That isn't the issue. The issue is a nuclear armed Iran.

OK.

I am NOT "content" that ANY country has nuclear weapons.

Does that answer your question?

However, I do recognize the reality that more than one country does have nuclear weapons.

PS - Can you tell me what improvement in "treat effectiveness" you get if you say "I have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all life on Earth 10 times." over "I have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all life on Earth 5 times."?

If there is as much reason to be concerned about a nuclear armed Iran as a nuclear armed Canada, so be it.

On balance, considering that the US would turn Iran into a vast, glass paved, self-illuminated parking lot if Iran actually used nuclear weapons, and also considering that the Iranian leadership knows that, and considering that there is no gain to be gotten out of deliberately killing off your entire population, the odds that Iran would use nuclear weapons in anything other than a "second strike" role are about as low that Canada would do so.

But I don't think you think that would be true.
I certainly wouldn't think so.

I quite understand that you have swallowed the official party line that Iran is populated by nothing but minions of Satan.

So we apply different values of concern of who has nukes.

And which leads into the question asked-- if not the USA trying to keep rogue countries from getting nukes, then who? Canada? The UK?

See above concerning "official party line".

How about Russia or China?

Russian and China have not told any country that they are permanently banned from having nuclear weapons - have they?

 

[multivita-man]

The only thing I am interested in, as to this deal, is how to make it binding on the part of the United States. If that issue is not addressed, then we'll simply go back on our word the next time government control changes hands because the R's cannot accept any policy created by a D, even if it were a policy they'd otherwise support. And all that will do is yet further erode the credibility of our word. I'd rather we have no deal and let Iran develop nuclear weapons, than sign a deal that's going to be undone in 3 years.

Iran probably addressed that by enriching enough uranium and making enough advances that the timetable for achieving a nuclear arsenal would be short. From Iran's perspective that's a good thing, but it also be a bad thing if a future administration tangles with Iran and assumes the worst of their intentions right off the bat.

 

[phoenix2020]

Personally, I don't see a long term solution other than (a) people who want nuclear weapons get them or (b) everyone gives up their nuclear weapons. Since (b) is clearly not going to happen since nuclear weapons are what give the nuclear club so much clout and safety, I think it's inevitable that more and more parties over time will have access to such munitions. Therefore, what we need to evolve toward is a global order wherein the use of such weapons is disincentivized.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Personally, I don't see a long term solution other than (a) people who want nuclear weapons get them or (b) everyone gives up their nuclear weapons. Since (b) is clearly not going to happen since nuclear weapons are what give the nuclear club so much clout and safety, I think it's inevitable that more and more parties over time will have access to such munitions. Therefore, what we need to evolve toward is a global order wherein the use of such weapons is disincentivized.

Not that it would actually happen, but how about a binding treaty amongst all nuclear armed nations that ALL of them will nuke the crap out of ANY nation which used nuclear weapons OUTSIDE of their own territorial boundaries?

Of course, to make that REALLY happen then you would have to have people from "Country B" (and probably "Country C", "Country D", ... and "Country Y" as well) with the ability to launch the nuclear weapons of "Country A" should "Country Z use nuclear weapons OUTSIDE of its own territorial boundaries - even if "Country A" and "Country Z" were the same country AND you should probably make it so that it would take people from more than one country in order for "Country A" to launch its nuclear weapons at any target OUTSIDE of its own territorial boundaries.

As I said, "not that it would happen".

 

[phoenix2020]

Not that it would actually happen, but how about a binding treaty amongst all nuclear armed nations that ALL of them will nuke the crap out of ANY nation which used nuclear weapons OUTSIDE of their own territorial boundaries?

Of course, to make that REALLY happen then you would have to have people from "Country B" (and probably "Country C", "Country D", ... and "Country Y" as well) with the ability to launch the nuclear weapons of "Country A" should "Country Z use nuclear weapons OUTSIDE of its own territorial boundaries - even if "Country A" and "Country Z" were the same country AND you should

Hmm.

Maybe.

On the other hand, this is the sort of line of thought that leads to put-it-under-computer-control which of course leads to Skynet.