The United States and the World can not take the risk whether Iran has a Nuke or Not

[Toggle Almendro]

Except the treaty clearly states the signatory party determines what qualifies as "extraordinary events" for withdrawal.

The treaty clearly states that nations may only withdraw for reasons related to the subject matter of the treaty.

A legitimate reason for withdrawal would be if everyone else in the world started developing nuclear weapons.

Or if nuclear weapons powers started using their nukes to conquer nonnuclear states.

"I'm a rogue nation and I want illegal weapons" is not a valid justification for withdrawing.

 

[Questerr]

The treaty clearly states that nations may only withdraw for reasons related to the subject matter of the treaty.

A legitimate reason for withdrawal would be if everyone else in the world started developing nuclear weapons.

Or if nuclear weapons powers started using their nukes to conquer nonnuclear states.

"I'm a rogue nation and I want illegal weapons" is not a valid justification for withdrawing.

Or if a nation believed they needed nuclear weapons as deterrents to attack. That is part of the subject matter of the treaty.

 

[Ikari]

Holding nations to the NPT once they sign it is actually of vital importance. Letting everyone in the world have nuclear weapons will make nuclear war inevitable.

While I do think it's hard for any one given nation to tell another nation they can't have nukes, aggregately there is interest in limiting the amount of nuclear arms out there and by whom they are held by. This is true. And nations can agree to terms through treaties and such as well which may then give each participating nation an ability to check the other on whatever the conditions of the agreement are. However, these sorts of international treaties can be created and dissolved at whim, essentially, according to a country's procedure for entering into our out of international agreement. Fundamentally no one nation holds jurisdiction or authority over another sovereign state.

But I think the sanctions on NK would exist as they do now regardless of whether or not NK joined the NPT in the first place and then withdrew.

 

[Master Debator]

Everything old is new again. My parents used to send us down to Jamaica to stay with our grandparents when we were little and off of school and so I grew up learning American history and narratives in American school and then getting these anti American/ colonialism discussions that were way over my head at home. One thing that always stuck with me though was during all the nuclear proliferation talk in the 80s was my grandfather remarking how ridiculous and how full of hubris Americans were to act as the world's moral police on nuclear arms when we were the only country to ever use them against another nation. Now here we are again and I see Americans talking about how dangerous it would be for Iran to get a nuke as our President is considering using a tactical nuke against them and for what? This isn't self defense. More and more American culture just makes me sick. Its not only the depravity of it but the certainty of their righteousness.

 

[Pyrite]

If you let every nation in the world have nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before a nuclear war destroys civilization. And most likely, not very much time.

Post #375

Interesting. You want the USA to be the gatekeeper re a nation's accessing nuclear weapons (so that we don't "let every nation in the world" acquire them).

Explain, in detail, what actions you think the USA should take when a country is close to "having nuclear weapons". Be specific.

Also let us know on what basis the USA should determine which nations should be allowed to "have nuclear weapons" and which nations should be prevented from "having nuclear weapons". Again, be specific.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Trump, Who Promised No More Wars, Risks One With Iran

The stakes for America are high. Trump may well commit another generation of troops to the Middle East, diverting efforts to counter China

time.com

Warmonger Trump.

Trying his best to create more "suckers and losers" as he describes US KIA.

 

[Pyrite]

So their nuclear weapons are legal.



Once everyone on the planet has nukes, someone somewhere will use them.



I also have not mentioned the height of Mount Everest in centimeters.

Go figure.



Speaking of things that I have not done, I have not joined a bowling league either.

You've not been able to show that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranian leadership will present a greater danger than do those in the hands of Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan....

 

[Sandy Shanks]

According to Trump's Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon and the Supreme Leader has not authorized the resumption of a weapons program. This assessment is consistent with past intelligence reports.

It is quite likely that Iran does not want a nuke. Iran's bitter enemy, Israel, has between 75 to 200 nukes. (Israel does not publicize her nuclear stockpile.)

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Trump will decide whether or not the US gets directly involved in the Iran-Israel conflict within the next two weeks, the White House has said.

Somebody in the Trump administration has to be aware that Iran is far stronger than Iraq was in 2003, when the U.S. started the war with Iraq.

The Iraq War lasted eight years.

In the current Israel/Iran war Iran's ground units, armored units, air force, and naval units have not been touched. She still has plenty of ballistic missiles and drones. She controls terrorist organizations in Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and other Islamic states. She can shut off the oil passing through the Straight of Hormuz in a heartbeat.

Does Trump really want to shake this hornets nest?

 

[Sandy Shanks]

The Framers placed the President in command of America's military. They never imagined that Americans would be foolish enough to elect a man like Trump to the Presidency.

According to Trump's Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon and the Supreme Leader has not authorized the resumption of a weapons program. This assessment is consistent with past intelligence reports.

It is quite likely that Iran does not want a nuke. Iran's bitter enemy, Israel, has between 75 to 200 nukes. (Israel does not publicize her nuclear stockpile.)

When it comes to command of America's military, Trump is clueless.

Plus, he does not listen to anyone. His cabinet consists of fools, picked because of their loyalty, not their expertise. If Trump is dumb enough to get us involved in a Middle East war, America will be in big trouble.

Trump has rejected the intelligence from his director of intelligence because he did not like the intell. He cannot provide a basis for his rejection. For a President to reject intell because he doesn't like it is very dangerous.

With a remarkable lack of insight Trump says he will not use ground troops if he bombs Iran. The dumb-ass doesn't have a choice. The sixth grader next door knows we already have ground troops in the Middle East -- 40,000 of them to be exact.

Our commander, Trump, does not know this, but our ground units are well within range of Iran's ballistic missiles or are vulnerable to terrorist organizations controlled by Iran.

As the overall commander of military operations, Trump is either very stupid or he is lying to the American people. Take your pick.

Americans do know this about Trump. When it come to military operations, the President should keep his mouth shut. Trump doesn't even know that, and the enemy is listening to every word.

Trump is dangerous. As the President, he doesn't even know when to keep his mouth shut!

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Or if a nation believed they needed nuclear weapons as deterrents to attack. That is part of the subject matter of the treaty.

If they had a credible fear of nuclear attack, sure. But they do not.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Everything old is new again. My parents used to send us down to Jamaica to stay with our grandparents when we were little and off of school and so I grew up learning American history and narratives in American school and then getting these anti American/ colonialism discussions that were way over my head at home. One thing that always stuck with me though was during all the nuclear proliferation talk in the 80s was my grandfather remarking how ridiculous and how full of hubris Americans were to act as the world's moral police on nuclear arms when we were the only country to ever use them against another nation.

Was he suicidal? Letting everyone in the world have nuclear weapons is a fast track to nuclear war and the end of civilization.

The nuking of Japan was a great triumph of good over evil. One of America's proudest moments.

Now here we are again and I see Americans talking about how dangerous it would be for Iran to get a nuke as our President is considering using a tactical nuke against them and for what?

What are you talking about?? No one is planning to use a tactical nuke on Iran.

It is Israel who is talking about the dangers of Iranian nukes, and they are entirely correct.

This isn't self defense.

Sure it is. Iran's illegal nuclear program is an act of aggression. Israel is defending against that aggression.

More and more American culture just makes me sick. Its not only the depravity of it but the certainty of their righteousness.

America is not to blame for Iran's acts of aggression.

 

[Pyrite]

<snipped>

It is Israel who is talking about the dangers of Iranian nukes, and they are entirely correct.

Post #387

What specific dangers has Israel cited re "Iranian nukes"?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Interesting. You want the USA to be the gatekeeper re a nation's accessing nuclear weapons (so that we don't "let every nation in the world" acquire them).

Where do you get this nonsense from?

Israel serves just fine as Iran's gatekeeper.

Explain, in detail, what actions you think the USA should take when a country is close to "having nuclear weapons". Be specific.

We should sit back and watch CNN footage of Israel bombing Iran.

Also let us know on what basis the USA should determine which nations should be allowed to "have nuclear weapons" and which nations should be prevented from "having nuclear weapons". Again, be specific.

Already answered more than a dozen times. Tired of repeating myself.

You've not been able to show that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranian leadership will present a greater danger than do those in the hands of Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan....

I've also not joined a bowling league or shaved my head.

 

[Lovebug]

Its unacceptable risk.

The point of no return has been crossed.

The United States needs to finish this. We must reach a confidence level to where we can reasonably conclude Iran does hot have a nuclear weapon or the capacity to make one any time soon.

What say you. Is it worth the risk to do nothing?

Ok, if we take enough money out of SS, MC and MA, perhaps we could pay for the big, beautiful parade but then we would have to ask DOGE for even more funds to be just as ineffective as we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let's say we get enough funds and then we do what?
What say you?

 

[Lovebug]

Post #375

Interesting. You want the USA to be the gatekeeper re a nation's accessing nuclear weapons (so that we don't "let every nation in the world" acquire them).

Explain, in detail, what actions you think the USA should take when a country is close to "having nuclear weapons". Be specific.

Oh yes, I want a detailed plan as well.

Also let us know on what basis the USA should determine which nations should be allowed to "have nuclear weapons" and which nations should be prevented from "having nuclear weapons". Again, be specific.

 

[Pyrite]

<snipped>


Already answered more than a dozen times. Tired of repeating myself.

Post #389


No, you've not pointed out what are the especial "dangers" of Iran's acquiring nukes, save to meander about lots of other countries' also acquiring nukes.

And something about "illegality".....as if "illegal" nuclear weapons are inherently more dangerous than those lobbed by, say, North Korea, China, Russia....

 

[Toggle Almendro]

According to Trump's Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon and the Supreme Leader has not authorized the resumption of a weapons program. This assessment is consistent with past intelligence reports.
It is quite likely that Iran does not want a nuke.

Nonsense. They were not producing uranium and plutonium to make washing machines.

Somebody in the Trump administration has to be aware that Iran is far stronger than Iraq was in 2003, when the U.S. started the war with Iraq.

Iran's ability to harm Israel seems pretty superficial. They are pretty good at whining though.

I expect that as soon as Israel runs out of targets to destroy, Iran will look for a way to quietly surrender.

 

[Questerr]

If they had a credible fear of nuclear attack, sure. But they do not.

Nuclear weapons don’t just deter nuclear attacks.

Also are you saying Israel would never nuke Iran?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The United States is bombing Iran.

 

[trixare4kids]

Yes.
As of today, I am, however, relieved, happy, the powers that be in our country are giving Iran a second chance. Everyone deserves a second chance.

Hopefully, Iran when push comes to shove, will give peace a chance.

I guess they didn't want to give peace a chance.

 

[Goshin]

Why do you believe that?

Iran didn’t even use WMDs on Iraq when Iraq used them on Iran first.

Poison gas is one thing.

Nukes are the big thing. Israel is tiny, a few nukes would destroy the place. Nukes could seriously damage the US.

They've been saying death to America and Israel since I was a kid.... have you not been listening? They're fanatics.

 

[Questerr]

Poison gas is one thing.

Nukes are the big thing. Israel is tiny, a few nukes would destroy the place. Nukes could seriously damage the US.

They've been saying death to America and Israel since I was a kid.... have you not been listening? They're fanatics.

How many Ayatollahs have conducted suicide bombings in history?

 

[VySky]

As it turned out. Indeed, it was unacceptable risk to say with the status quo.

 

[devildavid]

If they had a credible fear of nuclear attack, sure. But they do not.

How is this credible fear objectively determined? Should Ukraine be allowed nukes because of threats made by Putin to use nukes? Is that a credible fear?