Not exactly. It requires extraordinary events involving nuclear weapons that jeopardize the interests of the country.
"Deciding that they want to build nuclear weapons now" is not an extraordinary event that jeopardizes the interests of their country.
They can really just say that they feel threatened by a nuclear power threatening to bomb them and wish to join the nuclear club. They have no obligation whatsoever to remain in the treaty if they don't want to and history has shown that other nations can and have withdrawn and all we can do about it legally is sanction them.
That is incorrect. Iran has been illegally working on the development of nuclear weapons for decades.
No, you are overstating the case significantly. I don't dispute that their program is crafted so as to be useful for military means, but they have not yet weaponized any of it and what they have done so far is legal under the NPT.
Only if they have not already been developing nuclear weapons, and only if they can present a good reason for doing so.
You are simply factually incorrect about this, Iran has the legal right to withdraw whenever they want.
You can make the case that we need to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons outside the framework of the NPT but under the NPT they have the right to withdraw, it is a voluntary treaty with the explicit right to withdraw from it.
There would be no sanctions if they withdrew legitimately (i.e. for a good reason, and without having worked on nuclear weapons before withdrawing).
They face sanctions when their withdrawal from the treaty is illegitimate.
Incorrect, they would face sanctions no matter how they withdrew because that was the whole point of being in the NPT in the first place. The only carrot the world has for anyone being in the NPT is avoiding sanctions. No matter how they withdraw from the treaty the response would be sanctions. This is not necessarily stipulated by the NPT this is how the power calculus works.
Just as we used sanctions to get them to the table now (even as signatories to the NPT) that is the primary tool the world has to motivate any state to refrain from joining the nuclear club.
Have you forgotten how often the United States goes to war with other countries in order to uphold international law?
No, and given that the US has overextended itself it makes it even less likely to do so. Had the US not invaded Iraq there would be capital (both political and resources) for using the military as a response to Iran, but now there is not.
There is not any political capital for a ground war against ISIS and it took way too damn long for there to even be enough political capital to bomb ISIS.
Barring any huge changes we are just not going to go to war over Iran and nukes and would not even be willing to bomb them over it. The American public would have none of that right now, and that is not going to change for a while.
A simple bombing raid against a few nuclear sites would be "just another Tuesday morning" in the US.
This is a statement so absurd on its face that it really doesn't need any refutation.
Pakistan, like India and Israel, never signed the NPT. That means their development of nuclear weapons is perfectly lawful.
If Iran withdraws so will they be perfectly lawful, and we didn't go to war with North Korea either.
North Korea has a mass of artillery waiting to pounce on Seoul. It kind of deterred us. Luckily the world hammered North Korea with overwhelming sanctions. If not for those sanctions, the NPT would already be dead.
Iran has enough weapons ready to hit Israel too. We are just not going to get into a hot war with Iran unless they start it.
The only way I could prevent Mr. Trump from becoming president would be to go back in time and convince Mr. Obama not to pursue the 2013 gun control debacle.
You are being comically single-minded here, no that is not the only thing, it's just one of the only things that you
It's out of my hands I'm afraid. But Mr. Trump won't be all bad. We're finally going to see the end of this terrible assault against the Second Amendment.
That's just more wishful thinking, the tendency in the long term in the US as in the rest of the developed world will be for more gun control.
The notion that it is illegal to bomb an illegal nuclear weapons program seems... well it just fails to compute for me.
You are declaring it illegal as an ipse dixit, but you aren't who would adjudicate it. And even if Iran were in violation of the treaty the body that would have to declare it illegal or not and allow for a legal military response has two permanent members who would never do so.
Barring that the only way to argue a legal attack on Iran is self-defense and even you know that this would not be self-defense it would be pre-emption of capability.
Robert Gentel wrote:
The world is much more scared of the US as a rouge nation than Iran.
Those people are silly.
They are not, Iran does not have any way to change their life at all but the US does and has. The US is the sole superpower and what we do and even how our economy goes affects them all.
We have been throwing our weight around recently with tenuous substantiation (i.e. Iraq misadventure) and the world is legitimately worried about what we do.
You yourself think that Trump will destroy international trade, yet think that the world is silly to be worried about the US. These positions do not reconcile logically.
Pakistan's development of nuclear weapons did not violate the NPT.
Neither would Iran's they would presumably withdraw and face the sanctions. But do note that Pakistan was sanctioned none-the-less. The Clinton Administration sanctioned them and Bush lifted the sanctions in exchange for their cooperation post 9/11 with the campaign in Afghanistan.
North Korea's development of nuclear weapons carried harsh consequences (crushing sanctions). Had North Korea been allowed to develop nukes with no consequences, that too would have been the end of the NPT.
The same would happen with Iran. You really don't seem to understand how the NPT works. The whole thing basically goes like this:
Let's all agree to limit the nuclear club to the extant members and sanction the countries that violate this.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Anyone can be sanctioned whether or not they sign it if people decide to sanction them, and the whole point of the NPT is a sanctions club for
If Iran developed nuclear weapons and then faced harsh crushing sanctions like North Korea, the NPT would survive.
You aren't paying attention, Iran faced harsh crushing sanctions even while compliant with the NPT. They are at the table now because this has debilitated their economy.
So if they withdrew, or violated it, of course there would be harsh sanctions. They would be completely destroyed economically and this is the only thing that keeps them from joining the nuclear club.
If they are willing to endure those sanctions then there's nothing that will stop them short of an illegal invasion and occupation of their territory.
If any member of the NPT (including Iran and North Korea) were ever allowed to develop nuclear weapons with no consequences, that would be the end of the NPT. Once one country is allowed to get away with it, every other country who wants nukes will simply follow in their footsteps.
You aren't paying attention then, because every nation that joins the nuclear club since then has been sanctioned. That's how the whole thing works, yes.
They have not finished developing them, but Iran has worked on developing them for decades.
So do many other countries party to the NPT, that is not proscribed by the NPT. They want the nuclear technology and want it ready to weaponize but refrain from weaponizing it. Japan could have nukes much faster than Iran could.
We simply see Iran as a rogue state and are not willing to let them get close enough to where they could withdraw from the treaty and weaponize it quickly. We want more of a time buffer.
That is what this is all about, but if they wanted to weaponize they could just abandon the NPT and do so, and face the sanctions. But we've already sanctioned them while being compliant with the NPT so it is bloody obvious that they would face much worse sanctions if they were to withdraw and/or weaponize.
Any sanctions against Pakistan are unjust, as Pakistan's nukes are legal.
That's the only reason to join the NPT though. Why else would countries voluntarily do so? It is in their interest for there to be an NPT but it is not in any of their interest to join it. The sanctions are both the stick and the carrot that underpins the NPT.
Pakistan's nukes were legal, yes. The US sanctions were too. And no, none of this is "fair". The nuclear club denying new members is not inherently fair, and is not meant to be.
Any such sanctions though were not overwhelmingly crippling as they are with North Korea.
That's because North Korea is sanctioned for a lot more than just the nukes. The sanctions would exist independent of the nukes because the sanctions are aimed at the regime toward regime change or Korean unification.
If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, and was then to face crushing sanctions as in the case of North Korea, that would save the NPT. But we'd have to count on the world to really smash them hard with brutal sanctions.
You are so weirdly informed about parts of this while being so weirdly uninformed about other basic parts. We do not have to count on it, we've already had it. The world has been ready to sanction Iran to the point it had to come to the table and this is while they have been compliant with the NPT.
Their oil had to be sold on the black market, their economy was being crushed. This is all just from people who agree with us that they should not be allowed to develop break out capacity, even if they comply.
If they go so far as to weaponize, or to withdraw from the NPT, the sanctions would be more severe, involving more players and this is all very obvious. This is how the whole NPT thing works, and how it always has.
The thing about bombing and sanctions is that bombing only works before they develop nuclear weapons. Crushing sanctions are only applied after they develop nuclear weapons.
Both are demonstrably false. There are countries that have given up on WMD programs after the fact due to bombing (see Iraq) and there are countries that have been sanctioned prior to the development of nukes (see Iran, it was what just brought them to the table).
So if they are about to develop nuclear weapons, we would face a choice. If we don't bomb, we are gambling that the world will be willing to apply crushing sanctions on them after they develop nukes. If the world doesn't come through with those sanctions, then the NPT is gone.
If the world you live in is the same world I do then there's no reason for this fantasy. It's obvious what would happen and no need to speculate about it.
If Iran develops nukes it will face crushing sanctions. This is obvious to the whole world, including Iran as it is the only reason they do not do so.
Likely the decision on whether to bomb would be based on our sense of how willing the world would be to hit them with crushing sanctions. If we had high confidence that the world would be willing to use harsh sanctions to preserve the NPT, then it would be an easy decision not to bomb. But if it looked likely that they would be allowed to get away with building nukes without any consequences, then the case for bombing becomes much stronger.
There is no legal case for bombing them to prevent nukes. And there is no strategic case either. The sanctions obviously would happen and do work so there's no need for all this fantasy of yours.
I think you misunderstood. Before I can invest money, I have to have it to begin with. I could certainly invest a small amount and maybe pay for building my new computer (and I just might do that). But I don't have enough on hand to invest an amount that would produce returns that would change my life.
Your prediction is so absurd that it would be given odds that a small amount bet would change your life if you actually won. If you can bet computer sized money you would win house-sized money for winning that bet.
But don't go do it, I'm not encouraging you to throw money away. I really do think it's a good thing you aren't as confident with your money as you are with these predictions.