Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

Any nuclear weapons program is illegal for Iran under the NPT, so if we assume it is a weapons program, we are assuming it is an illegal program.

It would be Iran's fault though, for putting their illegal nuclear program in such a deep bunker.

Well, they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Going for nuclear weapons would constitute a breach to that treaty. You could call that "illegal" if you wanted to. I would. Other people would probably disagree, generally speaking, that violating international treaties/international law constitutes an illegal act.

Then again, Iran could withdraw from the NPT and continue to develop nukes. Again, no "illegal" action.

Then again, Iran could withdraw from the NPT and continue to develop nukes. Again, no "illegal" action.

Thank you for answering my question.

oralloy wrote:

Any nuclear weapons program is illegal for Iran under the NPT, so if we assume it is a weapons program, we are assuming it is an illegal program.

Absolutely. Under the NPT. So, as long as they don't withdraw from the NPT, they wouldn't be allowed to develop a nuclear weapons program. However, that's not what you said. You said

oralloy wrote:

It would be Iran's fault though, for putting their illegal nuclear program in such a deep bunker.

See? You said "their illegal nuclear program". That's what I took issue with.

old europe wrote:

Then again, Iran could withdraw from the NPT and continue to develop nukes. Again, no "illegal" action.

That would work if they had only started to develop nukes after withdrawing from the NPT.

However, their weapons program has been going on for years, all while they have been a member of the NPT. Simply withdrawing from the NPT cannot legitimize such a program that has already broken the law.

old europe wrote:

Then again, Iran could withdraw from the NPT and continue to develop nukes. Again, no "illegal" action.

That would work if they had only started to develop nukes after withdrawing from the NPT.

However, their weapons program has been going on for years, all while they have been a member of the NPT. Simply withdrawing from the NPT cannot legitimize such a program that has already broken the law.

The other assumption is that any solution to the putative problem which is not a military solution constitutes appeasement. That is a statement on his part without foundation.

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

Then again, Iran could withdraw from the NPT and continue to develop nukes. Again, no "illegal" action.

That would work if they had only started to develop nukes after withdrawing from the NPT.

However, their weapons program has been going on for years, all while they have been a member of the NPT. Simply withdrawing from the NPT cannot legitimize such a program that has already broken the law.

From what I can understand from OE has already said in these last few post, Iran as of this point has not broken the NPT because they are allowed to have nuclear power for energy purposes.

Setanta wrote:

The other assumption is that any solution to the putative problem which is not a military solution constitutes appeasement. That is a statement on his part without foundation.

I believe that Iran fully intends to get a nuclear arsenal, and that military force is the only thing that can stop them.

It also seems likely that a nuclear weapon that will produce very large amounts of fallout is the only way to destroy their bunker outside Isfahan.

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

Then again, Iran could withdraw from the NPT and continue to develop nukes. Again, no "illegal" action.

That would work if they had only started to develop nukes after withdrawing from the NPT.

However, their weapons program has been going on for years, all while they have been a member of the NPT. Simply withdrawing from the NPT cannot legitimize such a program that has already broken the law.

That's right. However, they could enrich uranium to the 5% level without breaking the NPT. They could build a heavy-water plant without breaking the NPT. What has been going on for years can reasonably be called a nuclear program, but not necessarily a "nuclear weapons program". Everything they have been doing so far is in accordance with the NPT.

oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:

The other assumption is that any solution to the putative problem which is not a military solution constitutes appeasement. That is a statement on his part without foundation.

I believe that Iran fully intends to get a nuclear arsenal, and that military force is the only thing that can stop them.

It also seems likely that a nuclear weapon that will produce very large amounts of fallout is the only way to destroy their bunker outside Isfahan.

You are entitled to your beliefs. However, this is not the religious forum, and discussing personal beliefs rather than facts (no matter how desirable or undesirable from an individual point of view) is not very productive. In my humble opinion.

That does not answer the charge. That you (safe from the immeditate consequences thereof) favor a military solution, and the use of nuclear weapons against the Persians does not constitute evidence that any other solution constitutes appeasement. Since the days of Neville Chamberlain, the term appeasement has been used as a sneering dismissal of those with whom one disagrees. It is a canard.

They could do that without breaking the NPT if they were doing it to achieve peaceful energy.

The secrecy of their program shows that they are not pursuing peaceful energy. That means that they are violating the NPT.

No, it means that it is highly likely that they intend at some point to violate the non-proliferation treaty.

It does not constitute evidence either that they have already done so, or even that they intend to do so. I think it likely that they are running a weapons program--however, i know the difference between the adverbs likely and certain.

I am not talking about my religious beliefs. I am talking about my beliefs regarding Iran's intentions.