Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

Well, by being secret, their nuclear program is clearly weapons-related. And by being weapons-related, their nuclear program is clearly illegal. So what is wrong with calling it an illegal program?

But the dismissal of appeasement is always justified in my opinion, because it never works. It only makes matters worse.

oralloy wrote:

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.

I doubt that keeping a legal nuclear program secret is a violation of the NPT.

But I see that Setanta squeezed a post in, so basically what Set says....

Setanta wrote:

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

I consider it a violation to use the NPT to gain nuclear technology in bad faith, planning to later develop a weapon.

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.

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

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.

I doubt that keeping a legal nuclear program secret is a violation of the NPT.

But I see that Setanta squeezed a post in, so basically what Set says....

It is not the secrecy itself that it illegal. The secrecy shows that it is weapons related, and it is the weapons-relatedness that is illegal.

You fail to establish that all approaches which are not military constitute appeasement. Once again, you have failed to answer the charge.

oralloy wrote:

>>Well, by being secret, their nuclear program is clearly weapons-related. And by being weapons-related, their nuclear program is clearly illegal. So what is wrong with calling it an illegal program?

>It does not follow that something we dont know about must be related to building a nuclear bomb.

>Do you want war with Iran? Is that what its about?

>To take control of another bunch of middle eastern oil fields?

Setanta wrote:

You fail to establish that all approaches which are not military constitute appeasement. Once again, you have failed to answer the charge.

My appeasement comment is premised on my belief that Iran will not be dissuaded from their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

It is my belief that any other action will just create a delay which will allow Iran to further their program while the world does nothing to stop them.

I expect that this belief cannot be proven true or false without actually trying such measures and letting history play out. To me, it is not worth the risk.

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

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.

I doubt that keeping a legal nuclear program secret is a violation of the NPT.

But I see that Setanta squeezed a post in, so basically what Set says....

It is not the secrecy itself that it illegal. The secrecy shows that it is weapons related, and it is the weapons-relatedness that is illegal.

No. The secrecy doesn't show that it is weapons related, if by "show" you mean "prove". It's a fair assumption, but then you are proposing to nuke Iran based on assumptions. Which would be stupid, and the political backlash for America would be even more undesirable than a nuclear Iran.

...an attempt to end the program by military means has little prospect of success short of the use of nuclear weapons. That the use of nuclear weapons makes a mockery of international law and cooperation, and makes the world an immeasurably more dangerous place. That any military solution which does not involve complete and effective occupation of Iran cannot assure that such a program would not be again begun. That all moves which tend to isolate and threaten Iran work to the favor of the current regime. That all moves which engage Iran, even in so feeble a manner as a regulated embargo, tend to strengthen internal Persian resistance to the current regime. Once again, you are likely not to pay the price of ill-considered military adventurism--how easy for you to recommend it.

oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:

You fail to establish that all approaches which are not military constitute appeasement. Once again, you have failed to answer the charge.

My appeasement comment is premised on my belief that Iran will not be dissuaded from their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

It is my belief that any other action will just create a delay which will allow Iran to further their program while the world does nothing to stop them.

I expect that this belief cannot be proven true or false without actually trying such measures and letting history play out. To me, it is not worth the risk.

Even were all of that true, it does not constitute evidence that non-military solutions constitute appeasement. You are either incapable of or unwilling to acknowledge that there are other means of dissuading them which do not entail military action.

What backlash?

Somehow, I doubt that convincing them they don't need nuclear weapons will be very easy.

US Ambassador John Bolton said: "The key to this lies in Iran's hands." He added: "If they give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, a lot of things are possible. If they continue to bluster and to threaten and obfuscate and try to throw sand in our eyes, then we're onto a different circumstance."

Our nuclear weapons are clean, accurate, and can be deployed with a wide range of yield. The weapons could be delivered by a wide variety of vehicles, and the loss of civilian life might be kept to relatively low numbers.

From the NYT report

Quote:

"The article contains information that is inaccurate," said Michele Ness, a spokeswoman for the Central Intelligence Agency. She declined to elaborate.

Would be more than interesting to know exactly what.