Tatsuma: Iran tried to buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan as early as 1987

Ask your own damn government to bomb Iran and leave us the fark out of it.

Tatsuma: Iran tried to buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan as early as 1987

When did Israel get their Nuclear weapons again?

Tatsuma: Iran tried to buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan as early as 1987

A) Pakistan had nukes in 1987?
B) Twenty years is a long time.
C) We're not Iran's keeper.

I thought the UN was only allowed to send strongly worded letters.

I'm not even remotely concerned about Iran developing nuclear power, and anything we do to try to stop them beyond strongly worded letters will only serve to bolster support for the Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. Let the people topple their totalitarian government, and then maybe we can negotiate reasonably with a democratic regime.

Good, maybe they'll take the Israel problem off our hands.

So we're all for countries meddling in the affairs of other countries, as long as the country being meddled with isn't us?

Tatsuma: Yes, a parliamentary democracy that doesn't constantly threaten to destroy a neighbour is the same as a repressive theocracy that threatens to destroy a neighbour periodically.

Nice dodge.

Tatsuma: democracy

*snort* Just so long as you have the right mother.

Tatsuma: Yes, a parliamentary democracy that doesn't constantly threaten to destroy a neighbour is the same as a repressive theocracy that threatens to destroy a neighbour periodically.

How many times has Iran projected power using their military in the region versus Israel?

Tatsuma: Hey, both America and North Korea have nuclear weapons. Obviously Obama = Kim Jong-Il

I think the point of the previous question was whether or not Israel had nukes before Iran got all uppity in the late 70's

Tatsuma: Hey, both America and North Korea have nuclear weapons. Obviously Obama = Kim Jong-Il

No, but Bush certainly was.

I think the leaders of all nuclear and aspiring nuclear nations should take a group tour of the A-bomb museum in Hiroshima and they should be greeted by a binding non-proliferation/disarmament treaty at the end. If they don't want to sign, they can be shot and thrown in the river.

You know, subby, this "strongly worded letter" framing has always bothered me.

When one administration mouthpiece or another says anything critical about Israeli government policy, a whole lot of people freak out. "The Obama administration isn't supporting the only democracy in the middle East!"
"This is the sort of internal division that weakens the west in the face of Islamic aggression."
"How DARE the BBC compare the actions of the IDF to those of the Palestinian terrorists!"

But when subjecting Iran or whoever to censure, it's always:
"Is that the best you can do, Nancy, a letter?"
"Next they'll take Venezuela off their Christmas card list."
"Those people don't respect us because all we do is talk."

So tired.

NobleHam: support for the Khamenei and Ahmadinejad.

Bah, typos.

Tatsuma: Antimatter: When did Israel get their Nuclear weapons again?

Yes, a parliamentary democracy that doesn't constantly threaten to destroy a neighbour is the same as a repressive theocracy that threatens to destroy a neighbour periodically.

Thanks for pointing that out!

I think the point is more that both the parliamentary democracy and the repressive theocracy should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. The United States opposes proliferation to ALL countries that did not already openly have them in 1970. Also, we could argue about whether Israel constantly threatens to destroy a neighbor, but that argument has been played out many times already, and I'd rather not turn this into an Israel thread.

brichter: I think the leaders of all nuclear and aspiring nuclear nations should take a group tour of the A-bomb museum in Hiroshima

It seems to me that would be a great place to have wax figures repeatedly hit by heat lamps...

vernonFL: They *were* both born under mysterious circuimstances.

Kim Jong Il has yet to produce his birth certificate...

Tatsuma: DarnoKonrad: *snort* Just so long as you have the right mother.

There are no Arab MPs in the Knesset, including one of them from Balad yesterday who called for the destruction of Israel through a new 'intifadah'. Good to know!


Anecodotes (new window) prove things!

Tatsuma: Antimatter: When did Israel get their Nuclear weapons again?

Yes, a parliamentary democracy that doesn't constantly threaten to destroy a neighbour is the same as a repressive theocracy that threatens to destroy a neighbour periodically.

Thanks for pointing that out!

see GIS for "Gaza"
for bonus understanding points, add search terms "hospital," "children," and "school."

Tatsuma: Headso: How many times has Iran projected power using their military in the region versus Israel?

How many times has Israel projected power for fun rather than after being attacked or to prevent an attack?

If Iran projected power wouldn't their citizenry use the same rhetoric as you are right now? Without the rhetoric or apologizing, what are the numbers?

Tatsuma: attacked or to prevent an attack?

Agrees (new window)

Tatsuma: Antimatter: When did Israel get their Nuclear weapons again?

Yes, a parliamentary democracy that doesn't constantly threaten to destroy a neighbour is the same as a repressive theocracy that threatens to destroy a neighbour periodically.

Thanks for pointing that out!

Do you honestly believe Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel? Do you honestly believe they would do so and risk the destruction of their own country? It's simply not a credible threat in my eyes. They might try to undermine Israel through funding of terrorist groups, but I really can't see them arming them with nukes (its a little too obvious, and the risk of getting caught is far too great).

Also, if you think that its ok for democratic countries to have nukes but not autocratic ones, then why don't we give all democracies free rein to develop a nuclear capability? Either proliferation is bad across the board, or its never bad. If you don't follow one or the other, you end up with a very awkward foreign policy implying a bias towards democratic states - basically, a neocon position.

It's called diplomacy. Should we just bomb them instead? Anything we do beyond that will only strengthen the hardliner's position there.

Let farking Israel deal with this shiat however they please if they're so farking concerned about it.

Lets bomb em back to the stone age! yeeehaaa!

brichter: they should be greeted by a binding non-proliferation/disarmament treaty at the end.

I'm going to have to retune my sarcasm metre.

You've heard of the NPT right? And you know why it doesn't work right? Because the basic bargain (no proliferation in exchange for disarmament) is fundamentally broken right?

Tatsuma: Iran tried to buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan as early as 1987

Should have bought from Israel.

They could get 'em wholesale.

Seth'n'Spectrum: brichter: they should be greeted by a binding non-proliferation/disarmament treaty at the end.

I'm going to have to retune my sarcasm metre.

You've heard of the NPT right? And you know why it doesn't work right? Because the basic bargain (no proliferation in exchange for disarmament) is fundamentally broken right?

Perhaps you could elaborate on how it doesn't work? All countries that have gotten nuclear weapons since the signing of the NPT did not receive the weapons or the technology from any of the signers of the NPT but rather through their own research. (Or through nations which did not sign the NPT.) So basically, the signers of the NPT have followed through and not proliferated nuclear weapons or technology. That sounds like the treaty working to me.

Hundreds of powerful US "bunker-buster" bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

The current "crisis" between Obama and Bibi over settlements is a sideshow.

The main attraction is in the works...

Tatsuma: Antimatter: When did Israel get their Nuclear weapons again?

Yes, a parliamentary democracy that doesn't constantly threaten to destroy a neighbour is the same as a repressive theocracy that threatens to destroy a neighbour periodically.

Thanks for pointing that out!

I didn't ask about their respective politics, I asked for a Date.

When did Israel get their Nukes?

Antimatter: Tatsuma: Antimatter: When did Israel get their Nuclear weapons again?

Yes, a parliamentary democracy that doesn't constantly threaten to destroy a neighbour is the same as a repressive theocracy that threatens to destroy a neighbour periodically.

Thanks for pointing that out!

I didn't ask about their respective politics, I asked for a Date.

When did Israel get their Nukes?

They refuse to say.

Antimatter: Tatsuma: Antimatter: When did Israel get their Nuclear weapons again?

Yes, a parliamentary democracy that doesn't constantly threaten to destroy a neighbour is the same as a repressive theocracy that threatens to destroy a neighbour periodically.

Thanks for pointing that out!

I didn't ask about their respective politics, I asked for a Date.


With Tatsuma?

Different strokes, I suppose.

(Either way, you're not likely to get any)

Seth'n'Spectrum: You've heard of the NPT right? And you know why it doesn't work right? Because the basic bargain (no proliferation in exchange for disarmament) is fundamentally broken right?

No consideration, contract's unenforceable.

NobleHam: Antimatter: Tatsuma: Antimatter: When did Israel get their Nuclear weapons again?

Yes, a parliamentary democracy that doesn't constantly threaten to destroy a neighbour is the same as a repressive theocracy that threatens to destroy a neighbour periodically.

Thanks for pointing that out!

I didn't ask about their respective politics, I asked for a Date.

When did Israel get their Nukes?

They refuse to say.

JFK was demanding that Dimona be opened to inspection.

But then he died all-of-a-sudden.

NobleHam: Perhaps you could elaborate on how it doesn't work? All countries that have gotten nuclear weapons since the signing of the NPT did not receive the weapons or the technology from any of the signers of the NPT but rather through their own research. (Or through nations which did not sign the NPT.) So basically, the signers of the NPT have followed through and not proliferated nuclear weapons or technology. That sounds like the treaty working to me.

Depends how you look at it. Consider it this way: the bargain struck was so unbelievably naive and unworkable that those states that wanted nukes were immediately put off from signing up. Thus, the treaty failed because it could not offer enough sticks and carrots to bring everyone under its fold. In addition, it failed to convince the nuclear powers that the world was safe enough for them to disarm. Go look at the 2005 review conference - the non-nuclear states wanted to focus on Article VI (nuclear power disarmament) while the US wanted to focus on strengthening non-proliferation. Its a basic tension that can't really be resolved. That life-support-machine-for-a-moustache, John Bolton, once said something to the effect that Article VI is a dead letter - if that's the attitude the US is now taking, well then, the NPT has failed and is pretty much dead.

In addition, its questionable whether the idea of complete disarmament is worth pursuing in the first place. We know that arms races are much more dangerous than periods of relative nuclear parity. If all states were to disarm, that wouldn't turn back the clock to 1939. States would constantly be tempted to re-arm, thus starting arms races and creating more potential for war.