Originally posted by ivanhoeI can safely conclude that you don't want a serious debate on this issue. The question you asked is what we lawyers call "compound" and "leading" and as such are considered inappropriate. Whether Iran has any further obligations under the NPT given the blatant breach by the nuclear powers is the issue that should be discussed, but you refuse to address it. Again:
I can safely conclude that your answer to the question in the first post, the subject of this thread, is "no".
Would you pay the non-painter the 1000 bucks, Ivanhoe?
Originally posted by sasquatch672sasq.: " Iran views the development of nuclear weapons as key to its security policy, both toward the US and Israel. "
I don't think it matters what we want. The simple fact is that no nuclear power has ever been invaded and the Iranian theocracy views America as a belligerent nation. It also brings up a social issue in Iran - left to its own devices, Iran would probably make Western-style changes in its government and society as a whole within the next five to ten y ...[text shortened]... erbetting our hand, we may actually prevent the very change that we seek to bring about.
Just for the record; Iran is denying this. They claim that their nuclear efforts are only aimed at obtaining nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
What do you think of the diplomatic efforts the European Three are undertaking in negotiating with Iran ? Do you think they will be succesful ? If not, what has to be next in your view?
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI cannot accept the comparison you are making. It just doesn't fit the actual world situation. If your analyses is correct then why don't the "weaker" parties withdraw from the treaty if it doesn't do anything to enhance their security situation ? Their leaders must be completely blind and deaf.
I can safely conclude that you don't want a serious debate on this issue. The question you asked is what we lawyers call "compound" and "leading" and as such are considered inappropriate. Whether Iran has any further obligatio ...[text shortened]... in:
Would you pay the non-painter the 1000 bucks, Ivanhoe?
If the world leaders would copy your stance on this issue, being: there are parties, in your view, who are not keeping their promises, therefore nobody is obliged to keep theirs then, together with the examples Nyxie showed us, your "principle" would cause chaos, conflict and war all over the world.
About your "nobody did/does anything" stance:
The United States and the former Sowjet Union, being the most important producers of nuclear weapons at the time, have negotiated in the past to reduce the number of nuclear war heads and other nuclear systems. Your assumption that nobody of the great nuclear powers, including the US, never did anything to meet the demands of the treaty is simply not according the facts.
We in Europe were always very interested in talks about reducing nuclear arms between the US and the Sowjet Union. One of the reasons was that we would be the "theater" of an eventual war between these two nuclear superpowers.
Other facts that show that the world's nations are engaging in the demands posed by the treaty:
Conference on Disarmament
Conference on Disarmament Hears Statements From Norway, China, Italy, Pakistan, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
The Conference on Disarmament today heard statements by Norway on its priorities within the Conference, China on a joint seminar on prevention of an arms race in outer space, and Pakistan on the stalemate within the Conference. Italy provided a general statement which touched on the announcement by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea that it possessed nuclear weapons. It was rejected by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
more...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference on Disarmament Adopts Agenda for 2005 Session
The Conference on Disarmament today adopted its agenda for its 2005 session and the President of the Conference said that he had concluded that there was an absence of consensus on the establishment of any subsidiary bodies or mandates during the first two weeks of the session. more...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference on Disarmament Holds Brief Public Plenary
The Conference on Disarmament today held a brief public plenary during which it approved a request by Panama to become the thirty-fourth observer to the work of the Conference during its 2005 session. more...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disarmament News
27 January 2005 - CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM RUSSIAN FEDERATION, NEW ZEALAND, SOUTH AFRICA AND SPAIN
27 January 2005 - CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT OPENS FIRST PART OF 2005 SESSION
25 January 2005 - DISARMAMENT IS CRITICAL FOR CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE BUILDING, REALIZING MILLENNIUM GOALS SECRETARY GENERAL TELLS CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
20 January 2005 - CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT TO OPEN 2005 SESSION ON 24 JANUARY
5 January 2005 - INTERNATIONAL DATA CENTRE OF PREPARATORY COMMISSION FOR CTBTO IN VIENNA RECORDED SUMATRA EARTHQUAKE DATA
22 Dec 2004 - DISARMAMENT COMMISSION CONSIDERS ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS, EXPECTS TO HOLD SUBSTANTIVE SESSION IN NEW YORK
13 Dec 2004 - MEETING OF STATES PARTIES TO THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION CONCLUDES
12 Dec 2004 - REPUBLIC OF KOREA TO HOST MEETING ON DISARMAMENT, NON-PROLIFERATION ISSUES FROM 6-8 DECEMBER
3 Dec 2004 - GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS 55 TEXTS RECOMMENDED BY FIRST COMMITTEE ON A WIDE RANGE OF DISARMAMENT, SECURITY MATTERS
3 November 2004 - IN ADDRESS TO SUMMIT ON MINE-FREE WORLD, SECRETARY-GENERAL PLEDGES SUPPORT IN IMPLEMENTING STRATEGY FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS
He Also Underlines Need to Keep Mine Victims’ Needs Constantly in Mind
3 November 2004 - NAIROBI SUMMIT ENDS WITH POWERFUL ACTION PLAN: INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RENEWS COMMITMENT TO WORLD FREE OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES
Much much more about disarmament in general you can find here:
http://disarmament2.un.org/
and here you can take a look at the international disarmament treaties that were followed by the NPT.
http://disarmament2.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf
The above shows that the statement "Nobody, including the major nuclear states, isn't doing anything to meet the demands mentioned in article VI of the NPNW treaty" is simply not according to the facts.
Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
We haven't arrived yet at the landmark proposed by this treaty. It will take years and years to get there. The road will be bumpy, very bumpy, but this doesn't mean that the major nuclear nations aren't working on it as you are suggesting.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe United and Russia between them still possess almost 20,000 nuclear weapons 35 years after the NPT; this is a far cry from the "complete and total [nuclear] disarmament" called for in the Treaty. Add in other countries and you have over a 1,000 more nuclear weapons. While in total these represent less than there were in 1970, this is misleading because the newer weapons are more accurate, powerful and lethal than anything imagined at that time. The United States has never renounced the possible use of nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear opponents; indeed some Congressmen suggested using nuclear bombs in Afghanistan to destroy caves!! The nuclear powers are in material breach of Article VI of the NPT beyond any serious doubt.
I cannot accept the comparison you are making. It just doesn't fit the actual world situation. If your analyses is correct then why don't the "weaker" parties withdraw from the treaty if it doesn't do anything to enhance their securi ...[text shortened]... t in general you can find here:
http://disarmament2.un.org/
I cannot speak for what leaders of weaker countries should do; that is up to them. Many of them are so beholden to Western interests that they have little freedom of action. Most of their countries are too poor to even think about developing nuclear weapons or their security situation is not such as they would need one. Iran is one of a group of nations that members of the United States government openly muse about attacking; is is any wonder that certain people in that country believe that development of a nuclear weapon might restrain US actions (it would).
Your position is flawed: you seek to enforce the provisions of the NPT against those not violating it while those who are violating it and defeating its central and laudable goal of abolishing nuclear weapons are given a free pass. I have already stated what could be done to accomplish the goals of the NPT and of international law and was greeted by the usual name calling and accusations of treason ("Iranian Secretary of State"😉. It's perfectly obvious you don't care one whit about getting rid of nuclear weapons and like the Bush administration, merely see this issue as an excuse to militarily strike against Iran. It would be more intellectually honest if you would just openly state that you feel that the present government of Iran is a threat to Israel and thus should be overthrown, by war if necessary, than to engage in such a transparent subterfuge.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, you now acknowledge that indeed something was done after NPT. You simply cannot deny this anymore after the facts I gave you presented by the United Nations. The fact that you ànd I are not satisfied yet with what is done is obvious and understandable. As I said the journey towards the ultimate goal of NPT, complete disarmament in the world, will be long and bumpy.
The United and Russia between them still possess almost 20,000 nuclear weapons 35 years after the NPT; this is a far cry from the "complete and total [nuclear] disarmament" called for in the Treaty. Add in other countries and y ...[text shortened]... ssary, than to engage in such a transparent subterfuge.
The issue of this thread is in fact how to proceed on that long, difficult and bumpy road at this moment regarding the trouble with Iran. Stating, like you did, that the situation is (still) unfair and therefore Iran need not comply with the demands of the treaty will not get us any nearer to the end goal of the NPT, on the contrary. Your policy proposal is based not on trying to reach the goals of NPT, but on your notion of what is "fair", "consistent" and of course on your moral indignation about so much deceit by the Nuclear Powers. If you're thinking that I'm not willing to see the facts and notions you are presenting, you are simply wrong. My problem with your reasoning and analysis is the following: You are prepared to flush down the toilet everything that has been achieved so far in building trust between the nations by advising the weaker parties to do what they want because the stronger nations are deceiving them. That's what your analysis and reasoning add up to in the end. Flushing down the treaty is simply in the advantage of the strong. Well thank you very much, but that will certainly not bring any closer the things you and I want, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the ultimate goal of total disarmament, both set by the NPT.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: " .... and accusations of treason ("Iranian Secretary of State"😉.
The United and Russia between them still possess almost 20,000 nuclear weapons 35 years after the NPT; this is a far cry from the "complete and total [nuclear] disarmament" called for in the Treaty. Add in other countries and y ...[text shortened]... ssary, than to engage in such a transparent subterfuge.
Sure ....... 😉
C'mon no1, get real .... treason ? ..... 😕
Don't you like humour that is funny ? 😀
Originally posted by ivanhoeWould my investigating Iran and Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty actually have an effect on the events that are unfolding? Is this forum somehow linked to the UN? I will take my time, get the facts and then I will answer your yes/no question. 😉
You'd better start investigating then ...... developments are going very rapidly at the moment.
2 edits
Originally posted by CliffLandinCliffL: "Would my investigating Iran and Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty actually have an effect on the events that are unfolding? "
Would my investigating Iran and Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty actually have an effect on the events that are unfolding? Is this forum somehow linked to the UN? I will take my time, get the facts and then I will answer your yes/no question. 😉
You'd better ask Royalchicken. He recently finished a course called "Black Magic for Dummies".
I ordered the course yesterday myself. 😏
Originally posted by ivanhoeLet's see: my policy proposal would eventually lead to the abolition of nuclear weapons as envisioned by the NPT. Your policy proposal, has you have already stated, will most likely lead to war with Iran. Who's proposal is most in accord with the spirit of the NPT?
Well, you now acknowledge that indeed something was done after NPT. You simply cannot deny this anymore after the facts I gave you presented by the United Nations. The fact that you ànd I are not satisfied yet with what is done is obvious and understandable. As I said the journey towards the ultimate goal of NPT, complete disarmament in the world, will be l ...[text shortened]... feration of nuclear weapons and the ultimate goal of total disarmament, both set by the NPT.
I never denied that "something" was done concerning nuclear weapons since 1970; I simply state that the nuclear powers are in breach of Article VI as they have never attempted to negotiate in good faith "complete [nuclear] disarmament" as required by the NPT. Do you seriously dispute this? It's been 35 years; why shouldn't people insist NOW that the nuclear powers not be "allowed" to continue to violate the treaty? It's time to paint, if they want the 1000 bucks, Ivanhoe.