............. FOR FAILING TO OBSERVE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY.
TEHRAN, March 7 (RIA Novosti, Nikolai Terekhov) - Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi has criticized the U.S. for failing to observe the provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
"A number of states possessing nuclear weapons and to a larger extent the U.S. do not observe their commitments and provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. But the main obstacle to creating a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East is Israel, which has refused to sign the treaty at all," Kharrazi said on Sunday at the closing of an international conference, "Nuclear Technologies and Sustainable Development."
"I," he said, "declare for the umpteenth time that there is no room for nuclear weapons in Iran's defense policy. What is more, we consider them to be a serious threat to our own security. Therefore, being a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, Iran insists on getting nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes."
One of the interesting parts is the following: " ..... there is no room for nuclear weapons in Iran's defense policy. What is more, we consider them to be a serious threat to our own security." (!!!!)
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5453656&startrow=1&date=2005-03-07&do_alert=0
Sorry for the unnecessary capital letters in the thread's title.
Originally posted by invigorateI'll repeat what I wrote at the end of my post:
Does having nuclear weapons increase your national security or reduce it?
If it increases security why shouldn't Iran be allowed to have them. Especially as Isreal doubtless has weapons pointed at them.
IvanH: One of the interesting parts is the following: (Iran's spokesperson): " ..... there is no room for nuclear weapons in Iran's defense policy. What is more, we consider them to be a serious threat to our own security." (!!!!)
Reading the article/post and the accompanying link
usually helps to understand the questions raised ...... 😉
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat exactly are the questions raised then?
I'll repeat what I wrote at the end of my post:
IvanH: One of the interesting parts is the following: (Iran's spokesperson): " ..... there is no room for nuclear weapons in Iran's defense policy. What is more, we consider them to be a serious threat to our own security." (!!!!)
Reading the article/post and the accompanying link
usually helps to understand the questions raised ...... 😉
The way i see it, Iran has every right to criticize the hypocrisy that it sees with the leading western powers.
We insist that it keep to an agreement that we are not keeping to ourselves (the non-proliferation treaty)
I seem to remember this being discussed in a separate thread.
The fact that there has been no pressure put on Israel to disarm its nuclear arsenal is another sign of the double standards that seem to prevail in all global politiks these days.. one rule for our gang vs another for the rest.
Originally posted by dk3nnyYes in one iran thread I listed all the treaties and un agreements that the u.s. is in violation of. It was quite a long post.
What exactly are the questions raised then?
The way i see it, Iran has every right to criticize the hypocrisy that it sees with the leading western powers.
We insist that it keep to an agreement that we are not keeping to ourselves (the non-proliferation treaty)
I seem to remember this being discussed in a separate thread.
The fact that there has bee ...[text shortened]... to prevail in all global politiks these days.. one rule for our gang vs another for the rest.
Nyxie
Originally posted by ivanhoeIran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi has criticized the U.S. for failing to observe the provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
............. FOR FAILING TO OBSERVE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY.
TEHRAN, March 7 (RIA Novosti, Nikolai Terekhov) - Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi has criticized the U.S. for failing to observe the provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
"A number of states possessing nuclear weapons and to a larger extent the U.S. do not observe ...[text shortened]... ate=2005-03-07&do_alert=0
Sorry for the unnecessary capital letters in the thread's title.
They must have finally got my e-mail!!
Originally posted by ivanhoeHe's right about nukes being a threat, if they started developing them and news leaked out, how long would it be before the invasion?
............. FOR FAILING TO OBSERVE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY.
TEHRAN, March 7 (RIA Novosti, Nikolai Terekhov) - Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi has criticized the U.S. for failing to observe the provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
"A number of states possessing nuclear weapons and to a larger extent the U.S. do not observe ...[text shortened]... ate=2005-03-07&do_alert=0
Sorry for the unnecessary capital letters in the thread's title.
Nuclear technology is the way of the future. Any country that is allowed to research and use it is not only lucky, but is helping the thriving, globally spread progression of appliable technology. All of earth cannot simply assume that fossil fuel technology will last forever. Eventually, even Saudi Arabia will run dry! Where will we be then? Why should we decrease our chances of finding a usable fusion reactor when we are so close? However, I can see the side of those who don't want to spread nuclear technology throughout the world as well. It seems that humanity inevitably uses any new technology to make a weapon. Heck, the US started the whole "lets kill all the civilians of our enemy countries" idea. WWII was a devastating war, and only two nukes were fired. Now, Imagine that another big war starts. There are so many alliances on earth that you cannot fire a bullet without making someone angry. If, say, a nuke were shot at some country, especially a western one, the whole of NATO, or the UN, or some other protective alliance, everybody is nuking everybody. Ever see the Cold War era movie "Doctor Strangelove?" Not pretty. Not pretty at all.
Originally posted by omegakingJust so you're aware, fusion reactors wont run on (highly) radioactive materials, so while they are "nuclear technology" as such, I shouldn't think they are part of this kind of restriction (putting aside the fact that iran probably isn't technologically advanced enough to consider building one, let alone helping in the research...).
Why should we decrease our chances of finding a usable fusion reactor when we are so close?
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by no1marauder
Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi has criticized the U.S. for failing to observe the provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
They must have finally got my e-mail!!
No1, you can expect an invitation to become their Secretary of State very soon now, I've been told .....
Originally posted by dk3nnyIran claims it is complying with the demands of the treaty.
What exactly are the questions raised then?
The way i see it, Iran has every right to criticize the hypocrisy that it sees with the leading western powers.
We insist that it keep to an agreement that we are not keeping to ourselves (the ...[text shortened]... tiks these days.. one rule for our gang vs another for the rest.
From the article: "[Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi : " .... there is no room for nuclear weapons in Iran's defense policy. What is more, we consider them to be a serious threat to our own security."]" (!!!!)
How about that. Iran states it considers the possession of nuclear weapons "to be a serious threat to our own security".
Originally posted by ivanhoeBetter learn how to read, Ivanhoe.
Iran claims it is complying with the demands of the treaty.
From the article: "[Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi : " .... there is no room for nuclear weapons in Iran's defense policy. What is more, we consider them to be a serious threat to our own security."]" (!!!!)
How about that. Iran states it considers the possession of nuclear weapons "to be a serious threat to our own security".
there is no room for nuclear weapons in Iran's defense policy. What is more, we consider them to be a serious threat to our own security
"Them" in the second sentence refers to "nuclear weapons". Since Iran says there's "no room" for them in their defense policy, they are obviously referring to nuclear weapons in the possession of other states, most obviously Israel. So, yes the possession of nuclear weapons by ANY country, is a threat to Iran's and everybody else's security. Try reading the article without your own preconceptions obscuring the meaning of the article.
BTW I'm not banned yet!!!!