|
|
Post by cenydd on Sept 10, 2013 14:44:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 11, 2013 20:06:26 GMT
Why should Iran give up it's nuclear rights established by the NPT? Every nation has a right to nuclear development, including the enrichment of uranium, for peaceful purposes such as electrical power and nuclear medicine.
At the same time Iran is moving towards resolving the international concerns related to it's possible nuclear weapons development.
There is a fundamental problem that I see and that is the hypocrisy of the United States and the UN in addressing nuclear weapons. It has imposed severe economic sanctions on N Korea that is known to have nuclear weapons as well as Iran that is known to not have nuclear weapons but has basically ignored the other three known rogue nuclear weapons nations of India, Pakistan, and Israel.
IMHO the UN needs to address nuclear weapons in an unbiased manner. First and foremost it needs to take effective action against all rogue nuclear weapons nations as they are the root problem related to potential nuclear proliferation. Then it needs to take measure against any nation where a known nuclear weapons program exists. Finally it needs to address the potential production of nuclear weapons. The UN sanctions should be uniform based upon the issue of nuclear weapon status of the nation of concern.
At the same time per the NPT it should be supporting and providing technical assistance to nations that seek to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
So long as political bias exists in the actions of the UN Security Council related to nuclear weapons it cannot be called justifiable. End the political bias and it will go a long ways towards resolving the Iranian issue. Iran has for years stated it would comply with any requirements imposed upon Israel by the Security Council and it is Israel's nuclear weapons that are the real problem in the Middle East today.
|
|
|
|
Post by albert on Sept 12, 2013 3:36:41 GMT
Shiva, should Somalia have nuclear weapons?
Why shouldn't al Qaeda have nuclear weapons?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 12, 2013 11:14:18 GMT
Shiva, should Somalia have nuclear weapons? Why shouldn't al Qaeda have nuclear weapons?
Al Qaeda is not a government and has no mandate from the people of any nation so obviously the possession of nuclear weapons by al Qaeda cannot be rationalized. The question for Somalia is whether it's threatened by a nuclear weapons nation where the government would have a mandate to defend the people from a nuclear attack.
Herein lies a problem that I've pointed out before in other forums because nuclear weapons nations should not be threatening other nations which would provide the justification for the proliferation of nuclear weapons by the nation threatened.
For example the United States has troops in S Korea that threaten N Korea and that military presence presents the threat of nuclear weapons being used against N Korea by the United States. Sure, we can say we wouldn't use them but the threat remains and it justifies the development and possession of nuclear weapons by N Korea to counter the US threat. If the US removes it's military forces from S Korea then the nuclear threat against N Korea doesn't exist (so long as we don't threaten N Korea with military action at all) and it cannot justify its possession of nuclear weapons.
The same is true in the Middle East. Israel has nuclear weapons and a long history of attacking other nations in the Middle East. Israel represents a nuclear threat in the Middle East and other nations, where the governments have a mandate to protect their people from this nuclear threat, must take the necessary measures to counter the nuclear threat. As noted only the possession of nuclear weapons is a deterrent to an attack with nuclear weapons.
There are five authorized nuclear weapons nations under the NPT and they are the only authorized nuclear weapons nations and they have a role to fulfill. All other nations that have nuclear weapons need to be disarmed by the imposition of UN Security Council authorized economic sanctions that no nation can endure indefinitely.
As I noted the five authorized nuclear weapons nations have a critical role to fulfill but they need to address to requirements related to the fulfillment of that role.
First and foremost these five nations have a responsibility to not threaten any other nation because that threat is a "nuclear weapon" threat that justifies those nations to produce nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
The specific role of these five nuclear weapons nations is to act as a deterrent related to the use of nuclear weapons and they can do that by the following. There should be a blanket policy that any nation that every uses nuclear weapons will be subjected to an immediate nuclear retaliatory nuclear strike by the five nuclear weapons nations.
I believe that N Korea can be induced to dismantle it's nuclear weapons if the United States removes the US military from it's border and agrees to a non-aggression pact with N Korea.
I believe it's in the best interests of both India and Pakistan to mutually dismantle their nuclear weapons.
I believe it's in the best interests of Israel to dismantle it's nuclear weapons to stop nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
In all cases these are rogue nuclear weapons nations and the UN Security Council should be authorizing economic sanctions to induce these nations to dismantle their nuclear weapons.
|
|
|
|
Post by albert on Sept 14, 2013 7:22:25 GMT
So Shiva you obviously favor widespread proliferation of nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological weapons of mass destruction. Oh my, what could go wrong?
My advice to you: Don't live in a big city that will be targeted.
|
|
