US, EU3, Russia, China call for Iran to be reported to UNSC

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Now now, how long is the range of French nuclear missiles? At least in the 70s this was an important detail.

Look it up and be enlightened by another piece of wisdom.

Range of 6000km or so? Quel est le problème?

[Ecthy]

Le probleme c'est le fait que... the first French nukes had a range of 200km. And they were not directed to the UK.

I know they have de facto ICBMs nowadays.

[Colon™]

LOTM, the UN doesn't have any sovereignty, so comparing the UN charter with a constitution (in the strict sense) is really stretching it.

And yes, cases brought for the ICJ can only be between states, so if it involves UN resolutions it can only be indirectly, through UN-authorised actions taken by member states.

Checking wikipedia, there has been a case that's relevant to your question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...curity_Council (scroll down to "The ICJ and the Security Council" and the Pan Am case)

"The relationship between the ICJ and the Security Council, and the separation of their powers, was considered by the Court in 1992, in the Pan Am case. The Court had to consider an application from Libya for the order of provisional measures to protect its rights, which, it alleged, were being infringed by the threat of economic sanctions by the UK and USA. The problem was that these sanctions had been authorised by the Security Council, which resulted with a potential conflict between the Chapter VII functions of the Security Council and the judicial function of the Court. The Court decided, by eleven votes to five, that it could not order the requested provisional measures because the rights claimed by Libya, even if legitimate under the Montreal Convention, could no longer be upheld since the action was justified by the Security Council. In accordance with Article 103 of the UN Charter, obligations under the Charter took precedence over other treaty obligations."

This is what article 103 says: "In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail."

However, don't consider to be precedence, since ICJ rulings are only binding to the parties in the case itself and not to future rulings.

[Last Conformist]

I don't think anyone has the guts to actually stop Iran from getting nukes.

So let's hope Iran doesn't have the guts to use their nukes when they get them ...

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
So let's hope Iran doesn't have the guts to use their nukes when they get them ...

Why would they? Doing so would pretty much guarantee Iran's total annihilation...

[Arrian]

MAD applies. The worry, of course, is that they would give nukes to terrorists, thus circumventing MAD. I'm thinking that's still a terribly risky thing to do.

After all, we invaded Iraq (supposedly) based on claims that Iraq was close to getting nukes and that they had some sort of connection to 9/11 (among other justifications). Neither was true. If a terrorist uses a nuke and there is even a shread of evidence that points to Tehran... yeah, they'd be perfectly safe

Further, once said terrorists have nukes... what if they disagree with Iran in the future. How is that in the Iranian government's interest?

They'd have to be nuts to do it. The worry, essentially, boils down to "are they nuts?" I don't think so. But I don't presume to KNOW so.

-Arrian

[Edan]

Although I'm certainly worried that Iran might use nukes, I'm more worried that Iran will use nukes to shield themselves from any consequences while they create a haven for terrorist groups.

How would we have retaliated to 9/11 if Afghanistan had had nukes?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Edan
Although I'm certainly worried that Iran might use nukes, I'm more worried that Iran will use nukes to shield themselves from the agression of aparthied Israel and the imperialist US which may mindlessly retaliate when they create a haven for freedom fighters, who are only bring to us the fruits of our policies.

How some folks would fix your statement.

[Arrian]

True, I left that out too, Edan.

Nukes primary value is to deter attack. My position on that scenario is somewhere between yours and LotM's cute traitorcommieantiamericanscum rewrite.

-Arrian

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Why would they? Doing so would pretty much guarantee Iran's total annihilation...

Despite what GePap will tell you, governments don't always act sensibly.

[Arrian]

Including our own.

-Arrian

[Last Conformist]

That's a funny thing - nobody raises an eyebrow if I say that Persson, Chirac, or Dubyah is being irrational, but I've been accused of racism for even suggesting that Khamenei or Hu Jintao might act irrationally.

[lord of the mark]

Purity of Essence.

Youre an old fart if you can remember when the notion of an accidental or irrational use of nukes was a LEFT wing meme.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Sandman provides evidence that Iranian public opinion is not as united on this matter as some have said.

Out of a country of 77 Million people, the vast majority who don;t use computers, the thoughts of a few counts as a valid gage of public opinion????!!!!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Wait, no, that isn't funny, Its stupid.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Purity of Essence.

Youre an old fart if you can remember when the notion of an accidental or irrational use of nukes was a LEFT wing meme.

I do worry about irrational use of nukes. And the US is as irrational as the Iranians.

Unlike you thought, I am not a hypocrite, because I believe the US does not deserve nukes anymore than Iran. (or any state for that matter). Conversely, if Iran wants nukes and leaves the NPT, they have as much right to them as the US does.