Will anyone stop the Iranian nuke?

[Kuciwalker]

How do you defend the notion of punishing states who get nukes while allowing ANY state to maintain nukes? If the rule is just, if its right, then what right do the ones doing the punishment have?

The world is better off, duh. And we sleep better at night.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Because a coalition of every country in Africa and/or South America would be able to actually crush this despot?

If the "despot" is the US and Western Europe, YES.

What could the US and Western Europe do if Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa all moved to aquire nukes simultanously?

And don't think that most of Asia would back the US and Western Europe in that ideological battle.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


because of course little states are always willing to cooperate with their bitter regional rivals to bring down the most powerful global alliances so long as it means they and their bitter rivals get to have nukes like the big shots!

Actually, yes. Just look at India and Pakistan. Themselves having nukes was more important to both of them than making sure the other guy didn't.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


Except that there are already states with them, meaning that there is always a reason for states without them to get them.

After all, what is the current non-proliferation regime but the five who got there first claiming that for some reason only they have the right to have nukes, and everyone else but them can't have them?

How do you defend the notion of punishing states who get nukes while allowing ANY state to maintain nukes? If the rule is just, if its right, then what right do the ones doing the punishment have?

I think you have raised a good point in that getting the support of the populations for such an aggressive non proliferation policy will be *much* harder while some countries retain nuclear stockpiles.

Ultimately if a monstrously costly war is waged to put the genie decisively back in the bottle it may also be necessary to disable/eliminate the remaining stockpiles of nukes voluntarily by the current declared nuclear powers who could then try to leverage for a robust global and binding NPT that includes aggressive inspections.

That would likely be far more effective than just attacking a recent nuclear power that violated the existing treaties to get nukes.

However, such an elimination of nukes is crazy/impossible until such time as the new nuclear powers are denuclearized by any means possible.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, yes. Just look at India and Pakistan. Themselves having nukes was more important to both of them than making sure the other guy didn't.

except that your scenario would actually require them to cooperate in destroying another power intent on preventing them from having nukes before they themselves could build them.

They acquired their nukes in an atmosphere of a toothless unenforced set of non proliferation policies. A situation I am in fact condemning as horribly dangerous and in desperate need of redress.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


except that your scenario would actually require them to cooperate in destroying another power intent on preventing them from having nukes before they themselves could build them.

They acquired their nukes in an atmosphere of a toothless unenforced set of non proliferation policies. A situation I am in fact condemning as horribly dangerous and in desperate need of redress.

Except there is no basis for a "stronger regime" that you call for.

The states with nukes will not disarm because it makes no sense for them to give up their advantage,which anyways is meant to balance out those others with nukes. This situation will always give the have nots the reason to get nukes, and ensure that the ones with nukes will not have the ability to have a unified front, nor convince anyone else to punish others for things that you are not going to punish those already with nukes for.

And this will be the case as long as National sovereignty remains the paramount value. Remember, its the United Nations. States would rather secure their ability to in the end do whatever they feel is necessary than anything else. If apocalypse is the price, so be it. Its a price they are willing to pay.

[Verto]

James Bond would've solved this problem in 2 hours, 10 minutes.



(Correction, LS: I am also ghey for him ^ )

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


Except there is no basis for a "stronger regime" that you call for.

The states with nukes will not disarm because it makes no sense for them to give up their advantage,which anyways is meant to balance out those others with nukes. This situation will always give the have nots the reason to get nukes, and ensure that the ones with nukes will not have the ability to have a unified front, nor convince anyone else to punish others for things that you are not going to punish those already with nukes for.

And this will be the case as long as National sovereignty remains the paramount value. Remember, its the United Nations. States would rather secure their ability to in the end do whatever they feel is necessary than anything else. If apocalypse is the price, so be it. Its a price they are willing to pay.

Nations surrender bits and pieces of their national sovereignty all the time and hand wave it away by claiming to have done so voluntarily and because it was in their best interests.

Nations could have survival as the defacto paramount value while continuing to pay lip service to the notion that national sovereignty was in fact the paramount value.

They engage in such transparently false pretensions all the time with a perfectly straight diplomatic face.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Verto
James Bond would've solved this problem in 2 hours, 10 minutes.



(Correction, LS: I am also ghey for him ^ )

Frankly i think the Iranian program is already too spread out for james bond to tackle in such a time frame. Multiple missions, perhaps even a whole new mission franchise on the small screen would be necessary to effect a real solution to the problem.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Nations surrender bits and pieces of their national sovereignty all the time and hand wave it away by claiming to have done so voluntarily and because it was in their best interests.

Nations could have survival as the defacto paramount value while continuing to pay lip service to the notion that national sovereignty was in fact the paramount value.

They engage in such transparently false pretensions all the time with a perfectly straight diplomatic face.

Survival for a state means it retaning its power. Any rule that would mean it losing ultimate power, even if it is still physically there, is a failure to survive. Recall the notion "better dead than Red"? Same sentiment.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


Survival for a state means it retaning its power. Any rule that would mean it losing ultimate power, even if it is still physically there, is a failure to survive. Recall the notion "better dead than Red"? Same sentiment.

then global initiatives like kyoto were impossible from the get go since they required countries to make economic sacrifices and losing economic strength is at least as real a threat to their sovereignty as not having nukes is.

Perhaps I'm not properly understanding how you think all of the nations unwillingness to contemplate any action that diminishes their sovereignty makes strong NP measures an impossibility.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


then global initiatives like kyoto were impossible from the get go since they required countries to make economic sacrifices and losing economic strength is at least as real a threat to their sovereignty as not having nukes is.

Perhaps I'm not properly understanding how you think all of the nations unwillingness to contemplate any action that diminishes their sovereignty makes strong NP measures an impossibility.

The current NP system rests on a treaty. Even Kyoto is that, a treaty. Treaties assume that states voluntarily join in. They can also OPT OUT. There are of course consequences to opting out, but the legitimacy of a treaty comes from the notion that you gave your word as a state to follow this agreement out of your own free will. So, as India, Israel, and Pakistan show, there is no method of "punishing" states that go nuclear if they never opted into the NP system anyways. Members of the NP system are supposed to then curtail any nuclear relationship with these other states (supposedly the price of opting out, going at it alone), but then the current admin. plan to have nuclear relations with India and help them increase their civilian nuclear power makes a mcokery of that. So in fact, the current NP system, while a surrendering of rights,is a surrendering done voluntarilly. It can't be imposed, showing the primacy of National soverignty.

And the very treaty that sets up the NP system states that every member has the right to give six month notice to leave it. So even the current NP systems assumes the primacy of National soverignty because states can opt out even after joining.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Frankly i think the Iranian program is already too spread out for james bond to tackle in such a time frame. Multiple missions, perhaps even a whole new mission franchise on the small screen would be necessary to effect a real solution to the problem.

Wrong. The movie would go as follows:

[Opening 007 scene]


Transition to James Bond (on assignment with the British Embassy), in bed with Iranian woman. She is a nuclear scientist. More importantly, she just made love with 007. She's willing to talk.

Transition to James Bond, on phone; the woman has served her purpose, and is now rightfully gone. M informs him that Iran has made impossible progress on The Bomb. A test will occur within the next 24 hours. The American CIA and the British Secret Service cannot allow this to happen. Felix Leiter has told M that SPECTRE gave Iran the key components it needed to complete the Bomb. Now it's personal.

Transition to James Bond, standing on cliff, in the dark. He is barely visible to the naked eye, being dressed in black. The glider astride his shoulders is similarly colored. After making a suitably smartass remark about Iran, Iranian women, or somesuch, he drops off the cliff, and glides towards the Iran Nuclear Weapons Facility (TM) in the area below. Expertly (this is the only adverb needed to describe Bond), 007 lands on the ground and quickly neutralizes the nearby guard. He climbs a ladder, and enters the facility. After a short series of corridors, 007 arrives at the main control area. The Bomb is being detonated in a matter of hours, and the base of operations is this facility. After neutralizing a facility worker, he dons the liberated uniform, and enters. After a failed attempt to directly neutralize The Bomb, he is captured. After being told by Dr. Evil Ahmadinejad of the thoroughly nefarious schemes that Iran has in mind, he is locked in a cell.

Transition to James Bond, not in cell. Luckily for him, Iranian men are terrible in bed. The seduced female nuclear scientist freed him, in hopes of orgasming once more, but 007 doesn't have time for that. Well, ok. But a quickie. Ok. 007 seeks out Ahmadinejad, and The Bomb, which are now on the move to their final location, the test area outside the facility. Luckily, Her Majesty's Secret Service is not a one man show. A capsule-shaped pod falls out of the sky, saved at the last moment by the deployment of a cushioning cocoon. From the pod is extricated an Aston Martin DB5. James Bond is so badass, Geronimo, that not only will he solve this problem in 2 hours, 10 minutes, but also in a 1963 Aston Martin. *****.

James Bond has little time to waste; the test detonation is certainly imminent. He drives off in pursuit of the convoy; a short while later, he arrives at the test area. Russian made components have failed, naturally, causing a slight delay. 007 takes this advantage to fire a few missiles from his DB5, neutralizing the offensive capabilities of the Iranian military vehicles present. At the same time, he manages to kill nearly two dozen soldiers. He then reloads.

Chaos has ensued. Civilians and scientists have panicked. A few vehicles, with Ahmadinejad in one of them, is trying to escape the slaughter. Bond manages to stick a homing device on the side of Ahmadinejad's vehicle; this allows the DB5 to autopilot itself right into the side of it, causing a suitably sized explosion. Meanwhile, Bond has managed, with the help of the seduced scientist, to defuse the bomb, stripping it of its key components. Bond jumps onto a jeep as it starts to leave, throwing the driver out. After the girl gets in, he drives off, just in time to avoid the explosion that rocks the whole area: must have been some fuel tanks or something. Convenient.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad is dead. SPECTRE does not receive their payment for services delivered. This breach of contract results in SPECTRE incapacitating the other arms of Iran's nuclear program.

Transition to James Bond, in bed with Iranian scientist.

THE END.

A 5 minute quick draft. I'll leave the details to the screenwriters.

[chequita guevara]

I'd have to believe in an Iranian nuke to believe it could be stopped. This administration has no credibility whatsoever. If they say the sky is blue, I grab my umbrella.

[Kuciwalker]

edit: not at che