Iranian Nuclear Negotiations are going exactly as you would suspect

Discussion in 'Middle East' started by Lil Mike, Jan 2, 2022.

Tags:
  1. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Inside Joe Biden’s disastrous negotiations with Iran

    In truth, the project was all but doomed to begin with. Before he was even elected, Joe Biden telegraphed his desperation to re-enter Obama’s JCPOA deal. ‘The good news is there remains a better way,’ he wrote for CNN. ‘A Biden administration will make it a priority to set Iran policy right.’

    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the process has been woefully inept
    The President might not have said in so many words that he would bend over backwards for a deal. But the Iranians are skilled at reading between the lines; and so are the senior members of his own administration.

    Diplomatic sources have described Robert Malley, the US Special Representative for Iran, who is leading the negotiations in Vienna, as ‘the most dovish official we’ve ever seen’.


    So what comes first? The end of negotiations or an Iranian nuke?
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2022
    DennisTate likes this.
  2. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: Iranian Nuclear Negotiations are going exactly as you would suspect
    SUBTOPIC: The Intention of the Supreme Being...
    ※→ Lil Mike, et al,

    PREFACE: And so it is - The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) is a failure on the horizon. After the Afghanistan fiasco, who has any confidence in the White House today, especially that of the President. As Dirty Harry says: "A man has to know his limitations." It is better for → the Biden Administration to distance themselves from the issue than to botch it up further.

    (COMMENT)

    I'm not even sure that the Biden Administration even understands the paradox. The problem is not about the Iranian Nuclear Development Programs, it is not about the purpose of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), it is not even about the balance of military power in the immediately adjacent regions. The very first question is: What makes the US so special that it should be engaged in the front of Nuclear Program Negotiations. Why should any country in the world listen to the US on these matters?

    The US is no longer the "leader of the free world." That has long since passed its expiration date. In order for the US to get other nations to follow any American initiative, the US has to lead them by dropping dollars along the path.

    What political position should be the US adopt that will be the new direction as "a priority to set Iran policy right?" Has the US track record in sensitive foreign policy been so good that it must be "the" future model to follow?

    There is absolutely nothing that puts the US model for the future ahead of any other countries national interest.

    The White House does not need to be involved in such a politically risky venture if it is absent of the knowledge, skill, and ability to successfully reach the objective.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    AARguy, mswan and Pag like this.
  3. MGB ROADSTER

    MGB ROADSTER Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2012
    Messages:
    7,866
    Likes Received:
    1,301
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you sleep with dogs, do not be surprised that you get up with ticks.
     
  4. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: Iranian Nuclear Negotiations are going exactly as you would suspect
    SUBTOPIC: What is the Goal or Primary Objective in this affair? ...
    ※→ Lil Mike, MGB ROADSTER, et al,

    PREFACE: The question should NOT be about the whether the "negotiations" meet expectations; but, about whether or not the negotiations:"

    Further the maintenance of international peace and security and the development of all the regional nations.​

    (COMMENT)

    The negotiations should not really be about what the P5+1 Nations (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) want to accomplish in their individual indexed agendas for themselves → or → the various other international consortia on any single Nuclear Arms Objective. It should not even shoot for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) some limited objective as the prevention of nuclear weapons. The next generation NPT should focus on an all-encompassing need to satisfy the best interest of each signatory to the agreement. Each signatory should be able to say the next Nuclear Agreement fortifies the defense concerns of their nation.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2022
    Pag likes this.
  5. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Israeli bombardment of Iran's illegal nuclear program.
     
  6. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,662
    Trophy Points:
    113

    That's possible. I wonder if the would tell the Biden administration beforehand or figure that might be too much of a security risk?
     
  7. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: Iranian Nuclear Negotiations are going exactly as you would suspect
    SUBTOPIC: The Intention of the Supreme Being...
    ※→ Lil Mike, Toggle Almendro, et al,

    PREFACE: Sometimes the "influential activities" inside the beltway - and those of the Vienna International Centre, allow misconceptions to radiate the general outside observes, to perpetuate. While not exactly misleading the public, it lends in silence that these beliefs are true.

    (COMMENT)

    The most recent (derestricted) report to the Board of Governors (GOV/2021/52 17 November 2021) on the issue of the NPT Safeguards Agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran (NPT meaning the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) shapes the discussion points quite nicely.

    ◈ "Indications that nuclear material had been present at three of these locations, for which Iran had yet to provide the necessary explanations," and a fourth location that is tied to the support of the other three.​

    ◈ "[E]xcessively invasive physical searches during new security procedures at nuclear facilities in Iran."

    (SETTING THE RECORD CLEARLY)

    The NPT is (essentially) a voluntary program. Article X, of the NPT states that:

    Under Article X, IF the UN International Atomic Energy Agency is an international organization that seeks to insist that Iran is not in compliance with the Treaty, THEN all they need do - to right the wrong - is activate Article X withdraw from the Treaty). And all will be right with the World. Iran will no longer have a compliance issue, the UN Board of Governors will no longer have to worry about the "four undeclared locations in Iran," and the UN IAEA Inspectors will no longer need to go through the new internal security protocols of Iran ("excessively invasive physical searches") because there will no longer be a need for inspections

    Now, this is nothing new. The US basically begged Iran to join the NPT. The NPT does not serve any purpose or lend any protection to Iran. Why would they go the extra mile to cooperate if it means that they have to disclose a sensitive location associated with the Iranian effort?

    And secondly, the Iranians, to the best of the IAEA's knowledge, does NOT have an "illegal nuclear program." That is simply not in the report at all. It is all about the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). As requested by the United Nations Security Council and authorized by the IAEA Board of Governors in 2015, the IAEA is verifying and monitoring Iran's implementation of its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA.

    Now, am I defending IRAN? Not swpecifically. I am defending the International Rule of Law and the UN Charter. [Article 2(7) Chapter I - Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter]
    Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.[/quote]

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  8. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a tough one. If I were Israel, I don't think I'd tell them.
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  9. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Countries are allowed to leave the treaty only if they face a threat that requires it. An example would be if a nuclear weapons state suddenly started using nuclear weapons against non nuclear weapons states.

    "I'm a rogue nation and I want illegal weapons" is not a valid reason for withdrawing from the treaty.


    Actually it does. The NPT protects non nuclear weapons states from nuclear attack. It also guarantees them international aid for a peaceful nuclear energy program if they should ever desire such a thing.


    It is against the law for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Since nuclear weapons are the sole purpose of Iran's nuclear program, it is therefore illegal.
     
  10. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: Iranian Nuclear Negotiations are going exactly as you would suspect
    SUBTOPIC: The Intention of the Supreme Being...
    ※→ Toggle Almendro, et al,

    OPPOSING VIEW: I don't think you read Article X.

    (COMMENT)

    It does not even mention "THREAT." It says "Jeapordaize the Supreme Interests."

    ◈ national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty
    ◈ related to the subject matter of this Treaty
    ◈ jeopardized the supreme interests of its country
    ◈ statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized
    The Treaty does not define an "Illegal Weapons Program." The Treaty restricts:

    ◈ proliferation of nuclear weapons, including fissionable material,
    ◈ prevention of wider dissemination of nuclear weapons,
    ◈ transfer to any recipient nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices
    ◈ control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly;
    ◈ lending assistance in the developement such instruments,
    ◈ encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State,​

    You will take note that the IAEA does not mention these circumstances.

    (COMMENT)

    There is no evidence of that at all. In point of fact, the only real test of a deterrent was in 1963 over the Cuban Missile Crisis. And that was averted based on Mutually Assured Destruction. (MAD).

    [/quote]
    (COMMENT)

    Is there a law that says that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon? There is a Treaty (only having the force of law among the Parties to the Treaty) in
    which they (Iran) choose to → not develop such weapons. But that treaty has Article X 90 day escape clause for withdrawal.

    (Ω ∑)

    There are some other fine points to the Treaty, by the most important one is the "escape clause" of Article X. It is a game-changer. Many people believe as you do, that there is such a thing as an "Illegal Weapons Program." BUT, the criteria for

    ◈ Nuclear Weapons State
    ◈ Non-Nuclear Weapons State
    ◈ Undetermined and/or Undeclared Status State​

    There are several reasons why the Iranians might want to withdraw from the treaty, two of which are about Political capital (domestic and international); which have nothing to do with the capacity to develop or military disposition.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  11. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Same thing though.

    "Being a rogue nation that wants illegal weapons" does not count as their supreme interests being jeopardized.


    The treaty also forbids non nuclear weapon states from building their own nuclear weapons.


    I guess you're right. I thought that there was a promise not to use nuclear weapons against a non nuclear weapon state, but I don't see it in the treaty.

    Iran still would still get international assistance with a peaceful nuclear energy program, should they ever try to have such a thing, with their membership in the treaty however.


    Yes. The nuclear non proliferation treaty forbids it.


    Countries are only allowed to withdraw for certain reasons. "Being a rogue nation and wanting illegal weapons" is not a valid reason for withdrawal.


    Those are not valid reasons for withdrawing from the treaty though.

    Besides, the only actual reason why Iran wants to withdraw is because they are a rogue nation and they want illegal weapons.
     
  12. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: Iranian Nuclear Negotiations are going exactly as you would suspect
    SUBTOPIC: The Intention of the Treaty...
    ※→ Toggle Almendro, et al,

    OPPOSING VIEW: My view does not take issue with the intent of your stated political position. It just brings to your attention that common belief as to the scope and nature of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is not representative of the actual Treaty.

    (COMMENT)

    Most of us hope that the NPT would have, over time, the gradual elimination of nuclear weapons by halting the creation of new Nuclear Weapons States beyond the: Five Nuclear Weapons States through independent development:
    But that is not the real outcome. The reality is that India and Pakistan, which are NOT signatories to the NPT, have declared or disclosed nuclear weapons. In fact, Pakistan was the subject of an investigation which their involvement in the Black-Market sale of Critical Nuclear Weapons Design Information (CNWDI). And that proliferation of CNWDI was instrumental in the advancement of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's weapons program.

    The State of Israel is a nation that, also NOT a signatory of the NPT, but is generally believed to have nuclear weapons. This is neither confirmed nor denied by the Israeli Government.
    (COMMENT)

    There is no universally adopted definition for either a "rogue state" or a "valid reason" relative to the NPT. Iran can claim they need to withdraw because it is "Tuesday." And that would meet the criteria. Article X says, "Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests." That is, what Iran thinks is an extraordinary event. And yes, Iran could even use the - "I am a rogue state" - as the reason. While the Board of Governors might balk at the idea, make political hay of the excuse, it fulfills the agreement.

    And this is an idea that the US has considered from time-to-time. Like Iran, the US often works in its own best interest.

    (Ω ∑)

    In 1969-1070 when the finishing touches were applied to the NPT, the US was considered by most countries to be the quasi-Leader of the Free World. In the ensuing half-century since then, much has changed. The US is not the powerhouse it once was. And thus, it does not have the political-military (POLMIL) influence it once had. The modern POLMIL environment is now influenced by the fact that the military can win every battle and NOT win the political side of the conflict. (ie: Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan). In the near-contemporary period, the US has demonstrated a very inept ability to operate outside the box in the changing POLMIL environment. It has not been able to predict the volatility of regional crises, assessment of the POLMIL Risk, and adequately prepare for contingencies resulting from the unpredictable political climate associated with Post-Conflict Nation Building. Tools such as the NPT are only as good as the confidence the international community maintains in it. The NPT does not seem to be working in some of the more unstable regions it could have influence within.


    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  13. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    8,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How many more decades will we have to be in fear of Iran building an atomic weapon?
     
  14. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The NPT did not halt the proliferation at five countries, but it has done a good job of halting the proliferation.

    Israel, India, and Pakistan never signed the treaty, so they can legitimately say that they are not bound by it.

    Of those countries who have actually signed the treaty, only North Korea has gone on to illegally develop nuclear weapons, and the world has hammered them with crippling sanctions for having done so.

    If Iran goes on to be the second country to illegally develop nuclear weapons after having signed the treaty, and the world hits them with massive sanctions as well, and no further countries develop nuclear weapons, that will still be a halt in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, even if the halt is at ten countries instead of the hoped-for five countries.


    Yes, but the world can say that this is not a valid reason and hammer Iran with massive sanctions.

    This is what they did with North Korea.

    Israel can also say that Iran's nuclear weapon program is illegal, and use that as justification for bombing it.


    I think we won the Korean War. South Korea continues to flourish.

    The others we could have won just by not getting up and leaving for no good reason.
     
  15. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: Iranian Nuclear Negotiations are going exactly as you would suspect
    SUBTOPIC: The Intention of the Treaty...
    ※→ Toggle Almendro, et al,

    (COMMENT)

    In the case of Iran, it is all a subjective mental exercise. This is what the perceptions are when some people believe the NPT is effective - versus the reality of the actual threat and response.

    (COMMENT)

    Again, the reason is up to Iran. The Office of the Supreme Leader does not generally seek or take approval from external pressure on such matters. The world can think what it wants; but, Tehran exercises its sovereignty in its best interest.

    Iran is one of the regional oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf. The chief deterrent, relative to hostile activity by Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Naval Forces (plus proxies), is the Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT), → 5th Fleet, and the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF). Massive Sanctions are not an effective deterrent in that region of the world. Although the sanctions do cause pain on the civilian community level, they do not stop directives from the House of Leadership in Tehran.

    (COMMENT)

    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei considers Israel a "cancerous tumor" that "will undoubtedly be uprooted and destroyed." What Israel thinks is of little importance to the Supreme Leader. And Iran will never act on the fear of what Israel might do.

    (COMMENT)

    Technically, the Korean Conflict is not over. It is an "Armistice" since 1953. It is an agreed-upon Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) which is extended along the 38th Parallel. North and South Korea represents a split culture formed as a result of the Conflict and the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission meets periodically with the representative of North Korea at the Truce Village in P’anmunjŏm.

    Yes, I agree, the Republic of Korea (ROK) is "flourishing." The ROK ranks 23d on The Human Development Index (HDI 2020) [the US Ranks 17th and Iran Ranks 70th)] is a "statistic composite index of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development."

    Just as a side bar just as a matter of interest: There is no real statistical difference between Israel and Japan and they share 19th Place in the HDI Ranking.
    (Ω ∑)

    While many nations (and people) hold a common interpretation with yourself, it is not something they would go to war over. Sanctions are a possibility, but that would only double the Iranian effort in the development of a deployable device.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  16. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's kind of like saying that it is up to a bank robber whether or not he robs a bank. It may well indeed be his own choice, but if he robs a bank then the police will still come and arrest him.

    Whether the rest of the world places crippling sanctions on Iran is up to the world.

    Whether Israel bombs Iran is up to Israel.


    Sanctions managed to force Iran to come to the negotiating table with Barack Obama.


    That will not prevent Israeli bombs from destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program.


    It doesn't have to be technically over for us to have won. We saved South Korea from being destroyed. So we won.


    That means we won the war.


    It is something that either Israel or the United States might go to war over.

    Israel in particular has a history of bombing other nations' nuclear facilities.


    And that will only double the effort to place sanctions on Iran.

    Note North Korea. They are being devastated with sanctions right now. And those sanctions will not be lifted until North Korea gives up their nukes.
     
  17. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: Iranian Nuclear Negotiations are going exactly as you would suspect
    SUBTOPIC: The Intention of the Treaty...
    ※→ Toggle Almendro, et al,

    (COMMENT)

    The NPT is like a contract with an escape clause that is consistent with the UN Charter [Article 2(7)]. This is a case of believing what you want; but not what the Treaty says.

    To say that Iran cannot take advantage of Article X, is simply irresponsible. Whether the International Community agrees or disagrees, Iran is allowed to act in its best interest if "THEY" conto the conclusion that the continuation of the Treaty is not in their best interest IF Iran wants to attempt the achievement of a Qualitative Military Edge (QME) over Allied Joint Forces. But they really don't have to go into that great a detail.

    War is not won until its conclusion. The Korean Conflict has not been concluded. And we did not save South Korea from being destroyed. It was the Chinese that turned the tide that kept North Korea from falling into Allied hands.

    Now that is interesting... What Nuclear Facilities has Israel engaged besides the Iranian?

    (Ω ∑)

    I cannot convince you of something you don't want to understand in the first place.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  18. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I do not agree. I think the world has the right to place crippling sanctions on Iran if they withdraw from the NPT, and I think Israel and the US have the right to bomb Iran's nuclear program if they try to develop nuclear weapons.


    It's been some 50 years now since North Korea last tried to destroy South Korea.


    It sure appears to me like North Korea failed to destroy South Korea.


    The fact that China helped North Korea to contain their losses does not change the fact that North Korea failed to destroy South Korea.


    Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear program in 1981:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

    And they bombed Syria's nuclear program in 2007:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Outside_the_Box
     
  19. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: Iranian Nuclear Negotiations are going exactly as you would suspect
    SUBTOPIC: The Intention of the Treaty...
    ※→ Toggle Almendro, et al,

    Please... Let us not talk about Iraq and nuclear weapons or WMD. That is a dead horse.

    (COMMENT)

    Relative to the Syrian Strike (2007), what did they "know" and "when" did they know it?

    QUESTION: What happens when a "Nuclear Reactor" is the subject of a strike package?

    Well, you may have insider knowledge as to what exactly was destroyed. But what outside observers note is that, in the aftermath of the strike package, the destruction did not result in any increase in ambient radiation or the scattering of low-level radioactive material. Whatever it was, it did not have any significant radiological footprint.

    We have to take confidence in the Israeli Intelligence Services on the actual purpose for the building under construction. There is not even a hint of the structure being a breeder reactor (producing more fissile material than it consumes). This is a handy reactor to have if you are going to build fission weapons.

    (Ω ∑)

    Like all other sovereign nations, Israel must act in its own best interest. The people of Israel have the necessary trust and confidence in its Intelligence and Security Services and the leadership to know and understand the risk of action and inaction. And therein rests the key to the decision-making process.

    Having argued this topic and being critical of the decision-making process, I also understand what is at stake from the perspective of the Israelis. And thus, I see a huge difference in the way America approaches these issues, which is very elastic between each administration. The Israelis have much more stability in their processes. But you have to remember, that the NPT does not give any authority to enforce the treaty. In point of fact, the entire concept is about prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of other breaches of the peace. To that end, the UN created the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States. To that end, the UN Charter (the hub of the International Community), build its first concept under the rule that every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.


    You cannot go around and advocate enforcement measures and expect that not to have an impact on the means by which the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and other breaches of the peace.

    Just My Thought,
    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  20. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have no idea.


    I have no inside knowledge. I barely even followed the story when it was in the news. However, my understanding is that the reactor was still being constructed. It was far from operational.


    A secret reactor being built by a rogue nation seems likely to be for a nefarious purpose. Plus I believe I heard in the news that it was identical to North Korea's reactor.


    Going through the UN Security Council is one option. It may be what people decide to do.


    Did you accidentally remove the last part of that sentence when you were editing? I don't understand what you mean in the above sentence.
     
  21. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: Iranian Nuclear Negotiations are going exactly as you would suspect
    SUBTOPIC: The Intention of the Treaty...
    ※→ Moonglow, et al,

    (COMMENT)

    Well, there is a big difference between having the CNWDI to construct the weapon and triggering device and having the capacity and skill to construct the weapon. And then there are all the hidden costs associated with the care and feeding of the weapon. you do not just build it and put it on the shelf. And then you have to have a delivery system that in itself requires a measure of care and guidance.

    THEN, there is a political status change. There is a big difference between receiving a threat of a weapon strike from a nuclear weapons state and the threat from a non-nuclear weapon state. If the US receives a threat from a non-nuclear weapons state that put into play one action. However, receiving a credible threat from a nuclear weapons state, that triggers an entirely different set of protocols. And if the nuclear state fires a threat-capable weapon, not only will all the defensive capabilities, but the window will be set for the standby of several multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs). So, countries that become nuclear weapons capable come under an entirely different surveillance package than would non-nuclear weapons state.

    The cost goes up significantly. Some countries do not have a defense (any defense at all) against a MIRV. With the possible exception of Israel, I do not believe that any Middle East North African East State (MENA) has a defense. And of course, a Trident missile is a submarine-launched ballistic missile equipped with MIRV. The US has over a dozen Trident submarines with the capability to launch 24 Tridents, with each Trident having the capability of holding a MIRV with 6 warheads. One Trident Submarine with a full load can seriously damage most countries. SO, certain countries that want to become nuclear weapons capable must factor that into the equation.

    Now in the 21st Century, the US would probably NOT threaten any country with a nuclear retaliatory strike. But you would have to be one hell of a stupid adversarial diplomat - not keeping that as a thought when issuing a threat to the US or any country that has a mutual defense pact with the US. Being the suspicious type, I am sure the 21st Century - adversarial diplomat - would probably guess that somewhere, between the Arabian Sea and the South China Sea, there is a boomer with an open dance card.

    I would not be worried at all as to what they do (stay or not stay). Where we have a problem is that the US tends to bribe countries like Iran and North Korea into staying as a part of the treaty membership. And they will periodically, like most blackmailers, come back and ask for more.

    Just My Thought,
    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2022
  22. mswan

    mswan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2021
    Messages:
    6,361
    Likes Received:
    4,280
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think if Biden has ever been right about anything it’s been entirely by chance. The man is an idiot.
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  23. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    8,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    After 70 Years, North And South Korea Agree ‘In Principle’ To Formally End War
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladi...rinciple-to-formally-end-war/?sh=60719ca6252b
     
    RoccoR likes this.
  24. MGB ROADSTER

    MGB ROADSTER Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2012
    Messages:
    7,866
    Likes Received:
    1,301
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not If .. It's When the Persian will have nukes.. all the Sunni Arab world will be in danger.
    The Fanatic Ayatullas will have their revenge.
     
  25. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Until it is of no value to your government.

    Um, no, it's up to physics and Israel doesn't have the capability.

    Israel cannot do it without massive US help.

    With massive US help.

    No doubt your lack of knowledge on the subject matter results in your failure to mention that Iraq was a US ally; Iraq was prosecuting a war against Iran; and US military advisors were on the ground in Iraq and Iran.

    Iraq's radars were directed at the Iranian border and Persian Gulf coast.

    US military advisors recommended that Iraq's radars directed at the Syrian and Lebanese borders be shut down for maintenance.

    That is how Israeli aircraft were able to enter Iraq's air-space undetected.

    It was the US who gave the Israeli's the flight-path to target, and US assets on the ground and in the air guided Israeli aircraft to the reactor.
     

Share This Page