Nuclear Deal With India a Victory for Bush

[bishop]

Quote by: rmnunez We can complicate things too much, better to limit analysis to a few basic tangibles; it is preferable Iran doesn't have nukes, it is likely Iran would use them if they had them, any nuke use will be detrimental far beyond the location where it is used, Iranian nuke acquisition will foster further proliferation to others, Iran has shown absolute intractability on the issue and will not yield to diplomatic pressure, Iran's oil wealth gives them relative immunity from economic sanctions, embargoing Iranian oil is nearly impossible since oil is fungible and in a sort of 'pool' from which the market draws without distinction as to source. These are relatively solid "facts" we must work with in dealing with the problem. Assurances Iran seeks nukes for peaceable applications, claims they have a right or necessity for such weapons, that they wouldn't use them unless in self-defence, that these wouldn't become a tool to pressure neigbors and others within range, should all be dismissed as too speculative. Past conduct and recent statements from high-ranking figures in Teheran all suggest Iran seeks these weapons because they specifically want to launch one at Israel. Though I don't sympathise with Israel, I can't be brought around to advocate nuking them. Since we all recognize sanctions, embargoes and diplomatic pressure won't work, unless we are willing to accept a substantial probability parts of Israel will get incinerated, some other means must be considered to keep Iran from going nuclear. I can think of just 2; use of force or Israel's surrender and relocation of its population to non-Muslim claimed lands. Which seems more likely to you?

your assumption that iran would use nukes if they had them is as weak as wet toilet paper and rife with inconsistency.. if iran can be summarily assumed to use a nuke, then the same assumption can be applied to israel, india, pakistan, china, russia, america, etc.... claims that iran would decide to launch a nuke attack should be dismissed as nothing more than fear-mongering, war-mongering and "too speculative".

the reason i don't buy your b.s. assumptions is that the situation remains a zero-sum game. if iran would dare nuke israel, israel has the capability to destroy iran several times over. unless the elite in iran have a death wish, which is highly unlikely, they won't nuke israel.

your reasoning is identical to the dumbassed logic that led us into iraq. you paint these unrealistic frightful scenarios to justify your thirst for war, then, you assume that a preemptive strike won't have any malign consequences. this is no different to those who said that the iraqis would be greeting us with flowers and candies. i guess some people are incapable of learning from history, eh nunez?

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree Bishop well said.

[jose]

In just days, Bush toppled long-honored safeguards for the allocation and control of fissile material, and created a "nuclear bizarre" to be exclusively regulated by the United States. His trip tells the world that global nuclear-policy will now be decided by the Pentagon big-wigs and hard-right fanatics who dominate the Bush White House.

No wonder the media was so awestruck by Bush’s performance and celebrated his recklessness as "groundbreaking" or "a landmark deal". The press seems to relish the idea that America can single-handedly nudge the planet ever-closer to nuclear destruction.
Bush’s deal with PM Singh allows him to provide technology and fuel to a nation that has stubbornly refused to comply with internationally-accepted standards for the supervision of nuclear material. The agreement flaunts the NPT, the IAEA, the United Nations, and the US Congress, which is the body that is supposed to ratify such pacts before they are enacted.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m21279&hd=0&size=1&l=e

[rmnunez]

I premise my assumption Iran will nuke Israel if it acquires the weapons, on the words of their president saying Israel should be wiped off the map and the statements of a leading and influential ayatollah suggesting Iran should use such weapons against perceived threats. If Bush and Billy Graham were saying things like this about, for example Iran, we'd read it as threats of war, threats of an embargo on Iran are already described as an "act of war". It is not at all "speculative" to forecast a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel once they acquire the weapons.

I wouldn't be too quick to jump to the conclusion the Iranian elite lacks a "death wish", in fact this seems much in evidence. The showdown with the US is precipitating and each step of the way we get a further illustration of the subtle ways with which the Persians are poking at this hornest nest. The statements aluded to before were made in the last few months, long after the US deployed 140 thousand troops next door. Confrontation with the US seems to be something Iran is courting with reference to established infiltrations and involvement in the alleged insurgency in Iraq. Doesn't their behaviour suggest a "death wish" in at least some of their leadership?

I agree a preventive strike would have adverse (malign?) consequences, just expect these will be less than what would flow from not doing anything. Suppose the US rained a slew of missiles on Iran tomorrow and effectively brought their nuclear programme to an end, the worse Iran could do is send everything they've got bext door to Iraq. If they didn't immediately succeed and produce a united statian retreat, none of the locals would get engaged. The Iranian military is no better than the Iraqi was, might be a bit better than the Afghans were. Those wars were "hot" for a few days only, Iran wouldn't get far.

If the international community joined together and determined to deliver as harsh an answer against the US, what could that be? Expulsion from the UN, an embargo?

But even if we omit reference to the probability Iran will nuke Israel, if we can agree it is preferable Iran not have them, that use of these weapons will be detrimental far beyond the location detonated, that Iranian possession will foster proliferation and pressure in the region within their range, and that Iranian intractability have proven sanctions, embargoes and diplomatic pressure ineffectual -the conclusion is the same.

[bishop]

talk is cheap nunez... discerning minds can read past iran's rough rhetoric, seeing it as nothing more than smoke and mirrors. their president's rhetoric is no different than what is said on a daily basis in the entire region, with respect to israel.

why you seem so alarmed by iran's rhetoric is amusing... in order to accurately understand the situation, you need to go back to iran's original rationale for possessing nuclear weapons - a point that you haven't paid any attention to.. iranian leaders have, for years, argued that they need such weapons for defensive purposes only. and up until recently, iranian leaders have stated that nukes are contrary to sharia law. that said, the u.s. has meddled in the affairs of nearly every single country in the region in years past. over the past 4 years in particular, we have managed to completely surround iran on the east and west (afghanistan and iraq) - along with including them in the "axis of evil" (aka bush's hit list).

with regards to iran's meddling in iraq, i believe the more rational analysis is that iran wants to ensure that the new iraqi government doesn't become another u.s. puppet. that seems a hell of a lot more cogent than this "death wish" nonsense you're pushing.


when countries are threatened, it is rational that they look for ways to defend themselves. when you understand a country's motivation for certain policies, it's easier to analyze what they may choose to do in the future. but i fear that you aren't much of a cool head that can analyze situations without being biased... i am no fan of iran, but i'm not about to adopt a completely baseless assumption (that iran will use nukes if they have them) and then advocate more war.

Quote by: rmnunez But even if we omit reference to the probability Iran will nuke Israel, if we can agree it is preferable Iran not have them, that use of these weapons will be detrimental far beyond the location detonated, that Iranian possession will foster proliferation and pressure in the region within their range, and that Iranian intractability have proven sanctions, embargoes and diplomatic pressure ineffectual -the conclusion is the same.

i think everyone agrees that it's preferable that iran doesn't go nuclear. however, not everyone supports the bully posture you're arguing. the situation does not need to end in war, whether/not iran possesses nukes. you believe we need to go to war because of your adherence to the baseless assumption that iran will use nukes if they have them.

[rmnunez]

For the sake of argument lets dismiss the fighting words from Iran's president and leading religious figures advocating nuke use against Israel and assorted perceived threats, maybe the awesome power that could fall into their hands would imbue them with a greater sense of responsibility, how about proliferation? Are we also supposed to believe Iran would maintain and apply the highest standards required by the IAEA to prevent any transfer of military nuclear technology or equipment? Given their rhetoric, is it also a safe bet none in the Iranian leadership would kindly regard the motivations of terrorists who might seek a nuke to deliver a decisive blow to a shared enemy? Iran is an Islamic fundamentalist state, this doctrine guides their government's foreign policy and relations with neighbors, if they had nuclear weapons, don't you think its likely neighboring countries would become or at least seek to appear more fundamentalist too?

[bishop]

proliferation... first of all, iran wouldn't be a burgeoning nuclear power if we never gave them a reactor to begin with.. every country that has nukes or is developing nukes (aside from the first nuclear powers) was first given a reactor. france gave israel theirs, we gave iran theirs, etc.. so, one thing we definitely ought not do is give any other countries nuclear reactors in the future. second, no country has ever donated or sold a nuclear weapon to another country. sure, they've helped others acquire the technology themselves, but they never gave away an actual nuke.

if we can prevent future countries from possessing nuclear reactors and we isolate and contain the hell out of rogue regimes such as north korea and iran, then i wouldn't be so worried about proliferation - and i could live with iran possessing a nuke since i see no logical reason why they would commit suicide and launch an attack against israel (another nuclear power that could wipe iran off the map).

as far as iran's neighbors go, perhaps its best buddy is russia, which slaughters muslims on a daily basis. their next best buddy is syria, which is baathist. syria and iran have stated that they'd protect each other if attacked - and russia is selling both of them weapons (and in iran's case, nuclear material)...

[rmnunez]

If "we" (the US?) doesn't provide nuclear reactors proliferation may be hampered, but unless Iran also doesn't provide such technology it is useless. The "genie" is somewhat out of the bottle; original nuclear powers (US, Russia, China, Britain and France) in one way or another contributed to the transfer of technology and equipment to "second tier" nuclear powers (India, Israel and Pakistan). Now we've got a third tier of aspiring or suspected nuclear powers (North Korea and Iran, possibly others).

I suppose the original nuclear powers are somewhat reliable in their non-proliferation commitments, I guess they can appreciate the mess that has emerged from Israeli, Indian and Pakistani transfers and that this (coupled with pressure from their peers) might keep them from distributing any more. With the second tier nuclear powers I am less certain of their commitments to non-proliferation, Israel is known to have delivered technology and equipment to South Africa and there is plenty of evidence Pakistan was 'proliferating' nuclear technology and equipment to Syria, Iran, Iraq and other Muslim governments. With the aspiring or suspected emerging nuclear powers the level of uncertainty over their commitments to non-proliferation is even greater. North Korea has been documented to transfer this technology, I expect Iran will too (presuming they haven't already).

[bishop]

no disagreement here. the only problem with your argument is that you need to have a nuclear reactor in order to develop a nuke. maybe someone else will donate one, but i'm very skeptical about that, especially in today's world..

all of the "second generation" nuclear powers are powers because of cold war policies..

[rmnunez]

So you figure we're safe from proliferation (from Iran at least) since they won't transfer technology to build a nuclear reactor? Would that be because they are known to have a great deal of respect for the IAEA's regulations or because in the decades they've had a reactor they still haven't figured out how it works? Maybe you take the view that since we cannot be certain no other government will transfer nuclear technology, we needn't require such assurances from Iran.

[bishop]

i would like to see new UNSC resolutions to overhaul the existing NPT, which is clearly obsolete at this point. the civilian use clause of the NPT has been a gaping loophole for decades, and it needs to be closed.

all countries involved with unilateral transfers of nuclear technology should be automatically sanctioned (this would also apply to our deal with india). if the consequences of such transfers are known beforehand, countries might decide that it isn't in their best interests to proliferate.

placing our faith in other countries to abstain from developing nukes is the wrong position to take imo.. we need a clear and transparent framework whereby violations receive impartial penalties. i know that if i put my hand on a hot stove, i'll get burned - imo, if a country knows that it will suffer if it proliferates, it might decide not to do so.

unfortunately, this may be a pipe dream of mine. i'm not sure if countries are really all that committed to stopping proliferation - particularly the original nuclear powers.

as far as the current issue with iran is concerned, russia and china currently don't support sanctions against iran - especially since they have so many trade deals with them. that said, the EU is its largest trading partner by far, and the EU looks to be much more willing to apply sanctions with or without the UN's approval. and, of course, the u.s. will support sanctions. the only thing to worry about, which i mentioned earlier, is an oil crisis. and, a military attack will definitely create an oil crisis.

[rmnunez]

we need a clear and transparent framework whereby violations receive impartial penalties. i know that if i put my hand on a hot stove, i'll get burned - imo, if a country knows that it will suffer if it proliferates, it might decide not to do so.

Until we have some sort of "world government" with actual enforcement capability (i.e. a credible military force and the willingness to use it), we won't be seeing governments abide in fear (like of a hot stove) by that entity's rules.

Another example of Teheran’s level-headed rationality and lack of confrontational attitude that keeps people like Bishop assured of their safety should Iran acquire nukes:

Iran threatened the US with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the UN Security Council over its nuclear program. The statement did not elaborate on what Iran meant by "harm and pain," and Iranian officials were not immediately available to comment. But diplomats accredited to the meeting and in contact with the Iranians said the statement could be a veiled threat to use oil as an economic weapon. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...03-08-07-16-28

In the context of the discussions at the IAEA, I have my own suspicions on what the Iranians meant by “harm and pain” to the US, but I’d like to know what people like Bishop think they mean. If they intend to "use oil as an economic weapon", given the relative insignificance of Iranian oil in US consumption, I doubt an Iranian embargo be very effective against the US.

US ambassador Gregory Schulte told the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors that Iran had failed on every count to meet the watchdog's call for it to suspend uranium enrichment. Uranium is enriched so it can be used as fuel in a nuclear power reactor or, if enriched further, to make an atomic weapon. Schlulte said Iran had 85 tons of the uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas and said this was enough to make 10 atom bombs, the diplomat reported. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

To avoid problems with questionable united statian assertions based on dubious evidence, in this case they should deploy Al Barandei’s agents to check things out (like the ambassador is asking).

Israel, which has the capability of effectively destroying Iran’s nuclear programme doesn’t seem as tolerant as some seem to think we should be:

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program. "My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his German counterpart Franz Josef Jung. At a news conference with Mofaz, Jung (Germany’s Defence Minister) told reporters Germany was already discussing with the five permanent Security Council members -- Russia, China, the United States, Britain and France -what the Council could do to prevent Tehran getting the bomb. "Everything must be done to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons," Jung said. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...AEL.xml&rpc=22

It seems that if Iran isn’t curbed by the IAEA and Security Council, then it will be by Israel, unless the US gets there first.

[jose]

[quote=rmnunez
It seems that if Iran isn’t curbed by the IAEA and Security Council, then it will be by Israel, unless the US gets there first.[/QUOTE]
"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," said Ali Asghar Soltanieh, a senior Iranian delegate to the IAEA. "But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll."

let the ball roll= bring them on

[bishop]

"harm and pain" must mean that the iranians would use oil as an economic weapon. and contrary to what you stated, it would have a very big impact on the global economy.

the fact of the matter is that the u.s. economy is global. regardless of the percentage of iranian oil in the u.s. market, an oil crisis would cause inflation to spike (manufactured goods will cost more to make and ship).. all this amidst an environment where interest rates look like they're going to hit at least 5%. we'll get the double wammy of shrinking corporate profits alongside shrinking consumption..

you could also see purely financial side-effects such as the activities of hedge-funds taking massively speculative, bearish investments. activities of hedge funds often produce cascading effects on equity prices, and this phenomenon could put additional downside pressure on the entire market.

i can explain/clarify these comments if you like, but suffice it to say - if iran used oil as a weapon, the chances of another recession are very high. (and just to affirm how much i believe my own analysis, i've closed all of my positions in my trading accounts)

[rmnunez]

iranians would use oil as an economic weapon. and contrary to what you stated, it would have a very big impact on the global economy

Could be, I don't know what proportion of the worl'd oil consumption comes from Iran. I think you may be anticipating a 1973 oil embargo replay, but it isn't that clear to me that even if the US attacked Iran preemptively, OPEC and the rest of the world would shut down oil production.

[bishop]

japan is iran's primary customer. and china (east asia in general) is increasingly buying more of iran's oil.. keep in mind that most of what u.s. consumers buy comes from east asia.

i'm not envisioning long lines at the pump, like the 70's, but i do see the potential for a huge ripple effect through financial markets should iran choose to cut production/exports.

[SaintLucifer]

Quote by: bishop proliferation... first of all, iran wouldn't be a burgeoning nuclear power if we never gave them a reactor to begin with.. every country that has nukes or is developing nukes (aside from the first nuclear powers) was first given a reactor. france gave israel theirs, we gave iran theirs, etc.. so, one thing we definitely ought not do is give any other countries nuclear reactors in the future. second, no country has ever donated or sold a nuclear weapon to another country. sure, they've helped others acquire the technology themselves, but they never gave away an actual nuke. if we can prevent future countries from possessing nuclear reactors and we isolate and contain the hell out of rogue regimes such as north korea and iran, then i wouldn't be so worried about proliferation - and i could live with iran possessing a nuke since i see no logical reason why they would commit suicide and launch an attack against israel (another nuclear power that could wipe iran off the map). as far as iran's neighbors go, perhaps its best buddy is russia, which slaughters muslims on a daily basis. their next best buddy is syria, which is baathist. syria and iran have stated that they'd protect each other if attacked - and russia is selling both of them weapons (and in iran's case, nuclear material)...

You never gave Iran their nuke reactors. The Soviets did. Learn to read a book my child.

SaintLucifer
The Dark Lord

[SaintLucifer]

Quote by: SaintLucifer You never gave Iran their nuke reactors. The Soviets did. Learn to read a book my child. SaintLucifer The Dark Lord

In January 1995, Russia and Iran signed a contract under which Russia would provide one VVER-1000 [aka WWER-1000] 950-1,073 MWe (electrical) light water reactor at Bushehr. The VVER-1000 reactor would be similar in configuration to Unit Four of the Russian Balakovskaya plant at Balakovo, Saratov. The Russian reactors will be installed in the original structures designed for the German 1,200-1,300 MWe reactors. Since the horizontal VVER-1000 steam generators are larger than the original German design, the project will require an enlargement of the existing reactor building, though the finished reactor dome will still resemble the German design.

Though Soviet-designed nuclear power plants differ from Western nuclear power plants in many respects, including safety systems -- only the VVER-1000 design has a containment structure like that of most nuclear power plants elsewhere in the world. Although it shares a basic engineering concept with its counterparts in the United States, France and Japan, the Soviet VVER pressurized water design is very different. VVER is an acronym for Vodo-Vodyannoy Energeticheskiy Reactor (water-cooled, water-moderated).

The VVER-1000 design was developed between 1975 and 1985 based on the requirements of a new Soviet nuclear standard that incorporated some international practices, particularly in the area of plant safety. The evolutionary design incorporates safety improvements over earlier VVER-440 Model V213 plants, including a steel-lined, pre-stressed, large-volume concrete containment structure similar in function to Western nuclear plants. Four primary coolant loops (providing multiple paths for cooling the reactor), each with a horizontal steam generator (for better heat transfer), this design is more forgiving than Western plant designs with two, three or four large vertical steam generators.

I told you. Iranian nuclear reactors are American??? Indeed. None too bright these people.

SaintLucifer
The Dark Saint

[bishop]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program#U.S.-Iran_nuclear_cooperation_in_the_1970s

[jose]

how many countries have nuclear power?
Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, India, Iran, Japan, North Korea, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, and the U.S. are currently planning or building new nuclear reactors or reopening old ones. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Indonesia, Israel, Slovakia, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom and Vietnam, are considering doing this. Armenia, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland have nuclear reactors but currently no advanced proposals for expansion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power