Russia & China defends Iran's nuclear program.

[Technosoul]

France was talking tough about Irans nuclear plants as U..S. prepares for bombing attacks. But Backed down then contacted by Russian government.

Russia and China were granted contracts by Iran to help them build their nuclear energy plants and bombing raids by Bush cloud endanger those workers sent to Iran by Russia or China, it would appear.

For the USA to attack citizens of Russia or China while they were peacefully working in another counntry would upset both nations.

The above comments are my personal opinons based on the news link below.

Russia, China worried by Iran attack talk - Yahoo! News

Yahoo! News Photo

[The Architect]

And this is why we shouldnt leave world affairs to the Chinese or the Russians.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The Architect And this is why we shouldnt leave world affairs to the Chinese or the Russians.

Why, they're only citing the same justification they used to be able to retain the nuclear capabilities they have.


Isn't Mutually Assured Destruction only a valid concept when we are all "mutually" armed?


Perhaps MAD was just political double speak to sway public opinion, and achieve a desired goal.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Why, they're only citing the same justification they used to be able to retain the nuclear capabilities they have. Isn't Mutually Assured Destruction only a valid concept when we are all "mutually" armed?

MAD. You gotta love that acronym. Anyway, here is what a number of countries are saying: "The US may employ thuggery against me, so we'd better get ready."
It's not the dumbest point of view imaginable, given the clear precedence of US attacks against countries that can hardly defend themselves. It's a deadly game, but one the US has gone far out of its way to play.

It's also far-fetched to believe these politicians will mutually pledge to
instantly abolish their nuclear toys. Someone else will have to do it for them, probably the populations in each corresponding country (which is also dangerous, for obvious reasons).

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

If Iran wants nukes, it's their sovereign right to pursue them. No nation has a right to dictate to another what weapons it can or cannot have.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Chancellor If Iran wants nukes, it's their sovereign right to pursue them.

Actually, they don't have that right. Iran signed the NPT which bars them from aqcuiring and/or manufacturing nuclear weapons.

[PatrickHenry]

Presumably Iran could abrogate that treaty as the US did with the ABM Treaty, huh, Dieval?

And why won't Israel, the US' little attack dog, sign the damn thing?

[BobbyO]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Presumably Iran could abrogate that treaty as the US did with the ABM Treaty, huh, Dieval? And why won't Israel, the US' little attack dog, sign the damn thing?

If they could, they would have to do so. So far, they have not.

The ABM treaty allowed for one side to abrogate the treaty. Of course, abrogating a treaty to build WMD's (assuming it could be lawfully done under NPT) is not quite the same as abrogating a treaty (which clearly said could be done) to build systems to destroy such weaponry.

[Dieval]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Presumably Iran could abrogate that treaty

They could, but they have not.

Quote by: PatrickHenry as the US did with the ABM Treaty, huh, Dieval? And why won't Israel, the US' little attack dog, sign the damn thing?

If you want to talk about other subjects, completely unrelated to Iran's nuclear program, then I suggest you create another thread.

[Praxius]

It's good news in more ways then one actually, as China and Russia are still technically allies, and we buy, sell, trade, etc. with both countries.

They would not be interested in their investments becoming attacked, esspecially in a nuclear manner, which would also threaten them as well.

And they would make It kinda hard to continue to make it a secret if they actually are building nukes, considdering you would have two other countries directly involved in the Nuclear developments.

If there are nukes being worked on, it wouldn't be soon before long that the word would slip out somewhere down the chain.

I'd considder this more of a mediator observation without the need of force.

[Mr. Big]

First, the Iranian desire to build nukes is heavily influenced by Washington's war-mongering and the threat both the USA and Israel pose to the region. While I do not dislike Israel, the natural consequence of having belligerent countries armed with nuclear weapons is to acquire nuclear weapons to defend against a possible attack. A nuke is a great deterrent; if your forces begin to invade, the enemy has the possibility of using the weapon against them. If the range is long enough, a last gasp attempt by an enemy being defeated would be to use it against the attacking nation's country... To my knowledge no country with a nuclear weapon has ever been attacked by another nation's army.

Second, treaties only seem to work well when the strongest nation in the world adheres to them (i.e. the USA stops building nuclear weapons, and the systems designed to defend against them).If the United States continues to pump out these kinds of weapons, it should be expected that other countries will try to do the same.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Mr. Big First, the Iranian desire to build nukes is heavily influenced by Washington's war-mongering and the threat both the USA and Israel pose to the region. While I do not dislike Israel, the natural consequence of having belligerent countries armed with nuclear weapons is to acquire nuclear weapons to defend against a possible attack.

I'm sure Russia's real or imagined sales of nuclear
technology to Iran will also be a factor. This angle is being ignored now, but I'm sure some US politicians will bring it up.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Dieval Actually, they don't have that right. Iran signed the NPT which bars them from aqcuiring and/or manufacturing nuclear weapons.

Iran can choose to repeal its signing of that treaty.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Chancellor Iran can choose to repeal its signing of that treaty.

Obviously they can pull out of the treaty. They have not pulled out (yet) so they do not have the right to persue nuclear weapons. If they were to pull out of this treaty it would be a clear sign of their intentions.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Mr. Big First, the Iranian desire to build nukes is heavily influenced by Washington's war-mongering and the threat both the USA and Israel pose to the region. While I do not dislike Israel, the natural consequence of having belligerent countries armed with nuclear weapons is to acquire nuclear weapons to defend against a possible attack. A nuke is a great deterrent; if your forces begin to invade, the enemy has the possibility of using the weapon against them. If the range is long enough, a last gasp attempt by an enemy being defeated would be to use it against the attacking nation's country... To my knowledge no country with a nuclear weapon has ever been attacked by another nation's army. Second, treaties only seem to work well when the strongest nation in the world adheres to them (i.e. the USA stops building nuclear weapons, and the systems designed to defend against them).If the United States continues to pump out these kinds of weapons, it should be expected that other countries will try to do the same.

The United States has signed treaties to reduce its nuclear inventory- and followed through.
Right now, it is Russia who is building up its nuclear inventory. Yet Russia seems favorably disposed toward Iran.

Perhaps the real issue is that other country's have their own interests and objectives, and the aquisition of such weaponry may seem to be the best way to realise those objectives. And perhaps those interests are not a REACTION to the interests of other country's.

[Mr. Big]

Quote by: BobbyO Perhaps the real issue is that other country's have their own interests and objectives, and the aquisition of such weaponry may seem to be the best way to realise those objectives. And perhaps those interests are not a REACTION to the interests of other country's.

Perhaps, but you haven't backed that up with solid argument.

Also, there is a difference between signing a treaty and living up to a treaty. I am not sure if the USA has actually stopped building them, but even if, they still are building weapon systems in that area.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Mr. Big Perhaps, but you haven't backed that up with solid argument. Also, there is a difference between signing a treaty and living up to a treaty. I am not sure if the USA has actually stopped building them, but even if, they still are building weapon systems in that area.

Iran does not have an interest in promoting Islamic fundamentalism? It self evidently does, as witness its support of hezbollah and its efforts to take over Lebanon. It doesn't have an interest in eliminating Israel? It has said so.

The weapons system is a defensive system against nuclear weaponry. It's never been made clear why that is a bad thing to have.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: BobbyO The weapons system is a defensive system against nuclear weaponry. It's never been made clear why that is a bad thing to have.

You have proof of one man saying as much. Does that make the whole country a target for your retribution?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Mr. Big Perhaps, but you haven't backed that up with solid argument. Also, there is a difference between signing a treaty and living up to a treaty. I am not sure if the USA has actually stopped building them, but even if, they still are building weapon systems in that area.

Dunno how true this is, but:

A New Era of Nuclear Weapons as Bush's Buildup Begins with Little Debate in Congress

Congress, with only a limited debate, has given the Bush administration a green light for the biggest revitalization of the country's nuclear weapons program since the end of the Cold War, leaving many Democrats and even some hawkish Republicans seething........ .....Reversing a decade of restraint in nuclear weapons policy, Congress agreed to provide more than $6 billion for research, expansion and upgrades in the country's nuclear capabilities. While Congress approved large sums to maintain the existing nuclear arsenal even during the Clinton years, this year's increases will finance multiyear programs to design a new generation of warheads as well as more sophisticated missiles, bombers and re-entry vehicles to deliver them..... ....."It hasn't been perceived as such, but this is a nuclear revival," said Stephen Schwartz, publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Deeply disturbing to critics on both sides of the political spectrum is how little public or congressional discussion has taken place, and how little detailed information the Bush administration has provided on its strategies and plans...... ......"I'm totally offended by this administration," said Rep. Curt Weldon, R- Pa., a onetime White House ally on nuclear issues, and vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "I happen to think they're out of bounds on this. There's an important sea change in the world, and we have no idea what our policy is..... ......Yet for all their misgivings, influential Republicans like Weldon managed to impose only minuscule cuts of less than $20 million on the programs for new warhead development, leaving plans for jump-starting the U.S. nuclear arsenal and warhead production capabilities largely intact...... ....."Nothing that happened in Congress stops (the Bush administration) from doing what they want to do at this point," said Robert Civiak, a nuclear physicist and former weapons analyst at the Office of Management of Budget. "The message that got across is that the country is ready for new kinds of nuclear weapons."..... ....The Bush administration has argued that the new doctrine and new weapons are needed because the world has changed since the Cold War, when the United States deterred the Soviet Union from striking by developing a massive arsenal that promised complete annihilation. Now, the administration argues, there are new, regional menaces from such countries as North Korea and Iran..... ...To deter those threats, the administration is seeking a new stockpile of both some Cold War-era warheads and new, smaller weapons that can be used for limited attacks and for destroying caches of weapons of mass destruction, especially in buried bunkers, without causing indiscriminate destruction and loss of life. It has also proposed a policy of possible pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons in emergencies, even against non-nuclear states..... .....A recent study entitled "Missiles of Empire: America's 21st Century Global Legions," by Lichterman of the Western States Legal Foundation highlights not only the administration's push for new kinds of warheads, but also the billions it is planning to spend on reducing the time it would take to launch a nuclear strike and on a new generation of missile re-entry vehicles, among other things. The re-entry vehicles would allow the military to steer warheads toward targets, even moving targets, entering the atmosphere from space....... ...."We have more nuclear weapons now than we know what to do with,'' said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's energy and water subcommittee, which controls the nuclear weapons budget. "I'm concerned about our image in the world when we're telling others not to build these things, and then we push these new programs.".......

And it just keeps on going with info.

From 2003 it reads.

Original source apparently:

A new era of nuclear weapons / Bush's buildup begins with little debate in Congress

[Mr. Big]

Quote by: BobbyO Iran does not have an interest in promoting Islamic fundamentalism? It self evidently does, as witness its support of hezbollah and its efforts to take over Lebanon. It doesn't have an interest in eliminating Israel? It has said so.

It has said that Israel should not exist, true. But then again Israel has nuclear weapons, so a chance at invasion or an attack is remote. Iran, not yet having nuclear weapons, would know the consequence of such actions. Even if they had them, the consequences of such an action would be catastrophic. This is something that is clear to the majority of people, most likely including the Iranian president.

While this argument does not support your conclusion, a similar argument seems to work to support mine; the USA has openly called for regime change in Iran, has moved to impose sanctions, has stated repeatedly that they do not want a nuclear armed Iran, has a history of freely invading other nations who did not agree with it (Nicaragua, Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, etc), though never a country with nuclear weapons who could threaten it or an ally country (i.e. North Korea). The latest actions and focus involve "democratizing" the middle east through regime change. Obviously these regimes don't want to go, so force must be used. This means that in order to defend themselves against proven aggressors a state like Iran must acquire nuclear weapons. This prevents the USA from furthering their goal of leadership change in Iran.

Also, if supporting another political group is considered support of their belief system, the United States openly supports military dictatorships and Islam (i.e. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Russia for a bit... though Russia isn't Muslim).

Quote by: BobbyO The weapons system is a defensive system against nuclear weaponry. It's never been made clear why that is a bad thing to have.

In war as in sports it is sometimes hard to distinguish between a good offense and a good defense. Both are necessary for winning the game. Just as Iran tries to build nuclear weaponry to protect its self so it can achieve its own objectives (self preservation maybe?) by being able to defend against military aggressors, so to the United States tries to protect its self to achieve its own agenda (dominance over others? regime change? opening other nations' economies to American firms?). Once starwars is put in place, granting it works, the USA would not have to fear nuclear attack, and can then act as it wishes on the international stage.