Historic U.S.-Iran nuclear deal could be taking shape

[Beet]

Link

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I still can't fathom why Israel's programme is never brought up despite its endless bitching about Iran's nukes.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I still can't fathom why Israel's programme is never brought up despite its endless bitching about Iran's nukes.

Because you can't put genies back in the bottle.

Israel isn't disarming. No one's going to disarm. Ever.

Also, because Israel isn't going around yelling about wiping countries off the map. Boasting about your genocide intentions = no genocide weapons.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Rather a glum perspective :/

Worldwide disarmament is not an impossibility. In fact it's increasingly vital, and the rouge states (including, regrettably, my own country) that still insist on keeping WMD's are increasingly embarrassing and dangerous.

I think the loathing between Israel and Iran is pretty much mutual, to be fair to the iranians.

[politicus]

Rather a glum perspective :/

Worldwide disarmament is not an impossibility. In fact it's increasingly vital, and the rouge states (including, regrettably, my own country) that still insist on keeping WMD's are increasingly embarrassing and dangerous.

I think the loathing between Israel and Iran is pretty much mutual, to be fair to the Iranians.

Britain is such a pinko country..

Whether Iran loathing Israel is a widespread popular sentiment or an ideological belief among the ruling elite is hard to verify.

[MaxQue]

I still can't fathom why Israel's programme is never brought up despite its endless bitching about Iran's nukes.

Because they call you anti-semitic if you do that.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Rather a glum perspective :/

Worldwide disarmament is not an impossibility. In fact it's increasingly vital, and the rouge states (including, regrettably, my own country) that still insist on keeping WMD's are increasingly embarrassing and dangerous.

I think the loathing between Israel and Iran is pretty much mutual, to be fair to the iranians.

Problem is, there's always going to be one country that's the last to disarm. In the global power scene, that's likely to be either Russia or China - which spells a rather grim future for hundreds of millions of people in their power sphere.

I think the status quo of carefully maintained stockpiles of nukes among superpowers is pretty sustainable, because all the superpowers have an interest in their own survival. The thing that really caused things to unravel is the nuke trade, which led to less stable countries like North Korea, and active enemies like Pakistan and India, getting nukes.

[politicus]

Rather a glum perspective :/

Worldwide disarmament is not an impossibility. In fact it's increasingly vital, and the rouge states (including, regrettably, my own country) that still insist on keeping WMD's are increasingly embarrassing and dangerous.

I think the loathing between Israel and Iran is pretty much mutual, to be fair to the iranians.

Problem is, there's always going to be one country that's the last to disarm. In the global power scene, that's likely to be either Russia or China - which spells a rather grim future for hundreds of millions of people in their power sphere.

I think the status quo of carefully maintained stockpiles of nukes among superpowers is pretty sustainable, because all the superpowers have an interest in their own survival. The thing that really caused things to unravel is the nuke trade, which led to less stable countries like North Korea, and active enemies like Pakistan and India, getting nukes.

India and Pakistan balance each other nicely. It would be bizarre if a billion+ country should not have nukes - and if India has them, Pakistan needs them too.

Israeli nukes is a vital security guarantee for a country with far stronger enemies.

[Indy Texas]

I still can't fathom why Israel's programme is never brought up despite its endless bitching about Iran's nukes.

Because you can't put genies back in the bottle.

Israel isn't disarming. No one's going to disarm. Ever.

Also, because Israel isn't going around yelling about wiping countries off the map. Boasting about your genocide intentions = no genocide weapons.

Oh my God, Immadinnerjacket's gone, and the Iranian President is not the same thing as the American President. The Iranian Prez is #17 in the chain of command or something (who the hell is #17 in our chain even??), and he just functions as the "voice of the people" when consulting the mullahs (in addition to some other important domestic roles).The mullahs are the ones who really rule Iran. IIRC, the Supreme Leader Khamenei said that possessing nuclear weapons would be "a great sin". In fact, he issued a fatwa saying that production and possession of nukes is forbidden under Islam...in 2005.

The mullahs aren't suicidal and apocalyptic like ISIS. The mullahs would like to survive and continue ruling. Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy, and there is no solid evidence that they're trying to develop a nuclear weapon outright. None whatsoever.

Considering how the world's great powers have treated Iran across history, and the way we used "inspections" as a way to demand increasing amount of documents for Iraq's WMD program and eventually lead to the 2003 invasion, Iran has every right to be suspect of any interference and "deals" we strike with them, as well as Israel's aggressive rhetoric and actions towards them and other Muslim states. Israel is the one constantly sabotaging treaties here, not Iran.

Basically this.

Also, Israeli politicians have alluded to a desire for genocide against Palestinians on multiple occasions. Does that make their possession of nukes less legitimate?

[politicus]

Also, Israeli politicians have alluded to a desire for genocide against Palestinians on multiple occasions. Does that make their possession of nukes less legitimate?

Which politicians? Far right nutjobs do not count in this context.

[Famous Mortimer]

Although Israel won't confirm or deny having nukes, there's the assumption that they follow a no first use policy.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The idea that keeping nukes ensures ones safety is the same farcical thinking that brought us the NRA saying 'the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun'.

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that this logic can be used to justify the keeping of nuclear arsenals. Fact is, the so-called 'nuclear peace' is a highly dangerous situation - they are dangerous, liable to attack and sabotage, promote further proliferation and consume responses that could be used on conventional arms.

Sure, it would be hard to rid China and Russia of their stockpiles (although they are legally obliged to get rid of them), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work hard at ending nuclear arms, the same way we ended other WMD's. Followed by , of course, the extreme regulation of fissile materials (part of the reason I'm highly sceptical of the supposed rush to nuclear that is supposed to end fossil fuels).

@politicus, but nukes haven't made either india or Pakistan safer ... That's the key problem. They just uselessly raise the stakes and provide more ways anti-state terrorists can acquire materials to make dirty bombs.

I do wonder about the Iranian population's actual feelings towards Israel. They do seem a lot more mellow than Khameni and his goons.

[moderatevoter]

The thing that really caused things to unravel is the nuke trade, which led to less stable countries like North Korea, and active enemies like Pakistan and India, getting nukes.

India seems to have gotten the bomb and its technology on its own accord. As for Pakistan, let's just say they didn't. I'll leave it at that.

There's also this interesting tidbit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link.

[ag]

Although Israel won't confirm or deny having nukes, there's the assumption that they follow a no first use policy.

An assumption, that, probably is even less valid of Israel than of any other nuclear power.

[Famous Mortimer]

Although Israel won't confirm or deny having nukes, there's the assumption that they follow a no first use policy.

An assumption, that, probably is even less valid of Israel than of any other nuclear power.

Coming from you, that's very reassuring.

[ag]

Although Israel won't confirm or deny having nukes, there's the assumption that they follow a no first use policy.

An assumption, that, probably is even less valid of Israel than of any other nuclear power.

Coming from you, that's very reassuring.

why am I special? I do not profess any expertise on the nukes.

[BaconBacon96]

It's time for this to happen. Iran under Rouhani has shown willingness to negotiate, unlike that crazy psycho Ahmadinejad. Get it done and ignore Israel's continued screaming, they aren't helping.

[Beet]

States without nukes, that once had nukes or nuclear programs but gave them up through diplomacy:

Pre-2003 Iraq
Pre-2011 Libya
Pre-2014 Ukraine

States with nukes, that refused to give them up through diplomacy:

North Korea

So if you're a rogue state, which would you rather be?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

States without nukes, that once had nukes or nuclear programs but gave them up through diplomacy:

Pre-2003 Iraq
Pre-2011 Libya
Pre-2014 Ukraine

States with nukes, that refused to give them up through diplomacy:

North Korea

So if you're a rogue state, which would you rather be?

You forgot South Africa, which developed 6 nuclear weapons in the late-1970s (?) through the late -1980s in the first group (possibly with the help of Israel, and part of the reason they gave them up so the blacks couldn't have them when Apartheid ended, IIRC).

So many people forget they had them as well.

[politicus]

States without nukes, that once had nukes or nuclear programs but gave them up through diplomacy:

Pre-2003 Iraq
Pre-2011 Libya
Pre-2014 Ukraine

The idea that Iraq and Libya had nukes is not really backed up by hard evidence.

[Beet]

Neither had nukes, but both had a nuclear program in the 1970s and 80s, and in Libya's case lasted until 2003.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Everyone and their mothers had a nuclear programme at one time. Frickin Sweden had one.

[politicus]

Everyone and their mothers had a nuclear programme at one time. Frickin Sweden had one.

Sweden was much closer to getting the bomb than Libya or Iraq ever were. In 1965 the technicians at Foa (defence research department) only needed political acceptance and 10 kilogramme of plutonium. They had everything else ready.

In all likelyhood the US decided to cover Sweden under it's nuclear umbrella in 1964 and they dropped it afterwards. That year Sweden began a sudden expansion of air bases and runways were extended to receive large strategic bombers. The connection fitting on the fuel lines from the flying refill planes was changed to NATO standard and US intelligence reports (which had previously warned against Sweden's nuclear weapons program) began to downplay the risk.

It is somewhat interesting that Palme accepted to become dependent on US nuclear protection, but there was a growing anti-nuclear sentiment in the population.

Most of the remaining Swedish plutonium was shipped to Britain in 1972 (after they had conducted thorough test series), but until then they had the capacity to relaunch the programme fairly quickly. They still kept a small "spare supply" of plutonium to 2012.

Sweden had a high technical level, ample supply of uranium and a non-war damaged industry + nukes was their only chance against the Soviets, so it was not an unreasonable idea. Sweden actually needed nukes more than Britain.