The real nuclear threat versus fantasy Iranian ICBMs

[mattskramer]

Read the treaty, then ask the questions.
There's nothing in it that states that pre-treaty nuclear-capable states cannot build more nukes.

Okay. I read it. What a convenient document for America. Still, due to the treats, it is okay for Russia and the People's Republic of China to make more nukes too

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. I read it. What a convenient document for America.

No one was forced to sign this treaty.
And, the treaty answers your questions. Was there anything else?

The idea that allowing Iran to have nukes is no different that giving a gun to a severely depressed schizophrenic who is off his meds. Certainly, you can appreciate that argument, yes?

 

[mattskramer]

No one was forced to sign this treaty.
And, the treaty answers your questions. Was there anything else?

The idea that allowing Iran to have nukes is no different that giving a gun to a severely depressed schizophrenic who is off his meds. Certainly, you can appreciate that argument, yes?

Yes. I can appreciate that. The question then becomes, who is to decide who is depressed? Are any nations sympathetic to Iran? If so, let’s have them play doctor.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. I can appreciate that.

So, you have yet another reason why Iran should not have nukes.

I hope this conversation has cast light where there was once only shadow.

 

[mattskramer]

So, you have yet another reason why Iran should not have nukes.

I hope this conversation has cast light where there was once only shadow.

Yeah. I think that I understand it more. Sometimes I think that America can be somewhat arrogant and presumptuous in its relationships with other nations. “Who are we to judge other sovereign nations and but into their affairs?” Why can we dictate what nation can’t have nukes while we are free to build up nuclear arsenals as we see fit? What gives us the right to police the world but for our own blind nationalism? Now I understand.

It is interesting though, how we seem to use UN documents / resolutions to justify certain things and then criticize the UN and threaten to leave the UN when it does not do what we want it to do. I guess that such a perspective would be best suited for a different thread. Ok well. Thanks for clarifying the NPT.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah. I think that I understand it more. Sometimes I think that America can be somewhat arrogant and presumptuous in its relationships with other nations.

There's nothing arrogant or presumptuous in insisting that a state live up to its treaty obligations.

It is interesting though, how we seem to use UN documents / resolutions to justify certain things...

The NPT isnt a UN resolution. Its a treaty signed by various nations, completely independent of the UN.

 

[Larkinn]

There's nothing arrogant or presumptuous in insisting that a state live up to its treaty obligations.

And who gets to decide if a country is living up to those obligations or not? Numerous countries think that the US has not lived up to the NPT. Similarly there have been suits in France that the US did not live up to the Convention Against Torture. Should France be allowed to drag Rumsfeld into court to answer charges?

 

[DeadCanDance]

The NPT proscribed two primary obligations.

That non-nuclear states wouldn't build nukes AND in exchange, that the nuclear states would promise to eventually dismantle their nuclear weapons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And who gets to decide if a country is living up to those obligations or not?

The parties to the treaty, as stupulated by said treaty.

Numerous countries think that the US has not lived up to the NPT.

That's nice.
Which article of the treaty has the US supposedly violated, and how?

Similarly there have been suits in France that the US did not live up to the Convention Against Torture. Should France be allowed to drag Rumsfeld into court to answer charges?

Treaty issues are not resolved in court, unless that is a stipulation of the treaty. If there is no such stipulation, then there's no requirement that anyone go to court, or that any court 'judgement' be heeded.

 

[Larkinn]

The parties to the treaty, as stupulated by said treaty.

Well considering the NPT has nothing in it stipulating who gets to decide that, by your own statements nobody, including yourself, gets to decide that. Fabulous rule there.

That's nice.
Which article of the treaty has the US supposedly violated, and how?

Article VI. And it should be pretty obvious.

Treaty issues are not resolved in court, unless that is a stipulation of the treaty. If there is no such stipulation, then there's no requirement that anyone go to court, or that any court 'judgement' be heeded.

And if they aren't resolved in courts, they aren't resolved at all. Congratulations on making all treaties worldwide completely toothless. With a view like this, you have no right to bitch about other countries not fulfilling their treaty obligations, since with a view like this there is no reason for them to do so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well considering the NPT has nothing in it stipulating who gets to decide that, by your own statements nobody, including yourself, gets to decide that. Fabulous rule there.

Welcome to international law.

Article VI. And it should be pretty obvious.

Its not. Please describe, in detail.
Be especiallly descriptive in including the treaties to this end that the US has entered into since 1968.

And if they aren't resolved in courts, they aren't resolved at all.

Welcome to international law.

 

[Larkinn]

Welcome to international law.

Yes, and we should change it. However either support changing it, or stop bitching when other countries don't follow it. I would love to change it and make the US AND Iran both liable for the treaties they sign under international and national law. But its the right that is stopping that...so you can support it or not, but don't not support it and then complain about its effects.

Its not. Please describe, in detail.
Be especiallly descriptive in including the treaties to this end that the US has entered into since 1968.

And which treaty has the US signed in which it promised " general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

Welcome to international law.

Actually that is not specific to international law, it applies to law in general. Maybe you would support international law being upheld in courts then? Naah, then the US might actually have to abide by some of its promises.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, and we should change it. However either support changing it, or stop bitching when other countries don't follow it.

If parties to a treaty do not hold other parties of that treaty to the treaty, then no one else does.

I would love to change it and make the US AND Iran both liable for the treaties they sign under international and national law. But its the right that is stopping that.

No. The nature of international law is stopping that.
Countries are bound to their treaties when thety choose to be or are forced to be. You DO understand that the "international law" regarding the NPT is the NPT itself, right?

And which treaty has the US signed in which it promised " general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

The SALT, START and SORT treaties are/were steps to this end.

Actually that is not specific to international law, it applies to law in general.

International law is not 'law in general'. It is nothing more than a way for nations to deal with of another, based -entirely- on the treaties that they sign and accepted custom. Parties to a treaty are given certain rights by a treaty, and it up to those parties to resolve disagreements among themselves -- there's no court with jurisdiction, and any such court that claims jurisdiction can be safely ignored by any state that did not agree to it.

 

[Larkinn]

If parties to a treaty do not hold other parties of that treaty to the treaty, then no one else does.

And you implied that the parties aren't justifiable in doing so unless the treaty stipulates it, which the NPT does not.

No. The nature of international law is stopping that.

Oh? And please define exactly what is the "nature of international law" that is stopping it.

Countries are bound to their treaties when thety choose to be or are forced to be.

Incorrect. Unless there are enforcement mechanisms, which generally there aren't, countries aren't bound to anything. They generally respect treaties for political reasons and for the reasons they enter into the treaties in the first place, but the countries aren't bound to their treaties by force.

You DO understand that the "international law" regarding the NPT is the NPT itself, right?

Incorrect. See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The SALT, START and SORT treaties are/were steps to this end.

Limiting something is very different than removing it. None of those treaties had the goal of getting rid of nuclear capability, just reducing it.

International law is not 'law in general'. It is nothing more than a way for nations to deal with of another, based -entirely- on the treaties that they sign and accepted custom.

Actually it is law in general. Its generally not enforced because there are no enforcement mechanisms, and it works very differently than domestic law, but it is still law.

Parties to a treaty are given certain rights by a treaty, and it up to those parties to resolve disagreements among themselves -- there's no court with jurisdiction, and any such court that claims jurisdiction can be safely ignored by any state that did not agree to it.

Because all countries always respect each others sovreignity, right?

And as for that...the ICC has jurisdiction over every country in the world in certain circumstances...whether they submit to it or not.

International law is very political. It is not simple, and it is very different than domestic law. However there are certain segments of the American political spectrum who seem to want it both ways. When someone they don't like violates international law its a travesty and they must be punished. When America violates international law, well there are no enforcement mechanisms and international law isn't "real law". While either view can be held as an appropriate view to the current state of International law, holding both depeneding on which country is committing the crime is extremely hypocritical.

To say that International law cannot be enforced unless a treaty specifically says so is incorrect. There are mechanisms in place to enforce treaties outside of individual treaties. The largest and most common which is the UNSC which has jurisdiction to give orders to sovreign nations without their consent. This rarely happens because the US government realizes that it cannot be as hypocritical as sections of the American political spectrum, and it has to at least retain an appearance of consistency and so generally votes not to order other countries what to do, regardless of the egregiousness of their offenses. The other problem is that most of the countries on the UNSC don't care much about Human Rights and mostly have actions for political reasons...and getting the US, China, and Russia to agree on anything politically is next to impossible.

 

[Warner]

I can almost smell the fear coming off of you.

Let me explain a few military realities, while you change your pants.

Only two adversaries of the United States have ever developed the technical capacity for a viable delivery system (i.e., ICBM) capable of hitting the united states. USSR and China. A nuclear delivery system of that capacity is an extremly complex and costly technical problem. Even if Iran wanted to make ICBMs capable of suborbital flight - missles that could circumvent the planet - to hit us on the other side of the world, they are many, many years, perhaps decades away, from making that happen.

Okay, so Iran could probably never hit us with nuclear-tipped ICBMs in your lifetime. Wouldn't they just give their nuke to al qaeda, you ask? Don't make me laugh. The Shia government of Iran is not about to hand their nukes over to enemies of the state. The fundamentalist sunnis of al qaeda would just as soon cut a persian Shia's head off, as spit on his grave. I give the iranians more credit for not being stupid, than you.


That leaves us with prioritizing the problem. In my view, Iran enriching uranium is only a problem if it can be verified that they intend to have nuclear weapons-grade uranium. A good reason to keep pressure on them to comply with all IAEA requests and inspections. As far as enriching civilian-grade uranium - even President Bush says they have a right to civilian nuclear power. That is enshrined in international law. So, in terms of priorities, while cons are shitting their diapers over iran, the real potential of a nuclear attack on us comes from blackmarket uranium from the poorly guarded stockpiles of the former soviet union. And guess what? When bush came into office he downgraded the US government assistance to the eastern bloc to secure their stockpiles, and now Bush is talking about cutting port security for the United States.

If you've read any of my previous posts on the matter you understand that I'm not big on fear of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Mostly this is because they simply don't have access to large quantities of uranium ore.

That being said lets look at your arguments realistically. You seem to think that if Iran were to develop and possess nuclear weapons they would not be a threat because they lack missiles to deliver them with.That's all well and good but what would stop them from putting the weapon inside a (sheilded) shipping container, arranging for it to be placed on a ship under false papers, and detonating it in a major us port such as NYC? Or putting it on a submarine and detonating it in an Israeli port city?

The whole idea that Iran's nuclear program could be designed for anything other than the production of nuclear weapons is silly. If Iran's only interest were nuclear power they could easily make a deal to give up the centrifuges in exchange for non-weapons grade material. The only thing you need highly enriched uranium or plutonium for is to make a nuclear weapon, and this is the only possible purpose for the Iranians spending so much money on centrifuges.

I believe that Iran believes that if it can produce just a few viable nuclear weapons this will somehow enable them to take much more proactive action in the region. For example in a few years they might move into Iraq feeling that having nuclear weapons with which to threaten Israel will protect them from US reprisal.

 

[Warner]

Yeah...nothing to worry about....

why worry about Iran enriching their own uranium in any quantity they need...
even as they work to develop the Shahab 7 missile (9300 Mile range)

we need to worry about AQ getting their hands on that 500 GRAMS of enriched uranium the Russian hoods are peddling...they could take it back to
their caves and mount it on a camels ass where one big big Allah induced fart
might hurdle it across the sky to land in Chicago....or AQ might sail that 500 GRAMS into the heart of NY on one their camel dung fired subs.....
So lets get our priorities in order.....fear AQ not Iran....

moron reasoning at its best....

Ummm... 500 grams is over a pound.

One pound of highly enriched uranium or plutonium plus a few pounds of C4 (or an appropriate amount of another explosive) could make a good part (perhaps 20%) of Manhattan (23 sq. miles) uninhabitable for decades or even centuries. It would also result in a few hundred to perhaps a few thousand deaths up front and thousands more over the course of the lives of those exposed.

One particle of plutonium in your lung so small you cannot even see it without a magnifying glass means lung cancer. In your stomach it means stomach, colon, or possibly liver/kidney cancer.

500 grams of weapons grade material is nothing to scoff at. A few minutes in the same room with it without adequate protection means a sure a painful death.

 

[DeadCanDance]

If you've read any of my previous posts on the matter you understand that I'm not big on fear of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Mostly this is because they simply don't have access to large quantities of uranium ore.

That being said lets look at your arguments realistically. You seem to think that if Iran were to develop and possess nuclear weapons they would not be a threat because they lack missiles to deliver them with.That's all well and good but what would stop them from putting the weapon inside a (sheilded) shipping container, arranging for it to be placed on a ship under false papers, and detonating it in a major us port such as NYC? Or putting it on a submarine and detonating it in an Israeli port city?

The whole idea that Iran's nuclear program could be designed for anything other than the production of nuclear weapons is silly. If Iran's only interest were nuclear power they could easily make a deal to give up the centrifuges in exchange for non-weapons grade material. The only thing you need highly enriched uranium or plutonium for is to make a nuclear weapon, and this is the only possible purpose for the Iranians spending so much money on centrifuges.

I believe that Iran believes that if it can produce just a few viable nuclear weapons this will somehow enable them to take much more proactive action in the region. For example in a few years they might move into Iraq feeling that having nuclear weapons with which to threaten Israel will protect them from US reprisal.

You won't find a post by me anywhere on this board where I said Iran having a bomb is a good thing, or that its something we shouldn't be concerned about.

I'm saying we should keep the priorities of the threats in mind. While neocons on this board have been screaming about Iran's nuclear program, the fact is the NIE just released today says that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program years ago, and even if they decided to restart it, it would be until about 2015 before they would probably even have a bomb.

Meanwhile, actual existing enriched uranium is available on the black market, primarily from the former soviet states. And oddly, when bush entered office in 2001, he downgraded US assistance to secure unsecured stocks of uranium in the former soviet states. And now, he's proposing cutting port security in the united states.

So, I ask you: what do you think the real nuclear threat is that we face over the next decade? And why is it that bush lovers have made about 200 posts about the iranian nuclear threat, and not a single one about the threat of black market uranium?

 

[Alpha1]

Ummm... 500 grams is over a pound.

One pound of highly enriched uranium or plutonium plus a few pounds of C4 (or an appropriate amount of another explosive) could make a good part (perhaps 20%) of Manhattan (23 sq. miles) uninhabitable for decades or even centuries. It would also result in a few hundred to perhaps a few thousand deaths up front and thousands more over the course of the lives of those exposed.

One particle of plutonium in your lung so small you cannot even see it without a magnifying glass means lung cancer. In your stomach it means stomach, colon, or possibly liver/kidney cancer.

500 grams of weapons grade material is nothing to scoff at. A few minutes in the same room with it without adequate protection means a sure a painful death.

The minimum mass of fissile material that can sustain a nuclear chain reaction is called a critical mass and depends on the density, shape, and type of fissile material, as well as the effectiveness of any surrounding material (called a reflector or tamper) at reflecting neutrons back into the fissioning mass. Critical masses in spherical geometry for weapon-grade materials are as follows:

Uranium-235 Plutonium-239

Bare sphere: 56 kg 11 kg
Thick Tamper: 15 kg 5 kg


The critical mass of compressed fissile material decreases as the inverse square of the density achieved. Since critical mass decreases rapidly as density increases, the implosion technique can make do with substantially less nuclear material than the gun-assembly method. The "Fat Man" atomic bomb that destroyed Nagasaki in 1945 used 6.2 kilograms of plutonium and produced an explosive yield of 21-23 kilotons [a 1987 reassessment of the Japanese bombings placed the yield at 21 Kt]. Until January 1994, the Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that 8 kilograms would typically be needed to make a small nuclear weapon. Subsequently, however, DOE reduced the estimate of the amount of plutonium needed to 4 kilograms. Some US scientists believe that 1 kilogram of plutonium will suffice.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And you implied that the parties aren't justifiable in doing so unless the treaty stipulates it, which the NPT does not.

The primary point here is that:
-Iran is party to the NPT
-Iran is not abiding by the terms of the NPT
-Other parties to the NPT are trying to get Iran to abide by the terms of the NPT.
These other parties absolutely have the right to expect Iran to abide by the NPT.

Oh? And please define exactly what is the "nature of international law" that is stopping it.

I believe you said it well enough:
Unless there are enforcement mechanisms, which generally there aren't, countries aren't bound to anything. They generally respect treaties for political reasons and for the reasons they enter into the treaties in the first place, but the countries aren't bound to their treaties by force.

This is a condition inherent to international law, because states will generally refuse to give up enough of their sovereignty to unquestioningly accept extra-national judgements as absolutely binding, such as we do with domestic law.

Incorrect. See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

In terms of what the treaty demands, the restrictions thereof, the rights granted to and reserved by the parties, and the enforcement thereof (which is the context in which the statement was made) this is meaningless.

Limiting something is very different than removing it. None of those treaties had the goal of getting rid of nuclear capability, just reducing it.

That was lame. Reduction is the initial step to elimination. The arms limitations and reduction treaties over the last 40 years are obvious steps along the Article VI path, and so the arguement that the US has violated/ignored article VI is unsupportable.

Actually it is law in general. Its generally not enforced because there are no enforcement mechanisms, and it works very differently than domestic law, but it is still law.

The point is that the provisions and mechanisms that we have in domestic law do not exit in international law. Glad you agree.
And remember:
ALL Law is meaningless unless it can be enforced.

Because all countries always respect each others sovreignity, right?

Of course not. And this is why it all comes down to force -- who can apply it, directly or through an effective threat.

And as for that...the ICC has jurisdiction over every country in the world in certain circumstances...whether they submit to it or not.

Unless a country agrees accept the jurisdiction of the ICC, and then ICC judgements, the ICC has no jurisdiction. Soverignty, you know.
Never mind that the ICC relies on voluntary compliance.

International law is very political. It is not simple, and it is very different than domestic law.

Yes. I think I said that.

However there are certain segments of the American political spectrum who seem to want it both ways. When someone they don't like violates international law its a travesty and they must be punished. When America violates international law, well there are no enforcement mechanisms and international law isn't "real law".

Thats because the US, like every other country, will do whatever it can do to best meet its own needs. Again, what it comes down to is force.
ALL law comes down to force; International law is no different.

The largest and most common which is the UNSC which has jurisdiction to give orders to sovreign nations without their consent.

Only if those countries are members of the UN, who, by being members, agree to be bound by UNSC directives -- that is, they give consent to the UNSC to direct them.
The UNSC has no power whatsoever over a non-member country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[The] fact is the NIE just released today says that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program years ago

In 2003.

Why do you suppose they did this?