The real nuclear threat versus fantasy Iranian ICBMs

[M14 Shooter]

There is no clause for secession in the EU.

One of two things is true:
-You dont know any better
-You didn't think I knew better.
Either way...

Article I-60
Voluntary withdrawal from the Union
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/c_310/c_31020041216en00110040.pdf

I do not agree with the first clause. You do not need to sign a treaty to reduce arms before you sign a treaty to get rid of arms.

Your are completely ignoring the world geo-political and military situation.
You can do that if you want, but it destorys any credibility your argument here might have had.

And the second is correct, but the US has not urged other states to fulfill their obligations.

Other than this being BS -- all the arms limitation/reduction agreements were all initiated by the US -- it's not the fault of the US that the Russians haven't given up their nukes.

Compliance with international law is NOT voluntary. You MUST do it.

There are SO many counterexamples of this, that I cannot help but laugh at your statement.

The lack of force behind a law does not mean the law does not exist. Nor does it make it irrelevant.

Absolutely it does. If laws arent enforced, or have no mechanism to be enforced, they are meaningless. You can cry all you want about a law being broken, but if there is no enforceable consequnce -- so what?

This is simply not the way the world works anymore. The ICC has jurisdiction over the world and most countries acknowledge that.

The ICC itself thinks otherwise. Its charter specifically metnions 'state parties' over which it has jurisdiction.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about...te_English.pdf
See article 4, 11, 12, 13.

There are presently only 105 state perties.

You are, therefore, wrong. The ICC not only cannot, but DOES not claim jurisdicition over states that have not agreed to allow it to do so.

Yes...they gave their consent to do so in the PAST. And NOW the commands are binding and are NOT voluntary.

Doesnt matter. You cannot force someone to do something against their will when they have agreed to do what you tell them to do.

 

[Larkinn]

one ot two things is true:
-You dont know any better
-You didnt thinkl I knew better.
Either way...

Article I-60
Voluntary withdrawal from the Union
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/c_310/c_31020041216en00110040.pdf

Try finding a document which is legally binding. I believe that is the EU Constitution which was rejected by the member states. As I said, there is no formal process for withdrawal from the EU.

Your are completely ignoring the world geo-political and military situation.
You can do that if you want, but it destorys any credibility your argument heremight have had.

Not really. The "political situation" isn't exactly a reason not to conform to a legally binding document. You don't get out of contracts in the US because "well its not that convenient for me anymore...".

Other than this being BS -- all the arms limitation/reduction agreements have been at the betehst of the US -- it's not the fault of the US that the Russians haven't given up their nukes.

Has the US ever asked Russia to give up all their nukes?

There are SO many counterexamples of this, that I cannot help but laugh at your statement.

No, there aren't. You fail to recognize that something being legally binding does not mean people will always follow it. In domestic law you are legally required not to do drugs. We have prisons full of people who will attest to the fact that those laws aren't always followed.

Absolutely it does. If laws arent enforced, or have no mechanism to be enforced, they are meaningless.

No, they aren't. How can something be meaningless when they help to cause change?

You can cry all you want about a law being broken, but if there is no enforceable consequnce -- so what?

The crying actually has an effect sometimes.


The ICC itself thinks otherwise. Its charter specifically metnions 'state parties' over which it has jurisdiction.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about...te_English.pdf
See article 4, 11, 12, 13.

There are presently only 105 state perties.

You are, therefore, wrong. The ICC not only cannot, but DOES not claim jurisdition over states that have not agreed to allow it to do so.
[/quote]

Your link does not work.

Doesnt matter. You cannot force someone to do something against their will when they have agreed to do what you tell them to do.

Ah, so when you sign a contract to do something and then change your mind, you can just get out of it? When someone joins the US military they can just leave whenever they feel like it?

Pssh, ridiculous and untrue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Try finding a document which is legally binding. I believe that is the EU Constitution which was rejected by the member states.

ROTFL
Tell me then: What is the formative legal document for the EU?
Please provide a link. When I look at it, I will show you the section that allows states to pull out.

Not really. The "political situation" isn't exactly a reason not to conform to a legally binding document.

As I said:You can ignore the geopolitical situation if you want, but it destroys any credibility your argument heremight have had. Geopolitically, it is impossible for the US to unilaterally dismantle its nukes.

Has the US ever asked Russia to give up all their nukes?

1986. Iceland. Reagan mabe the offer - total bi-lateral disarmament.
The Russians said no.

No, there aren't.

There arent numerous examples of countries not following 'international law'?

No, they aren't.

You can deny all you want that unenforceable law is meaningless law, but that doesnt make it so.

The crying actually has an effect sometimes.

Yes. Because of the PR value. If the only way 'international law' makes you do something is because you feel bad about not doing it, then you're obviously not doing it because you're legally compelled to do it.

Your link does not work.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_English.pdf
See article 4, 11, 12, 13.

There are presently only 105 state perties.

You are, therefore, wrong. The ICC not only cannot, but DOES not claim jurisdition over states that have not agreed to allow it to do so.

Ah, so when you sign a contract to do something and then change your mind, you can just get out of it?

This isnt in any way relevant to what I said.

 

[Paulie]

In other news....

Bush Admin proposes Cutting Counterterrorism funding

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration intends to slash counterterrorism funding for police, firefighters and rescue departments across the country by more than half next year, according to budget documents obtained by The Associated Press.

One program on the chopping block: port security.

I guess this is the extent of Bush's "fiscal conservatism". Cut spending in areas that would otherwise be considered some of the most important to spend money on.

I don't get it. Is he fighting a war against terrorism, or not?

Why does everything he does continually fly in the face of everything he campaigns on, and gets elected for? The idiots in 2000 that voted for him did so because he was supposedly a true conservative, and believed in a humble foreign policy of non-intervention and no nation building...he totally swindled THEM. And in 2004, he was re-elected because he's supposedly tough on terrorism. Well, apparently not. It seems he'd rather just have a war, then prevent one.

You don't have to apologize for this administration just because you're a republican. I consider myself an old-school republican, but a republican nonetheless, and I think this administration has completely ruined the image of the republican party.

 

[Larkinn]

ROTFL
Tell me then: What is the formative legal document for the EU?
Please provide a link. When I look at it, I will show you the section that allows states to pull out.

The Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty are the formative documents. Good luck.

As I said:You can ignore the geopolitical situation if you want, but it destroys any credibility your argument heremight have had. Geopolitically, it is impossible for the US to unilaterally dismantle its nukes.

Then it shouldn't have signed a treaty to do so.

1986. Iceland. Reagan mabe the offer - total bi-lateral disarmament.
The Russians said no.

Well you are right that he made the offer...if it can be called that. But the Russians didn't say no...

President Reagan: What the hell use will ABM's or anything else be if we eliminate nuclear weapons?

Secretary General Gorbachev: Absolutely right. I am for that. But the point is that under the ABM Treaty the parties do not have a large-scale antimissile defense, and you want to deploy such a defense.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/

There arent numerous examples of countries not following 'international law'?

What an easily anticipated and ridiculous argument. Perhaps thats why I already addressed it. Care to respond to that? Or shall I take your skipping over that as an admittance that you are unable to address it?

You fail to recognize that something being legally binding does not mean people will always follow it. In domestic law you are legally required not to do drugs. We have prisons full of people who will attest to the fact that those laws aren't always followed.

You can deny all you want that unenforceable law is meaningless law, but that doesnt make it so.

And you can say that its meaningless all you want, and that doesn't make it so. I asked you how can something be meaningless when it has an effect on actual practices? Repeating that its meaningless is not a valid response.

Yes. Because of the PR value. If the only way 'international law' makes you do something is because you feel bad about not doing it, then you're obviously not doing it because you're legally compelled to do it.

No, thats the way international law makes rogue states do something. Many states follow international law because its law. They don't need to be compelled to follow the law. Some do and are compelled...some do and aren't compelled.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_English.pdf
See article 4, 11, 12, 13.

There are presently only 105 state perties.

You are, therefore, wrong. The ICC not only cannot, but DOES not claim jurisdition over states that have not agreed to allow it to do so.

I'm unsure where you got the 105 number from, but that is untrue. However, please explain how Sudan has NOT ratified the treaty, and yet...

http://www.icc-cpi.int/cases/Darfur.html

This isnt in any way relevant to what I said.

Surely you understand the similarity between a domestic contract and a treaty, yes? They are essentially the same thing. And hence are completely relevant to what you said.

 

[Warner]

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.

I'm well aware of what is required to generate a nuclear blast. This is not what I was talking about.

500 grams of weapons grade material is far more than sufficient to make a very nasty dirty bomb. All you need for that is the material (preferably in powder form) and as much conventional explosives as possible to disperse the material.