They have no legal obligation (although I think they should sign). The difference is one of them is currently violating an international treaty.oug wrote:
Correct. Same as there would be no speculation if Israel had gone to the trouble - in the past fourty fucking years - of confirming or disconfirming the rumors about their own nuclear arsenal instead of illegally imprisoning those who dared to talk about it.
Hmmm... the law. So you're saying that the only fault here is that Iran made the mistake of putting pen to paper when they didn't really have to in the first place.Kmarion wrote:
They have no legal obligation (although I think they should). The difference is one of them is currently violating an international treaty.oug wrote:
Correct. Same as there would be no speculation if Israel had gone to the trouble - in the past fourty fucking years - of confirming or disconfirming the rumors about their own nuclear arsenal instead of illegally imprisoning those who dared to talk about it.
The mistake was committing to do something you had no intention of adhering to. The UN would have no right to make demands of IAEA compliance without Iran volunteering cooperation. This means something in terms of credibility and deception.oug wrote:
Hmmm... the law. So you're saying that the only fault here is that Iran made the mistake of putting pen to paper when they didn't really have to in the first place.Kmarion wrote:
They have no legal obligation (although I think they should). The difference is one of them is currently violating an international treaty.oug wrote:
Correct. Same as there would be no speculation if Israel had gone to the trouble - in the past fourty fucking years - of confirming or disconfirming the rumors about their own nuclear arsenal instead of illegally imprisoning those who dared to talk about it.
I say the fault lies with all those who did not sign or violated the treaty. Equally. Because the bottom line is, we don't want nukes.
So what is the response?oug wrote:
I say the fault lies with all those who did not sign or violated the treaty. Equally. Because the bottom line is, we don't want nukes.
I find it hard to imagine that Iran wouldn't cease their nuclear program if the IAEA told them (and demonstrated that was the case) Israel were having all their nukes taken off them.Kmarion wrote:
The mistake was committing to do something you had no intention of adhering to. The UN would have no right to make demands of IAEA compliance without Iran volunteering cooperation. This means something in terms of credibility and deception.oug wrote:
Hmmm... the law. So you're saying that the only fault here is that Iran made the mistake of putting pen to paper when they didn't really have to in the first place.Kmarion wrote:
They have no legal obligation (although I think they should). The difference is one of them is currently violating an international treaty.
I say the fault lies with all those who did not sign or violated the treaty. Equally. Because the bottom line is, we don't want nukes.
Possibly. As I mentioned before I would like to see Israel commit to the treaty as well. Nuclear powers should have an open door policy. France/Britain should have had some preconditions in place when they started assisting Israel with their development.Bertster7 wrote:
I find it hard to imagine that Iran wouldn't cease their nuclear program if the IAEA told them (and demonstrated that was the case) Israel were having all their nukes taken off them.Kmarion wrote:
The mistake was committing to do something you had no intention of adhering to. The UN would have no right to make demands of IAEA compliance without Iran volunteering cooperation. This means something in terms of credibility and deception.oug wrote:
Hmmm... the law. So you're saying that the only fault here is that Iran made the mistake of putting pen to paper when they didn't really have to in the first place.
I say the fault lies with all those who did not sign or violated the treaty. Equally. Because the bottom line is, we don't want nukes.
Don't forget the UK, we're very much to blame for Israel's nuclear program.Kmarion wrote:
Possibly. As I mentioned before I would like to see Israel commit to the treaty as well. Nuclear powers should have an open door policy. France should have had some preconditions in place when they started assisting Israel with their development.Bertster7 wrote:
I find it hard to imagine that Iran wouldn't cease their nuclear program if the IAEA told them (and demonstrated that was the case) Israel were having all their nukes taken off them.Kmarion wrote:
The mistake was committing to do something you had no intention of adhering to. The UN would have no right to make demands of IAEA compliance without Iran volunteering cooperation. This means something in terms of credibility and deception.
lol.. I edited just as you replied.Bertster7 wrote:
Don't forget the UK, we're very much to blame for Israel's nuclear program.Kmarion wrote:
Possibly. As I mentioned before I would like to see Israel commit to the treaty as well. Nuclear powers should have an open door policy. France should have had some preconditions in place when they started assisting Israel with their development.Bertster7 wrote:
I find it hard to imagine that Iran wouldn't cease their nuclear program if the IAEA told them (and demonstrated that was the case) Israel were having all their nukes taken off them.
The UN's? I don't know, whatever has been decided for cases like that. Look, I'm not opposing whatever measures are taken by the UN against Iran. It just seems fair that we don't let Israel slip away with it because they didn't sign. Double standards are not good.Kmarion wrote:
So what is the response?oug wrote:
I say the fault lies with all those who did not sign or violated the treaty. Equally. Because the bottom line is, we don't want nukes.
It's not exactly a double standard. I mentioned the difference. My point is that we always have the questions and grand opinions but never a real and reasonable solution to get there.oug wrote:
The UN's? I don't know, whatever has been decided for cases like that. Look, I'm not opposing whatever measures are taken by the UN against Iran. It just seems fair that we don't let Israel slip away with it because they didn't sign. Double standards are not good.Kmarion wrote:
So what is the response?oug wrote:
I say the fault lies with all those who did not sign or violated the treaty. Equally. Because the bottom line is, we don't want nukes.
Well that technicality makes no difference in my mind. Generally I consider the case of Israel vs the UN to have a plethora of double standards. As for reasonable solutions, they're there. It's just a question of who wants to have them implemented.Kmarion wrote:
It's not exactly a double standard. I mentioned the difference. My point is that we always have the questions and grand opinions but never a real and reasonable solution to get there.
I agree there are double standards. However, the topic at hand is Israeli nukes. This to which there is no (legal) double standard regarding the UN. If we are to force nations to comply then how and who does this? More questions. A non-nuclear world sounds great though.oug wrote:
Well that technicality makes no difference in my mind. Generally I consider the case of Israel vs the UN to have a plethora of double standards. As for reasonable solutions, they're there. It's just a question of who wants to have them implemented.Kmarion wrote:
It's not exactly a double standard. I mentioned the difference. My point is that we always have the questions and grand opinions but never a real and reasonable solution to get there.
I find that amazing considering the King David Hotel Incident.Kmarion wrote:
France/Britain should have had some preconditions in place when they started assisting Israel with their development.
College Board multiple choice tests do this.oug wrote:
In a test, when you do not answer a question does it not count as a mistake? Do you earn more points if you leave it blank rather than if you tick the wrong answer? lM.O.A.B wrote:
But they didn't sign it and then break it.nukchebi0 wrote:
One could have viewed the Israel rejection of the treaty as an indication of a weapons program as well.
That doesn't really matter. We aren't discussing legality at all, only indications of an existence. In this, Israel's rejection of the treaty is a good suggestion they wanted nuclear weapons. Why else would they have gone against something the US supported?M.O.A.B wrote:
But they didn't sign it and then break it.nukchebi0 wrote:
One could have viewed the Israel rejection of the treaty as an indication of a weapons program as well.
Not if they never signed it. They are "rogue" if they sign it and then covertly (or overtly) violate it.Dilbert_X wrote:
If Israel are outside the treaty they are a 'rogue state' and liable to military intervention authorised by the UN.
Except it will never happen.
So there is a worldwide effort to limit nuclear weapons through this treaty... There are penalties for those who do not abide by what has been signed. And you are telling us that there are no penalties for those who did not even bother with the treaty at all?FEOS wrote:
Not if they never signed it. They are "rogue" if they sign it and then covertly (or overtly) violate it.Dilbert_X wrote:
If Israel are outside the treaty they are a 'rogue state' and liable to military intervention authorised by the UN.
Except it will never happen.
There are no penalties for not signing, other than world condemnation.oug wrote:
So there is a worldwide effort to limit nuclear weapons through this treaty... There are penalties for those who do not abide by what has been signed. And you are telling us that there are no penalties for those who did not even bother with the treaty at all?FEOS wrote:
Not if they never signed it. They are "rogue" if they sign it and then covertly (or overtly) violate it.Dilbert_X wrote:
If Israel are outside the treaty they are a 'rogue state' and liable to military intervention authorised by the UN.
Except it will never happen.
Be honest: What would your stance be if Iran had decided not to sign the treaty?
Good point... Instead of leaving what would become Israel, Britain should have just weeded out the extremists among the Jews. It wouldn't have been that hard considering the relatively small number of people there and the small number of Jews that fit the extremist description.JahManRed wrote:
I find that amazing considering the King David Hotel Incident.Kmarion wrote:
France/Britain should have had some preconditions in place when they started assisting Israel with their development.
Talk about lack of cooperation with the IAEA! Look at Israel! First of all, you didn't answer my question. It's simple. Suppose Iran was the one who didn't bother with any treaty, and who refused to even talk about its nuclear weapons program. What would your stance be?FEOS wrote:
There are no penalties for not signing, other than world condemnation.oug wrote:
Be honest: What would your stance be if Iran had decided not to sign the treaty?FEOS wrote:
Not if they never signed it. They are "rogue" if they sign it and then covertly (or overtly) violate it.
Position on Iran's efforts has little to do with their signing the treaty, and more to do with their lack of cooperation with the IAEA and fairly clear non-peaceful enrichment effort. The US (and others like Russia) have agreed to help Iran develop non-military/weapons-related nuclear power but Iran keeps refusing the help because it is contingent on Iran offering full disclosure to the IAEA.
The answer is easy, although you will not like it. I trust Isreal more than I trust Iran.oug wrote:
Talk about lack of cooperation with the IAEA! Look at Israel! First of all, you didn't answer my question. It's simple. Suppose Iran was the one who didn't bother with any treaty, and who refused to even talk about its nuclear weapons program. What would your stance be?FEOS wrote:
There are no penalties for not signing, other than world condemnation.oug wrote:
Be honest: What would your stance be if Iran had decided not to sign the treaty?
Position on Iran's efforts has little to do with their signing the treaty, and more to do with their lack of cooperation with the IAEA and fairly clear non-peaceful enrichment effort. The US (and others like Russia) have agreed to help Iran develop non-military/weapons-related nuclear power but Iran keeps refusing the help because it is contingent on Iran offering full disclosure to the IAEA.
And let's not get into the foreign "help" because we both know how these things work. If it were an honest effort I'm sure they would have accepted it. But like in all these cases there are hidden aspects of the deal.
The British might be the most guilty for the current regional situations. It is important to look back at everything. They helped create the borders, instated a Mandate, and then contributed to arming Israel with WMD's. I've got my own issues with American charity to Israel. But the basic reason behind the conflicts we see today are a result of inconsiderate borders constructed a long time ago.Turquoise wrote:
Good point... Instead of leaving what would become Israel, Britain should have just weeded out the extremists among the Jews. It wouldn't have been that hard considering the relatively small number of people there and the small number of Jews that fit the extremist description.JahManRed wrote:
I find that amazing considering the King David Hotel Incident.Kmarion wrote:
France/Britain should have had some preconditions in place when they started assisting Israel with their development.
Only if you like living in the dark. Statements like that are exactly what keep people thinking that anything nuclear is bad. "Oh no, ATOMS!! Watch out!!!11". Every technology has its purpose. "Nuclear" things have revolutionized many aspects of our daily lives. But, contrary to most people's beliefs, even nuclear weapons can serve to positively influence our civilization's development. I submit as the primary example the deflection of near earth objects. While kinetic impactors and the various "slow push" technologies can move an asteroid with decades or centuries of warning, only high yield nuclear weapons can effectively deflect an asteroid when the time of epoch is 1000 days or less. But thats for another discussion.Kmarion wrote:
A non-nuclear world sounds great though.
Very true...Kmarion wrote:
The British might be the most guilty for the current regional situations. It is important to look back at everything. They helped create the borders, instated a Mandate, and then contributed to arming Israel with WMD's. I've got my own issues with American charity to Israel. But the basic reason behind the conflicts we see today are a result of inconsiderate borders constructed a long time ago.Turquoise wrote:
Good point... Instead of leaving what would become Israel, Britain should have just weeded out the extremists among the Jews. It wouldn't have been that hard considering the relatively small number of people there and the small number of Jews that fit the extremist description.
When has the IAEA attempted to inspect Israeli nuclear facilities?oug wrote:
Talk about lack of cooperation with the IAEA! Look at Israel! First of all, you didn't answer my question. It's simple. Suppose Iran was the one who didn't bother with any treaty, and who refused to even talk about its nuclear weapons program. What would your stance be?FEOS wrote:
There are no penalties for not signing, other than world condemnation.oug wrote:
Be honest: What would your stance be if Iran had decided not to sign the treaty?
Position on Iran's efforts has little to do with their signing the treaty, and more to do with their lack of cooperation with the IAEA and fairly clear non-peaceful enrichment effort. The US (and others like Russia) have agreed to help Iran develop non-military/weapons-related nuclear power but Iran keeps refusing the help because it is contingent on Iran offering full disclosure to the IAEA.
And let's not get into the foreign "help" because we both know how these things work. If it were an honest effort I'm sure they would have accepted it. But like in all these cases there are hidden aspects of the deal.
http://ola.iaea.org/factSheets/CountryD … country=ILUnder an agreement with the United States the Soreq IRR-1 5-MW swimming pool-type research reactor was constructed at Nahal Soreq in 1955. This reactor was placed under US and subsequently International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection. The Center was formally established in 1958, and currently has a total of over 200 employees. Activities at Soreq include research and development of nuclear weapons.
Israel, State of
IAEA Membership: 12 July 1957 Capital: Tel Aviv (Government offices in Jerusalem)
Number of Accession: 16 Area (sq.Km): 20770
Population (mln) 6.4 (2003 data)
