If not, why didn't they? Shouldn't they?FEOS wrote:
When has the IAEA attempted to inspect Israeli nuclear facilities?
And I certainly did answer your question.
lol, never heard of that! But I guess I wouldn't be surprised if they did...Kmarion wrote:
Didn't the IAEA once say Israel was "no concern" of theirs? .. or something like that? Not saying that it's right, but I know I remember something along those lines.
Looks like the IAEA did inspect Israeli facilities (thanks, KM).oug wrote:
If not, why didn't they? Shouldn't they?FEOS wrote:
When has the IAEA attempted to inspect Israeli nuclear facilities?
And I certainly did answer your question.
Frankly I think you're avoiding a direct answer, unlike imortal who is being honest at least.
So then, if I understand correctly, we both agree that it is illogical and unfair to talk about sanctions on Iran without also applying the same measures in the case of Israel, which is not a signatory of the NPT nor has it cooperated with the IAEA or anyone else for that matter.FEOS wrote:
Looks like the IAEA did inspect Israeli facilities (thanks, KM).oug wrote:
If not, why didn't they? Shouldn't they?FEOS wrote:
When has the IAEA attempted to inspect Israeli nuclear facilities?
And I certainly did answer your question.
Frankly I think you're avoiding a direct answer, unlike imortal who is being honest at least.
I'm not avoiding a direct answer...I gave you one.
I'll repeat: Even if Iran wasn't a signatory of the NPT, they have still not cooperated with the IAEA and international community on their nuclear program...so yes, there would still be an issue. Is that clear enough?
No. Israel HAS cooperated with the IAEA. Iran HAS NOT cooperated with the IAEA. Signatory status on the NPT is irrelevant.oug wrote:
So then, if I understand correctly, we both agree that it is illogical and unfair to talk about sanctions on Iran without also applying the same measures in the case of Israel, which is not a signatory of the NPT nor has it cooperated with the IAEA or anyone else for that matter.FEOS wrote:
Looks like the IAEA did inspect Israeli facilities (thanks, KM).oug wrote:
If not, why didn't they? Shouldn't they?
Frankly I think you're avoiding a direct answer, unlike imortal who is being honest at least.
I'm not avoiding a direct answer...I gave you one.
I'll repeat: Even if Iran wasn't a signatory of the NPT, they have still not cooperated with the IAEA and international community on their nuclear program...so yes, there would still be an issue. Is that clear enough?
Last edited by FEOS (2008-05-31 21:09:36)
You're joking right?Israel HAS cooperated with the IAEA.
I don't understand. How have they cooperated? From the little I know, Israel has been playing this stupid game of not confirming or disconfirming the existence of their nuclear arsenal officially. Of course, off the record, we all know it's there mainly due to "martyrs" like Vanunu.FEOS wrote:
No. Israel HAS cooperated with the IAEA. Iran HAS NOT cooperated with the IAEA. Signatory status on the NPT is irrelevant.
Just because they haven't signed a treaty, it doesn't mean they are a rogue state. They are just a state that hasn't signed a treaty.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're joking right?Israel HAS cooperated with the IAEA.
Israel is outside the NPT and has ignored the IAEA and is therefore a rogue state.
Any action against Iran should be applied equally to Israel, both belligerent theocratic states.
Signing the NPT has nothing to do with cooperating with the IAEA. If they are a member of the UN, they have to cooperate with UN organizations (like the IAEA), which they have. The NPT is completely outside that process. NPT is more about weapons...IAEA is nuclear technology writ large.oug wrote:
I don't understand. How have they cooperated? From the little I know, Israel has been playing this stupid game of not confirming or disconfirming the existence of their nuclear arsenal officially. Of course, off the record, we all know it's there mainly due to "martyrs" like Vanunu.FEOS wrote:
No. Israel HAS cooperated with the IAEA. Iran HAS NOT cooperated with the IAEA. Signatory status on the NPT is irrelevant.
Isn't signing the NPT a necessary step as far as "cooperation" goes? To my mind, it only makes sense that since there is a treaty in place and everyone else is signing it, that's the way to go if you're gonna cooperate. And it seems to me that the problem with Iran is being addressed simply because Iran had the "decency" - if you will - to sit it's ass down on the negotiations' table, whereas the Israel problem is ignored because the latter chose a more aggressive stance by not negotiating anything about their nuclear weapons.
So based on that, I think that whoever calls for sanctions or any kind of action against Iran today, is using double standards.
I think you're playing with the words here. We're talking about the nuclear weapons program, which has yet to be confirmed by Israel (despite it's definite existence) - not their atomic energy program (for which they might well have cooperated with the IAEA). So how can they have cooperated with the IAEA about something that supposedly doesn't exist?FEOS wrote:
Signing the NPT has nothing to do with cooperating with the IAEA. If they are a member of the UN, they have to cooperate with UN organizations (like the IAEA), which they have. The NPT is completely outside that process. NPT is more about weapons...IAEA is nuclear technology writ large.oug wrote:
I don't understand. How have they cooperated? From the little I know, Israel has been playing this stupid game of not confirming or disconfirming the existence of their nuclear arsenal officially. Of course, off the record, we all know it's there mainly due to "martyrs" like Vanunu.FEOS wrote:
No. Israel HAS cooperated with the IAEA. Iran HAS NOT cooperated with the IAEA. Signatory status on the NPT is irrelevant.
Isn't signing the NPT a necessary step as far as "cooperation" goes? To my mind, it only makes sense that since there is a treaty in place and everyone else is signing it, that's the way to go if you're gonna cooperate. And it seems to me that the problem with Iran is being addressed simply because Iran had the "decency" - if you will - to sit it's ass down on the negotiations' table, whereas the Israel problem is ignored because the latter chose a more aggressive stance by not negotiating anything about their nuclear weapons.
So based on that, I think that whoever calls for sanctions or any kind of action against Iran today, is using double standards.
Israel isn't being aggressive about this at all. Where are you getting that? It's Iran that's being aggressive...by telling the IAEA, UN, EU, and everyone else to pound sand. Even though they are obligated by both their UN membership and NPT status to do the exact opposite of that.
Don't know how you can say "its definite existence" if nobody has offered any proof of it yet. Before you twist off: I believe Israel has nukes, but I can't prove it and neither can anyone else yet.oug wrote:
I think you're playing with the words here. We're talking about the nuclear weapons program, which has yet to be confirmed by Israel (despite it's definite existence) - not their atomic energy program (for which they might well have cooperated with the IAEA). So how can they have cooperated with the IAEA about something that supposedly doesn't exist?
I wasn't talking about Iran's aggression toward Israel, even though that is well-documented. I was talking about Iran's aggressive posture with the rest of the world that keeps telling them to cooperate with the international community regarding their nuclear program.oug wrote:
As for the argument about aggression, it is clear that the statement about "wiping Israel off the map" etc has been blown out of proportions while other statements of a more cooperative spirit have been hidden.
I don't see how you can say that Israel is "desperately trying to keep their nukes a secret". They are simply being purposefully ambiguous about them, neither confirming nor denying they exist. If they were "desperately trying to keep their nukes a secret" then they would flat out deny having them.oug wrote:
Furthermore, may I just note here that apart from any statements that may have been made by any party, the facts are these: Iran has no nukes, it's all talk. Israel is no talk, but it's got the stuff...
And to be honest, the fact that they're desperately trying to keep their nukes a secret scares me a lot. It is clear to me that nukes are there as a scare factor. So keeping them a secret makes no sense unless one is trying to avoid being blamed for using them...
Mordechai VanunuFEOS wrote:
Don't know how you can say "its definite existence" if nobody has offered any proof of it yet. Before you twist off: I believe Israel has nukes, but I can't prove it and neither can anyone else yet.
Yeah, I know. I was influenced by what LividBovine (I think?) was saying, so I was sort of answering both at the same time...FEOS wrote:
I wasn't talking about Iran's aggression toward Israel, even though that is well-documented. I was talking about Iran's aggressive posture with the rest of the world that keeps telling them to cooperate with the international community regarding their nuclear program.
Would like to see evidence of Iran's "cooperative spirit"...if it exists, it's hidden better than Amelia Earhart's body.
Refer to the link above. That seems desperate enough to me. But again, don't stick to the wording.FEOS wrote:
I don't see how you can say that Israel is "desperately trying to keep their nukes a secret". They are simply being purposefully ambiguous about them, neither confirming nor denying they exist. If they were "desperately trying to keep their nukes a secret" then they would flat out deny having them.
Ok so why all the secrecy then? Any ideas? And again, the IAEA may be in a position to determine where a nuke came from through material analysis, but you still haven't explained to me how Israel has cooperated with them regarding their nuclear weapons without confirming their existence.FEOS wrote:
Since Israel hasn't stated publicly any country in the ME has no right to exist (unlike others have said about them), I don't see what there is to be so scared of.
Keeping secrets makes sense in many other ways that just to avoid being blamed for using whatever is being kept secret. And if they ever use them, it will point right back to them, as every nuke plant imparts a unique signature to the fissile material produced. And since they have fully cooperated with the IAEA on their nuclear power program, those signatures are on record.
Last edited by oug (2008-06-01 13:11:00)
One whistleblower's story is not "definitive proof". It is strong evidence, no doubt, but not "definitive proof". Again, it's not that I don't think Israel has nukes...merely that there hasn't been any concrete proof provided.oug wrote:
Mordechai VanunuFEOS wrote:
Don't know how you can say "its definite existence" if nobody has offered any proof of it yet. Before you twist off: I believe Israel has nukes, but I can't prove it and neither can anyone else yet.
Israel dealing with a citizen who violated his non-disclosure agreement is not desperation...it's law enforcement.oug wrote:
Refer to the link above. That seems desperate enough to me. But again, don't stick to the wording.FEOS wrote:
I don't see how you can say that Israel is "desperately trying to keep their nukes a secret". They are simply being purposefully ambiguous about them, neither confirming nor denying they exist. If they were "desperately trying to keep their nukes a secret" then they would flat out deny having them.
What's the best way for you to use it as a deterrent? Ambiguity works pretty well. The other side(s) doesn't know for sure, so they don't know whether you would use it or not, since they don't know for sure that you have it. And if they think you do, they will behave accordingly (ie, with restraint)...and if you don't have any (or only have a few), that uncertainty is all you need...so no need to expend resources on more (or any). I hope that made sense...it's a bit complex for me to try to explain concisely.oug wrote:
Ok so why all the secrecy then? Any ideas? And again, the IAEA may be in a position to determine where a nuke came from through material analysis, but you still haven't explained to me how Israel has cooperated with them regarding their nuclear weapons without confirming their existence.FEOS wrote:
Since Israel hasn't stated publicly any country in the ME has no right to exist (unlike others have said about them), I don't see what there is to be so scared of.
Keeping secrets makes sense in many other ways that just to avoid being blamed for using whatever is being kept secret. And if they ever use them, it will point right back to them, as every nuke plant imparts a unique signature to the fissile material produced. And since they have fully cooperated with the IAEA on their nuclear power program, those signatures are on record.
To me this story is sufficient enough. On a side note, how can there be any definitive proof when you have no cooperation? Oh nevermind...FEOS wrote:
One whistleblower's story is not "definitive proof". It is strong evidence, no doubt, but not "definitive proof". Again, it's not that I don't think Israel has nukes...merely that there hasn't been any concrete proof provided.
Actually I don't think the law has anything to do with it... He is being held illegally with all kinds of pretexts.FEOS wrote:
Israel dealing with a citizen who violated his non-disclosure agreement is not desperation...it's law enforcement.
Yours did. Mine didn't I think!FEOS wrote:
What's the best way for you to use it as a deterrent? Ambiguity works pretty well. The other side(s) doesn't know for sure, so they don't know whether you would use it or not, since they don't know for sure that you have it. And if they think you do, they will behave accordingly (ie, with restraint)...and if you don't have any (or only have a few), that uncertainty is all you need...so no need to expend resources on more (or any). I hope that made sense...it's a bit complex for me to try to explain concisely.
True, it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. However, all the IAEA has to do is tell Israel they want to investigate. Then people will have facts to base their position upon: Israel either cooperates and it is shown conclusively one way or the other...or they don't cooperate and then they have to deal with that baggage.oug wrote:
To me this story is sufficient enough. On a side note, how can there be any definitive proof when you have no cooperation? Oh nevermind...FEOS wrote:
One whistleblower's story is not "definitive proof". It is strong evidence, no doubt, but not "definitive proof". Again, it's not that I don't think Israel has nukes...merely that there hasn't been any concrete proof provided.
nK's nuke test didn't really have anything to do with how they are approached in negotiations.oug wrote:
Yours did. Mine didn't I think!FEOS wrote:
What's the best way for you to use it as a deterrent? Ambiguity works pretty well. The other side(s) doesn't know for sure, so they don't know whether you would use it or not, since they don't know for sure that you have it. And if they think you do, they will behave accordingly (ie, with restraint)...and if you don't have any (or only have a few), that uncertainty is all you need...so no need to expend resources on more (or any). I hope that made sense...it's a bit complex for me to try to explain concisely.
I said they act as deterrents in the sense that there seems to me to be no option of using a nuke. Ever. So the only reason to have them is to be on the same level as other nuclear powers (on paper, always) so as not to take the piss on a political level. To me nukes are symbols of power and nothing more.
That's also why I don't care if Iran - or anyone else - were to have them. Their usage under any scenario would trigger a chain reaction of overwhelming destruction, overpowering any party's interests. Therefore, the "healthy" use of nukes would be to shout out that you have 'em. Like NK did with that experiment. Notice how much more respect they get now in negotiations. The nuclear lever of pressure is working...
That raises even more questions about why IAEA haven't investigated until now...FEOS wrote:
True, it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. However, all the IAEA has to do is tell Israel they want to investigate. Then people will have facts to base their position upon: Israel either cooperates and it is shown conclusively one way or the other...or they don't cooperate and then they have to deal with that baggage.
I guess none of us can be sure about our opinions. No way to tell.FEOS wrote:
nK's nuke test didn't really have anything to do with how they are approached in negotiations.
But in my opinion you're no less an angel if you do have them.JahManRed wrote:
Your no angel even if you have nukes and don't use them...........
