# The real nuclear threat versus fantasy Iranian ICBMs



## DeadCanDance (Dec 2, 2007)

> *Black market for contraband Uranium from the former Soviet Republics*
> 
> BRATISLAVA, Slovakia: This week's arrests of three men who allegedly tried to sell contraband uranium for US$1 million (&#8364;680,000) underscores how a shadowy black market for nuclear components has survived despite tightened security at nuclear facilities worldwide, experts said Thursday.
> 
> ...




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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gunny (Dec 2, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> In other news....



Fantasy until the day they unveil one.  The IAEA says Iran is enriching unranium.  That's your pet project.  What more do you need?

Oh, I know .... a big friggin' hole in the ground where a city once stood.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 2, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Fantasy until the day they unveil one.  The IAEA says Iran is enriching unranium.  That's your pet project.  What more do you need?
> 
> Oh, I know .... a big friggin' hole in the ground where a city once stood.



Does the USA have nuclear weapons?   Is the USA is compliance with IAEA?  Is the USA allowed to have such weapons and Iran not allowed to have such weapons? Why or why not?

Please.  No personal attacks.  Im not anti-USA but I am pro-fairness.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 2, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Fantasy until the day they unveil one.  The IAEA says Iran is enriching unranium.  That's your pet project.  What more do you need?
> 
> Oh, I know .... a big friggin' hole in the ground where a city once stood.



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.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 2, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I can almost smell the fear coming off of you.
> 
> Let me explain a few military realities, while you change your pants.
> 
> ...



Using the bogus "fear" accusation is as weak as it sounds.  Protecting one's self against attack is just using logic and common sense.  So is not letting fanatics possess nuclear weapons.

On one hand you say only two nations have developed delivery systems, then you turn right around and point out one of those nations as being a threat for have unsecure weapons on the black market. 

Which is it?

And of course you want to blame Bush.  LMAO.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 2, 2007)

I see.  You have no comment on the misdirected priorities of your president. 

I will assume therefore, that you see Iran - a nation for which there is no evidence of weaponized uranium, or nuclear delivery platforms - as a greater threat and worthy of more posts, than the _actual and real_ threat of existing and real enriched weapons-grade uranium that has made its way onto the black markets from the former soviet states.  A problem that bush and his followers have either downgraded or ignored. 


Can we get a new president now?


----------



## Alpha1 (Dec 2, 2007)

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....


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 3, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> 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)
> ...




This is sad.  Its not my job to educate you on how terrorists could use stolen enriched uranium stolen from the former USSR to make low tech radiological devices, or dirty bombs.   "Hurling it from the caves" is so stupid, its not worth addressing.    

Google is your friend, if you care to turn off the Limbaugh show and learn.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Does the USA have nuclear weapons?   Is the USA is compliance with IAEA?  Is the USA allowed to have such weapons and Iran not allowed to have such weapons? Why or why not?


Yes.  Yes.  Yes.  
Because Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and allowing them to have nukes is no different that giving a gun to a severely depressed schizophrenic who is off his meds.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 3, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> This is sad.  Its not my job to educate you on how terrorists could use stolen enriched uranium stolen from the former USSR to make low tech radiological devices, or dirty bombs.   "Hurling it from the caves" is so stupid, its not worth addressing.


How does any of this lessen the threat posed by a nuclear-capale Iran?


----------



## maineman (Dec 3, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> 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)
> ...



There is a wonderful novel you should read... and I recommend it:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/5th-Horseman-Collins-lapierre/dp/0671243160/ref=ed_oe_h[/ame]


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> How does any of this lessen the threat posed by a nuclear-capale Iran?




I already explained it's an issue of priorities.  I really don't want to have to type it all over again:

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=628133&postcount=4


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 3, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I already explained it's an issue of priorities. I really don't want to have to type it all over again:


Aha.



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


Military realities?  Where?



> 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.


Iran doesnt need to be able to hit the US for a nuclear-capable Iran to be a serious threat -- Iran can hit Israel, all of the middle east, and all of Europe, presently.



> 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.


You forget:
Iran funds/supports several Shia terrorist groups, the most notable of which is Hezboulah.  Why do you suppose the Iranian government would not give a nuke to their terrorist appendage, and why do you suppose that appendage woudl not use it on Israel?


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 3, 2007)

Is America allowed to have nukes and Iran not allowed to have nukes?
If so, then why is this?  Wont someone explain this to me?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Is America allowed to have nukes and Iran not allowed to have nukes?
> If so, then why is this?  Wont someone explain this to me?


It -has- been explained to you, using terms you should be able to understamnd (since they're YOUR terms).

Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and allowing them to have nukes is no different that giving a gun to a severely depressed schizophrenic who is off his meds.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> It -has- been explained to you, using terms you should be able to understamnd (since they're YOUR terms).
> 
> Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and allowing them to have nukes is no different that giving a gun to a severely depressed schizophrenic who is off his meds.



Thanks.  Im not very knowledgeable about the NPT so I looked it up on my favorite reference guide.  It looks like the USA is also a signatory to the NPT.  So, again, Ill ask what the difference is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

_The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is an international treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. There are currently 189 countries party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China._

Besides, America used nukes at least twice.  How many times has Iran used nukes?  It would seem that the other nations of the world might need to keep close tabs on America too.  Anyway, back to my question.  Why is the USA allowed nukes and Iran not allowed nukes when both nations signed the NPT?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Thanks.  Im not very knowledgeable about the NPT so I looked it up on my favorite reference guide.  It looks like the USA is also a signatory to the NPT.  So, again, Ill ask what the difference is.


The difference is that states that signed the treaty who already had nuclear weapons get to keep them, whereas those that did not have them when they signed the treaty agreed to NOT seek them.  You did actually LOOK at the treaty, right?

That, and allowing them to have nukes is no different that giving a gun to a severely depressed schizophrenic who is off his meds.



> Besides, America used nukes at least twice.


Quite fortunately, too.



> It would seem that the other nations of the world might need to keep close tabs on America too.


This is aninine. 
If the nuclear arsenal of the US is the biggest problem the world faces, the world is in pretty darned good shape.



> Why is the USA allowed nukes and Iran not allowed nukes when both nations signed the NPT?


You ask this as if it hasn't been answered.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> The difference is that states that signed the treaty who already had nuclear weapons get to keep them, whereas those that did not have them when they signed the treaty agreed to NOT seek them.



Okay.  So it was due to lucky timing.  I got it.

Wouldn&#8217;t the treaty allow other nations to inspect America to make sure that we are following the rules and not getting more nukes &#8211; so that we don&#8217;t proliferate nukes?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  So it was due to lucky timing.  I got it.


The NPT was created/signed in 1968, and would never have been signed by any of the nuclear-capable states if it would have required divesting themselves of their arsenals.  There's no luck involved in it at all.

The idea that allowing them 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?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Wouldnt the treaty allow other nations to inspect America to make sure that we are following the rules and not getting more nukes  so that we dont proliferate nukes?


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


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

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 (Dec 3, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I can almost smell the fear coming off of you.
> 
> Let me explain a few military realities, while you change your pants.
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 3, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> 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)
> ...



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 (Dec 3, 2007)

Warner said:


> 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?
> 
> ...




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 (Dec 3, 2007)

Warner said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 4, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> 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 (Dec 4, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> [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?


----------



## maineman (Dec 4, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> In 2003.
> 
> Why do you suppose they did this?



who knows?  certainly not you.

I suppose they stopped it because their biggest regional enemy had just been eliminated thanks to Bush.... that's as good a guess as anything you got.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 4, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> In 2003.
> 
> *Why *do you suppose they did this?



NIE explains it, if you'd bother to click the link. 




> NIE REPORT:  "*Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran&#8217;s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs.* This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might&#8212;if perceived by Iran&#8217;s leaders as credible&#8212;prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be."


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 4, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> NIE explains it, if you'd bother to click the link.



You highligted the wrong part:



> ...primarily in response to international pressure...



What pressure, and from whom?
And, what 'costs' wewe associated with contunuing that program?


----------



## maineman (Dec 4, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> And, what 'costs' wewe associated with contunuing that program?



you can't be serious.  Do you honestly think that nuclear weapons programs are operated, free of charge, by mysterious elves in the night while we sleep?  What COSTS?  If nuclear weapons programs were FREE, everyone would have one, wouldn't they?  Shit...if developing a nuclear weapons program didn't cost anything, I'd build one just for the hell of it!


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 4, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> NIE explains it, if you'd bother to click the link.



That&#8217;s a good guess too.  Wow.  So many possibilities for those who would just put their prejudices and biases on hold and think about it.


----------



## bush lover (Dec 4, 2007)

Our President promised us that he would eradicate the Evil-Doers in Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Now, the liberals are claiming that Iran has no nukes. Our President on Tuesday stood up to these lies and said we must confront Iran. He only has 14 months to eradicate the Evil-Doers in Iran and North Korea. The only solution is military action and he can do this before the leftist Democrat Party takes over. God bless our President Bush, America and our troops!


----------



## eots (Dec 4, 2007)

God Bless Us All


----------



## Shogun (Dec 5, 2007)

some people act like this is a frickin superman comic and the US is Clark himself.

this pre-emptive shit based on nothing beyond gut feelings and paranoia has got to stop.


----------



## doniston (Dec 5, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Fantasy until the day they unveil one.  The IAEA says Iran is enriching unranium.
> QUOTE]
> 
> So are we.  are WE gonna bomb someone???


----------



## doniston (Dec 5, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Using the bogus "fear" accusation is as weak as it sounds.  Protecting one's self against attack is just using logic and common sense.  So is not letting fanatics possess nuclear weapons.
> 
> 
> QUOTE]  You mean like the US, and especially Israel???


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 5, 2007)

doniston said:


> You mean like the US, and especially Israel???


The US and Israel are "fanatics"?
In the same context as the Iranians?

 

It amazes me that some people are SO screwed up that they see the US as the biggest problem facing the world.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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.



The UN, and EU are both cases in which states have given up sovreignity.   



> 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.



The treaty doesn't say "the initial steps to elimination".   40 years is a long time to fulfill a treaty.   



> 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.



No...International law is rarely enforced through force, however it often still has a lot of power.   It is most definitely not meaningless and there has been a lot of success with playing the shame game.   



> 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.



No...the ICC has jurisdiction over everyone.   Thats why when it was formed the US was busy making bilateral agreements with states not to honor it.   Sovreignity is becoming increasingly more limited.   And it relies on voluntary compliance, yes, but considering most states around the world honor it and would arrest someone if the ICC demanded it, it does severely limit some individuals.



> 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.



Technically true, but a fairly irrelevant fact.   The only "countries" that are not part of the UN are the Vatican and Taiwan...and its unclear whether Taiwan is its own state.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> The UN, and EU are both cases in which states have given up sovreignity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You've given a very good analysis of why the US should withdraw from the UN. Thanks.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 5, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> You've given a very good analysis of why the US should withdraw from the UN. Thanks.



Besides being irresponsible, stupidly isolationist, and the biggest setback of HR in the last 40 years, it is wildly against US interests to do this.   The US is in an organization in which the world holds in great respect, which can't do anything without the US's consent, and can add legitimacy to US actions, can force other states to do the 5 members interest, can facilitate treaties and open a dialogue, and which can help to further Human Rights around the globe (which is good for the US if you want the oil to keep flowing).   

Its sad that I had to say that and that saying "It is the single best tool out there to advance the cause of human rights" just wouldn't have sufficed.   Pathetic.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Besides being irresponsible, stupidly isolationist, and the biggest setback of HR in the last 40 years, it is wildly against US interests to do this.   The US is in an organization in which the world holds in great respect, which can't do anything without the US's consent, and can add legitimacy to US actions, can force other states to do the 5 members interest, can facilitate treaties and open a dialogue, and which can help to further Human Rights around the globe (which is good for the US if you want the oil to keep flowing).
> 
> Its sad that I had to say that and that saying "It is the single best tool out there to advance the cause of human rights" just wouldn't have sufficed.   Pathetic.



Somehow I think it's a good thing I rep'd you before reading this. Though I'm confused about what the point was here, which for one of your posts, I'll admit is unusual. While I rarely agree with your pov, I can usually understand what you are saying.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 5, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Somehow I think it's a good thing I rep'd you before reading this. Though I'm confused about what the point was here, which for one of your posts, I'll admit is unusual. While I rarely agree with your pov, I can usually understand what you are saying.



The point is that the US withdrawing with the UN is an awful idea, for the reasons elucidated in my above post.   However I said why its a bad idea for the US, which is true.   It is also true that it will severely curtail the progress of human rights around the globe.   The HR argument should be enough for people to get behind the US staying in the UN, but sadly its not.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> The point is that the US withdrawing with the UN is an awful idea, for the reasons elucidated in my above post.   However I said why its a bad idea for the US, which is true.   It is also true that it will severely curtail the progress of human rights around the globe.   The HR argument should be enough for people to get behind the US staying in the UN, but sadly its not.



Why? What is in it for the US to be in UN? Bottom line, like a corporation, one must ask, why?


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 5, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Why? What is in it for the US to be in UN? Bottom line, like a corporation, one must ask, why?





> The US is in an organization in which the world holds in great respect, which can't do anything without the US's consent, and can add legitimacy to US actions, can force other states to do the 5 members interest, can facilitate treaties and open a dialogue, and which can help to further Human Rights around the globe



Which is merely a more complicated way of saying the UN allows the US to have greater legitimate influence around the world.   

As I said...sad that you compare it to a corporation and that HR isn't even a consideration here.   Its not a corporation, its more like the red cross with political power.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Which is merely a more complicated way of saying the UN allows the US to have greater legitimate influence around the world.
> 
> As I said...sad that you compare it to a corporation and that HR isn't even a consideration here.   Its not a corporation, its more like the red cross with political power.



I disagree with your premise or rather what you say is the UN premise. I guess that is why I was missing your point. 

It seems to me that contrary to what you are claiming, the US ponies up more than its share, (Yes, more.), of costs. On the other hand, the august body of the UN is nearly always attempting to 'check' read 'block' all actions that may be beneficial to US. 

Do you see a problem here? (I know you think it's a good thing, but like a corporation, the US gov't should be focused on what's 'good for US'.)


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 5, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> \
> It seems to me that contrary to what you are claiming, the US ponies up more than its share, (Yes, more.), of costs. On the other hand, the august body of the UN is nearly always attempting to 'check' read 'block' all actions that may be beneficial to US.



Costs in which sense?   If you mean monetary than you will be surprised to know that the US regularly does not pay its dues and currently owes the UN $1.3 billion.

If you mean non-monetary costs, then what exactly are you referring too?   The US can block any and every legally binding UN resolution.   

Also I'd like specifics on what actions the UN has kept the US from doing.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 5, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> It seems to me that contrary to what you are claiming, the US ponies up more than its share, (Yes, more.), of costs. On the other hand, the august body of the UN is nearly always attempting to 'check' read 'block' all actions that may be beneficial to US



In actual monies, yes, the US gives the most (I think). In per head of population? No, it does not.

Your last point is an interesting one and I have an observation from someone who is outside your borders. Down here, and in Australia, Canada and some European countries it <i>seems</i> that when we do something in our own interests, we do take the affect of others into account. For example, it might be better for us to put tariffs on fruit from the Pacific Islands to protect our own markets, but in a true free trading environment, it is inherently unfair on the Islands, and it affects their economy, which vicariously affects ours. We get more Islanders immigrating to NZ due to lack of job opportunities in their primary industries and they put a huge cost on us because most are unskilled and quite a few end up on the dole (your welfare0. So, when making such decsions our govts seem to weigh up the costs and benefits. What I'm trying to say here is, we just don't do it because it is in our interests and that's the bottom line. Now, with the US, it seems different. It seems you guys do things in your own interest and damn the consequences. That is the impression we get. I think it is a cultural thing. In the US there is a strong sense of "Survival of the fittest" with not many backstops. Or if there are backstops, they're minimal and demeaning to those who need them. I think sometimes your politicians take that to the international stage and we just don't like it. What you guys see as socialism, we see as giving our fellow humans a helping hand. And please do not confuse a helping hand with just helping those to lazy to help themselves. They are just as detested in our society as they are in yours.

That's my two cents worth ...:O)


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> In actual monies, yes, the US gives the most (I think). In per head of population? No, it does not.
> 
> Your last point is an interesting one and I have an observation from someone who is outside your borders. Down here, and in Australia, Canada and some European countries it <i>seems</i> that when we do something in our own interests, we do take the affect of others into account. For example, it might be better for us to put tariffs on fruit from the Pacific Islands to protect our own markets, but in a true free trading environment, it is inherently unfair on the Islands, and it affects their economy, which vicariously affects ours. We get more Islanders immigrating to NZ due to lack of job opportunities in their primary industries and they put a huge cost on us because most are unskilled and quite a few end up on the dole (your welfare0. So, when making such decsions our govts seem to weigh up the costs and benefits. What I'm trying to say here is, we just don't do it because it is in our interests and that's the bottom line.


 IMO you would be correct, the US hasn't any ties like NZ and Aussies. So, no, we don't do the same.  





> Now, with the US, it seems different. It seems you guys do things in your own interest and damn the consequences. That is the impression we get. I think it is a cultural thing. In the US there is a strong sense of "Survival of the fittest" with not many backstops. Or if there are backstops, they're minimal and demeaning to those who need them. I think sometimes your politicians take that to the international stage and we just don't like it. What you guys see as socialism, we see as giving our fellow humans a helping hand. And please do not confuse a helping hand with just helping those to lazy to help themselves. They are just as detested in our society as they are in yours.
> 
> That's my two cents worth ...:O)


Funny that above, you are accusing us of being 'Darwinian', while often the accusation is being to 'biblical.' Cute by more than half. I agree however, that we are totally into US interests, rest of world is on their own, except those we protect. (How many is that? I can't keep count).


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 5, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> IMO you would be correct, the US hasn't any ties like NZ and Aussies. So, no, we don't do the same.
> Funny that above, you are accusing us of being 'Darwinian', while often the accusation is being to 'biblical.' Cute by more than half. I agree however, that we are totally into US interests, rest of world is on their own, except those we protect. (How many is that? I can't keep count).



Care to expand on your Darwinian/biblical analogy. It is lost on me.

As for US interests only, that is why the rest of the world eyes you warily. You cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the right thing's sake, yet many on this board profess it does exactly that most of the time, and they feel damned if they do, and damned if they don't..(shrug). Maybe you guys should try to help out without having an alternate reason. You used to be like that you know...


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Care to expand on your Darwinian/biblical analogy. It is lost on me.


 No. I don't for the simple reason I need to get to bed. There is enough here for you to figure it out.





> As for US interests only, that is why the rest of the world eyes you warily. You cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the right thing's sake, yet many on this board profess it does exactly that most of the time, and they feel damned if they do, and damned if they don't..(shrug). Maybe you guys should try to help out without having an alternate reason. You used to be like that you know...


Don't look for altruism, from US or any other country, including your own. Your post was very misleading. 

Nation states work in their own interests, always have, always will. Not a US signpost, not by a long shot.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 5, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> No. I don't for the simple reason I need to get to bed. There is enough here for you to figure it out.
> Don't look for altruism, from US or any other country, including your own. Your post was very misleading.
> 
> Nation states work in their own interests, always have, always will. Not a US signpost, not by a long shot.



Other states have learned that working for the good of all often times works for themselves.   As Grump said, the US used to know that...


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Other states have learned that working for the good of all often times works for themselves.   As Grump said, the US used to know that...



Please, give some links or examples, I'll check in tomorrow. Thanks.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 5, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Please, give some links or examples, I'll check in tomorrow. Thanks.



How working for the good of all equals the good of each individual country?   Seriously?   Try pretty much any treaty in existence.

And really...it'd be nice if you would anwser my questions before asking your own, but sure.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 5, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Care to expand on your Darwinian/biblical analogy. It is lost on me.
> 
> As for US interests only, that is why the rest of the world eyes you warily. You cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the right thing's sake, yet many on this board profess it does exactly that most of the time, and they feel damned if they do, and damned if they don't..(shrug). Maybe you guys should try to help out without having an alternate reason.
> 
> *You used to be like that you know...*




Yeah, hello?  Marshal Plan?

Don't listen to her.  Obviously, the inner core of the embittered neocon is showing.  It also shows their lies about the Iraq war being about bringing freedom and democracy to the poor suffering iraqis.  It was a lie, as her post very tellingly demonstrates.   They don't care about other people; only US "interests" 

Anyway, these neocons represent a minority of americans.  Don't let this board give you the wrong impression.  Its just that they wield the levers of government for 13 more months.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 5, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> No. I don't for the simple reason I need to get to bed. There is enough here for you to figure it out.
> Don't look for altruism, from US or any other country, including your own. Your post was very misleading.
> 
> Nation states work in their own interests, always have, always will. Not a US signpost, not by a long shot.




Actually, if there was enough there for me to figure it out, I would. Just say you can't be bothered, or you just wrote stuff for the sake of it without really knowing what you meant, or move on.

Post is not misleading. It is both naive and insulting for you to suggest just because your country is run a certain way, that mine is too. That is a problem with most conservatives and neocons - they think everybody thinks like they do. Just like the ijits who got you involved in Iraq. They are so arrogant as to think a Jefferson republic/democracy will work in the ME. You think, if the neocons had learned anything from Vietnam, it would be, the world is not America.

You are right, it is not only a US signpost, but I'll think you'll find your attitude is more in line with non First world countries, than the majority of first world countries. Don't get me wrong, I know we do look after our own interests, but I would think developed societies have more of a conscience. There is a reason the likes of Australia, NZ, France, Sweden etc are NOT shitholes, have economies in the gutter or have a crappy standard of living...


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 5, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Yeah, hello?  Marshal Plan?
> 
> Don't listen to her.  Obviously, the inner core of the embittered neocon is showing.  It also shows their lies about the Iraq war being about bringing freedom and democracy to the poor suffering iraqis.  It was a lie, as her post very tellingly demonstrates.   They don't care about other people; only US "interests"
> 
> Anyway, these neocons represent a minority of americans.  Don't let this board give you the wrong impression.  Its just that they wield the levers of government for 13 more months.



Oh, it's not lost on me at all. Other altrusitic examples are allowing the UN to be in NY, and there was no real reason for you to join WWI, yet you did so. I know the neocons are the minority. Bush's polls show this. The only election he won where more people wanted him than the other guy was 2004...In fact, I could be wrong, but he was the first president who's opponent (note I say opponent, not opponents) got more of the popular vote. I could be wrong on that  one tho'


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 6, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Oh, it's not lost on me at all. Other altrusitic examples are allowing the UN to be in NY, and there was no real reason for you to join WWI, yet you did so. I know the neocons are the minority. Bush's polls show this. The only election he won where more people wanted him than the other guy was 2004...In fact, I could be wrong, but he was the first president who's opponent (note I say opponent, not opponents) got more of the popular vote. I could be wrong on that  one tho'



Happened at least twice in the 1800's, we even had a President selected by the Congress. As per the rules of our Constitution. Popular vote has NEVER been how the President is elected, EVER. Further in every state absentee ballots are not counted if the number is to lower then the difference to win. This means well over 1 million votes were never counted. The claim Gore won the popular vote is simply unprovable since those votes were never counted.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 6, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Yeah, hello?  Marshal Plan?
> 
> Don't listen to her.  Obviously, the inner core of the embittered neocon is showing.  It also shows their lies about the Iraq war being about bringing freedom and democracy to the poor suffering iraqis.  It was a lie, as her post very tellingly demonstrates.   They don't care about other people; only US "interests"
> 
> Anyway, these neocons represent a minority of americans.  Don't let this board give you the wrong impression.  Its just that they wield the levers of government for 13 more months.



Blah, blah, blah ... rant, rant, rant ...

FYI, the Marshall Plan was based on complete miltiary subjugation of the occupied country, something you left-wingnut tree-huggers would have your panties so wound up about your voice would go up 2-3 octaves.

Fact:  the rank and file Iraqi HAS more freedom than ever under Saddam.  That of course would make you the liar.

Please DO stay around for 13 months.  If the Dems win, I've got at least 4 years of payback ranting, whining, lying and ignoring fact, logic, common sense and/or the truth in favor of rhetoric waiting for you and your ilk.


----------



## Annie (Dec 6, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Yeah, hello?  Marshal Plan?
> 
> Don't listen to her.  Obviously, the inner core of the embittered neocon is showing.  It also shows their lies about the Iraq war being about bringing freedom and democracy to the poor suffering iraqis.  It was a lie, as her post very tellingly demonstrates.   They don't care about other people; only US "interests"
> 
> Anyway, these neocons represent a minority of americans.  Don't let this board give you the wrong impression.  Its just that they wield the levers of government for 13 more months.



The Marshall Plan was in the US interests, Hello! It was the response the US had wanted after WWI, but Europe wasn't interested, remember Treaty of Versailles? Hello? The materials were bought from the US, fueling our economy and helping in the aftermath of change in production post war.

It kept a worn out Western Europe from perhaps sliding into the communist sphere of influence, which was one of the fears of SOS Marshall. It also led directly to the shift towards the EU.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> The UN, and EU are both cases in which states have given up sovreignity.


No more than, say, Texas.
And, members of the UN and EU may leave any time they want.  If they had given up sovereignty, they could not do so.  Both are - voluntary- associations, and both bodies only have the power that the ember states are willing to give it.



> The treaty doesn't say "the initial steps to elimination".   40 years is a long time to fulfill a treaty.


And, given the complexity of the issue, the progress that has been made is rather remarkable.  You also understand that the US cannot fully honor Article VI until certain other countries do the same.



> No...International law is rarely enforced through force, however it often still has a lot of power.   It is most definitely not meaningless and there has been a lot of success with playing the shame game.


That's not 'law' that's PR.  



> No...the ICC has jurisdiction over everyone.


So long as a country agrees to accept it, yes.
It is impossible for an extra-national organiozation to claim compelling jurisdiction over a state that does not agree to accept it.



> Technically true, but a fairly irrelevant fact.


Except for the fact that, again, accepting UNSC commands is a voluntary act based on a voluntary association with the UN.  The UNSC cannot compell anyone thatis not a member of the UN to do anything; membership to the UN denotes voluntary acceptance of UNSC demands.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Its sad that I had to say that and that saying "It is the single best tool out there to advance the cause of human rights" just wouldn't have sufficed.   Pathetic.


Except that the UN doesnt give a hoot about human rights.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 6, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> The US and Israel are "fanatics"?
> In the same context as the Iranians?
> 
> 
> ...





have you tried to have a debate with a zionist while criticizing israel?

yes.  the zionists who want Israel or Bust and the american christians trying to usher in the second coming by kissing jewish ass ARE fanatics.  Which, just happens to be one of the largest voting blocs in 00 and 04 which gave us bush and the quickness to invade another muslim nation standard of foreign policy.  


Go watch TBN and catch their "christians for zion" special sometime.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 6, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No more than, say, Texas.
> And, members of the UN and EU may leave any time they want.  If they had given up sovereignty, they could not do so.  Both are - voluntary- associations, and both bodies only have the power that the ember states are willing to give it.



They haven't given up complete sovreignity, they have given up a decent amount of it however.   



> And, given the complexity of the issue, the progress that has been made is rather remarkable.  You also understand that the US cannot fully honor Article VI until certain other countries do the same.



Of course...when its us who is breaching the treaty its "given the complexity of the issue, the progress that has been made is rather remarkable"...but no understanding if anyone else breaches.   



> That's not 'law' that's PR.



No...law is legally binding mandates, whether anyone will enforce them or not is a different matter.   Its law, and that they are breaking the law can be used to shame them into not breaking the law.   



> So long as a country agrees to accept it, yes.
> It is impossible for an extra-national organiozation to claim compelling jurisdiction over a state that does not agree to accept it.



Incorrect.   Its not impossible because the ICC has done it.   By the way, war crimes such as genocide are illegal everywhere...whether you are a UN member or not. 



> Except for the fact that, again, accepting UNSC commands is a voluntary act based on a voluntary association with the UN.



No, its not.   They are in the UN and so the commands are binding.   



> The UNSC cannot compell anyone thatis not a member of the UN to do anything; membership to the UN denotes voluntary acceptance of UNSC demands.



Voluntary acceptance of someone elses future demands is called giving up autonomy or sovreignity.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> They haven't given up complete sovreignity, they have given up a decent amount of it however.


Volutarily, with the knowledge they can take it back.
If you retain the right to take back the powers you have granted to others, you have, fully, retained your sovereignty.



> Of course...when its us who is breaching the treaty its "given the complexity of the issue, the progress that has been made is rather remarkable"...but no understanding if anyone else breaches.


You were speaking of a specific article of the treaty -- article VI, disarmament -- and how the US has not complied with it.
Do you or do you not agree that:
-There have been necessary steps toward compliance
-That the US cannot fulfill its obigation here if other parties do not also fullfill theirs?



> No...law is legally binding mandates...


If that's the case, then international law doesnt exist, as compliance is voluntary.  Unless those in non-compliance can be -forced- to comply, then the law is irrelevant and menaingless.



> Incorrect.   Its not impossible because the ICC has done it.


If a country does nto accept the jurisdiction of the ICC then the ICC dopesnt have jurisdiction over that country.  
http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_English.pdf
See article 4, 11, 12, 13.

Its that simple.  Demands from the ICC carry no more weight in a contry that does not accept its jurisdiction than demads from you and me.  Simply delcaring that you have jurisdiction over countries that do not agree you have jurisdiction means nothing.



> No, its not.   They are in the UN and so the commands are binding.


That's what -I- said.
YOU said the UNSC could compell a country to do something w/o its consent.
It can only force UN members; by being a member of the UN, you have given consent.  Thus, commands from the UNSC are -always- directed towards countries that have given their consent to be compelled by the UNSC.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 6, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Volutarily, with the knowledge they can take it back.
> If you retain the right to take back the powers you have granted to others, you have, fully, retained your sovereignty.



There is no clause for secession in the EU. 



> You were speaking of a specific article of the treaty -- article VI, disarmament -- and how the US has not complied with it.
> Do you or do you not agree that:
> -There have been necessary steps toward compliance
> -That the US cannot fulfill its obigation here if other parties do not also fullfill theirs?



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



> If that's the case, then international law doesnt exist, as compliance is voluntary.  Unless those in non-compliance can be -forced- to comply, then the law is irrelevant and menaingless.



Compliance with international law is NOT voluntary.   You MUST do it.   Let me draw a few analogies.

I rob a bank.   I never get caught nor do I get punished.   Is it now somehow legal to rob banks because I did so and wasn't punished?   The law exists outside the punishment.   

I jaywalk in NYC in front of a cop.   He doesn't give a shit and I am not punished.   Is it somehow legal to do so?   Does that mean if I do it next time I won't get punished?   No.   By the way...the law doesn't *force* me not to jaywalk, even though its against the law.   Even if it does punish me, it is providing a deterrent effect, not following me around and if I start to jaywalk cuffing me and throwing me onto the ground.   

The lack of force behind a law does not mean the law does not exist.   Nor does it make it irrelevant, as we have seen in the shame game.   Because of those words and the PR campaign countries have changed their ways.   How can you call that meaningless?   



> If a country does nto accept the jurisdiction of the ICC then the ICC dopesnt have jurisdiction over that country.  Its that simple.  Demands from the ICC carry no more weight in a contry that does not accept its jurisdiction than demads from you and me.  Simply delcaring that you have jurisdiction over countries that do not agree you have jurisdiction means nothing.



This is simply not the way the world works anymore.   The ICC has jurisdiction over the world and most countries acknowledge that.   The fact that they do gives it power, influence, and the force it needs.   If you haven't noticed, me and you don't exactly have the power of the UN or the ICC.   



> That's what -I- said.
> YOU said the UNSC could compell a country to do something w/o its consent.
> It can only force UN members; by being a member of the UN, you have given consent.  Thus, commands from the UNSC are -always- directed towards countries that have given their consent to be compelled by the UNSC.



Yes...they gave their consent to do so in the PAST.   And NOW the commands are binding and are NOT voluntary.   As I said before, that is called giving up some autonomy or state sovreignity.   They voluntarily submitted theirselves to the will of the UN...but because they have submitted themselves, that means they no longer have the autonomy to say no to the UNSC.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 6, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> The lack of force behind a law does not mean the law does not exist.   Nor does it make it irrelevant, as we have seen in the shame game.   Because of those words and the PR campaign countries have changed their ways.   How can you call that meaningless?   .



Bingo. Can you say Geneva Convention? And were the Nuremberg Trials a figment of my imagination? M14 is being deliberately obtuse to fit his ideal of how the world should be (for a change)..


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> 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 (Dec 6, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


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



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 (Dec 7, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 8, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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.


----------

