"We are ready to attack Iran..."

chiro

I'm not talking about the end of the world, world war 3, mayan prophecy type thing: I'm just talking about the danger of the precedent that it sets.

You can have situations where pre-emptive strikes happen and things don't go crazy. You also can have things do that go crazy and really screw up more than anyone can handle.

Either way it's not a good idea to be setting this kind of precedent period.

The way a lot of things start is that one person somewhere decides that one exception is OK. Maybe they fudge something, maybe they lie, maybe they just do something very subtle to fix their problems.

The first time they do it, everything works out OK. Then if everything does work out, they move on to something bigger. Everything is a success. Then why not, they're in the mood to just do whatever the hell they want because they can, and because they've been allowed to.

Now if you really want to see how that kind of thinking has taken place, look at the financial crisis. After the depression, Glass-Steagal was put in place to separate commercial bread-and-butter banks from merging with insurance companies and similar type institutions.

Come 1999, this is completely removed and note that a lot of what took place in terms of the derivatives and speculation would not have happened if this kind of thing didn't happen. But this kind of thing wasn't isolated and banks have become more powerful and slowly maneuvred themselves into the position where they can do this. I have mentioned one piece of legislation, but the point is that there was a precedent somewhere down the line that led to what is just 'normal behaviour' today.

This isn't just limited to banks either: it's limited to every single person on the planet.

The point is that if you give people an inch they will want a mile: always has been the case and always will unless you have someone really disciplined with a lot of integrity and that is a far and far between ask.

Once people are not only able to do things like this but are also encouraged in ways whether that be from re-inforcement with getting away with what they did, or whether it's something that involves social acceptance and other characteristics, then if they get this message, they can and often will take it to another level.

Also you should check out the Milgram experiment to see just how far people can really go.

Bobbywhy

Iran does not cooperate with IAEA, that's why. Don't you get it? Do you not see the obvious...the non-spoken fact that Israel always refuses to admit to their possession of nuclear weapons through complete obfuscation. While Israel maintains a stock of hundreds of nuclear weapons the Western world winks and nods. Now, what's OK for Israel is not OK for Iran?

Nuclear opacity and nuclear ambiguity is the Jewish state’s official non-declaration.
Nuclear opacity and nuclear ambiguity is the Iranian state's official non-declaration.

russ_watters

You're missing the point/have it backwards. The NPT includes with it an affirmative burden of proof: Iran must openly prove they are not using their nuclear research to develop nuclear weapons. Failure to do so is itself a violation of the NPT. So the fact that we don't have a clear idea either way is indicative of a violation: we don't have a clear idea because Iran is violating the NPT by not being open. You're contradicting yourself. If Iran followed the guidelines and abided by the requests of inspectors, there'd be no question that Iran was using the technology for peaceful purposes (assuming they are). Um...ok, so is that your way of conceding that Iran is violating the rules [the NPT]?

russ_watters

Israel did not sign the NPT, so does not have the same obligations Iran has.

zoobyshoe

Correct. If there were any possible way to do it I think we would remove everyone's nuclear capability but our own. Clamping down on the spread is about the only realistic option at this point.

zoobyshoe

The precedent has already been set in Syria, so that bridge is crossed. You're right that a repeat may not go the same way because each situation has its own idiosyncratic risks. The best solution would be diplomatic. I hope the US is studying up on how to allow the current Iranian leader to save face while giving up nuclear weapons, because this seems to be the problem: he can't look like he's backing down without losing his status there.

chiro

Iran has let them in the inspectors. What more do you want them to do? You want to play daddy for the entire world? Want to play superman and save us all?

Let me ask you a direct question: Why is it ok for Pakistan, France, Israel, Russia, the US, the UK, India and China to have nuclear weapons but not anybody else?

You show me in any IAEA report specifically where they have identified any kind of dangerous process or characteristic as a part of their inspections, including for the military bases.

With all the sanctions that the US and other so called allies have placed under Iran with trade sanctions, they've basically done a highly offensive move against Iran. Crippling trade and economic activity to a country is basically an act of war in a financial and economic sense.

So let me get this straight: the IAEA has inspected the plants dozens of times, but you guys still want to save the world by finding the bad guys with their supposed weapons of which you have thousands. So not only do you do this specifically for Iran and forget situations like ohh say North Korea, you impose trade sanctions that cripple their economy knowingly and then you want Iran to 'co-operate'.

The least you guys can do is if you really want to enforce this kind of checking, then enforce it across the board and treat everyone equally. When you do it with the Iranians, then you should let the Iranians go to your nuclear sites and wherever else they might wish to check. Would that be OK with you? Is that a breach of 'national security'? What about letting Iranian inspectors within Israel to do some checking of their own?

The double standard is absolutely ridiculous.

mheslep

Uranium enrichment to 20% is evidence. To deny this is to be immune to evidence, and to instead embrace some kind of apologist dogma.

daveb

20% enrichment is not weapons grade, and is considered low enriched uranium (LEU), albeit at the top end of the spectrum for LEU. 20% enriched can be made into a crude weapon, but 20% is also the top for LWR use. Even Little Boy was around 80% (IIRC). So how exactly is 20% enrichment proof of a weapons program.

thorium1010

It would indicate intention for further enrichment. However, I am quite sure another war in the middle east is a recipe for disaster not only for U.S. also for the world. War or any strike on Iran is a provocative act and i suspect this time around russia and china will get involved.

ThomasT

I don't think it's about that. Iran's location and expressed animosity toward Israel are important factors, imo. I currently agree with Zooby that all parties involved would like to get to some sort of agreement that would avoid Israeli air strikes (and the unforeseeable consequences that that might entail), with everybody benefitting in some way. The problem is that it's impossible to ascertain with any reasonable certainty that Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons ... and Iranian nuclear capability has obvious benefits for Iran, while presenting a real and present threat to Israel, and perhaps to US interests in the region (I'm guessing).

Double standards aren't ridiculous ... insofar as they benefit those with the power to impose and enforce them.

The situation for Israel (and, by association, the US) is a difficult one. But the situation is even more difficult for Iran. I certainly hope that the administrations of the countries involved find a way to work this out, but I'm not overly optimistic because of what I read about the Israeli administration's apprehensions.

mheslep

1. I did not say U 20% was weapons grade.
2. Obviously, U 20% enriched could be further enriched using much the same equipment to be made into a highly effective weapon.
3. I said U 20% enriched was *not* proof, but evidence of a weapons program. This is because the possible valid reasons for going beyond 7% for reactor grade are very thin.

You are arguing against a straw man.

Hurkyl

I think you completely missed the point. In the U.S. legal system, the rules are set out so that when the police arrest you, it is because they can point to a law you violated, rather than making one up on the spot because they felt you deserved it.

e.g. it has been made a crime to threaten people, because e.g. it shows that you have enough 'potential' to follow through that it warrants legal action.

Another aspect is that police don't arrest people because they commit crimes. Police arrest people because they have sufficient probable cause to suggest that you may have committed / be about to commit a crime.


Regardless of whether that's true or not, the point is that we don't (and should not!) draw the line between "has already happened" and "hasn't already happened" like you were trying to assert. Nor is the line between "we are absolutely certain" and "we are not certain".

It's far too naïve to think that one should always wait until you see a smoking gun before you take any action. You are making a fallacy of the excluded middle -- you are trying to justify your naïve viewpoint by pretending the only alternative is its polar opposite, and neglecting the fact that the actual reasonable positions exist somewhere in the middle.

ThomasT

@ chiro,
I think I share your sense of justice, and therefore understand your outrage at what might be considered unjust demands by the US regarding Iran's development of nuclear weapons. But international relations, just as human interpersonal relations, at least in the extreme, aren't a matter of justice or fairness. It's a matter of power. It would be foolish for the US to allow Iran to have the power to actually bargain, imo. Therefore, it would be foolish for the US to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, imho.

mheslep

AKA False Dilemma fallacy.

ThomasT

What, in this thread, does this refer to?

mheslep

Sorry you slipped in ahead of my post. Referring to 81, excluded middle fallacy reference.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...1&postcount=81