Iran's proposed nuclear plant: electricity generation or weapons grade

[Art]

The NPT and nuclear weapons are serious issues and violations of that treaty should be taken and treated seriously.

I'm open to suggestions.

What actions do you think should be taken against the USA for it's non-compliance with the NPT? i.e. providing nuclear know-how and equipment to non-signatory nations, proliferating nuclear weapons in non-nuclear countries, and it's failure to dismantle it's nuclear arsenal; and as it is being used against Iran you can add failure to adhere to the provisions of the additional protocol to the list.

As the only country to have ever actually used a nuclear weapon in anger I would say there is a lot to fear from America's non-compliance.

 

[OmCheeto]

Some of these accusations border on ridiculous:

IAEA

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards
Agreement and relevant provisions of Security
Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747
(2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran​

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-4.pdf"
Date: 22 February 2008

...Physics Research Centre (PHRC). This equipment was procured by the former head of PHRC, who had also been a professor at the university. He had also procured, or attempted to procure, other equipment, such as balancing machines, mass spectrometers, magnets and fluorine handling equipment, which could be useful in uranium enrichment activities.

I cannot imagine a physics research center in any country without the highlighted components.

"Oh look! They've got magnets! That means they're trying to make nuclear weapons!"

It's no wonder Khamenei has a permanent smirk on his face.

 

[Morbius]

So could any other nation with nuclear weapons.

I'm not familiar with behavior on the part of Iran which makes them appear to be more of a threat than any other country.

As I've stated before, Iran is not Iraq.
Your logic is flawed, imho.

And I find your promotion of the use of weapons of major destruction on another nation, simply because you disagree with them, repulsive.

OmCheeto,

WHY is the logic any different?? Both Iraq and Iran are signatories of the NPT - and
BOTH have VIOLATED the terms of a Treaty they voluntarily signed.

Iraq had a very active nuclear weapons program all through the '80s and that program was uncovered
after the Gulf War of 1991. Courtesy of the Federation of American Scientists:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm

Now Iran is in VIOLATION of the NPT and is being sanctioned by the United Nations.

Evidently your reading comprehension is flawed! I don't advocate the use of weapons against
another country because I "disagee" with them. I advocate the use of weapons against another
nation as a last resort to get they to OBEY a TREATY that they VOLUNTARILY SIGNED!

What I find repulsive is people who don't uphold and enforce international laws and treaties.

That's how LARGE WARS get started. I would rather have a small war to enforce the terms
of a treaty rather than have a much bigger war later.

Would not it have been better to have the terms of the treaty ending World War I; which enjoined
Germany from having a large military, enforced; rather than let them start a much bigger conflict?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Art]

I advocate the use of weapons against another
nation as a last resort to get they to OBEY a TREATY that they VOLUNTARILY SIGNED!

What I find repulsive is people who don't uphold and enforce international laws and treaties.


Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

So you are saying America should be attacked for it's non-compliance with the NPT and for breaking the ABM Treaty with Russia??

 

[Count Iblis]

The US exerted pressure on the IAEA board of governors (who were just the foreign ministers, not the experts on nuclear energy), gave a presentation full of flawed/misleading intelligence to get Iran rewferred to the UNCS. Then, after passing a few resolutions, the US no longer had to argue in favor of Iran suspending enrichment on its merits. The role of El Baradei regarding the enrichment issue has been reduced to check if Iran is complying witht the Security Council demands.

Some time ago when El Baradei suggested that it may be better to allow Iran some limited enrichment capabability, Dr. Rice said that El Baradei had to mind his own business. This betrays what the US was always after: Getting in charge of the issue, i.e. Iran has to suspend enrichment because we say so, not because of any alleged violations of the NPT. Because those allegations would be debunked eventually.

But because Iran is much more powerful than Iraq, Iran can simply continue to defy the UNSC. There is no viable military option against Iran. Admiral Mullen told the Israelis to shelve their plans to attack Iran. I think that the US has given the Israelis intelligence that Iran is not a threat, so they don't have to be worried. But intelligence is also about making propaganda to the public, so Israel and the US will continue to say that Iran is a threat. Since the WMD issue in Iraq, these two aspects of intelligence have been well separated.

 

[Morbius]

But using non-compliance with the NPT as an excuse to attack another nation is as bad as attacking a nation because you think they have weapons of mass destruction.

OmCheeto,

That's about as ill-considered as saying that one shouldn't use the fact that someone broke the law
and committed a serious felony as as "excuse" for imprisoning them and depriving them of their
freedom.

Just as with individual offenders - sometimes entire nations engage in lawless activities. When that
happens - it may be completely necessary to attack and defeat them in order to terminate the lawless
activity. History is repleat with examples.

The NPT isn't being used as "an excuse". As others have said, Iran is VIOLATING international law;
Iran is a CRIMINAL nation for doing so. If Iran is so intrasigent that it refuses to honor its obligations
under international law - then in order to bring Iran into compliance; a military strike may be necessary.

Yes - Iranians will suffer from such an occurence - and when they want to point the finger of blame -
they can look to their OWN government. Iran will DESERVE what happens to it; they brought it
on themselves with their lawless behavior.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Count Iblis]

Morbius, WWII started because after WWI the allies tried to implement nonsensical sanctions against Germany. That fuelled nationalism, allowing the NAZIs to gain power.

 

[Morbius]

But because Iran is much more powerful than Iraq, Iran can simply continue to defy the UNSC. There is no viable military option against Iran.

Count Iblis,

Iran is not much more powerful than Iraq - which is why the Iran / Iraq war lasted so long - it was
a virtual stalemate.

For the US military; Iran would be as big a pushover as Iraq was.

After the Iraqi regime fell in short order to US military forces; the US military stayed in Iraq to
attempt to reconstruct Iraq and maintain order. In that job, US military personnell were subject
to IEDs and other attacks that have claimed many lives.

If circumstances require it; and for the good of world peace; the United Nations decides that Iranian
regime should pay the price for its intrasigence; then the US military forces could obliterate the
Iranian regime as handily as they did the Iraqis.

However, in such a case; perhaps the US shouldn't stay to help "clean up" the mess, which caused
the loss of so many US servicemen and servicewomen.

Perhaps the US military should sweep through Iran like Sherman swept through Georgia and then just
leave and let the Iranians put their house in order without our help.

In such a case, they would be so busy reconstructing their own nation; they won't have time to inflict
terrorist attacks and threats on other nations.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Morbius, WWII started because after WWI the allies tried to implement nonsensical sanctions against Germany. That fuelled nationalism, allowing the NAZIs to gain power.

Count Iblis,

I KNOW my history and how World War II got started.

You say the sanctions were "nonsensical" - and that is as ill-considered and non-factual
as what you've been posting in this thread.

Why are you such an apologist for such EVIL DESPOTS as Hitler and Ahmadinejad?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[russ_watters]

Morbius, WWII started because after WWI the allies tried to implement nonsensical sanctions against Germany. That fuelled nationalism, allowing the NAZIs to gain power.

That is not an analagous situation.

 

[Morbius]

The US exerted pressure on the IAEA board of governors (who were just the foreign ministers, not the experts on nuclear energy), gave a presentation full of flawed/misleading intelligence to get Iran rewferred to the UNCS.

Count Iblis,

BALONEY! WRONG WRONG WRONG!

The major force behind Iran being referred to the UNSC was NOT the USA - but the Europeans.

You show your abject IGNORANCE in claiming that the IAEA board lacks the technical expertise.
Although the board members may not be technical people - they are advised by a host of technical
people from MANY countries - NOT just the USA.

I don't know where you get this IMPLAUSIBLE propaganda that the USA is responsible for
all of Iran's trouble and woes in this action.

IRAN is responsible - NOT the USA.

However, I find it typical for the Iranians to blame others for their own shortcomings, and
not taking responsibilities for their own crimes; must be a "cultural thing" because they always
seem to be whining the same thing.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Count Iblis]

a military strike may be necessary.

But that will end in disaster for the West. This whole idea of Iran wanting to produce nuclear weapons to attack israel or to be able to defend itself is fundamentally flawed. What happened was that after the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians shelved their plans for nuclear weapons. They made a calculation and found that investing in conventional missiles would be far more effective from a military/strategic point of view.

So, they started to mass produce missiles, most of them short range missles. If Iraq were ever to attack Iran again, then the Iranians are capable of destroying Baghdad using their missiles (Baghdad is not far from the Iranian border, well within the range of their short range misiles).

Now, it happens to be the case that the major oil installations in the Gulf are also within the range of these type of missiles. Not the long range missiles that can reach Israel that everyone is afraid of, but rather the short range (up to 300 km) solid fueled (can be fired fast) missiles.

So, after a US attack, Iran will simply take out the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. And they will continue to fire missiles at it to prevent them from being repaired. The Israel-Lebanon war, shows that in this type of war the West won't be able to stop the enemy. Hezbollah continued to fire missiles into Israel right until the cease fire.

In this case, as long as the war goes on, there won't be oil flowing to the West, therefore the Western economies will grind to a halt. So, it seems to me that Iran will win the war.

You don't have to count on diplomatic support from Russia in this war. Putin will be very happy if the war concludes with a humiliating cease fire for the West.

 

[russ_watters]

But using non-compliance with the NPT as an excuse to attack another nation is as bad as attacking a nation because you think they have weapons of mass destruction.

If we use it as a reason instead of an excuse, would that be better?

 

[Morbius]

So you are saying America should be attacked for it's non-compliance with the NPT and for breaking the ABM Treaty with Russia??

Art.

Your confusion is due to your own lack of reading comprehension.

I just got done explaining to you that the USA did NOT BREAK the ABM Treaty. What the
USA did in terminating the ABM Treaty was PERFECTLY LEGAL under the terms of
the ABM Treaty.

Unlike the NPT, which is an international treaty administered by the United Nations, the ABM
Treaty was a private Treaty between ONLY TWO nations - the USA and the Soviet Union,
whose successor state is present day Russia. READ Article XV - it says that either side
can terminate the treaty. What is ironic is that this provision was put into the ABM Treaty
at the behest of the Soviet Union; not the USA. The USA didn't need permission from the
United Nations or the Security Council - the ABM Treaty was ONLY between the USA and
Russia.

The ABM Treaty was like a private contract between two individuals; and that contract
contained a termination clause that could be exercised unilaterally by either side. Why
anyone would think that there should be any kind of sanction because the USA invoked
a condition of the ABM Treaty that allows its termination is BEYOND LOGIC.

The USA is also in compliance with the NPT.

The fact that you just "make up" and fabricate abridgments to Treaties really makes it hard
to take you seriously.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicst

 

[russ_watters]

What actions do you think should be taken against the USA for it's non-compliance with the NPT?

The USA is not in violation of the NPT, as per the judgement of the IAEA. And even if it was, that's not what this thread is about - start your own thread about that if you want to discuss it (ie, justify your claim). Such speculation is therefore a diversion from the issue being discussed this thread, intended to derail the thread.

I too wonder why people go to such lengths to defend dictators and terrorists.

 

[Morbius]

But that will end in disaster for the West. This whole idea of Iran wanting to produce nuclear weapons to attack israel or to be able to defend itself is fundamentally flawed. What happened was that after the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians shelved their plans for nuclear weapons.

Count,

Do you even listen to yourself?

You are excusing the Iranian because they "shelved their plans for nuclear weapons".

They are a non-nuclear weapon state signatory of the NPT - they NEVER SHOULD HAVE
had plans for making nuclear weapons.

You are as bad as someone saying we should let some felon go free and not imprison him because
he gave up murdering people 5 years ago - and now this felon only commits rape and robbery.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

I'm open to suggestions.
What actions do you think should be taken against the USA for it's non-compliance with the NPT? i.e. providing nuclear know-how and equipment to non-signatory nations, proliferating nuclear weapons in non-nuclear countries, and it's failure to dismantle it's nuclear arsenal;

Art,

The USA is PERMITTED to have a nuclear arseanal under the NPT. The USA is one of the five
nuclear weapons states. Now some claim that Article VI of the NPT requires the nuclear five to
dismantle their arsenals. However, as per the terrms of the NPT; namely Artlicle VI; there is a
stated goal of someday having nuclear disarmament. However, it is up to the NPT signatories
in their 5 year conferences to call for that. So far, they have not called for that.

Art, you are just trumpeting your own lack of understanding of the provisions of the NPT when you
make claims that the USA is in violation because it has not dismantled its own nuclear arsenal.

The USA is PERMITTED to have its nuclear arsenal under the NPT - so your claims that the USA
is in violation is just ill-informed, and ill-considered fabrication.

The USA has NOT transferred weapons technology to non-signatory nations. You make the same
ERROR that is typical of many that fabricate claims that the USA in in violation of the NPT. The
NPT forbids the transfer of "weapons usable" technology. There are a bunch of real IDIOTS
out there that think anything nuclear is "weapons useable". But that just demonstrates their
ignorance. For example, the technology that the USA provided to India is not "weapons usable" -
it is technology that allows the more efficient operation of nuclear power plants. However, I'm under
no delusion that some boneheads will think that is "weapons usable" and hence proscribed.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

As the only country to have ever actually used a nuclear weapon in anger I would say there is a lot to fear from America's non-compliance.

Art,

What a bunch of BALONEY!

Art, do you NOT KNOW that the USA used a nuclear weapon in anger against a very intransigent foe
in a war the USA didn't start.

Art, are you not aware that General Kuribayashi - the Japanese military commander on Iwo Jima was
told to make the taking of Iwo Jima as costly as possible for the USA - so that the USA would have
"second thoughts" of attacking the Japanese homeland.

Well, that strategy evidently worked. The USA did have second thoughts at invading the Japanese
homeland. The USA did understand that an invasion of the Japanese homeland would be terribly costly
in both US and Japanese lives. However, unfortunately for the Japanese; the USA had an alternate plan
by utilizing the new weapon it created.

The USA used a nuclear weapon to bring a horrible war to a swift conclusion.

You seem to be one of the many that have lost their moral compass on this issue; you blame the
WRONG people. The Japanese are responsible for the plight of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Those that blame the USA for using a nuclear weapon are like those that blame the State when
an evil murderer is executed, or blame the police for the plight of a felon landing in prison.

It is NOT the fault of the State or the police who are upholding the law. The condemned murderer
or imprisoned felon has ONLY himself to blame.

It seems to be "popular" to IGNORE the culpability of a criminal - be he an individual or a nation -
and when they find themselves facing punishment for their criminal actions - to blame those responsible
to mete out the punishment. Why all the MISPLACED sympathy for those facing the just consequences
of their own criminal or evil actions?

JAPAN is to blame for the plight of those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki - NOT the USA.

IRAN is responsible for the trouble it is in with the United Nations and the rest of the World.

The USA; even when it had a nuclear monopoly; did NOT act in an irresponsible manner.

I don't know how ANYONE gets the idea that the USA is a threat or should have any fear from the USA.

Just like the only people who should fear the police are not law abiding citizens; but CRIMINALS;
the ONLY nations that should fear the USA are those that are CRIMINALS themselves.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[OmCheeto]

I advocate the use of weapons against another
nation as a last resort to get they to OBEY a TREATY that they VOLUNTARILY SIGNED!

What I find repulsive is people who don't uphold and enforce international laws and treaties.
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

So you are saying America should be attacked for it's non-compliance with the NPT and for breaking the ABM Treaty with Russia??

I think he's saying that some animals are more equal than others.

And that we are both illiterate:

Art.
Your confusion is due to your own lack of reading comprehension.

OmCheeto,
Evidently your reading comprehension is flawed!

And Count Iblis is abjectly ignorant?

Count Iblis,
You show your abject IGNORANCE ...

As I predicted, this thread has devolved into a kick Iran debacle.

Unsubscribe

 

[Art]

A good article by Britain's former foreign secretary Robin Cook

America's Broken Nuclear Promises Endanger Us All
Bush has done his utmost to frustrate talks
on the non-proliferation treaty
by Robin Cook, May 27, 2005
extract

Observance of the non-proliferation treaty rested on a bargain between those states without nuclear weapons, who agreed to renounce any ambition to acquire them, and the nuclear-weapon powers, who undertook in return to proceed in good faith to disarmament. It suits the Bush administration now to present the purpose of the treaty as halting proliferation, but its original intention was the much broader ambition of a nuclear-weapon-free world. The acrimonious exchanges inside the present review conference reflect the frustration of the vast majority of states, who believe they have kept their side of the deal by not developing nuclear weapons but have seen no sign that the privileged elite with nuclear weapons have any intention of giving them up.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/05/27_cook_americas-broken-promises.htm It seems Morbious, he's as ignorant as me, or then again perhaps you should consider the possibility it is you that is out of step.

 

[Art]

The USA is not in violation of the NPT, as per the judgement of the IAEA. And even if it was, that's not what this thread is about - start your own thread about that if you want to discuss it (ie, justify your claim). Such speculation is therefore a diversion from the issue being discussed this thread, intended to derail the thread.

I too wonder why people go to such lengths to defend dictators and terrorists.

Yes the USA is in violation of the NPT but having a veto on the UNSC means they can never be called on it.

It is relevant because I don't want any country to possesses nuclear weapons but so long as the USA and the other elite nuclear nations continue to flout the NPT the more chance there is of other countries saying 'well if they can do it so can we'

I too wonder why people go to such lengths to defend the right of a country, which started a war under false pretences resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, to pass judgement on other countries with no history of aggression.

 

[Art]

Art,

What a bunch of BALONEY!

Art, do you NOT KNOW that the USA used a nuclear weapon in anger against a very intransigent foe
in a war the USA didn't start.

Art, are you not aware that General Kuribayashi - the Japanese military commander on Iwo Jima was
told to make the taking of Iwo Jima as costly as possible for the USA - so that the USA would have
"second thoughts" of attacking the Japanese homeland.

Well, that strategy evidently worked. The USA did have second thoughts at invading the Japanese
homeland. The USA did understand that an invasion of the Japanese homeland would be terribly costly
in both US and Japanese lives. However, unfortunately for the Japanese; the USA had an alternate plan
by utilizing the new weapon it created.

The USA used a nuclear weapon to bring a horrible war to a swift conclusion.

You seem to be one of the many that have lost their moral compass on this issue; you blame the
WRONG people. The Japanese are responsible for the plight of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Those that blame the USA for using a nuclear weapon are like those that blame the State when
an evil murderer is executed, or blame the police for the plight of a felon landing in prison.

It is NOT the fault of the State or the police who are upholding the law. The condemned murderer
or imprisoned felon has ONLY himself to blame.

It seems to be "popular" to IGNORE the culpability of a criminal - be he an individual or a nation -
and when they find themselves facing punishment for their criminal actions - to blame those responsible
to mete out the punishment. Why all the MISPLACED sympathy for those facing the just consequences
of their own criminal or evil actions?

JAPAN is to blame for the plight of those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki - NOT the USA.

IRAN is responsible for the trouble it is in with the United Nations and the rest of the World.

The USA; even when it had a nuclear monopoly; did NOT act in an irresponsible manner.

I don't know how ANYONE gets the idea that the USA is a threat or should have any fear from the USA.

Just like the only people who should fear the police are not law abiding citizens; but CRIMINALS;
the ONLY nations that should fear the USA are those that are CRIMINALS themselves.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

:rofl: :rofl: That's hilarious,

To summarise your argument; the Japanese deserved to be nuked because a) They fought too well and b) For not just rolling over when the USA imposed massive sanctions on them and going to war instead.

And it is comforting to know that the USA only uses nukes when it needs to, to win. Duh!

Btw There is a clause in the NPT allowing signatories to leave the treaty so the analogy with America's breaking of the ABM Treaty is valid but if you'd prefer an example of America breaking a multinational treaty try the Geneva Conventions.

Oh, and when are the US going to enact the additional protocol seeing as how Iran's failure to do so is being touted as a causa bella.

 

[Art]

Art.

Your confusion is due to your own lack of reading comprehension.

I think I've already sufficiently exposed your near complete ignorance of the terms of the NPT. Perhaps we can take this up again when you have had an opportunity to better aquaint yourself with the facts.

to get you started

What kind of technology would India receive in return?

India would be eligible to buy U.S. dual-use nuclear technology, including materials and equipment that could be used to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium, potentially creating the material for nuclear bombs. It would also receive imported fuel for its nuclear reactors.
snip
"We are going to be sending, or allowing others to send, fresh fuel to India-including yellowcake and lightly enriched uraniumt-that will free up Indian domestic sources of fuel to be solely dedicated to making many more bombs than they would otherwise have been able to make," says Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center,
snip
In 1974, India tested its first nuclear bomb, showing it could develop nuclear weapons with technology transferred for peaceful purposes.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/

 

[Morbius]

I think he's saying that some animals are more equal than others.

OmCheeto,

I don't see any comparison with the Orwellian reference.

We certainly are talking about two DIFFERENT treaties - in both form and provisions.

It's analogous to the difference between criminal law and civil law. In criminal law, we have
crimes defined by laws passed by legislatures or other ruling bodies. In civil law, we have
contracts between individuals.

The NPT is a Treaty under the auspices of the United Nations - and hence is analogous to a
criminal statute. The ABM Treaty is a treaty between TWO individual nations, and is analogous
to a civil contract.

In the case of the ABM Treaty, the ONLY parties involved are the USA and Russia. The UN and
other countries don't have a stake or interest in the ABM Treaty - it is ONLY between the USA and
Russia.

The NPT is like a criminal law - it is overseen by the United Nations - and all UN members and NPT
signatories have a stake or interest in the NPT.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

A good article by Britain's former foreign secretary Robin Cook
It seems Morbious, he's as ignorant as me, or then again perhaps you should consider the possibility it is you that is out of step.

Art,

Or we can have the truth - which is that Robin Cook is "out of step" and factually inaccurate.

First, I don't know why ANYONE would cite something from "wagingpeace" as an authoritative source,
that makes about as much sense as citing an article from "Greenpeace" on the safety of nuclear power -
both "wagingpeace" and "Greenpeace" have their agendas - and they don't let the FACTS get in the way.

Robin Cook is just plain WRONG about the development of nuclear bunker busters. He states that
the Bush admininstration started the research on "nuclear bunker busters" - and that is just plain flat
out WRONG!

The USA has had a nuclear bunker buster in some form in its arsenal for a LONG time. Previous
to 1997, the bunker buster role was given to a nuclear weapon known as the B-53. The B-53 did
not have any Earth penetrating capability - so it had to be a very large yield weapon. It would destroy
a deeply buried bunker - but at great collateral cost to the area around the bunker.

In the 1990s, the US weapons labs proposed an idea to President Clinton. If nuclear devices were
hardened such that they could withstand a ground impact; and could bury themselves a short distance
in the ground; a larger fraction of the explosive yield goes into the ground shock which is what destroys
the bunker. Therefore, for a given strength of ground shock; the explosive yield of the device could be
LOWERED; thus resulting in LESS collateral damage.

So in 1997, the USA introduced a "new" nuclear weapon into its arsenal [ it was actually a modification
of an older weapon as its name shows ] call the B-61 Mod 11. Thus President Clinton ordered the
retirement of the B-53, and its role was assumed by the B-61 Mod 11:

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/new_nuclear_weapons/loyieldearthpenwpnrpt.html

The US introduced an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon in 1997, the B61-11, by putting the nuclear
explosive from an earlier bomb design into a hardened steel casing with a new nose cone to provide ground
penetration capability. The deployment was controversial because of official US policy not to develop new
nuclear weapons. The DOE and the weapons labs have consistently argued, however, that the B61-11 is
merely a "modification" of an older delivery system, because it used an existing "physics package."

Many at the time heralded President Clinton - because the US nuclear arsenal would now cause less
collateral damage. After all, we are really interested in taking out the military bunker and the military
commanders within - we shouldn't have to obliterate the surrounding cities full of civillians.

However, as the above report also states, the Earth penetrating capability of the B61-11 is limited:

The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20
feet or so into dry Earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the
ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock
compared to a surface bursts.

The B61-11 is better in terms of collateral damage than the B53; but the weapons labs could do better.
Hence, the Clinton Administration launched a design study called RNEP - Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator. This was applauded by the Democrats in the US Congress.

In 2001, when President Bush became President, he desired that the Clinton-fostered RNEP program
continue. It wasn't until the 2004 campaign, when John Kerry made an issue of this that the
Democrats turned 180 degrees on this program.

So many ill-informed and ignorant people attribute the Earth penetrating nuclear bunker buster to Bush.
Again, that just shows how ignorant and ill-informed they are. The genesis and early support of the
earth penetrating nuclear bunker buster flows from the Clinton Administration.

The motive was to reduce collateral damage - nuclear weapons can be designed so that they don't
have to kill any more people than is necessary.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

:
To summarise your argument; the Japanese deserved to be nuked because a) They fought too well and b) For not just rolling over when the USA imposed massive sanctions on them and going to war instead.

Art,

In essence; yes - and I see nothing hilarious or illogical about that.

You're the one with what must be a perverted sense of humor.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Btw There is a clause in the NPT allowing signatories to leave the treaty so the analogy with America's breaking of the ABM Treaty is valid

Art,

Again your confustion and faulty understanding is due to your lack of reading comprehension.

If you would read the legal reasoning in the link to Stanford University I posted above; you would
see that they are different.

Both the NPT and the ABM treaty contain "opt out" clauses - but they are NOT the same.

The NPT treaty requires the party that wants to withdraw to present their case to the United Nations
Security Council. That is NOT true for the ABM Treaty. Show me where the opt out clause of
the ABM Treaty requires the withdrawing nation to go to the Security Council.

Do you have the intellect to understand the difference between criminal and civil law? Can you
understand the difference between a criminal statute and a civil contract? Then you should be
able to understand the difference between the NPT and ABM treaties - and why Iran VIOLATED
the former and the USA did NOT VIOLATE the latter.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

I think I've already sufficiently exposed your near complete ignorance of the terms of the NPT.

Art.

You've done NO SUCH THING!

From your previous post #56, you in essence state that you are a "nuclear abolitionist".

Like many nuclear abolitionists that I have debated - you don't adhere to the factual interpretations
of treaties and laws - you put your own "spin" on them so that they favor the case you want to make.

I abhor the "intellectual dishonesty" that in inherent in such "spinning" - I don't see how
intelligent people can engage in such intellectual dishonesty. However, I've probably just answered my
own question.

I've truthfully stated the differences between the NPT and the ABM. I've tried to explain the difference
through analogy. I've pointed you to authoritative sources on the meaning of treaties like the
CISAC at Stanford.

You've done nothing but post your own ill-informed opinions and the biased opinion pieces from
activist groups like "wagingpeace" which are NOT AUTHORITATIVE on this issue.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Yes the USA is in violation of the NPT but having a veto on the UNSC means they can never be called on it.

Art,

WHEN has the UNSC EVER taken up the issue of the USA being in violation of the NPT, and the
majority of the UNSC voted to hold the USA in violation - but the USA used its veto power.

Are there any limits to the depths of your abject DISHONESTY??

You just FABRICATE excuses and events - because you have NOTHING in your quiver.

Like many "nuclear abolitionists" that I have encountered; you are so self-absorbed in your
own self-righteousness that you don't see the world as it is.

We are dealing with treaties and laws that have real meanings - and just because those meanings
are not to your liking - you don't get to change the meanings and the facts. You're not that important.
Get over it and deal with reality.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

It is relevant because I don't want any country to possesses nuclear weapons but so long as the USA and the other elite nuclear nations continue to flout the NPT the more chance there is of other countries saying 'well if they can do it so can we'

Art,

NOT when they agreed NOT TO - and in return received data and technology from us.

If they want to have nuclear weapons; then they should NOT have signed the NPT.

The USA and the other nuclear 5 do NOT have to put up with "back-stabbing" nations
that break their word. We do not have to put up with being threatened by OUR OWN
technology.

You may be a "nuclear abolitionist" - but if we removed nuclear weapons from all nations;
we'd only make the world "safe" again for large scale conventional conflict like World War I
and World War II.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Btw There is a clause in the NPT allowing signatories to leave the treaty so the analogy with America's breaking of the ABM Treaty is valid

Art,

The analogy is NOT valid - because the wording of the two clauses are different. You're like the
people I debate with regard to nuclear power - they "think" [ term used loosely ] that " a nuke is a
nuke is a nuke is a nuke". They see ZERO difference between a US LWR power reactor and the
Chernobyl reactor. It's all the same to them - they are such limited SHALLOW thinkers.

Well just as there are fundamental differences between an LWR and the Chernobyl RBMK; there
are fundamental differences betweein the opt out clauses of the two trieaties. The ABM treaty
does not require the USA to go to the UN Security Council for permission. The UN is NOT
INVOLVED in the ABM treaty.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

When the USA terminated the ABM treaty; many said that the whole arms control regime would come
tumbling down like a house of cards. Well they were FLAT OUT WRONG! In fact, AFTER the USA
terminated the ABM Treaty in 2001, the USA went on to negotiate an ADDITIONAL arms control treaty;
the Moscow Treaty of 2002.

Unlike previous treaties, like SALT and START; the Moscow Treaty of 2002 is more akin to the
Reagan / Gorbachev Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty of 1987. Only these latter treaties actually
call for the elimination of some nuclear weapons - instead of maintaining the "status quo" as do the former.

Additionally, we somewhat recently saw the fruits of the US termination of the ABM treaty. In 1979,
when the US space station Skylab crashed to Earth - it was an uncontrolled descent. NASA didn't
have control of the doomed space station; and we could only just hope that it crashed somewhere
benign. Given that the planet surface is about 75% ocean - that is a good bet - but Skylab actually
did crash to the ground. Fortunately, it was in a low population density part of Australia.

Early in 2008, the insertion of a US spy satellite into stable Earth orbit failed; and the large spy satellite
was doomed to an uncontrolled return to Earth. In February 2008, a US Navy Missile Cruiser using
technology that could not have been developed under an intact ABM Treaty, successfully shot down
the errant satellite ending fears of a crash:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4249458.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/science_news/4251430.html

Given the successful shootdown of the errant satellite, coupled with the absence of the failing of the
US / Russia arms control regime; I think those that were opposed to the US withdrawl from the
ABM Treaty really have "egg all over their faces"

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Art]

Morbious I'll keep this real simple for you.

Has the US entered into meaningful negotiations for halting nuclear weapons research and for complete nuclear disarmament as required under Article VI of the NPT?

Answer NO

Has the US proliferated nuclear weapons through sharing agreements with non-nuclear allied countries in violation of Article I and II?

Answer YES

Has the US contracted to supply nuclear material and know-how to non-NPT signatories such as India in violation of the non proliferation treaty?

Answer YES

Has the US failed to implement the provisions of the NPT additional protocols, performance against which it measures Iran's compliance?

Answer YES

Does of all of this reek of hypocrisy from the 'might is right' school of diplomacy?

Answer YES

I won't accuse you of dishonesty, as you did me, as I try not to be as rude as you are on this forum and so I will allow it is your genuine inability to understand these simple points that leads you to spout nonsense.

I do take exception to you claiming I have invented facts as that is a quintessential example of transference. For example it was you who misinformed another poster that Iran was in violation of the NPT because it did not allow open-ended, unchecked inspections. I am simply tidying up behind you redressing your errors.

With regard to America breaking treaties I suggest you check out the UN Charter Article 2 ss 1, 2, 3 and 4; the Geneva Conventions which I've already referenced; and you can throw in the numerous broken treaties with the indigenous American people.

hint - Your signature at the end of each of your posts does not convey what I suspect you think it conveys; far from it.

 

[Art]

Art,

The analogy is NOT valid - because the wording of the two clauses are different. You're like the
people I debate with regard to nuclear power - they "think" [ term used loosely ] that " a nuke is a
nuke is a nuke is a nuke". They see ZERO difference between a US LWR power reactor and the
Chernobyl reactor. It's all the same to them - they are such limited SHALLOW thinkers.

Well just as there are fundamental differences between an LWR and the Chernobyl RBMK; there
are fundamental differences betweein the opt out clauses of the two trieaties. The ABM treaty
does not require the USA to go to the UN Security Council for permission. The UN is NOT
INVOLVED in the ABM treaty.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

When the USA terminated the ABM treaty; many said that the whole arms control regime would come
tumbling down like a house of cards. Well they were FLAT OUT WRONG! In fact, AFTER the USA
terminated the ABM Treaty in 2001, the USA went on to negotiate an ADDITIONAL arms control treaty;
the Moscow Treaty of 2002.

Unlike previous treaties, like SALT and START; the Moscow Treaty of 2002 is more akin to the
Reagan / Gorbachev Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty of 1987. Only these latter treaties actually
call for the elimination of some nuclear weapons - instead of maintaining the "status quo" as do the former.

Additionally, we somewhat recently saw the fruits of the US termination of the ABM treaty. In 1979,
when the US space station Skylab crashed to Earth - it was an uncontrolled descent. NASA didn't
have control of the doomed space station; and we could only just hope that it crashed somewhere
benign. Given that the planet surface is about 75% ocean - that is a good bet - but Skylab actually
did crash to the ground. Fortunately, it was in a low population density part of Australia.

Early in 2008, the insertion of a US spy satellite into stable Earth orbit failed; and the large spy satellite
was doomed to an uncontrolled return to Earth. In February 2008, a US Navy Missile Cruiser using
technology that could not have been developed under an intact ABM Treaty, successfully shot down
the errant satellite ending fears of a crash:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4249458.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/science_news/4251430.html

Given the successful shootdown of the errant satellite, coupled with the absence of the failing of the
US / Russia arms control regime; I think those that were opposed to the US withdrawl from the
ABM Treaty really have "egg all over their faces"

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

tut tut more disinformation that needs to be corrected.

The fall out from America's abandonment of the ABM Treaty is happening right now in Poland with Russia threatening to deploy short range nuclear missiles pointed at Poland in response to America's deployment of anti-missile missiles in the area.

And to justify America's abandonment of the ABM Treaty by claiming the shooting down of a spy satellite, to prevent the possibility of sensitive information and optics technology falling into the hands of a possible competitor, was an act of universal charity is so ludicrous I'm surprised you weren't cringing with embarrassment as you typed it.

The SORT treaty of 2002 you are touting as a success is a joke. It limits the DEPLOYMENT numbers of nuclear missiles without any verification procedures and does absolutely nothing regarding the number of nuclear war heads which can be held in storage awaiting deployment. To cite this as a success emanating from the abandonment of the ABM Treaty shows you evidently have absolutely no clue as to the treaty's contents.

 

[Morbius]

Has the US entered into meaningful negotiations for halting nuclear weapons research and for complete nuclear disarmament as required under Article VI of the NPT?

Answer NO

Art,

Because the USA is NOT REQUIRED to do so. Article VI of the NPT does NOT require and never
did require an immediate negotiation for nuclear disarmament.

It is only brain-dead "nuclear abolitionists" that maintain that view. The United Nations, the signatories
of the NPT, ... know that nuclear disarmament is NOT an immediate requirement.

As I stated previously, it is up to the signatories of the NPT to invoke Article VI - and they have
not done so.

You are confused by your own ill-informed interpretation of Artile VI; so why do you persist in the
intellectual DISHONESTY of saying that Article VI requires the USA to do something that
Article VI doesn't say the USA has to do.

Article VI is an expression of a future goal - NOT a current requirement of the NPT.

As I stated, only brain-dead nuclear abolitionists persist in their faulyt interpretation of Article VI.

I'll leave it to you as to whether you want to join the ranks of the braindead nuclear abolitionists.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

t
And to justify America's abandonment of the ABM Treaty by claiming the shooting down of a spy satellite, to prevent the possibility of sensitive information and optics technology falling into the hands of a possible competitor, was an act of universal charity is so ludicrous I'm surprised you weren't cringing with embarrassment as you typed it.

The concern was NOT over the sensitive technology - the computer chips and optics would have
never survived the reentry - you blithering MORON!

The concern was that many tons of mass were going to come raining down on the surface of the planet

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist