Australian Politics Forum - nuclear disarmament and reciprocity

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52019
At my desk.

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #15 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 6:52pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 8:51pm:

Quote:

A ridiculously simple question: how does the US have any sort of moral credibility in demanding states like North Korea and Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program

It's not a moral claim Gandalf.

Of course it is - in the public arena at least. The grandstanding on this by the US oozes moralising. And lets not start with the Israelis' hypocritical lecturing about Iran. If it wasn't a moral claim, they would have no problem explaining why reciprocity in nuclear disarmament doesn't apply to them - even though the entire pitch is that nuclear weapons are bad.

It's about self preservation Gandalf. You can grandstand about that without it being a moral issue. You are completely missing the point on this one.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 116150
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #16 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 6:53pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 1:52pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:11am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 9:25pm:

Gandalf - the whole nuclear situation in the world is insane -

these weapons should have been banned 70 years ago.

The problem is you can't ban them, completely. Now that they have been unleashed someone will always try to have them.

Thats the wrong attitude. We should absolutely try to abolish a weapon so horrific that it literally threatens our very existence as a species.

It is certainly not good enough to have this double standard that says North Korean nuclear weapons are unacceptable, but US (and Russian and Chinese etc) nuclear weapons are ok. Thats not to say we should agree with North Korea having the bomb, but we should at least acknowledge that it is perfectly reasonable and rational for North Korea to pursue nuclear weapons in the current geo-political reality - namely the US arsenal remains untouchable.

The major powers are in many ways criminal because they
could have organised to get rid of them -
in a verifiable way -
if they had really wanted to.

There is nothing we can ever do about it.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #17 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:07pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 5:14pm:

I am being rational with this it's difficult dealing with people who have a profound level of ignorance when it come to the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

You don't need a PhD in the non proliferation treaty to know its a complete farce - when the chief enforcer of the treaty is not only armed to the hilt with nuclear weapons but is the only nation to ever use them in anger.

And by the way NK withdrew from the treaty, so from your own silly standards, they are perfectly ok to develop them. As for Iran, even if their alleged weapons program actually existed, it would be completely rational and sensible given their close neighbour and regional hegemon own them, and pose a constant existential threat to Iran and everyone else in the region. Even if they cynically used the treaty to acquire nuclear material to build their weapons - that would be entirely understandable given the existential threat they face. Why is Israel allowed them, but not any of her neighbours? Does it really just come down to the kindergarten argument that Israel=democratic and good but Iran=theocratic and bad?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52019
At my desk.

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #18 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:20pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:07pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 5:14pm:

I am being rational with this it's difficult dealing with people who have a profound level of ignorance when it come to the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

You don't need a PhD in the non proliferation treaty to know its a complete farce - when the chief enforcer of the treaty is not only armed to the hilt with nuclear weapons but is the only nation to ever use them in anger.

And by the way NK withdrew from the treaty, so from your own silly standards, they are perfectly ok to develop them. As for Iran, even if their alleged weapons program actually existed, it would be completely rational and sensible given their close neighbour and regional hegemon own them, and pose a constant existential threat to Iran and everyone else in the region. Even if they cynically used the treaty to acquire nuclear material to build their weapons - that would be entirely understandable given the existential threat they face. Why is Israel allowed them, but not any of her neighbours? Does it really just come down to the kindergarten argument that Israel=democratic and good but Iran=theocratic and bad?

Who should be chief enforcer then? Liechtenstein?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

issuevoter

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #19 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:27pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:07pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 5:14pm:

I am being rational with this it's difficult dealing with people who have a profound level of ignorance when it come to the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

You don't need a PhD in the non proliferation treaty to know its a complete farce - when the chief enforcer of the treaty is not only armed to the hilt with nuclear weapons but is the only nation to ever use them in anger.

And by the way NK withdrew from the treaty, so from your own silly standards, they are perfectly ok to develop them. As for Iran, even if their alleged weapons program actually existed, it would be completely rational and sensible given their close neighbour and regional hegemon own them, and pose a constant existential threat to Iran and everyone else in the region. Even if they cynically used the treaty to acquire nuclear material to build their weapons - that would be entirely understandable given the existential threat they face. Why is Israel allowed them, but not any of her neighbours? Does it really just come down to the kindergarten argument that Israel=democratic and good but Iran=theocratic and bad?

So, by some twist of fate, I am kidnapped and dumped by the side of a dusty road in the Middle East. Of those two countries, in which one am I likely to find a civilised reception?

Back to top

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #20 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:29pm

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 6:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 8:51pm:

Quote:

A ridiculously simple question: how does the US have any sort of moral credibility in demanding states like North Korea and Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program

It's not a moral claim Gandalf.

Of course it is - in the public arena at least. The grandstanding on this by the US oozes moralising. And lets not start with the Israelis' hypocritical lecturing about Iran. If it wasn't a moral claim, they would have no problem explaining why reciprocity in nuclear disarmament doesn't apply to them - even though the entire pitch is that nuclear weapons are bad.

It's about self preservation Gandalf. You can grandstand about that without it being a moral issue. You are completely missing the point on this one.

But they are not grandstanding about self preservation FD, they are grandstanding about the great moral affront of NK having the temerity of developing nuclear weapons. Perhaps you should take a listen to the moralising lectures of Nikki Haley and other White House pontificators from time to time. Does anyone seriously believe that NK wants to develop nukes in order to threaten anyone's self preservation - most laughably the US's? If its really about self preservation, we should all be cheering the North Koreans for doing the one thing that will protect them from the very real existential threat they face.

Yet for some reason we're all pointing the finger at NK and accusing them of being the dangerous aggressive one - and not the actual nuclear armed superpower who is conducting regular military exercises just off their coast.

Does anyone actually believe that NK is interested in nukes for any reason other than defending themselves from a very real existential threat?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20219
Gender: male

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #21 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:38pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:07pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 5:14pm:

I am being rational with this it's difficult dealing with people who have a profound level of ignorance when it come to the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

You don't need a PhD in the non proliferation treaty to know its a complete farce - when the chief enforcer of the treaty is not only armed to the hilt with nuclear weapons but is the only nation to ever use them in anger.

And by the way NK withdrew from the treaty, so from your own silly standards, they are perfectly ok to develop them. As for Iran, even if their alleged weapons program actually existed, it would be completely rational and sensible given their close neighbour and regional hegemon own them, and pose a constant existential threat to Iran and everyone else in the region. Even if they cynically used the treaty to acquire nuclear material to build their weapons - that would be entirely understandable given the existential threat they face. Why is Israel allowed them, but not any of her neighbours? Does it really just come down to the kindergarten argument that Israel=democratic and good but Iran=theocratic and bad?

So the NPT is a farce because it allows countries to help other countries have nuclear power while trying to restrict them from having nuclear weapons?

The UN sanctions against the Norks are a direct result of them scamming the NPT then withdrawing from it to try to build nuclear weapons, many countries have additional sanctions against the Norks because of them scamming the NPT why do you just single out the US for this?

Pakistan,India and Israel all built their nuclear weapons without any outside help they have not ratified the NPT, there are no sanctions against any of these countries for doing that because they didn't scam other countries for technology for nuclear power then divert it to a weapons program.

So why do you single out Israel for their nuclear weapons while ignoring the fact Pakistan has them as well, is it the ingrained muslim hatred of the Yahud (jews) that results in you doing this?

Why do you support Iran and the Norks violating the treaty they ratified in making nuclear weapons, do you think this bullshit should go unpunished?

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #22 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:39pm

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:20pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:07pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 5:14pm:

I am being rational with this it's difficult dealing with people who have a profound level of ignorance when it come to the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

You don't need a PhD in the non proliferation treaty to know its a complete farce - when the chief enforcer of the treaty is not only armed to the hilt with nuclear weapons but is the only nation to ever use them in anger.

And by the way NK withdrew from the treaty, so from your own silly standards, they are perfectly ok to develop them. As for Iran, even if their alleged weapons program actually existed, it would be completely rational and sensible given their close neighbour and regional hegemon own them, and pose a constant existential threat to Iran and everyone else in the region. Even if they cynically used the treaty to acquire nuclear material to build their weapons - that would be entirely understandable given the existential threat they face. Why is Israel allowed them, but not any of her neighbours? Does it really just come down to the kindergarten argument that Israel=democratic and good but Iran=theocratic and bad?

Who should be chief enforcer then? Liechtenstein?

Here's an idea - how about we don't have a NPT, if we have to have such absurd double standards with it.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #23 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:40pm

issuevoter wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:27pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:07pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 5:14pm:

I am being rational with this it's difficult dealing with people who have a profound level of ignorance when it come to the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

You don't need a PhD in the non proliferation treaty to know its a complete farce - when the chief enforcer of the treaty is not only armed to the hilt with nuclear weapons but is the only nation to ever use them in anger.

And by the way NK withdrew from the treaty, so from your own silly standards, they are perfectly ok to develop them. As for Iran, even if their alleged weapons program actually existed, it would be completely rational and sensible given their close neighbour and regional hegemon own them, and pose a constant existential threat to Iran and everyone else in the region. Even if they cynically used the treaty to acquire nuclear material to build their weapons - that would be entirely understandable given the existential threat they face. Why is Israel allowed them, but not any of her neighbours? Does it really just come down to the kindergarten argument that Israel=democratic and good but Iran=theocratic and bad?

So, by some twist of fate, I am kidnapped and dumped by the side of a dusty road in the Middle East. Of those two countries, in which one am I likely to find a civilised reception?

What a stupid "point" (if it can be called that) to bring up.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #24 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:44pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:38pm:

The UN sanctions against the Norks are a direct result of them scamming the NPT then withdrawing from it to try to build nuclear weapons, many countries have additional sanctions against the Norks because of them scamming the NPT why do you just single out the US for this?

Because last I checked no other country has set up a permanent military presense all around NK and conduct regular (and very provocative) military exercises off its shore - while simultaneously insisting NK has no right to develop the one capability that might protect them from this very real and imminent existential threat.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20219
Gender: male

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #25 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:45pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:39pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:20pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:07pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 5:14pm:

I am being rational with this it's difficult dealing with people who have a profound level of ignorance when it come to the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

You don't need a PhD in the non proliferation treaty to know its a complete farce - when the chief enforcer of the treaty is not only armed to the hilt with nuclear weapons but is the only nation to ever use them in anger.

And by the way NK withdrew from the treaty, so from your own silly standards, they are perfectly ok to develop them. As for Iran, even if their alleged weapons program actually existed, it would be completely rational and sensible given their close neighbour and regional hegemon own them, and pose a constant existential threat to Iran and everyone else in the region. Even if they cynically used the treaty to acquire nuclear material to build their weapons - that would be entirely understandable given the existential threat they face. Why is Israel allowed them, but not any of her neighbours? Does it really just come down to the kindergarten argument that Israel=democratic and good but Iran=theocratic and bad?

Who should be chief enforcer then? Liechtenstein?

Here's an idea - how about we don't have a NPT, if we have to have such absurd double standards with it.

What double standards do you think we have with the NPT?

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

issuevoter

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #26 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:58pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:40pm:

issuevoter wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:27pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:07pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 5:14pm:

I am being rational with this it's difficult dealing with people who have a profound level of ignorance when it come to the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

You don't need a PhD in the non proliferation treaty to know its a complete farce - when the chief enforcer of the treaty is not only armed to the hilt with nuclear weapons but is the only nation to ever use them in anger.

And by the way NK withdrew from the treaty, so from your own silly standards, they are perfectly ok to develop them. As for Iran, even if their alleged weapons program actually existed, it would be completely rational and sensible given their close neighbour and regional hegemon own them, and pose a constant existential threat to Iran and everyone else in the region. Even if they cynically used the treaty to acquire nuclear material to build their weapons - that would be entirely understandable given the existential threat they face. Why is Israel allowed them, but not any of her neighbours? Does it really just come down to the kindergarten argument that Israel=democratic and good but Iran=theocratic and bad?

So, by some twist of fate, I am kidnapped and dumped by the side of a dusty road in the Middle East. Of those two countries, in which one am I likely to find a civilised reception?

What a stupid "point" (if it can be called that) to bring up.

So you didn't like that metaphor. But you are OK with comparing Israel and Iran. You do know that in 2016 Iran State media announced an increase to $4 million to anyone who would murder Salman Rushdie. That is not the sort of Government that should be trusted with a nuclear weapon.

Iran=theocratic and bad? (quote) You got that part right. You people believe: die for Islam and you go to paradise. Why not take out a few Jews while your at it? You don't give a sh1t about anything other than Islam. That is why you converted.

Back to top

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20219
Gender: male

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #27 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:10pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:44pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:38pm:

The UN sanctions against the Norks are a direct result of them scamming the NPT then withdrawing from it to try to build nuclear weapons, many countries have additional sanctions against the Norks because of them scamming the NPT why do you just single out the US for this?

Because last I checked no other country has set up a permanent military presense all around NK and conduct regular (and very provocative) military exercises off its shore - while simultaneously insisting NK has no right to develop the one capability that might protect them from this very real and imminent existential threat.

The Norks don't need nuclear weapons they have over 30,000 artillery pieces dug in all with south Korean capital in range, what other countries have that much artillery on their border aimed at other countries?

Any idea on what type of damage they could do by firing one round from each of the 30,000 pieces they have aimed at south Korea?

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #28 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:26pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:10pm:

The Norks don't need nuclear weapons they have over 30,000 artillery pieces dug in all with south Korean capital in range, what other countries have that much artillery on their border aimed at other countries?Any idea on what type of damage they could do by firing one round from each of the 30,000 pieces they have aimed at south Korea?

The artillery is to deter South Korea. The nukes are the only possible thing that could protect them against the US.

issuevoter wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:58pm:

But you are OK with comparing Israel and Iran.

umm no issue - I was ridiculing the idea of comparing them in the context of nuclear weapon proliferation.

issuevoter wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:58pm:

You do know that in 2016 Iran State media announced an increase to $4 million to anyone who would murder Salman Rushdie. That is not the sort of Government that should be trusted with a nuclear weapon.

How terrifying. By the way, did you know that between 2007 and 2012 Israel trained and deployed listed terrorists into Iran - a sovereign nation, to murder 5 of the nation's top scientists? Some might say this is not the sort of Government that should be trusted with nuclear weaponS - plural.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52019
At my desk.

Re: nuclear disarmament and reciprocity
Reply #29 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:27pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 6:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 8:51pm:

Quote:

A ridiculously simple question: how does the US have any sort of moral credibility in demanding states like North Korea and Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program

It's not a moral claim Gandalf.

Of course it is - in the public arena at least. The grandstanding on this by the US oozes moralising. And lets not start with the Israelis' hypocritical lecturing about Iran. If it wasn't a moral claim, they would have no problem explaining why reciprocity in nuclear disarmament doesn't apply to them - even though the entire pitch is that nuclear weapons are bad.

It's about self preservation Gandalf. You can grandstand about that without it being a moral issue. You are completely missing the point on this one.

But they are not grandstanding about self preservation FD, they are grandstanding about the great moral affront

This is entirely projection on your part. It is a another of your silly little strawmen. You cannot argue the real issue, so you pretend it is about something else entirely.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged