Gulf of Oman incidents

[AshVX220]

Piha said:

Good reply RXE.

I firmly believe that smaller nations desire for nuclear weapons is to stop perceived threats when confronted by an overly powerful adversial USofA. If the US took a more diplomatic and long term approach (Obama's approach?) to the Iranian problem then I'm sure relations could improve. I doubt Iran wants a war with the US but at the same time Iran doesn't want to be bullied or invaded by the US.

How else does Iran stop the US from the perceived bullying of their country?

I would think that if Iran didn't feel threatened by the USofA then Iran would be less inclined to pursue building a bomb, wouldn't you agree?

Maybe Iran & the US's belligerent relationship has been simmering for so long that it is beyond repair, I certainly hope not.

If we look at the position of North Korea, then the only way they got the USofA to the negotiating table was by the possession of nuclear weapons. And it stopped the US from invading North Korea (assuming that's what NK thought was going to happen). Look at Pakistan, in their eyes they have stopped India from invading their country by the possession and threat of nuclear weapons. Isn't this how the UK/NATO thought we would prevent invasion of western Europe by the USSR?

The subject should not be about the non proliferation of nuclear weapons but how opposing regimes can improve their relationships through dialogue and diplomacy.

With regards to the bit in bold, I think China's relationship with NK is what would prevent the US invading NK, besides the fact that NK has absolutely nothing the US could want.

[rxe]

NRS said:

Really? When does loads of sanctions actually work on a country? Not sure I can think of many situations? Generally you want to soften relations at some point so a country can develop itself to a modern democracy. Creating terrible conditions can result in a big change, but to extremists for the most part. That's what was beginning to happen in Iran with the more moderates getting a bit of power, before Trump stepped in. And unlike many countries in the area for the most part the actual general population is far more moderate and closer to our western values, if you want to call them that.

I didn't mention sanctions. If the JCPOA had been less open to Iran gaining WMD in 15 years, in all likelihod we would have no need for them.

[biggbn]

rxe said:

biggbn said:

So, for those in favour of MAD as a deterrent, it only works if the 'right' type of people have it? What nonsense. For nuclear armament to work as a successful holistic deterrent, everyone should have it because, as I have always been told, the threat of imminent destruction will enable an everlasting peace, surely that is the basic tenets. If we expect others to like our apples it is surely part of the deal that we like theirs.

MAD works in a limited set of scenarios.

It works really well when you have two sides who are utterly convinced that an act of aggression will lead to the total annihilation of both sides. If one side is convinced it can "win", then MAD is no longer effective. Which is why shield technology (such as Reagan's star wars) is such an issue.

In an asymmetric situation, the stronger party can use nukes without fearing the consequences. We have nukes, in theory we could have used them on Argentina during the Falklands invasion - but we have sufficient stability and process in our chain of command to stop that happening. The US could have used nukes in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya .... but didn't because there are sufficient political and military controls to stop it happening. Even if D.Trump said "nuke the bds", it wouldn't happen.

What you seem to be proposing is that is OK for a number of countries to have these things, despite being run by despots and a completely unstable chain of command. They wouldn't be able to achieve MAD, because they would not have an arsenal that any other party truly feared - if the Iranians launched at the US, it is highly unlikely that anything would hit, and in response, Iran would be turned to glass. Result - loads of people die.

Clearly it is nominally "unfair" that some countries have them, but you don't fix that by allowing more to proliferate.

Thanks for this thoughtful response. So, for it to work its PAD, partially assured destruction, ie, who has the bigger stick? I find it a very hard concept to grasp. The west is now world policeman (when fiscally or politically expedient), and also the providers of a moral compass for the rest of the world Inc. I wonder how many legitimate and illegitimate wars the US/russia/uk have been or are involved in since the nuclear comfort blanket has been in place? So many that our ability to act as said moral arbitrer and big sticked policeman is questioned by smaller states?

Yet, what are the alternatives? Do nothing? Watch as the world potentially burns? Jeez, it's a difficult one that doesn't sit easily on my broad shoulders either way, which makes you appreciate the job politicians and diplomats do!!!

[gregs656]

Countdown said:

What gives us the right to say who does and doesn't have nukes?

It's not a question of rights, it's a question of authority.

I don't think there are many people who would say nuclear weapons are a good thing per se, and I think it is unfortunate that the genie is out of the bottle, but now all we can do is contain them as best we can.

[s1962a]

gregs656 said:

It's not a question of rights, it's a question of authority.

I don't think there are many people who would say nuclear weapons are a good thing per se, and I think it is unfortunate that the genie is out of the bottle, but now all we can do is contain them as best we can.

Does China or Russia come into this 'we'? Or is it a select bunch of self appointed saviours of the world.

[rxe]

biggbn said:

Thanks for this thoughtful response. So, for it to work its PAD, partially assured destruction, ie, who has the bigger stick? I find it a very hard concept to grasp. The west is now world policeman (when fiscally or politically expedient), and also the providers of a moral compass for the rest of the world Inc. I wonder how many legitimate and illegitimate wars the US/russia/uk have been or are involved in since the nuclear comfort blanket has been in place? So many that our ability to act as said moral arbitrer and big sticked policeman is questioned by smaller states?

Yet, what are the alternatives? Do nothing? Watch as the world potentially burns? Jeez, it's a difficult one that doesn't sit easily on my broad shoulders either way, which makes you appreciate the job politicians and diplomats do!!!

I think one of the advantages of non-proliferation is that we have a fairly small group of countries that need to think about this, and in the most part they are fairly sensible, maybe only because MAD requires the resources of a very strong economy to sustain the investment required.

The US (and the west in general) is so overwhelmingly capable that it does not really need to resort to the threat of nuclear weapons. I was reading an account of a tank battle in the 2nd Gulf War last week - the Iraqis assumed they were under air attack - actually they were being destroyed by US tanks at double the Iraqi range. It wasn't a battle, more of a drive by shooting. I suspect that nukes or otherwise, recent history would be pretty similar. The threat of nuclear attack wouldn't figure in any theoretical Iranian conflict, and for all the bigging up, they would be utterly annihilated (conventionally) if they tried anything.

[gregs656]

s1962a said:

Does China or Russia come into this 'we'? Or is it a select bunch of self appointed saviours of the world.

The 'We' are NPT signatory states.

Both are party to the NPT so yes.

Pakistan, India and North Korea are nuclear powers that have never signed, nor has Israel but I don't think they have ever publicly declared a successful detonation.

Iran is party to the NPT.

[Countdown]

gregs656 said:

Countdown said:

What gives us the right to say who does and doesn't have nukes?

It's not a question of rights, it's a question of authority.

I don't think there are many people who would say nuclear weapons are a good thing per se, and I think it is unfortunate that the genie is out of the bottle, but now all we can do is contain them as best we can.

Who is “we” and who gave us the “authority”? I’ll take a guess and say we apppinted ourselves which is fair enough but that odesn’t mean that “others” will accept it. For example if the Russians decided that we were an existential threat and decided that THEY had the “authority” to remove our nuclear weapons what do you think our response would be?

[Countdown]

gregs656 said:

s1962a said:

Does China or Russia come into this 'we'? Or is it a select bunch of self appointed saviours of the world.

The 'We' are NPT signatory states.

Both are party to the NPT so yes.

Pakistan, India and North Korea are nuclear powers that have never signed, nor has Israel but I don't think they have ever publicly declared a successful detonation.

Iran is party to the NPT.

Is a Treaty binding for all time or can a Signatory arbitrarily ignore or walk away from it?

For some reason Im I’m thinking of NAFTA, Kyoto, TPP, and the JCPOA treaties.......

[gregs656]

Countdown said:

Is a Treaty binding for all time or can a Signatory arbitrarily ignore or walk away from it?

For some reason Im I’m thinking of NAFTA, Kyoto, TPP, and the JCPOA treaties.......

Not binding for all time no.

It has been fairly effective so far though.

[biggbn]

Countdown said:

gregs656 said:

Countdown said:

What gives us the right to say who does and doesn't have nukes?

It's not a question of rights, it's a question of authority.

I don't think there are many people who would say nuclear weapons are a good thing per se, and I think it is unfortunate that the genie is out of the bottle, but now all we can do is contain them as best we can.

Who is “we” and who gave us the “authority”? I’ll take a guess and say we apppinted ourselves which is fair enough but that odesn’t mean that “others” will accept it. For example if the Russians decided that we were an existential threat and decided that THEY had the “authority” to remove our nuclear weapons what do you think our response would be?

One of the reasons all this sits uncomfortably with me. Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Countdown]

gregs656 said:

Countdown said:

Is a Treaty binding for all time or can a Signatory arbitrarily ignore or walk away from it?

For some reason Im I’m thinking of NAFTA, Kyoto, TPP, and the JCPOA treaties.......

Not binding for all time no.

It has been fairly effective so far though.

I thought you meant that there was some kind of obligation on the current Iranian Govt to comply with the Treaty because the country was a signatory. If we agree that a Country can choose to walk away from a Treaty at any time then effectiveness is self-determined.

[gregs656]

I am amazed people who have an opinion on this have never bothered to even read the wiki entry for the NPT.

Nuclear proliferation has been a major topic in this century and the last, it doesn't take much to do a bit of research.

Countdown said:

I thought you meant that there was some kind of obligation on the current Iranian Govt to comply with the Treaty because the country was a signatory. If we agree that a Country can choose to walk away from a Treaty at any time then effectiveness is self-determined.

Did I say 'at any time' I don't recall saying that.

It has been effective. There is no question about it. Whether it continues to be effective is another question.

[Countdown]

gregs656 said:

It has been effective. There is no question about it. Whether it continues to be effective is another question.

But it's only been effective because Countries willingly choose to comply with it. Where a Country feels threatened and thinks that its best hope for survival is nuclear weapons it can and (most likely) will walk away from it, and saying "you can't, because you signed a Treaty" is hypocritical, at best.

If you look at the way that Iran has been treated (mainly at the direction of the US) over the last 60 years it's not a surprise that they feel they need nukes. It's exactly the same reason why Israel developed them.

[gregs656]

I think they have complied with it mostly because it is in their diplomatic and financial interests to, not to mention in the interests of their own national security.

Non-proliferation is a big deal. Most people do not want more nuclear weapons in the world.

[Countdown]

rxe said:

MAD works in a limited set of scenarios.

It works really well when you have two sides who are utterly convinced that an act of aggression will lead to the total annihilation of both sides. If one side is convinced it can "win", then MAD is no longer effective. Which is why shield technology (such as Reagan's star wars) is such an issue.

It works only when the negative consequences of nuclear retaliation outweigh the benefits. or, to put it another way, the only time a country would use them is "we're pretty fked, we've got nothing to lose"

rxe said:

In an asymmetric situation, the stronger party can use nukes without fearing the consequences.

but it wouldn't, because it doesn't need to and the costs would outweigh the benefits. It's simply not worth it unless the user is facing complete defeat.

rxe said:

We have nukes, in theory we could have used them on Argentina during the Falklands invasion - but we have sufficient stability and process in our chain of command to stop that happening. The US could have used nukes in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya .... but didn't because there are sufficient political and military controls to stop it happening. Even if D.Trump said "nuke the bds", it wouldn't happen.

Again, it's got nothing to do with controls and checks. It's simply a cost/benefit analysis. How do you think the South Vietnamese would have felt if nukes had been used in their back yard? or the Chinese? And there was absolutely no need to use them in Iraq, Libya, or Syria. However, if the US had done so then the risk of retaliation via a dirty bomb would have significantly increased. If a country uses nukes first there is absolutely NOTHING to hold the other country back from doing the same.

rxe said:

Iranians launched at the US, it is highly unlikely that anything would hit, and in response, Iran would be turned to glass. Result - loads of people die.

So, in that scenario, why would the Iranians use nukes against the US? The answer is they wouldn't, unless they were facing military defeat in conventional terms.

[Countdown]

gregs656 said:

Non-proliferation is a big deal. Most people do not want more nuclear weapons in the world.

Maybe if we'd stuck with the JCPOA (like everybody apart from the NeoCons and israel suggested) then we wouldn't be in the current situation.

[CrutyRammers]

Countdown said:

What gives us the right to say who does and doesn't have nukes?

The fact that we have nukes.

[gregs656]

Countdown said:

Maybe if we'd stuck with the JCPOA (like everybody apart from the NeoCons and israel suggested) then we wouldn't be in the current situation.

Your position on this is weird.

On the one hand NPT is pointless because no one has to comply, on the other the Iran Nuclear Deal is the best thing since sliced bread.

[Countdown]

gregs656 said:

Your position on this is weird.

On the one hand NPT is pointless because no one has to comply, on the other the Iran Nuclear Deal is the best thing since sliced bread.

I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of anybody suggesting that Iran should be forced to comply with a treaty when other countries can choose to walk away from any Treaty that they choose to. There’s also the hypocrisy of suggesting that Iran should be bound by the NPT but the US isn’t bound by the JCPOA.