Gulf of Oman incidents
Discussion
Countdown said:
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.
Who says I think the US should have busted out of the Iran Nuclear deal? I think it was a bad move.Iran signed up to both, they submitted them selves to what they 'should' do.
gregs656 said:
Who says I think the US should have busted out of the Iran Nuclear deal? I think it was a bad move.
Iran signed up to both, they submitted them selves to what they 'should' do.
...and they carried on doing what they agreed to do until the US walked away. At that point, to all intents and purposes, the JCPOA no longer exists as an agreement which, in turn means that the Iranians are justified in going back to enriching Uranium.Iran signed up to both, they submitted them selves to what they 'should' do.
Apologies if I'm miunsderstanding but it seems like you're suggesting that, although the JCPOA no longer exists Iran is still a signatory to the NPT and therefore should be bound by the NPT obligations. In other words, its OK for the US to pick and choose which Treaties it wants to honour but the Iranians should be forced to honour the ones they have signed up to, with military action if necessary?
gregs656 said:
There were 8 parties to the Iran deal and 1 withdrew. Why do you think that means it doesn't exist any more?
It really doesn't work like that. The US was the key signatory to the Treaty. Their withdrawal, combined with the sanctions, meant that there was literally no benefit to Iran continuing to comply with the Treaty but a fair amount of cost. Actually, had the US not applied sanctions, I think the chances are that Iran would have continued to abide by the terms of the Treaty as long as it could have carried on trading, but the sanctions made that impossible. The US wants complete and total capitulation from the Iranians - a person would have to be exceptionally naive to think the iranians were going to lie back and accept that. the only card left to them to play was going back to enriching uranium, which they HAVE done.
So, to answer your question, it doesn't exist any more because NONE of the signatories are doing what they agreed to do.
[quote=Countdown]
It really doesn't work like that. The US was the key signatory to the Treaty. Their withdrawal, combined with the sanctions, meant that there was literally no benefit to Iran continuing to comply with the Treaty but a fair amount of cost.
Actually, had the US not applied sanctions, I think the chances are that Iran would have continued to abide by the terms of the Treaty as long as it could have carried on trading, but the sanctions made that impossible. The US wants complete and total capitulation from the Iranians - a person would have to be exceptionally naive to think the iranians were going to lie back and accept that. the only card left to them to play was going back to enriching uranium, which they HAVE done.
So, to answer your question, it doesn't exist any more because NONE of the signatories are doing what they agreed to do.[/
I don’t think that is quite right. Russia, China, Germany, UK and France are not going to sit back and do nothing.
I agree that had the US corrupted the whole endeavour they would have continued to comply.
It really doesn't work like that. The US was the key signatory to the Treaty. Their withdrawal, combined with the sanctions, meant that there was literally no benefit to Iran continuing to comply with the Treaty but a fair amount of cost.
Actually, had the US not applied sanctions, I think the chances are that Iran would have continued to abide by the terms of the Treaty as long as it could have carried on trading, but the sanctions made that impossible. The US wants complete and total capitulation from the Iranians - a person would have to be exceptionally naive to think the iranians were going to lie back and accept that. the only card left to them to play was going back to enriching uranium, which they HAVE done.
So, to answer your question, it doesn't exist any more because NONE of the signatories are doing what they agreed to do.[/
I don’t think that is quite right. Russia, China, Germany, UK and France are not going to sit back and do nothing.
I agree that had the US corrupted the whole endeavour they would have continued to comply.
Burwood said:
Bottom line this treaty allows them to get nukes. It’s a bad idea. Long overdue repudiating.
Not true. I think it is probable that after this treaty there would have been another one, it is not particularly unusual to have fixed term deals around this kind of thing; the arms control agreement between the US and Russia ends in a couple of years but I expect it will be replaced with a new deal and everyone can have a nice photo opportunity again.In any case, they were complying and now they're not.
Down and out said:
Gandahar said:
Past UK warships
HMS Dreadnought
HMS Conqueror
HMS Thunderer
HMS Valiant
HMS Revenge.
Those would have given Iran pause for thought.
2019 and we are sending over there -->
HMS Duncan.
Maybe it should be painted in rainbow colours? All the rage nowadays.HMS Dreadnought
HMS Conqueror
HMS Thunderer
HMS Valiant
HMS Revenge.
Those would have given Iran pause for thought.
2019 and we are sending over there -->
HMS Duncan.
Gandahar said:
Past UK warships
HMS Dreadnought
HMS Conqueror
HMS Thunderer
HMS Valiant
HMS Revenge.
Those would have given Iran pause for thought.
2019 and we are sending over there -->
HMS Duncan.
Named for this chap, I presume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Duncan,_1st_Vis...HMS Dreadnought
HMS Conqueror
HMS Thunderer
HMS Valiant
HMS Revenge.
Those would have given Iran pause for thought.
2019 and we are sending over there -->
HMS Duncan.
Adam Duncan, 1st Viscount Duncan (1 July 1731 – 4 August 1804) was a British admiral who defeated the Dutch fleet off Camperdown (north of Haarlem) on 11 October 1797. This victory is considered one of the most significant actions in naval history.
CrutyRammers said:
Gandahar said:
Past UK warships
HMS Dreadnought
HMS Conqueror
HMS Thunderer
HMS Valiant
HMS Revenge.
Those would have given Iran pause for thought.
2019 and we are sending over there -->
HMS Duncan.
Named for this chap, I presume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Duncan,_1st_Vis...HMS Dreadnought
HMS Conqueror
HMS Thunderer
HMS Valiant
HMS Revenge.
Those would have given Iran pause for thought.
2019 and we are sending over there -->
HMS Duncan.
Adam Duncan, 1st Viscount Duncan (1 July 1731 – 4 August 1804) was a British admiral who defeated the Dutch fleet off Camperdown (north of Haarlem) on 11 October 1797. This victory is considered one of the most significant actions in naval history.
Navy wise important sea battles since that time have been Trafalgar, the Ironclads in the US Civil war and the Battle of midway. The first introducing new techniques and the latter new hardware.
The next great naval battle will likely not be a battle at all, just air and ground launched long range missiles sinking the whole fleet. Rather like land tanks now get toasted by TOW's
They should have called it HMS David Cameron.
About to have battle, rather than having a double issue of rum, they have a referendum and then run away and the captain gets a cushy job in the private sector .
Edited by Gandahar on Friday 12th July 15:46
A panicked frenzy has set in. All out efforts letting trump shmooze with the royals has come to naught and he thinks we are gits.
Desperate to get in his good books we thrust ourselves into a central role half way round the world in the manufactured crisis.
Sort of like what renfield would do when he let dracula down...
Desperate to get in his good books we thrust ourselves into a central role half way round the world in the manufactured crisis.
Sort of like what renfield would do when he let dracula down...
Countdown said:
You say "problem with the JCPOA" - do you genuinely believe that ANY country (let alone Iran) is going to permanently give up the ability to build nukes when that is one of the few proven methods for not getting invaded
I believe South Africa is the only country to voluntarily go through nuclear disarmament.gregs656 said:
Not true. I think it is probable that after this treaty there would have been another one, it is not particularly unusual to have fixed term deals around this kind of thing; the arms control agreement between the US and Russia ends in a couple of years but I expect it will be replaced with a new deal and everyone can have a nice photo opportunity again.
In any case, they were complying and now they're not.
The only reason they want to enrich uranium is to build nuclear weapons. It would be much cheaper to buy in fuel for reactors than go to all the effort of making it yourself. They'll only enrich it for civilian purposes blah blah, but the technology to enrich it further is the same - you spend 15 years perfecting the capability, have a healthy economy and wh-ey, in 2035 you're testing fission bombs. Actually you're probably testing fusion bombs because you just need to buy a few electric cars to get a load of lithium to wrap the fission core. In any case, they were complying and now they're not.
If they were serious about this the would have signed up to a treaty that said "we'll buy our reactor fuel in from (say) Russia and get them to reprocess it". Cheaper and easier. They went the other way because they want bombs.
IanH755 said:
Countdown said:
You say "problem with the JCPOA" - do you genuinely believe that ANY country (let alone Iran) is going to permanently give up the ability to build nukes when that is one of the few proven methods for not getting invaded
I believe South Africa is the only country to voluntarily go through nuclear disarmament.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff