View Full Version : NPT, IAEA, Iran and the bomb

06-10-2004, 04:26 PM
This is for the Politicians and Generals here.

The policy of nuclear non-proliferation seems to be a failure by any measure. The head of the IAEA is an Egyptian who seems very reluctant to even criticize Iran over their covert enrichment program.

It's proven that Iran has produced highly enriched uranium with P1 centrifuges from Pakistan, and that they have tried to get tens of thousands of magnets for P2 centrifuges on the black market. It only takes 2 magnets per (P2)centrifuge. North Korea has provided hundreds if not thousands of tons of Uranium Oxide to both Iran and Libya for enrichment.

Also proven is that North Korea and Libya received assistance from Pakistan on their respective enrichment programs, with parts and designs for P1 and P2 centrifuges and technicians to build them. There are credible reports that Iraqi nuclear scientists were working in Libya with financial support from Saddam. Saudi Arabia provided financial backing to Pakistan for the program there.

There is a lot of concern that political upheaval in Pakistan could place the bomb in the wrong hands. (from the US's perspective) It's only a matter of time before Iran has their bombs, if they don't already. Financial support from other arab countries to Pakistan and Libya convince me that they want these countries to be nuclear powers.

Pakistan stole the centrifuge design from the Netherlands, and France, Germany and Russia have contributed to the programs in Iran, Libya and North Korea. (All state sponsors of terrorism according to the State Department)

The genie is out of the bottle. Diplomatic pressure will not be successful in shutting down Iran's nuclear weapons programs. Korea will not dismantle their bombs. The black market is massive.

The question:

Given the widespread hatred of the US in the Arab world, should the US take military measures to eliminate the nuclear weapons programs in Iran and/or North Korea?


06-10-2004, 06:53 PM
If we invade every country with nukes, we're gonna be invading everyone eventually. Hatred in the Arab world should have no bearing on foreign policy decisions, even though it always does. True diplomatic pressure might stop Iran, but as mentioned, if France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N. don't help with the pressure, then it's worthless.

The real answer is that I don't know. The proliferation of nuclear weapons will eventually happen just because the technology used to make them will eventually get easier to obtain and use. This is why Bush was working on the missile defense system before 9-11. Maybe it's time to get back to that a little bit?


06-10-2004, 09:25 PM
I agree we can't invade everyone, and wouldn't want to. At some point diplomacy fails, and a military response becomes the only option left, if the goal is to prevent hostile countries from gaining nuclear weapons.

Saddam would have had nukes long ago if Israel hadn't blown up the facilities in Iraq. Right now we are faced with the same problem with Iran. Do we let them build their bombs, or do we go in and take out the facilities? We waited too long with North Korea, tried the diplomatic route (and failed), and now we have them shipping missiles and Uranium all over the mid-east.

A missile defense system is fine, but won't prevent a bomb from coming in on a ship into New York harbor. Hatred towards the US has to play a role in shaping our foreign policy, or we are ignoring the threats, just like we ignored bin Laden.

The problem is, at what point do we give up on diplomacy? I happen to believe that if we allow Iran to aquire nuclear weapons, the entire mideast becomes even more unstable, if that's possible.

As I see it, we are headed straight for another cold-war scenario, this time with the mideast. Couple that with a growing ideology in the form of Islamic extremism, and I don't see a very rosy future for Arab-US relations.