Iran Threatens to Close Strait of Hormuz
Shy Talk is right.
Pull your horns in US, you are one of our former colonies and everytime you do something (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq) it turns out that it might have been beter if you'd not bothered.
Welcome to the year 2012, your Empire crumbled a generation ago. Time and history moves forward. Deal with it.
You look at most of these conflicts, loads of willy waving, Loads of s***e spoken by great leaders and more importantly lots of young lives wasted because of great leaders going to show the previous one how it should be done.
If the economies of countries is that bad get our forces home and leave these foreigin battles alone.
If the strait of Hormuz is closed let the nations involved sort it out through talks which will save young lives.
I'd invite you to consider what is to be done on the actual planet Earth. War is one way of resolving conflict or disagreement, though it is my opinion that it ought to be a last resort.
Nearly all conflicts end up been settled through 'peace talks' which if they held prior to openning fire would have saved loads of lives, billions of whatever currency and loads of heartache for the families left behind.
Will Blair, Brown, Bush, Obama and co be brought to the Haig charge with war crimes? Just seems so silly when you look back and see what has happened
What seems silly is your post, given it's being devoid of both reason and attachment to reality.
By contrast, Widger made good sense.
The former European Colonial powers did us no good did they? The British seem to figure in the process more than a bit don't they?
As mentioned....splitting up the Ottoman Empire....creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine...any number of problems in Africa and the Middle East.
The partition of India and Pakistan....all because of meddling in local affairs by Europeans.
Even in North America....we had the French, English, and Spanish drawing lines in dirt with no connection to the inhabitants.
There was even that bit of rare wisdom that created Northern Ireland...and we see how that lingers on in the modern world!
So...I love it when a European lectures us about our conduct....without admitting to the true History of the World.
Granted....we should learn some lessons from their storied successes and try not to imitate them in our modern efforts.
As mentioned....splitting up the Ottoman Empire....creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine...any number of problems in Africa and the Middle East.
The partition of India and Pakistan....all because of meddling in local affairs by Europeans.
Even in North America....we had the French, English, and Spanish drawing lines in dirt with no connection to the inhabitants.
There was even that bit of rare wisdom that created Northern Ireland...and we see how that lingers on in the modern world!
So...I love it when a European lectures us about our conduct....without admitting to the true History of the World.
Granted....we should learn some lessons from their storied successes and try not to imitate them in our modern efforts.
SASless, with that in mind, I'd have hoped that Pres GW Bush and BH Obama would keep in mind history lessons from the Kings of France, Louis, between XIV and XVI.
At some point, you can go broke and have all of your policies blow up in your face. I am concerned that we've had a string of Congresses and Presidents who believe "It can't happen to us" when in fact it can.
The sole virtue of the Clinton Administration, from that perspective, was that it engendered a real knockdown/dragout between the Legislative and Executive branches on fiscal responsibility, which ended up in the last two years achieving a roughly balanced budget.
It is a tragedy that the fiscal momentum from that political bun fight was not carried forward by follow on administrations.
At some point, you can go broke and have all of your policies blow up in your face. I am concerned that we've had a string of Congresses and Presidents who believe "It can't happen to us" when in fact it can.
The sole virtue of the Clinton Administration, from that perspective, was that it engendered a real knockdown/dragout between the Legislative and Executive branches on fiscal responsibility, which ended up in the last two years achieving a roughly balanced budget.
It is a tragedy that the fiscal momentum from that political bun fight was not carried forward by follow on administrations.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So...I love it when a European lectures us about our conduct....without admitting to the true History of the World.
Granted....we should learn some lessons from their storied successes and try not to imitate them in our modern efforts.
The apparent "USA first" foreign policy is a win-lose situation, which is designed to garner conflict with non-nuclear nations. The US has no issue with that as it is (conventionally) militarily unparalleled and threatens with the enormous and expensive stick, so the non-nuclear nations have no option but to back down unless they are supported by other members of the nuclear club (which can be offset through diplomatic means). The problems occur when the non-nuclear nations become nuclear and no longer require allies. The big stick becomes fairly useless and the same policy will lead to nuclear standoff, meaning the US has to switch to a "win-win" foreign policy, which means smaller gains for the US - not desirable to the US.
It makes as much sense for the US to try to stop proliferation as it does for other nations to try to get the technology required. Neither is to blame as they are both simply acting in self-interest. It's just the reality of the situation that non-nuclear nations want nuclear weapons and nuclear nations don't want them to have them, and both for perfectly reasonable and perfectly selfish reasons.
Time is always on the side of the non-nuclear nations in these cases.
I am no lover of I'm a Dinner Jacket and his odious colleagues, but I do support the points that Widger makes. If I was Iranian, I'd want nuclear weapons bceasue of all my dodgy neighbours.
The problem with the current confrontation is that the US and EU are painting Iran into a corner and will, through sanctions, cause the already weak economy (inflation +20%, radpidly devaluing currency, high unemployment...) to collapse. Suddenly, the option of inflicting maximum pain on 'The West' by closing the Strait (or even claiming that it is mined) is an attractive option.
The problem with the current confrontation is that the US and EU are painting Iran into a corner and will, through sanctions, cause the already weak economy (inflation +20%, radpidly devaluing currency, high unemployment...) to collapse. Suddenly, the option of inflicting maximum pain on 'The West' by closing the Strait (or even claiming that it is mined) is an attractive option.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I am no lover of I'm a Dinner Jacket and his odious colleagues, but I do support the points that Widger makes. If I was Iranian, I'd want nuclear weapons bceasue of all my dodgy neighbours.
Once every one in the region has them, how long do you think it will be before someone uses one themselves or sells/provides one to someone else?
I didn't say that Iran should get nuclear weapons, I was just saying that I can understand why tehy want them. I agree that proliferation should only done in English-speaking countries...
Whenurhappy: (Whilst I appreciate your tongue in cheek reply there 
)
I don't think the Kiwis and Ozzies care for nukes enough to add such weapons to their capabilities.
Do the Irish? Probably not.
You could argue that India is "an English speaking country" in terms of how many of its people have English as a second language, though in their case it is a fait accompli. See below.
I think that as various nations spend the time and money necessary to develop their own capability and the infrastructure to support it, they will find it both an expensive millstone around their necks, and also find themselves in the strategic situation where they won't be inclined to use said weapons. They'll also tend to be targeted by at least one other nuclear power. That's how the deterrent game tends to work.
The NPT will continue to degrade into less than the scrap of paper that it already is. (PTT made some good points up there on what's behind that).
The new players in the nuclear game will have to experience for themselves the lessons we older nuclear hands learned in the Cold War about the matched blessing and curse of holding these weapons in the magazines.
As I see it today, the most likely nuclear weapons exchange in the next five to ten years is an exchange between India and Pakistan.
If they both empty their clips at each other, the impact on the rest of the planet, as the the environmental damage spreads due to wind currents and potential holes in the Ozone layer, and such, looks to cost the planet about a billion lives, maybe twice that when all is said and done, and spread both agricultural and economic damage across the temperate zones of the Northern Hemisphere, East and West. The wind will blow, you can't stop it.
A few years back Scientific American ran a pretty good article on the estimates of what the aftermath of a nuclear war on the sub continent would look like.
What the scientists used to help their models was the dust output of volcanic eruptions, and the global effects of major volcanic eruptions, such as Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines a couple of decades ago.
Worth a look if you can find it.
South Asian Threat? Local Nuclear War = Global Suffering: Scientific American
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pd...iAmJan2010.pdf
Caution: the analysis is of course based on some modeling, and as such holds errors if the models are off.
With the above in mind, you can argue that the NPT needs to be beefed up, not lef to die its natural death. It seems to me that the NPT was a product of pos-WW II progressivism, and a bit of wishful thinking.
Given the increasing bilge between the US and Russia, and to a different extent Russia and the rest of the West, and adding China's position that it is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the odds of getting the NPT reinvigorated strike me as low to zero.
)I don't think the Kiwis and Ozzies care for nukes enough to add such weapons to their capabilities.
Do the Irish? Probably not.
You could argue that India is "an English speaking country" in terms of how many of its people have English as a second language, though in their case it is a fait accompli. See below.
I think that as various nations spend the time and money necessary to develop their own capability and the infrastructure to support it, they will find it both an expensive millstone around their necks, and also find themselves in the strategic situation where they won't be inclined to use said weapons. They'll also tend to be targeted by at least one other nuclear power. That's how the deterrent game tends to work.
The NPT will continue to degrade into less than the scrap of paper that it already is. (PTT made some good points up there on what's behind that).
The new players in the nuclear game will have to experience for themselves the lessons we older nuclear hands learned in the Cold War about the matched blessing and curse of holding these weapons in the magazines.
As I see it today, the most likely nuclear weapons exchange in the next five to ten years is an exchange between India and Pakistan.
If they both empty their clips at each other, the impact on the rest of the planet, as the the environmental damage spreads due to wind currents and potential holes in the Ozone layer, and such, looks to cost the planet about a billion lives, maybe twice that when all is said and done, and spread both agricultural and economic damage across the temperate zones of the Northern Hemisphere, East and West. The wind will blow, you can't stop it.
A few years back Scientific American ran a pretty good article on the estimates of what the aftermath of a nuclear war on the sub continent would look like.
What the scientists used to help their models was the dust output of volcanic eruptions, and the global effects of major volcanic eruptions, such as Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines a couple of decades ago.
Worth a look if you can find it.
South Asian Threat? Local Nuclear War = Global Suffering: Scientific American
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pd...iAmJan2010.pdf
Caution: the analysis is of course based on some modeling, and as such holds errors if the models are off.
With the above in mind, you can argue that the NPT needs to be beefed up, not lef to die its natural death. It seems to me that the NPT was a product of pos-WW II progressivism, and a bit of wishful thinking.
Given the increasing bilge between the US and Russia, and to a different extent Russia and the rest of the West, and adding China's position that it is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the odds of getting the NPT reinvigorated strike me as low to zero.
But the point about the NPT is that it is supposedly international law. Iran is a signatory, whereas IIRC India, North Korea and the Red Sea Pedestrians are not. As a signatory, Iran has disavowed the development and/or acquisition of nuclear weapons which it has not had prior to signature.
The organisation responsible for monitoring compliance with the NPT (the IAEA) has identified that there are valid concerns that Iran is not complying with the treaty it has signed and is asking for various issues to be clarified. Iran is responding to this with various obfuscations and a nuclear facility hardening programme that does nothing but increase suspicions.
The part of the UN responsible for enforcing international law (UNSC) has responded to this with a whole range of sanctions etc, as have other "blocs" such as US, UK GE & FR, as they are entitled (should that be required?) to do under international law.
Now in response to this, Iran can do a number of things, such as open up all facilties for full inspection & monitoring or unilaterally withdraw from the NPT. They have (understandably) chosen to stay within the treaty but not accede to the inspections requests. Whether Iran is justified in wanting nukes (and I agree with Widger) is irrelevant, they have forsworn them under treaty. Not a situation I believe exists with the denizens of the new Uncle Kim's happy land, or the Red Sea Pedestrians.
I appreciate all this is nice legal theory and as such fairly naive, but the point then becomes, does the UN enforce international law or does it give it a stiff ignoring if it all gets a bit difficult, which tends to happen with the really important things?
If it doesn't, what is the UN for? Is it to disappear in a puff of logic?
The organisation responsible for monitoring compliance with the NPT (the IAEA) has identified that there are valid concerns that Iran is not complying with the treaty it has signed and is asking for various issues to be clarified. Iran is responding to this with various obfuscations and a nuclear facility hardening programme that does nothing but increase suspicions.
The part of the UN responsible for enforcing international law (UNSC) has responded to this with a whole range of sanctions etc, as have other "blocs" such as US, UK GE & FR, as they are entitled (should that be required?) to do under international law.
Now in response to this, Iran can do a number of things, such as open up all facilties for full inspection & monitoring or unilaterally withdraw from the NPT. They have (understandably) chosen to stay within the treaty but not accede to the inspections requests. Whether Iran is justified in wanting nukes (and I agree with Widger) is irrelevant, they have forsworn them under treaty. Not a situation I believe exists with the denizens of the new Uncle Kim's happy land, or the Red Sea Pedestrians.
I appreciate all this is nice legal theory and as such fairly naive, but the point then becomes, does the UN enforce international law or does it give it a stiff ignoring if it all gets a bit difficult, which tends to happen with the really important things?
If it doesn't, what is the UN for? Is it to disappear in a puff of logic?
Did you miss the Embassy takeover a few years back....and the year long hostage holding that followed? Of course....you ignore the support of Terrorist organizations around the Region and World....but then I know those are mere trivialities to you.
The situation is far more complicated than you seem to consider.
The situation is far more complicated than you seem to consider.
Not a Boff,
So, you're a Douglas Adams fan? The UN can only do what all its 193(?) members decide to support. It can hardly be called indepentent and it would be hard to find an outside agency to rule on issues. We have to leave to them to come up with solutions and hope that they can get enough agreement on important issues when required.
Wasn't it once stated that it was, in fact, the World's biggest forum for international disagreement?
Anyway, good points, well made.
Lonewolf,
Your post was an object lesson to me in reading an entire post before jumping to conclusions. My initial reaction was to start writing in disagreement, but I pressed on and quickly saw your point.
There may be a few assumptions in the SciAm article that makes me think that their scientific basis is not fully justified (or, maybe, not stated), but I understand it's a magazine for the educated masses AND that they have an agendum.
However, I don't think anyone can argue that the effects of a 'local', limited, nuclear exchange are not local. The +49 day map of smoke particles, if not exact, isn't likely to be too far wrong. What it doesn't cover, for some reason, is the spread of nuclear contamination. That number of small yield weapons would put a lot (I'm not even going to start working it out) of radionucleides into the atmosphere. Some of those have short half lives, but create a severe and (near) immediate hazard to life. Some have very long half lives and could present a long-lasting and global threat to life.
Some very good analysis going on in this thread. Widger, especially your view from (not on) the fence. Thank you all.
Courtney
So, you're a Douglas Adams fan? The UN can only do what all its 193(?) members decide to support. It can hardly be called indepentent and it would be hard to find an outside agency to rule on issues. We have to leave to them to come up with solutions and hope that they can get enough agreement on important issues when required.
Wasn't it once stated that it was, in fact, the World's biggest forum for international disagreement?
Anyway, good points, well made.
Lonewolf,
Your post was an object lesson to me in reading an entire post before jumping to conclusions. My initial reaction was to start writing in disagreement, but I pressed on and quickly saw your point.
There may be a few assumptions in the SciAm article that makes me think that their scientific basis is not fully justified (or, maybe, not stated), but I understand it's a magazine for the educated masses AND that they have an agendum.
However, I don't think anyone can argue that the effects of a 'local', limited, nuclear exchange are not local. The +49 day map of smoke particles, if not exact, isn't likely to be too far wrong. What it doesn't cover, for some reason, is the spread of nuclear contamination. That number of small yield weapons would put a lot (I'm not even going to start working it out) of radionucleides into the atmosphere. Some of those have short half lives, but create a severe and (near) immediate hazard to life. Some have very long half lives and could present a long-lasting and global threat to life.
Some very good analysis going on in this thread. Widger, especially your view from (not on) the fence. Thank you all.
Courtney
English must be a foreign language to some here.
How's about you reading the post before pitching your penny onto the bar?
The situation is far more complicated than you seem to consider.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, I don't think anyone can argue that the effects of a 'local', limited, nuclear exchange are not local. The +49 day map of smoke particles, if not exact, isn't likely to be too far wrong. What it doesn't cover, for some reason, is the spread of nuclear contamination. That number of small yield weapons would put a lot (I'm not even going to start working it out) of radionucleides into the atmosphere. Some of those have short half lives, but create a severe and (near) immediate hazard to life. Some have very long half lives and could present a long-lasting and global threat to life.
I am not inferring nor suggesting in any form or fashion that having a nuclear exchange, even as limited as this would be, should the unthinkable happen, not be dangerous and do harm, but we cannot lose sight of historical facts.
The nuclear tests weren't done in a single day. Take look at the Chernobyl plume, where it went and the radiation levels it produced. You can do a rough read-across to a nuclear release. More on that later, if you want.
For NotABoffin
No, it is a treaty, but I see your point. It ought to be binding. Ought and is don't always match.
If the provisions of a treaty are breached, the various signatories then have to figure out what to do about that.
Similar to international law, it is only as good as its enforcement.
As Courtney points out, if the UN (which I think boils down to the Big Five on the Security Council) cannot put together a consensus position on what to do about any such matter, not much gets done at the International level.
Any number of parties, or associations (see the non UN sanctioned NATO work on Serbia 1999) may still act, and accept the risks of not being seen as legitimate, which allegedly a blue helmet allows one to claim to be.
Israel as well, which lead me back to your point on international law: it is neither very binding, nor very cohesive, if one can simply opt out by not signing up. For that matter, why not opt out by not following? Seems to boil down to the same thing.
So? That signature was during the Shah's reign. I do not see Iran's continuity of government from then to now as being analogous to someone as stable, and interested in the rule of law, as, say, Sweden's. What they are doing is testing the limits of international consensus. They are not the first to play such games. It's an old story.
So, with various sanctions and hot air "The International Community" has "done something" but there unity of effort seems to have reached its limits. Such is realpolitik.
Agree. A lovely illustration of the limitations of international law when such enforcement authority as exists can't agree on what to do about a breach.
Per my point above, they'll only do what they can agree to do, and as often as not bicker amongst themselves.
They have other choices, such as do as they are now doing and test the limits of international sentiment for and against them. This is called politics. At present, this course of action seems to cause them little to no harm.
Politics is a game played for keeps.
So? There is no honor among thieves, nor among politicians, and I often wonder if there's much difference.
UN tries to be all things to all nations, and has many great uses in the health and humanitarian arenas, and sometimes for collective security. It's imperfect, but it may disappear one day if its other uses erode as badly as its collective security role has.
Courtney:
Agree.
I thought they were smart to limit the scope of their article to danger they could compare to the volcanoes, to avoid being accused of scare mongering.
I completely agree that there are added problems of contamination, but estimating its effects seem, to me, considerbably more difficult due to the wide variation on previous contamination incidents (Hiroshima, Chernobyl, and such).
As the Chrernobyl incident showed, or how Hiroshima has recoverd, there is recovery from a local poisoning. What they were trying to point out was a global climate perturbation of that magnitude would have out of scale impacts on fundamental food source that currently are underwriting the global food suppply. The political fall out of, their estimate, a billion being left to starve staggers my imagination.
Again, their analysis may have more holes than not, but I appreciate their trying to compare a like-to-like issue: the measured climate impact of Pinatubo and the expected climate impact of X amount more stuff in the air from such a nuclear exchange.
It's the old "consequences far exceed the benefits" illustration for policy makers to consider.
But the point about the NPT is that it is supposedly international law.
If the provisions of a treaty are breached, the various signatories then have to figure out what to do about that.
Similar to international law, it is only as good as its enforcement.
As Courtney points out, if the UN (which I think boils down to the Big Five on the Security Council) cannot put together a consensus position on what to do about any such matter, not much gets done at the International level.
Any number of parties, or associations (see the non UN sanctioned NATO work on Serbia 1999) may still act, and accept the risks of not being seen as legitimate, which allegedly a blue helmet allows one to claim to be.
Iran is a signatory, whereas IIRC India, North Korea and the Red Sea Pedestrians are not.
As a signatory, Iran has disavowed the development and/or acquisition of nuclear weapons which it has not had prior to signature.
So, with various sanctions and hot air "The International Community" has "done something" but there unity of effort seems to have reached its limits. Such is realpolitik.
The organisation responsible for monitoring compliance with the NPT (the IAEA) has identified that there are valid concerns that Iran is not complying with the treaty it has signed and is asking for various issues to be clarified. Iran is responding to this with various obfuscations and a nuclear facility hardening programme that does nothing but increase suspicions.
The part of the UN responsible for enforcing international law (UNSC) has responded to this with a whole range of sanctions etc, as have other "blocs" such as US, UK GE & FR, as they are entitled (should that be required?) to do under international law.
Now in response to this, Iran can do a number of things, such as open up all facilties for full inspection & monitoring or unilaterally withdraw from the NPT.
They have (understandably) chosen to stay within the treaty but not accede to the inspections requests.
Whether Iran is justified in wanting nukes (and I agree with Widger) is irrelevant, they have forsworn them under treaty.
Not a situation I believe exists with the denizens of the new Uncle Kim's happy land, or the Red Sea Pedestrians. I appreciate all this is nice legal theory and as such fairly naive, but the point then becomes, does the UN enforce international law or does it give it a stiff ignoring if it all gets a bit difficult, which tends to happen with the really important things?
If it doesn't, what is the UN for?
Is it to disappear in a puff of logic?
If it doesn't, what is the UN for?
Is it to disappear in a puff of logic?
Courtney:
There may be a few assumptions in the SciAm article that makes me think that their scientific basis is not fully justified (or, maybe, not stated), but I understand it's a magazine for the educated masses AND that they have an agendum.
However, I don't think anyone can argue that the effects of a 'local', limited, nuclear exchange are not local. The +49 day map of smoke particles, if not exact, isn't likely to be too far wrong.
What it doesn't cover, for some reason, is the spread of nuclear contamination. That number of small yield weapons would put a lot (I'm not even going to start working it out) of radionucleides into the atmosphere. Some of those have short half lives, but create a severe and (near) immediate hazard to life. Some have very long half lives and could present a long-lasting and global threat to life.
However, I don't think anyone can argue that the effects of a 'local', limited, nuclear exchange are not local. The +49 day map of smoke particles, if not exact, isn't likely to be too far wrong.
What it doesn't cover, for some reason, is the spread of nuclear contamination. That number of small yield weapons would put a lot (I'm not even going to start working it out) of radionucleides into the atmosphere. Some of those have short half lives, but create a severe and (near) immediate hazard to life. Some have very long half lives and could present a long-lasting and global threat to life.
I thought they were smart to limit the scope of their article to danger they could compare to the volcanoes, to avoid being accused of scare mongering.
I completely agree that there are added problems of contamination, but estimating its effects seem, to me, considerbably more difficult due to the wide variation on previous contamination incidents (Hiroshima, Chernobyl, and such).
As the Chrernobyl incident showed, or how Hiroshima has recoverd, there is recovery from a local poisoning. What they were trying to point out was a global climate perturbation of that magnitude would have out of scale impacts on fundamental food source that currently are underwriting the global food suppply. The political fall out of, their estimate, a billion being left to starve staggers my imagination.
Again, their analysis may have more holes than not, but I appreciate their trying to compare a like-to-like issue: the measured climate impact of Pinatubo and the expected climate impact of X amount more stuff in the air from such a nuclear exchange.
It's the old "consequences far exceed the benefits" illustration for policy makers to consider.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a comment on Iran signing the non-proliferation treaty.
Back in the days when I was shpiping "sensitive" materials around, it was drummed into us signing such was merely a way of easing access to dual-use materials..
Essentially signing the NPT was regarded as simply a means to an end, and did not imply that the countries involved would comply with the NPT. They'd just get the technology - and then redirect it in contravention of the treaty.
Now if I remember correctly, the following are the countries we had to take extra care with to ensure dual-use materials (nuclear, chemical and rocketry) were controlled (irrespective of whatever they had signed) :
North Korea
South Korea
South Africa
Israel
India
Pakistan
Libya
Syria
Iraq
Iran
These were the "rogue" - or potential rogue - states.
.
So who is left?
South Korea and Israel aren't going to do anything without the USA agreeing.
China is keeping the lid on North Korea
South Africa is pretty much out of the scene due to industrial decline since "equality"
India seems to keep its intention to itself, but certainly doesn't do much sabre rattling. They don't seem likely to start lobbing missiles around - they know there's too much to lose
Libya and Iraq have both been - for now - industrially neutralised and don't represent a proliferation risk
Who does that leave from the ten?
Pakistan - currently stable, but if theres a military coup then anything could happen.
Syria - currently in the throes of civil war.
Iran
These are the only "rogue states" which have not had their risk factor curtailed or controlled in one way or another
Back in the days when I was shpiping "sensitive" materials around, it was drummed into us signing such was merely a way of easing access to dual-use materials..
Essentially signing the NPT was regarded as simply a means to an end, and did not imply that the countries involved would comply with the NPT. They'd just get the technology - and then redirect it in contravention of the treaty.
Now if I remember correctly, the following are the countries we had to take extra care with to ensure dual-use materials (nuclear, chemical and rocketry) were controlled (irrespective of whatever they had signed) :
North Korea
South Korea
South Africa
Israel
India
Pakistan
Libya
Syria
Iraq
Iran
These were the "rogue" - or potential rogue - states.
.
So who is left?
South Korea and Israel aren't going to do anything without the USA agreeing.
China is keeping the lid on North Korea
South Africa is pretty much out of the scene due to industrial decline since "equality"
India seems to keep its intention to itself, but certainly doesn't do much sabre rattling. They don't seem likely to start lobbing missiles around - they know there's too much to lose
Libya and Iraq have both been - for now - industrially neutralised and don't represent a proliferation risk
Who does that leave from the ten?
Pakistan - currently stable, but if theres a military coup then anything could happen.
Syria - currently in the throes of civil war.
Iran
These are the only "rogue states" which have not had their risk factor curtailed or controlled in one way or another
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
post edited to include them - missed a line as typing
Agreed - Pakistan is a potential problem - and the hardest to forecast, especially with the current problems re military vs government
Agreed - Pakistan is a potential problem - and the hardest to forecast, especially with the current problems re military vs government