Nuclear Energy and Modernization

[AndyF]

Does a nation who wishes to modernize to nuclear energy need to be on friendly terms with every nation.? Is it not a natural characteristic of nations to lodge complaints, utter threats, either empty or not, establish good and bad relations?
What defines a good nation? Relative to what nation?

Points to consider.

We can say that after the fact, the US did not go on a nuclear war rampage after coming into the nuclear age. The US in the late 40/50s was not controlled by a world body policing nuclear energy. So we can rightly say that it’s misuse could have gone the other way, and that it “could have” been a major threat to other nations, if not immediatly, eventually. Nuclear technology was simply theory to most nations at that time, and had no idea it was being made a reality until Hiroshima. So the US could even take it’s time in an aggression if it wished.

Inspite of it’s unfriendly, or somewhat cool relationships with other nations at times, uttering threats and complaints as most nations do, it went on to become the first to employ nuclear energy for domestic purposes.(not counting Nazi research).

The conclusion is that we know the back door of opportunity for aggression was open for them, even though we know the global police make sure it is closed today. But that leaves a conclusion doesn’t it. That the criteria for aggression cannot always be judged on national characteristics. There is a good reason to believe some other factor is a prevention to it, even for the most aggresive nations. Could it be they display a collective common sense, and that is some form of global moral conduct?

Us older folks can remember threats from nuclear nations armed to the point of button pushing that were much more hostile than Iran’s today, and had much more potential in making the threat real. Iran’s threats pale to the threats we have lived through and caused us to build bomb shelters back then. China wasn’t without it’s gestures and warnings. To their credit Russia patiently voiced it’s disapproval of U2 fly overs, until proof to the world revealed all. Should they have retaliated in a nuclear way? So we can see from this that nations exhibit remarkable restraint even in the most tense situations.

So this is why I don’t see the hoopla in clamping down on every third nation trying to move up to the 50’s, especially since recommendations come from that very entity that has some events it would like hidden. The military technology of today can nip in the bud by counter strike any structure built for nuclear war, and it could do it in hours, not months.

What are we to do? Are we to double standard every other nation? I say let them advance. The threat can be handled in sufficient time to do something about it.

 I'm interested in your subjective problem solving views.

 Andy

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AndyF:

Does a nation who wishes to modernize to nuclear energy need to be on friendly terms with every nation.?

Is this a news story? If so, would you be kind enough to provide a link.

AndyF:

Nuclear technology was simply theory to most nations at that time, and had no idea it was being made a reality until Hiroshima.

Wrong. The Germans were developing their own atomic bomb. Japan was developing their own atomic bomb in Tokyo and in North Korea.

AndyF:

So the US could even take it’s time in an aggression if it wished.

If the US had delayed its deployment of atomic ordinance at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by even a few months, close to 20 million more lives would have been lost in the following winter’s bloodbath.

AndyF:

Could it be they display a collective common sense, and that is some form of global moral conduct?

Which Iran is violating by developing nuclear ordinance for sale to nationless terrorist organizations?

AndyF:

Us older folks can remember threats from nuclear nations armed to the point of button pushing that were much more hostile than Iran’s today, and had much more potential in making the threat real.

You are supporting this opinion in what way?

AndyF:

Iran’s threats pale to the threats we have lived through and caused us to build bomb shelters back then.

You are supporting this opinion in what way?

AndyF:

So we can see from this that nations exhibit remarkable restraint even in the most tense situations.

Does OBL’s fatwa demonstrate restraint?

AndyF:

So this is why I don’t see the hoopla in clamping down on every third nation trying to move up to the 50’s,

You don’t see the hoopla even though it has been pointed out to you twice that the method that Iran is using to ‘produce nuclear energy’ is consistent with the method to produce bombs. How do you justify not seeing the hoopla?

AndyF:

The military technology of today can nip in the bud by counter strike any structure built for nuclear war, and it could do it in hours, not months.

Nipping a walk-in or float-in bomb is not as straightforward as intercepting a missile.

AndyF:

What are we to do?

We are to realize that we are at war with a group of nationless combatants whose stated aim is to force us into conversion to Islam on pain of death. And we are to act in legitimate self-defence.

 

[geezerbob]

If all Iran wanted was nuclear electrical generation, any number of countries would have been willing to provide them with as many turnkey power plants as they wanted in exchange for some of the oil they’re sitting on.

If all Iran wanted was nuclear electrical generation, they would open their facilities to UN inspection and limit their production to industrial grade nuclear material.

If all Iran wanted to do was to wipe Israel off the map, as has been stated, they would scatter and hide their nuclear facilities, bar UN inspections, install the tecnology necessary to make weapons grade material, and thumb their noses at the rest of the world.

The original post did not address any of these issues.

 

[gilliam]

Russia offered to bring in Uranium and cart out the used rods. Iran would have none of it. They want to used Uranium to make bombs with (that is really the only use for it).

 

[Al_Masetti]

It used to be that we were able to devise effective strategies to counter countries with lots of nukes.

One was “assured destruction”. This consisted of hiring Curtis E. LeMay and telling him we couldn’t restrain the Soviets from expanding. So he did his thing and developed and trained something called the Strategic Air Command. He was given something like 46% of the ENTIRE military budget and he bought 1700 B-47 jet bombers and 750 B-52 jet bombers and 100 B-58 bombers, and 600 KC-135 tankers, and developed experimental B-70 mach 3 bombers and a wide variety of guided missiles. He conducted convincing exercises that routinely evaded the best air defenses. And he was very convincing that if ordered, he could pave the Soviet Union with glass. From border to border. He also made sure he was always seen with a chewed up cigar in his mouth and his PR people made sure the Soviets knew that he tolerated no nonsense; he routinely fired people at all levels who “ticked him off”. He made sure that he was a scary guy. The myth of the out-of-control cowboy.

The Soviet equivalent to SAC had difficulty in routine navigation exercises (we used to monitor these sorts of things). And we learned who the people were who were assigned to the Soviet SAC and what their strengths and weaknesses were. If they got fired a lot in other assignments, for example, and found a home in the Soviet SAC. Were they heavy boozers? Couldn’t keep their hands off other men’s wives. Politically connected only. It was important to know this stuff… who you are fighting, specifically. How much hardware did they have? (not many planes; lots of missiles later on).

Then Robert Strange MacNamara became Secretary of Defense and saved money by changing and downgrading the approach to one of merely Mutual Assured Destruction.

As it was, the dictator(s) of the Soviet Union was (were) responsive to this / these approach (es).

During the Vietnam War, our pilots got a reputation for getting through regardless of the cost to themselves. The Soviets got to thinking that if our pilots would fly suicide missions just to blow up a bicycle shop, what would the American pilots do if it was a REAL nuclear war. And it really spooked them. Our pilots were more dedicated than anything they had ever seen… rules of engagement or not. Our guys were tough.

If we are dealing with Iran and North Korea, we will have to devise some approaches that their dictators will respond to. Can’t use the same strategy and mind games on Iran’s dictators as we used on the Soviet Union’s dictators.

 

[AndyF]

geezerbob:

Good points to all.

The original post did not address any of these issues.

Hence my invitation to contribute, thanks for filling in the blanks.

But, any policy that is fair can be applied to all. If the situation were reversed, and it were the US just moving into the nuclear age, do you think it would submit to these rules as well?

If all Iran wanted to do was to wipe Israel off the map, as has been stated

But that is exactly the question I pose, why the double standard? Has as many times the Big Three have stated the exacts words, why not the attacks on these?

It’s interesting you bring up Israel. It’s astonishing you don’t see the parallels between Israel and Iran in policy. Israel has deliberately attacked Egypt in a war of aggression, and their president admitted it, and did so with full strategic nuclear capability. Such activity of a US ally should have sent alarms off to it’s partner and forced Israel’s nuclear industry to a stop. But the US did nothing. Here you can find no stronger case for stopping further nuclear developement.

One consideration not made, and that is, could it be possible we are witnessing a tendency for a nation who has attained all facets of nuclear military progress, now wishes no other nation to attain the same.?

I think this is what we are seeing. If your best weapon is the bow and arrow, it is in your interest to keep everyone else from making string, no matter what other use it could be used for. And this raises a serious dilemna.

In 2309 in the cathechism in regards to war duties we are given:

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

A non-nuclear country could never hope to realize a condition he could cause greater evils and disorders, that is the handicap. He must produce evils and disorders at least equal to the opposition in order to persuade him to back down.

…or in other words, the condition could be that in order for a non-nuclear defensive nation to prevent evil and disorders applied by an offensive nuclear country, he would require at least equal capability, otherwise this rule is meaningless.

In conclusion I think I protest more the masking. If we call what is being applied what it really is, then at least the nation wishing these rules is being up front. Iran is being prevented from nuclear capability because the US does not want yet another nation with it’s capability and it wants the upper hand at all times. Action on Iran the “bad boy” masks true purpose. Policy swings whichever way it benefits the nation, and past policies by all nations prove they were once “bad boys” as well.

Andy

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AndyF:

geezerbob: Good points to all.

But no response from you to any of these points?

AndyF:

Hence my invitation to contribute, thanks for filling in the blanks.

Have you read the rules and guidelines? This is a news forum. A news story with a link to same is required to start a thread on this forum.

AndyF:

But, any policy that is fair can be applied to all.

Applying your logic to all, please answer these questions:

Have Pakistan, India, the US, and any of the other nuke-wielding nations threatened another country with total destruction and conducted a campaign of hate propaganda against that same country? Yes or no?

Have any of the other nuke-wielding nations lied about their intentions to the IAEA? Waved the flag of affordable nuclear energy while building 15 breeder reactors and hiding them in the desert? Yes or no?

Have any of the other nuke-wielding nations harboured terrorists, moneylaundered for terrorists, armed terrorists and sent them across the Iraqi border? Yes or no?

If the answer to any of these three questions is no, then the the policy which must be applied to all is the following:

Stop Iran from acquiring nuclear bomb capability.

AndyF:

If the situation were reversed, and it were the US just moving into the nuclear age, do you think it would submit to these rules as well?

The situation is not reversed. The situation is what it is. We are not attempting to save hypothetical lives or hypothetical environments. We are attempting to save lives and environments which exist on the mortal plane on the planet Earth.

AndyF:

But that is exactly the question I pose, why the double standard?

Yes, why the double standard, Andy? Why do you want to treat Iran differently than any other nation on earth? Why do you want Iran to be able to threaten the destruction of Israel (and where will that stop?), harbour and give succour to terrorists, and develop nuclear bomb capability? Why are you holding up Iran to a different standard than you hold up, say, the US? Splain that.

AndyF:

Has as many times the Big Three have stated the exacts words, why not the attacks on these?

Exactly what words?

AndyF:

It’s interesting you bring up Israel. It’s astonishing you don’t see the parallels between Israel and Iran in policy. Israel has deliberately attacked Egypt in a war of aggression, and their president admitted it, and did so with full strategic nuclear capability.

Are you suggesting that Israel totally destroyed Egypt with nuclear bombs? Because that is what Iran is threatening to do to Israel. That is what we are talking about here. Actual nuclear aggression. Not any other kind of aggression.

AndyF:

Such activity of a US ally should have sent alarms off to it’s partner and forced Israel’s nuclear industry to a stop. But the US did nothing. Here you can find no stronger case for stopping further nuclear developement.

Al Massetti has already explained to you SAC and MAD. It would behoove you not only to read the other posters’ contributions but to address each of their points as we are doing with your points.

The situation in Iran does not fit under SAC or MAD. The situation in Iran poses a new danger; a danger which neither Israel nor any of the other nuke nations pose: the danger of walk-in or float-in bombs deployed by backsack and carried to their targets by unlawful, nationless suicide bombers.

AndyF:

One consideration not made, and that is, could it be possible we are witnessing a tendency for a nation who has attained all facets of nuclear military progress, now wishes no other nation to attain the same.?

No.

AndyF:

I think this is what we are seeing. If your best weapon is the bow and arrow, it is in your interest to keep everyone else from making string, no matter what other use it could be used for. And this raises a serious dilemna.

What you are choosing to selectively see begs the question of rogue nations, nationless combatants, and suicide bombers. It also evades the question of the War on Terror.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AndyF:

In 2309 in the cathechism in regards to war duties we are given:

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Sorry bud. If you are going to quote the Catechism on comparative evils you are going to have to thoroughly understand the Principle of Double Effect and we are going to require you to apply it to your scenario.

AndyF:

A non-nuclear country could never hope to realize a condition he could cause greater evils and disorders, that is the handicap.

Wrong: bio and chemo weapons.

AndyF:

He must produce evils and disorders at least equal to the opposition in order to persuade him to back down.

Again you misapply MAD. Your scenario involves a new threat and has nothing to do with MAD.

AndyF:

In conclusion I think I protest more the masking.

If so then you would support unmasking Iran’s duplicity in hiding its 15 breeder reactors and bomb-making plants in the desert. But you have not supported this unmasking. You have instead unsuccessfully attempted to divert attention to other nations and your claims that it’s not fair; the bad guys are really the good guys; there’s no War on Terror.

AndyF:

If we call what is being applied what it really is

Which is the War on Terror.

AndyF:

then at least the nation wishing these rules is being up front.

Claiming to be building a nuclear electric capacity and then hiding 15 breeder reactors and nuclear-bomb plants in the desert is being up front in what way?

AndyF:

Iran is being prevented from nuclear capability because the US does not want yet another nation with it’s capability and it wants the upper hand at all times.

Wrong. Iran is being prevented from nuclear bomb-making capability because of its association with terrorism and because of its stated aim to destroy Israel. Wanting the upper hand against terrorists is sane foreign policy.

AndyF:

Action on Iran the “bad boy” masks true purpose.

The only player who is masking any true purpose here is Iran.

AndyF:

Policy swings whichever way it benefits the nation, and past policies by all nations prove they were once “bad boys” as well.

We are not talking about past policies. We are talking about present policies. Whether you call Iran a bad boy or a hero of Jihad is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that Iran has harboured and given succour to terrorists and now wants to be in a position where it can put nuclear bomb capability into the hands of terrorists.

What is also relevant is that we are going to stop Iran no matter what the terrorists have to say about the matter.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

By the way, thank you for the summary of SAC and MAD, Al.
Al Masetti:

If we are dealing with Iran and North Korea, we will have to devise some approaches that their dictators will respond to. Can’t use the same strategy and mind games on Iran’s dictators as we used on the Soviet Union’s dictators.

What approaches do you think these dictators will respond to?

 

[AndyF]

Ani Ibi:

I am trying to establish an amiable,subjective,constructive discussion here. Your posts have an aire of vidictiveness and you bait at every opportunity. You take sentences out of contextual paragraphs for your own ends, and now your resorting to double posts.

You set yourself up for spoksman for other posters as if they cannot respond for themselves, and opinionate me personally then have the audacity to go on to make your own posts like nothing has happened.

Regretfully, and in all due respect, I ask you to stay away from my threads, and I promise to stay away from yours.

Thank you.
.
Andy