5 ms·

As a signatory to the NPT, which has been ratified by the United States and is therefore law, Iran is legally entitled to have a nuclear energy program. It's n

As a signatory to the NPT, which has been ratified by the United States and is therefore law, Iran is legally entitled to have a nuclear energy program. It's not particularly easy to tell facilities for making enriched uranium (viable as fuel) from facilities making weapons-grade HEU.

aburan28 12y ago
Israel is not a a signer of this treaty, why don't we scold them for their nuclear weapons? Rules/Laws do not apply to nuclear states.
- PJDK 12y ago
  The NPT works the other way around. It is a bargain between the nuclear weapons powers and the non-weapon powers. Non-weapon powers get access to civilian nuclear technology and know-how in exchange for a promise (and safeguards) to not develop weapon systems. Additionally weapon powers agree to negotiate towards an end to all nuclear weapons (but in a very woolly, no real commitment kind of way). Non signers get no access to any technology or know-how from signers but are free to act as they please. Israel, Pakistan and India all fall into this category. They can act as they please.
- Paradigma11 12y ago
  The west scolds iran for not adhering to the npt that they signed. What treaty in this regard did israel sign that they dont adhere to?
kabouseng 12y ago
"which has been ratified by the United States and is therefore law" Oh is that how it works...
- dannypgh 12y ago
  What I meant was: 1. US law provides for ratified treaties to have the same force as federal law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause) 2. The US and Iran have both ratified the NPT 3. The NPT guarantees the rights of signatories to establish peaceful nuclear programs 4. It's therefore, in theory, illegal under US federal law (which of course, at least applies to US persons) to interfere with the establishment of a peaceful Iranian nuclear program. The practice of course, differs greatly from the theory. This is because, as per usual, law is more about politics than law.
XorNot 12y ago
Sure it is: anytime you enrich uranium beyond 5%, you're trying to make a bomb. Iran was proudly announcing enriching over 60%, which is the highest amount anyone, anywhere, ever, needs to do (60% is for neutron-optimized research reactors).
- blazingfrog2 12y ago
  Not to sound snarky but Saddam was boasting sitting on an arsenal of WMDs before the world found out there was zero truth to it. That's why UN inspections are used, however effectively, you just can't rely on Government propaganda to establish facts.
appleflaxen 12y ago
> which has been ratified by the United States and is therefore law Iran is a sovereign nation. The US signing a treaty has no bearing on them unless they sign it too.
- etrevino 12y ago
  Iran signed the NPT as well, meaning they are supposed to abide by its rules.

aburan28 12y ago

Israel is not a a signer of this treaty, why don't we scold them for their nuclear weapons? Rules/Laws do not apply to nuclear states.

PJDK 12y ago
The NPT works the other way around. It is a bargain between the nuclear weapons powers and the non-weapon powers. Non-weapon powers get access to civilian nuclear technology and know-how in exchange for a promise (and safeguards) to not develop weapon systems. Additionally weapon powers agree to negotiate towards an end to all nuclear weapons (but in a very woolly, no real commitment kind of way). Non signers get no access to any technology or know-how from signers but are free to act as they please. Israel, Pakistan and India all fall into this category. They can act as they please.
Paradigma11 12y ago
The west scolds iran for not adhering to the npt that they signed. What treaty in this regard did israel sign that they dont adhere to?

kabouseng 12y ago

"which has been ratified by the United States and is therefore law" Oh is that how it works...

dannypgh 12y ago
What I meant was: 1. US law provides for ratified treaties to have the same force as federal law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause) 2. The US and Iran have both ratified the NPT 3. The NPT guarantees the rights of signatories to establish peaceful nuclear programs 4. It's therefore, in theory, illegal under US federal law (which of course, at least applies to US persons) to interfere with the establishment of a peaceful Iranian nuclear program. The practice of course, differs greatly from the theory. This is because, as per usual, law is more about politics than law.

XorNot 12y ago

Sure it is: anytime you enrich uranium beyond 5%, you're trying to make a bomb. Iran was proudly announcing enriching over 60%, which is the highest amount anyone, anywhere, ever, needs to do (60% is for neutron-optimized research reactors).

blazingfrog2 12y ago
Not to sound snarky but Saddam was boasting sitting on an arsenal of WMDs before the world found out there was zero truth to it. That's why UN inspections are used, however effectively, you just can't rely on Government propaganda to establish facts.

appleflaxen 12y ago

> which has been ratified by the United States and is therefore law Iran is a sovereign nation. The US signing a treaty has no bearing on them unless they sign it too.

etrevino 12y ago
Iran signed the NPT as well, meaning they are supposed to abide by its rules.