3 ms·

Here's a timeline of the North Korean nuclear program: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/20/world/asia/northkorea-timeline.html?_r=0#/#time238_7104 ht

Here's a timeline of the North Korean nuclear program: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/20/world/asia/northkorea-timeline.html?_r=0#/#time238_7104 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/20/world/asia/nor... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass... After reading through these, I am comfortable in sweeping aside your argument. Time and time again, North Korea claimed it was pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In every negotiation they stalled for more time, more money and more food, until one day when they tested their first bomb. Sure, that one fizzled out, but it wasn't that long until they tested another another, which worked, and that was followed by another. With each test they have grown in capability, and now they openly admit that their reactors are operating to build nuclear weapons. North Korea is widely acknowledged to be one of the world's poorest, most isolated and backward countries. If they can get the bomb, Iran can do it too, and faster.

dalke 12y ago
I asked what changed with respect to Iran, such that bombing the country is appropriate now when it wasn't appropriate earlier, despite warnings earlier that they would be able to produce a bomb within 10-15 years. Your answer is to point to North Korea. However, in the NYT timeline you pointed to: > 1994: North Korea Quits Atomic Agency > 2002: Confronted by Bush administration officials with evidence that it had cheated on the 1994 agreement, North Korea admits that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear program using enriched uranium. > 2006: First Nuclear Test Unlike what you implied ("[NK] claimed it was pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes ... until one day when they tested their first bomb"), the NYT says NK said they were pursuing a weapons program at least three years before they did their first tests. Iran does not fit that profile. It is a member of the IAEA and admits inspections. The reports are at http://www.iranwatch.org/authoring-agency/iaea-report http://www.iranwatch.org/authoring-agency/iaea-report . Similarly, if you're going to make comparisons, I can point to reports about the nuclear and biological weapons capabilities in Iraq, including the aluminum tubes supposedly only used to enrich uranium, or the "significant quantities of uranium from Africa" that Iraq supposedly bought, or how Iraq needed only "45 minutes" in order to prepare its chemical weapons. All of which turned out to be false, but which were used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Why is North Korea a better comparison than Iraq, enough to "sweep aside" any objection of mine? Everything you have said about Iran was true 10 and 20 years ago. What has changed to warrant bombing now, that wasn't true then?
- maxharris 12y ago
  I asked what changed with respect to Iran Iran is closer to the bomb than they were before. such that bombing the country is appropriate now when it wasn't appropriate earlier Isn't this a bit presumptuous? Dealing with rogue nuclear programs are a bit like dealing with cancer - if you start surgery earlier, your odds of success are greater. We've been giving Iran a pass on terror for decades. For example, in 1983, Iran bombed a Marine Corps base in Beirut, killing 241 marines, 58 French paratroopers, as well as 6 civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing Rather than retyping everything, here's a huge wikipedia page on Iran's terrorist activities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terror...
  - dalke 12y ago
    Like I said, in the 1980s people said that Iran was only a few years away from a nuclear bomb. In the 1990s, people said that Iran was only a few years away from a bomb. Why should I believe you that they are closer now, when all those previous predictions have proven false? The premise behind the nuclear non-proliferation treaties is that it's possible for a country to developer nuclear power and nuclear medicine facilities without being on the path to nuclear weapons. The inspection regime under those treaties has (as you and others say) failed with Iran. If what you are saying is true, then the NPT has failed. Inspections are insufficient to provide oversight. Why and how have they failed? Are there any other countries which have circumvented those inspections under the NPT? And as for "rogue nuclear programs", I am not confident that there is a nuclear weapons program in Iran. The information I've read sounds like it's the same quality of information that lead people to say that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. But even so, let's look at other "rogue programs" and see if they have gone cancerous. (Mind you, some cancers are benign, so your analogy isn't that good to start with.) Apartheid-era South Africa developed its nuclear technology in secret. We didn't bomb them. They dismantled their program, and became signatories of the NPT. Israel is suspected to have nuclear weapons, and is certainly capable of developing them. It has an official policy of being ambiguous. It's believed they contributed weapons development information to South Africa. Do you call that program a "cancer" that needs to be excised? BTW, Israel is not a party to the NPT. NBC reported that Israel funded the M.E.K - designated a terrorist group by the United States - to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/israel-and-proxy-terrorism/252971/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/isr... . How much state sponsored terrorism is acceptable before a country goes rogue? (And if MEK pays off enough US Members of Congress, can they be removed from the list?) The Soviet Union had a whole lot of nuclear weapons and were state sponsors of terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Soviet_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Sovie... . Why weren't they "rogue"? (If they were rogue, why didn't we bomb them? Oh, right - because they could hurt us back. That's also why we don't bomb North Korea; they have a lot of weapons pointed at South Korea. We prefer to bomb or invade those countries that don't have their knife on someone 's throat. Which gives perverse incentive for a country to develop nuclear weapons, if they don't want to be under the thumb of the US.) Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_te... . They have nuclear weapons and are not signatory to the NPT. They used to be on the US 'list of countries which repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism' until we needed them to fight the War on Terror, when they conveniently became good guys. It's reported that North Korea bribed top military officials in Pakistan to get access to nuclear weapons information: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pakistans-nuclear-bomb-maker-says-north-korea-paid-bribes-for-know-how/2010/11/12/gIQAZ1kH1H_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pakist... Pakistan has a rogue nuclear weapons program, is a state sponsor of regional terrorism, and doesn't protect its secrets that well. Why don't we bomb them? Based on this, it appears that all Iran needs to do is fall in line with the US military interests and it will no longer be rogue. Is that right? If not, what does Iran need to do to have a non-rogue nuclear program, in the same way that Pakistan does not have a 'rogue nuclear program' that justifies bombing? "Iran's terrorist activities" is besides the point. The question is if they have a nuclear weapons program. Famously, chemical weapons weren't used in WWII, but heavily used in WWI. It is possible to be the harshest of enemies, at active war with them, and still think that some weapons are outside the pale.

dalke 12y ago

I asked what changed with respect to Iran, such that bombing the country is appropriate now when it wasn't appropriate earlier, despite warnings earlier that they would be able to produce a bomb within 10-15 years. Your answer is to point to North Korea. However, in the NYT timeline you pointed to: > 1994: North Korea Quits Atomic Agency > 2002: Confronted by Bush administration officials with evidence that it had cheated on the 1994 agreement, North Korea admits that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear program using enriched uranium. > 2006: First Nuclear Test Unlike what you implied ("[NK] claimed it was pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes ... until one day when they tested their first bomb"), the NYT says NK said they were pursuing a weapons program at least three years before they did their first tests. Iran does not fit that profile. It is a member of the IAEA and admits inspections. The reports are at http://www.iranwatch.org/authoring-agency/iaea-report http://www.iranwatch.org/authoring-agency/iaea-report . Similarly, if you're going to make comparisons, I can point to reports about the nuclear and biological weapons capabilities in Iraq, including the aluminum tubes supposedly only used to enrich uranium, or the "significant quantities of uranium from Africa" that Iraq supposedly bought, or how Iraq needed only "45 minutes" in order to prepare its chemical weapons. All of which turned out to be false, but which were used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Why is North Korea a better comparison than Iraq, enough to "sweep aside" any objection of mine? Everything you have said about Iran was true 10 and 20 years ago. What has changed to warrant bombing now, that wasn't true then?

maxharris 12y ago
I asked what changed with respect to Iran Iran is closer to the bomb than they were before. such that bombing the country is appropriate now when it wasn't appropriate earlier Isn't this a bit presumptuous? Dealing with rogue nuclear programs are a bit like dealing with cancer - if you start surgery earlier, your odds of success are greater. We've been giving Iran a pass on terror for decades. For example, in 1983, Iran bombed a Marine Corps base in Beirut, killing 241 marines, 58 French paratroopers, as well as 6 civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing Rather than retyping everything, here's a huge wikipedia page on Iran's terrorist activities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terror...
- dalke 12y ago
  Like I said, in the 1980s people said that Iran was only a few years away from a nuclear bomb. In the 1990s, people said that Iran was only a few years away from a bomb. Why should I believe you that they are closer now, when all those previous predictions have proven false? The premise behind the nuclear non-proliferation treaties is that it's possible for a country to developer nuclear power and nuclear medicine facilities without being on the path to nuclear weapons. The inspection regime under those treaties has (as you and others say) failed with Iran. If what you are saying is true, then the NPT has failed. Inspections are insufficient to provide oversight. Why and how have they failed? Are there any other countries which have circumvented those inspections under the NPT? And as for "rogue nuclear programs", I am not confident that there is a nuclear weapons program in Iran. The information I've read sounds like it's the same quality of information that lead people to say that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. But even so, let's look at other "rogue programs" and see if they have gone cancerous. (Mind you, some cancers are benign, so your analogy isn't that good to start with.) Apartheid-era South Africa developed its nuclear technology in secret. We didn't bomb them. They dismantled their program, and became signatories of the NPT. Israel is suspected to have nuclear weapons, and is certainly capable of developing them. It has an official policy of being ambiguous. It's believed they contributed weapons development information to South Africa. Do you call that program a "cancer" that needs to be excised? BTW, Israel is not a party to the NPT. NBC reported that Israel funded the M.E.K - designated a terrorist group by the United States - to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/israel-and-proxy-terrorism/252971/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/isr... . How much state sponsored terrorism is acceptable before a country goes rogue? (And if MEK pays off enough US Members of Congress, can they be removed from the list?) The Soviet Union had a whole lot of nuclear weapons and were state sponsors of terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Soviet_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Sovie... . Why weren't they "rogue"? (If they were rogue, why didn't we bomb them? Oh, right - because they could hurt us back. That's also why we don't bomb North Korea; they have a lot of weapons pointed at South Korea. We prefer to bomb or invade those countries that don't have their knife on someone 's throat. Which gives perverse incentive for a country to develop nuclear weapons, if they don't want to be under the thumb of the US.) Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_te... . They have nuclear weapons and are not signatory to the NPT. They used to be on the US 'list of countries which repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism' until we needed them to fight the War on Terror, when they conveniently became good guys. It's reported that North Korea bribed top military officials in Pakistan to get access to nuclear weapons information: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pakistans-nuclear-bomb-maker-says-north-korea-paid-bribes-for-know-how/2010/11/12/gIQAZ1kH1H_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pakist... Pakistan has a rogue nuclear weapons program, is a state sponsor of regional terrorism, and doesn't protect its secrets that well. Why don't we bomb them? Based on this, it appears that all Iran needs to do is fall in line with the US military interests and it will no longer be rogue. Is that right? If not, what does Iran need to do to have a non-rogue nuclear program, in the same way that Pakistan does not have a 'rogue nuclear program' that justifies bombing? "Iran's terrorist activities" is besides the point. The question is if they have a nuclear weapons program. Famously, chemical weapons weren't used in WWII, but heavily used in WWI. It is possible to be the harshest of enemies, at active war with them, and still think that some weapons are outside the pale.