BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:01 PM

Note: Plutonium does not need to be enriched to be usable in weapons- the isotopes that are created in a reactor will be weapons-grade when they are separated from the other elements ( chemically) in the used fuel rods.





Iran tests its first nuclear power plant
      

Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 39 mins ago

BUSHEHR, Iran – Iranian and Russian technicians are conducting a test run of Iran's first nuclear power plant, officials said Wednesday, a major step toward launching full operations at the facility, which has long raised worried the U.S. and its allies.

At the same time, Iran claimed another advance in its controversial nuclear program: The number of centrifuges operating at its uranium enrichment plant has increased to 6,000, the country's nuclear chief said — up from 5,000 in November.

His announcement was the latest defiance of United Nations' demands that Tehran suspend its enrichment program because of fears it could be used to produce material for a warhead. Iran denies it seeks to build a nuclear bomb, saying its program aims only to generate electricity.

The United States has been worried over the nuclear plant at the southern port city of Bushehr because it fears Iran will reprocess the spent reactor fuel into plutonium, a potential material for a nuclear bomb. Russia has helped build the facility and is providing it enriched uranium fuel, and for a time Washington pressured Moscow to stop its assistance.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 12:23 PM

"No part of Mandate Palestine was ever given to Jews to be a Jewish state prior to the partition plan."


CarolC,

No part of Mandate Palestine was supposed to be given to Moslims to be a Moslim state, but Great Britain did so, in 1923. The remainder of Mandate Palestine should have the same rights as given to the 77% where a Moslim Homeland was set up- There should have been a ban on all Moslim settlement within the declared Jewish Homeland ( the 23% WEST of the Jordan).

Since the UN Partition plan was NOT accepted by the Arab nations, and they went to war over it, there is NO reason for Israel to accept that partition as a limit to it's borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:47 AM

Just trying to get their old "blackmail" game going again Amos. Since your last administration stuck to the plan of involving all interested parties in six party talks North Korea has been feeling the draft.

The US does not have to worry about North Korea, Japan might, South Korea might, but if North Korea even thinks about starting anything it will be China that will bring them to heel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:24 AM

Korea (Northern) is presently desperate, cannot feeds its own people, and is planning to test an ICBM. That's a well-thought out plan, you betcha.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:14 AM

All been hashed out elsewhere but CarolC's last post:

"No part of Mandate Palestine was ever given to Jews to be a Jewish state prior to the partition plan. Jews were to be able to make their home in the area that was allotted for that purpose, but they were not supposed to make a Jewish state there."

Very true up until the Peel Commission's Report of 1937 where after 16 years of unprovoked Arab attacks Jews in Palestine the British Government finally concluded that the two groups could not co-exist peacefully in one state. This was in the middle of what was known to the Arabs of Palestine as the "Great Revolt". From that date forward the plan was always for a two-state solution. The Peel Commission proposals were taken further by the United Nations who presented their own version of it in 1947. the Jews accepted it, the Arabs rejected it.

"All of the Arabs in all of Mandate Palestine were supposed to be able to remain where they were and to be co-equals with any Jews who chose to make their home there."

Again true CarolC, those Arabs who wanted to stay in what was going to become Israel were quite at liberty to stay. But Arab rejection of the UN Partition Plan of 1947 resulted in a war. Had the Arabs accepted the plan in 1947, there would have been no displaced people, which means today there would be no "Right of return" issue to settle, and the Arabs would have everything they say they are fighting for now.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:50 AM

No part of Mandate Palestine was ever given to Jews to be a Jewish state prior to the partition plan. Jews were to be able to make their home in the area that was allotted for that purpose, but they were not supposed to make a Jewish state there. All of the Arabs in all of Mandate Palestine were supposed to be able to remain where they were and to be co-equals with any Jews who chose to make their home there.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:46 AM

From a link I posted earlier...


"Israel has modified American-supplied cruise missiles to carry nuclear warheads on submarines, giving the Middle East's only nuclear power the ability to launch atomic weapons from land, air and beneath the sea, according to senior Bush administration and Israeli officials.

The previously undisclosed submarine capability bolsters Israel's deterrence in the event that Iran – an avowed enemy – develops nuclear weapons. It also complicates efforts by the United States and the United Nations to persuade Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program.

Two Bush administration officials described the missile modification and an Israeli official confirmed it. All three spoke on condition their names not be used...

...The consensus in the U.S. intelligence community and among outside experts is that Israel, with possibly 200 nuclear weapons, has the fifth- or sixth-largest arsenal in the world...

... The U.S. sold Israel F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, both of which can be used to deliver nuclear bombs or missiles. In the 1960s, the French helped Israel develop its first generation of Jericho missiles and the Israelis had built a longer-range Jericho II by the mid-1980s.

The Jericho I and II are equipped with nuclear warheads, and satellite photos indicate that many are hidden in limestone caves southeast of Tel Aviv, near the town of Zachariah, which is Hebrew for "God remembers with vengeance.""

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: cobra
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:31 AM

Dear BRUCE OF THE BEARD,

I find your use of CAPITALS (selective) EXTREMELY ANNOYING. Why do you do this? I also find that your predilection to mix arguments verges on the disingenuous. You have been asked on a number of occasions to articulate the reasons why Palestinian / Israeli problems PERSIST. What I have gathered from your response is that you justify the existence of Israel on the basis that the "VICTORIOUS ALLIES" authorised it. Not once do you even nod towards a possibility that there may be reasonable Palestinian cause for HOSTILITY towards an overbearing and aggressive neighbour which sidesteps UN mandates apparently at will.

Of course, it is always POSSIBLE that I have missed something more ENLIGHTENED in your contributions. Truth to tell, I find it very difficult to STAY AWAKE when reading your RANTS. That is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 08:18 PM

CarolC:"The Jews were given the right to have a homeland within a certain area, but they were not supposed to make a Jewish state within that area, and Palestinians were also supposed to have their homeland within that area as well, and they were supposed to have a right to self-determination in that area."


beardedbruce:"MANDATE PALESTINE was to be the Jewish Homeland. 77% of that Mandate was given to the Arabs, to be their Homeland."

So, TransJordan WAS given to the Palestinian Arabs Moslims as a homeland. What was left was supposed to be the Jewish Homeland.

Unless you are saying that the Moslims get a homeland ( where Jews were NOT alowed to live), and Jews do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 08:09 PM

"plus Israel's possession of weapons systems that are only useful as delivery systems for nuclear weapons,"


Such as? there are NO systems that are ONLY used for nuclear weapons.

If you are going to say that IRBM missiles are only useful for nuclear weapons, well, Iran has several versions of them... If Israeli IRBMs are evidence of nuclear weapons, then Iranian IRBMs ( of greater range!) are certainly equal evidence. And specifically, of NON-PEACEFUL use.



" and also things that have no purpose outside of their use in a nuclear weapons program "

You mena like the equipment that Iran has, for use in it's "peaceful" nuclear program???

Why do you insist that Iran has only peaceful nuclear programs, when it has the same level of evidence that you claim proves Israeli weapons?


Further proof of your double standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 06:08 PM

The CIA has said many times that Israel is a nuclear armed country. If Israel got its nuclear technology from another country, it would not be necessary for them to test it to know that it works. And there are still many scientists whose professional opinion is that Israel tested a nuclear weapon in the Indian Ocean with South Africa.

That, plus Israel's possession of weapons systems that are only useful as delivery systems for nuclear weapons, and also things that have no purpose outside of their use in a nuclear weapons program is the reason that most governments in the world acknowledge that Israel is a nuclear armed state.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 06:03 PM

It is a lie to say that the area that is now Israel was given in the mandate to the Jews to be their homeland. The Jews were given the right to have a homeland within a certain area, but they were not supposed to make a Jewish state within that area, and Palestinians were also supposed to have their homeland within that area as well, and they were supposed to have a right to self-determination in that area.

Regardless of whether or not Arabs (Muslim or Christian) didn't agree to the partition plan that does not, and did not, give Israel the right to take any more land than what they were given in the partition plan. The only land they were ever given a right to have by any outside authority was the land they were given in the partition plan, and that land was a fraction of the land they now control.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:59 PM

"I don't see why we need to know exactly when and where Israel conducted its test(s) (at least those of us here in this thread), or even why Israel would have needed to conduct a test of its own."

Now let's see CarolC, every country on this planet that definitely has nuclear weapons has tested them - the superpowers many times over. There is a very good reason for that - you need to know that "yours" works, that is why Israel would have to conduct a test and so far it apparently hasn't.

"We know Israel has them."

No, not exactly, it is generally assumed that Israel has "them".

"I expect that the question of whether or not Israel conducted tests is a bit of a diversionary tactic anyway."

No CarolC I asked a perfectly valid question, as can be clearly documented all countries with nuclear weapons have conducted tests. So why hasn't Israel??

"Israel was getting a lot of help from nuclear armed countries in the development of their weapons, so it's entirely possible that they could produce working nuclear weapons without ever having to conduct a test of their own (the tests having been done by the countries that developed the weapons that Israel was producing)."

Wow post 1968/1972 depending upon which countries you are talking about that is one hell of an accusation. Which doesn't wash, as I said you need to know as an imperitive that the weapon you are relying on for ultimate defence or detterence works. The Israelis are the last nation on earth that would trust another country to do that on their behalf. How do they know that the weapon being tested is their design?? They don't, there would be no way of telling. The first five have done multiple tests with their designs and I believe that certainly the US has so much data from their tests that they can now mathematically model tests without firing a weapon - The Israelis do not have that data so are therefore unable to perform the modelling with any degree of certainty of validity of the model.

That is why I'd like to hear, from those who insist that Israel is a rogue state in the middle-east because of its nuclear weapons, when it tested them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:57 PM

Arabs were under no obligation to allow people from another part of the world take away their right to self determination.

The Treaty ending WW I between the Ottoman Empire, which had control of the Arab region, and the victorious Allies determined that MANDATE PALESTINE was to be the Jewish Homeland. 77% of that Mandate was given to the Arabs, to be their Homeland.





And Israel did not have any right, even under any of the agreements it signed, to take any more land than it was granted by the UN in the partition plan.

The UN partition plan was NEVER accepted by the Arab nations.- the LAST accepted borders are those of 1923.




Iran has not refused to admit inspectors.

FALSE, according to the IAEA.



The inspectors are there, doing their job of inspecting.

No, they and their instruments were removed for a time- during which the Iranisans moved equipment and material to "unknown locations"



That's how they know that the concentrations levels of the uranium aren't sufficient for making nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:52 PM

Arabs were under no obligation to allow people from another part of the world take away their right to self determination. And Israel did not have any right, even under any of the agreements it signed, to take any more land than it was granted by the UN in the partition plan.

Iran has not refused to admit inspectors. The inspectors are there, doing their job of inspecting. That's how they know that the concentrations levels of the uranium aren't sufficient for making nuclear weapons.

The person who habitually is accusing me of being anti-Jewish is covering up the agenda of the Israeli government to use the military of the United States (or its own military if needed, that is paid for with money from US taxpayers) to establish an empire in the Middle East that has nothing whatever to do with defense, and everything to do with not wanting there to be any viable powerful states in that part of the world besides itself. The only bigotry on display here is coming from the supremacist who believes that only Jews have a right to a secure state in the Middle East, and that all other countries in that region should be subordinate to the state of Israel.

This is the cause of most of the tension in the Middle East today, and for this reason, it is this particular supremacist who is jeopardizing the safety of the Jews of the world and not me.

When German supremacism caused enough people in the world to feel threatened, the world responded. Israel's Jewish supremacism is causing increasing numbers of people in the rest of the world to feel threatened. Unlike the state of Israel, which wants to prevent all of the other countries in the region from having self-determination, and unlike the person who constantly accuses others of double standards, and who wants an entirely different standard applied to Israel than to any other country in the world, what I propose is that Israel simply be held to the same standard as everyone else (for the first time in its history).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:32 PM

clarification:

....between the Arab Moslim Homeland of TransJordan, the 77% of Mandate Palestine to the east of the Jordan River where no Jews were allowed to settle, and the Jewish Homeland of Palestine (Israel), the 23% of Mandate Palestine to the West of the Jordan, including the West bank and Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:26 PM

More of the double standard at work.



You mean that if we allow Israel the right to self defense, they might not be wiped out by the Arab nations? Horrors- How can we allow that~!

As I have stated, without any contrary indications,


Since the Arab nations did NOT agree to the borders of the 1948 partition, the LAST set of Internationally recognized borders are the 1923 ones, between the Arab Moslim Homeland of TransJordan, and the Jewish Homeland of Palestine.

All subsequent borders are the result of warfare, and if the present borders are to be rejected since they include "occupied" territory, then those ( 1948, 1956, 1967, 1974) borders must also be rejected-

If it is wrong for Israel to keep land acquired in 1967 by military force, it is EQUALLY wrong for the Arab states to keep land occupied by military force- the West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza- All a part of the 1923 Jewish Homeland, occupied by Jordan in 1948. The present peace treaty between Israel and Jordan acknowledges the border as the River Jordan ( except for a few small adjustments. )

So, I expect you will join me in calling for the removal of all Arab Moslims to their Homeland, TransJordan, and the restoration of the West Bank and Gaza to Israel.

Anything else shows a double standard, that Israel cannot keep the land acquired by war, but the Arab nations can.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:16 PM

"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968."


"A secret agreement with the French government in 1956 helped Israel build a plutonium nuclear reactor. France and Israel were natural partners then; they had been allies with Britain in a brief attempt to seize the Suez Canal after Egypt nationalized it and had shared concerns about the Soviets and unrest in North Africa."


Even YOU, CarolC, should recognize that a treaty signed AFTER 1968 does NOT control actions on and about 1956.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:13 PM

Well, France certainly violated its commitment to the NPT in assisting Israel's acquisition of a nuclear weapon.

NO. At the time that France assisted Israel, it had NOT signed the NPT.




While Iran says it is not trying to produce a nuclear weapon. It says, quite rightly, that the NPT gives Iran the right to develop nuclear technology for the purpose of producing energy, and it is entitled to enrich uranium for this purpose.

ONLY under the guidelines and restrictions ( monitoring) of the IAEA that Iran rejected.




The concentration levels that they are able to achieve with their centrifuges is proof that they are not capable of producing weapons grade uranium.


False statement. The fact that they can produce the low level enrichment and have the additional centrifuges is proof that they CAN produce weapons grade fissionable material.




Iran is the only NPT country whose right to nuclear energy is being challenged,

No other signatory has rejected the IAEA inspections.



while France has not been sanctioned for its violation of the NPT.

Since it has no such violations, how can it be sanctioned??????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:08 PM

Well, France certainly violated its commitment to the NPT in assisting Israel's acquisition of a nuclear weapon. While Iran says it is not trying to produce a nuclear weapon. It says, quite rightly, that the NPT gives Iran the right to develop nuclear technology for the purpose of producing energy, and it is entitled to enrich uranium for this purpose. The concentration levels that they are able to achieve with their centrifuges is proof that they are not capable of producing weapons grade uranium. Iran is the only NPT country whose right to nuclear energy is being challenged, while France has not been sanctioned for its violation of the NPT. More of the double standard at work.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:52 PM

The third pillar allows for and agrees upon the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to NPT signatory countries for the development of civilian nuclear energy programs in those countries, as long as they can demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.

Note it is the responsiibility of the signatory state to "demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons."

FAILURE to demonstrate this is reason for the sanctions against Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:49 PM

CarolC,

non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS)


NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). VIOLATED BY IRAN

NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III). VIOLATED BY IRAN

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:32 PM

The failure of the Arab nations to acknowledge the right for Israel to exist in 1948.


Since the Arab nations did NOT agree to the borders of the 1948 partition, the LAST set of Internationally recognized borders are the 1923 ones, between the Arab Moslim Homeland of TransJordan, and the Jewish Homeland of Palestine.

http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Graphics/Maps/PartitionforTransJordan.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:29 PM

The third pillar allows for and agrees upon the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to NPT signatory countries for the development of civilian nuclear energy programs in those countries, as long as they can demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.

Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactors for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT under Article IV provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons.

The treaty recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but restricts this right for NPT parties to be exercised "in conformity with Articles I and II" (the basic nonproliferation obligations that constitute the "first pillar" of the Treaty). As the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station uses enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be able either to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has called the spread of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities the "Achilles' heel" of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. As of 2007 13 states have an enrichment capability.[11] Because the availability of fissile material has long been considered the principal obstacle to, and "pacing element" for, a country's nuclear weapons development effort, it was declared a major emphasis of U.S. policy in 2004 to prevent the further spread of uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing (a.k.a. "ENR") technology. [12] Countries possessing ENR capabilities, it is feared, have what is in effect the option of using this capability to produce fissile material for weapons use on demand, thus giving them what has been termed a "virtual" nuclear weapons program. The degree to which NPT members have a "right" to ENR technology notwithstanding its potentially grave proliferation implications, therefore, is at the cutting edge of policy and legal debates surrounding the meaning of Article IV and its relation to Articles I, II, and III of the Treaty.

Countries that have signed the treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapons States and maintained that status have an unbroken record of not building nuclear weapons. However, Iraq was cited by the IAEA and sanctioned by the UN Security Council for violating its NPT safeguards obligations; North Korea never came into compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and was cited repeatedly for these violations,[13] and later withdrew from the NPT and tested a nuclear device; Iran was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards obligations in an unusual non-consensus decision because it "failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time" to report aspects of its enrichment program;[14][15] and Libya pursued a clandestine nuclear weapons program before abandoning it in December 2003. In 1991 Romania reported previously undeclared nuclear activities by the former regime and the IAEA reported this non-compliance to the Security Council for information only. In some regions, the fact that all neighbors are verifiably free of nuclear weapons reduces any pressure individual states might feel to build those weapons themselves, even if neighbors are known to have peaceful nuclear energy programs that might otherwise be suspicious. In this, the treaty works as designed.

Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said that by some estimates thirty-five to forty states could have the knowledge to acquire nuclear weapons.[16

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:28 PM

BRuce:

Do you think Israel should subscribe to the Non-Proliferation Treaty? I can see why it would think it a bad idea, seeing itself as surrounded by fundamentally hostile nations.

But this raises another question. What do you believe are the root causes between Israel and the Arab nations for the recurring hostility in the region over the last sixty years or so?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:26 PM

Many???


5, the ones that HAD them WHEN they signed.

Have you ever even looked at the NPT, and tried to understand what it said?

It appears that you do not understand the NPT in the least.

"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. There are currently 189 countries party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China (the permanent members of the UN Security Council).

Only four recognized sovereign states are not parties to the treaty: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and possess nuclear weapons. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew.

The treaty was proposed by Ireland, and Finland was the first to sign. The signing parties decided by consensus to extend the treaty indefinitely and without conditions upon meeting in New York City on May 11, 1995. The NPT consists of a preamble and eleven articles. Although the concept of "pillars" appears nowhere in the NPT, the treaty is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as having three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.[1]"

"First pillar: non-proliferation
Five states are recognized by the NPT as nuclear weapon states (NWS): France (signed 1992), the People's Republic of China (1992), the Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights now assumed by Russia), the United Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968) (The U.S., UK, and Soviet Union were the only states openly possessing such weapons among the original ratifiers of the treaty, which entered into force in 1970). These five nations are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These five NWS agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I). NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III).

The five NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The U.S. also had nuclear warheads targeted at North Korea, a non-NWS state, from 1959 until 1991. The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states"[4]. In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:23 PM

Also, because Israel refuses to acknowledge its nuclear weapons, it does not get pressured by countries like the US to sign on to the NPT, unlike the other nuclear countries that are not currently signatories. But the US knows that Israel has nuclear weapons and it doesn't openly acknowledge this and use that acknowledgment as a basis for pressuring Israel to sign the NPT and so the US is therefore practicing a double standard in that way as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:16 PM

There are many countries who are signatories to the NPT that have nuclear weapons.


To the extent that Israel complains about Iran having nuclear weapons, it is applying a double standard as well. Because it has no business complaining about countries that have signed an agreement that it refuses to sign itself.

I should modify what I said in my last post. To the extent that Jews are in agreement with Israeli policies, they are advantaged by the double standard. Those Jews who are not in agreement with Israel's policies are disadvantaged by the double standard along with everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:05 PM

"Well, we didn't sanction Israel for doing that, so it would be a double standard for us to sanction Iran for doing that."

Israel IS NOT A SIGNATORY TO THE NPT.

The Iranian violation of the NPT is the reason for the sactions.

Isreael HAS NOT VIOLATED THE NPT.

And it is not "We", but the UN that is sanctioning Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:02 PM

Well, we didn't sanction Israel for doing that, so it would be a double standard for us to sanction Iran for doing that.

Despite someone's repeated assertion of a double standard penalizing Jews, I would say that there is definitely a double standard that is being applied, and that it advantages Jews (Israel in particular) and disadvantages those who are not Jews or Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:55 PM

And only those tricky Jews can do that?

As I said, it has the SAME validity as your cliams of Iranian PEACEFUL nuclear programs.


Nor MORE, OR LESS.

So what do you want to say?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:53 PM

That information is rather dated. They know now (because Mordechai Vanunu produced pictures of it) that the inspectors were only allowed to view the above ground part of the facility, and that the important activity took place underground. The entrances to the underground areas were concealed from the inspectors.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:37 PM

"In December 1960, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion told the Israeli parliament that a nuclear reactor was under construction, but he said it was exclusively for peaceful purposes.

It was the first and last time that an Israeli prime minister made a public statement about Dimona, according to "Israel and the Bomb," an authoritative book by Avner Cohen, an Israeli American scholar.

Soon after taking office in 1961, President Kennedy pressured Israel to allow an inspection. Ben Gurion agreed, and an American team visited the installation that May.

A post-visit U.S. memo said the scientists were "satisfied that nothing was concealed from them and that the reactor is of the scope and peaceful character previously described to the United States."
"

And this is as much PROOF of Israel's peaceful use of nuclear material as Iran's claims that it's ( illegal) programs are for peaceful purposes. IF you claim Israel has nuclear weapons, you are saying that Iran could also be developing them, contrary to their previous claims.

Or do you still apply different standards to Jews than you do to others???

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:19 PM

I don't see why we need to know exactly when and where Israel conducted its test(s) (at least those of us here in this thread), or even why Israel would have needed to conduct a test of its own. We know Israel has them. I expect that the question of whether or not Israel conducted tests is a bit of a diversionary tactic anyway. Israel was getting a lot of help from nuclear armed countries in the development of their weapons, so it's entirely possible that they could produce working nuclear weapons without ever having to conduct a test of their own (the tests having been done by the countries that developed the weapons that Israel was producing).


Israel's nuclear submarines


Some background...

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/593/5545.php


Sale of heavy water to Israel by the UK...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4743987.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:27 PM

CarolC,


"- United States Air Force WC-135B aircraft flew 25 sorties in the area soon after, but failed to detect any sign of radiation"


So the Israelis have a nuclear weapon that does not leave any residual radiation?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:02 PM

CarolC,

Let us suppose you are correct:

"
- Since the fall of apartheid, South Africa has disclosed most of the information on its nuclear weapons program, and according to the subsequent International Atomic Energy Agency report, South Africa could not have constructed such a device until November 1979, two months after the incident.

- The IAEA reported that all South African nuclear devices had been accounted for when it monitored South Africa's abandonment of it's nuclear programme."



This is proof that the IAEA is wrong in regards to that test- So how can we trust that they are wrong OR right in regards to Iran having fissionable material? Your arguement rests upon the assumption that the IAEA cannot be depended upon for accurate information.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:20 AM

What were the Los Alamos National Laboratory scientists and others in the US intelligence community reaction to Aziz Pahad's statement that he had been misquoted?

I would also have thought that to conduct a nuclear test you would need some nuclear material. South Africa's stocks were all accounted for and assessments state that they couldn't have conducted such a test until two months after the Vela "Flash" reports. That leaves us with the possibility that if indeed the satellite did detect a nuclear test it was a small Israeli nuke that was tested, using Israeli material to a South African design?? That would also explain why no South African naval vessels were used and confirms that Commodore Dieter Gerhardt hadn't a clue about the test that he stated happened.

Likely? No, it could not have been conducted without extensive monitoring facilities being put in place. Deep in the South Atlantic/Indian Ocean, Israel just simply does not have the logistics to mount such an operation. It would have required the assistance of the South African Navy and there would have been some record of that.

Israel goes nuclear in 1958 and waits until 1979 to conduct a test?? Why?? It would have served Israel's interests to have conducted a "secret" test in a drilled shaft in the Negev in the 1960's - That would have stopped Nasser in his tracks pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:56 AM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/nuke-test.htm

"In addition to detection satellites, the United States maintains a global network for detecting other atomic explosion phenomena, including sound waves, seismic shock waves traveling through Earth, and hydroacoustic pulses traversing Earth's oceans. Of these, the best data were from the hydroacoustic signals collected on devices called hydrophones. The hydrophone data indicated signals both from a direct path and from a reflection of the Antarctic's Scotia Ridge. Analyses of these signals conducted by the Naval Research Laboratory confirmed that they had been generated at a time and location consistent with the Vela 6911 detection and that their intensity was consistent with a small nuclear explosion on, or slightly under, the ocean's surface.

More evidence came from a Los Alamos researcher using a radio telescope for an unrelated project in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, detected a traveling ionospheric disturbance - a ripple in Earth's upper atmosphere - moving south to north during the early morning hours of September 22, 1979, something researchers had never before witnessed.

But such evidence was discounted by the White House panel.

In 1979, this analysis had been vigorously challenged by the Carter administration. The challenge was driven by a general mistrust in aging satellites and an unwillingness to accept the efficacy of other evidence. Instead, the Carter administration assembled a panel of scientists from academia to review the data. After their review, the panel concluded that, lacking independent collaborative data to support a nuclear origin of the signals, the original interpretation of the satellite data could not be justified. The panel said the flash could have been caused by a combination of natural events, specifically a micrometeorite impact on the detector sunshade, followed by small particles ejected as a result of the impact.

But Los Alamos scientists were not dissuaded. "The whole federal laboratory community came to the conclusion that the data indicated a bomb," Los Alamos scientist Dave Simons said. "But in the administration's view, because the evidence was weak, they took exception to the information and our analysis. ... It was unsettling because we were quite thoroughly convinced of our interpretation," Simons said.

Los Alamos scientists remained convinced that the flash was a nuclear detonation and invested substantial effort in analyzing the signal. Subsequently, Los Alamos researchers published an unclassified paper describing the characteristics of optical signals caused by nuclear explosions.

In February 1980, CBS News was the first to suggest that Israel helped South Africa conduct a nuclear test. CBS received information from "informed sources," but until now, no South African government official was willing to lend the report any credibility.

In 1981 TIROS-N plasma data and related geophysical data measured on 22 September 1979 were analyzed by Los Alamos to determine whether the electron precipitation event detected by TIROS-N at 00:54:49 universal time could have been related to a surface nuclear burst (SNB). The occurrence of such a burst was inferred from light signals detected by two Vela bhangmeters approx. 2 min before the TIROS-N event. The precipitation was found to be unusually large but not unique. It probably resulted from passage of TIROS-N through The precipitating electrons above a pre-existing auroral arc that may have brightened to an unusually high intensity from natural causes approx. 3 min before the Vela signals. On the other hand, no data were found that were inconsistent with the SNB interpretation of the 22 September Vela observations. In fact, a patch of auroral light that suddenly appeared in the sky near Syowa Base, Antarctica a few seconds after the Vela event can be interpreted (though not uniquely) as a consequence of the electromagnetic pulse of an SNB.

In an 20 April 1997 article that appeared in the Israeli Ha'aretz Daily Newspaper, South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad confirmed for the first time that a flare over the Indian Ocean detected by an American satellite in September 1979 was from a nuclear test. This statement was confirmed by the American Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa, as an accurate account of what Pahad officially acknowledged. The article said that Israel helped South Africa develop its bomb designs in return for 550 tons of raw uranium and other assistance.

With Pahad's revelation, Los Alamos National Laboratory scientists said this controversy can at last reach closure. Original analyses conducted by Los Alamos scientists and others in the US intelligence community said the flash could only be from a nuclear test. Now, their studies had been vindicated."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:21 AM

Ah the "Vela" incident an unidentified double flash of light detected by a United States Vela satellite on September 22, 1979.

Discounted after extensive investigation for the following reasons:

- Although a double flash was detected there was a discrepancy in bhangmeter readings.

- The satellite was old and two years past it's "sell-by-date" its EMP sensors were no longer functioning.

- United States Air Force WC-135B aircraft flew 25 sorties in the area soon after, but failed to detect any sign of radiation.

- There was no corroborating seismic or hydro-acoustic data.

- A special panel was convened to examine the data recorded by the satellite. The panel's report stated "Based on our experience in related scientific assessments," it was their collective judgement that the signal was spurious.

- The "explosion" (Flash) was picked up by only one of the two Vela satellites which seems to support the panel's assertion. The Vela satellites had previously detected 41 atmospheric tests, each of which was subsequently confirmed by other means. The absence of corroboration of a nuclear origin for the Vela Incident also suggests that the signal was spurious.

- Since the fall of apartheid, South Africa has disclosed most of the information on its nuclear weapons program, and according to the subsequent International Atomic Energy Agency report, South Africa could not have constructed such a device until November 1979, two months after the incident.

- The IAEA reported that all South African nuclear devices had been accounted for when it monitored South Africa's abandonment of it's nuclear programme.

- In February 1994 Commodore Dieter Gerhardt, a convicted Soviet spy and commander of South Africa's Simon's Town naval base at the time, talked about the incident upon his release from prison. He said:

"Although I was not directly involved in planning or carrying out the operation, I learned unofficially that the flash was produced by an Israeli-South African test, code-named Operation Phenix. The explosion was clean and was not supposed to be detected. But they were not as smart as they thought, and the weather changed – so the Americans were able to pick it up."

He subsequently admitted that no South African naval vessels had been involved, and that he had no first hand knowledge of a test.

- On April 20, 1997, the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, quoted South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad as confirming that the flash over the Indian Ocean was indeed from a South African nuclear test. Soon afterwards Pahad reported that he had been misquoted and that he was merely repeating the rumours that had been circulating for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:05 AM

http://rabbibrant.com/2009/02/23/the-jews-of-iran-beyond-the-rhetoric/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/opinion/23cohen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 10:59 PM

NKorea says it is preparing satellite launch
         
Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer – 19 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea said Tuesday it is in full-fledged preparations to shoot a satellite into orbit, its clearest reference yet to an impending launch, which neighbors and the U.S. believe will be an illicit test of a long-range missile.

The statement from the North's space technology agency came amid international concern the communist nation is gearing up to fire its most advanced Taepodong-2 missile, which would violate a U.N. Security Council resolution.

Last week, the country said it has the right to "space development." North Korea has in the past used terms like "space development" or "satellite" to disguise a missile test. When it test-fired a Taepodong-1 ballistic missile over Japan in 1998, it claimed to have put a satellite into orbit.

"Full-fledged preparations are under way to launch the pilot communications satellite Kwangmyongsong No. 2" at the launch site in Hwadae in the country's northeast, the North's agency said in a statement, carried by Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency.

Hwadae is widely believed to be the launch site for the North's longest-range Taepodong-2 missile, which is believed capable of reaching Alaska. Media reports have suggested the missile being readied for launch could be an advanced version of the Taepodong-2 that could reach even farther, to the U.S. west coast.

South Korea, Japan and the United States have warned Pyongyang not to fire a missile, saying the move would trigger international sanctions and jeopardize Washington's willingness to improve relations with the communist nation.

North Korea is banned from any ballistic missile activity under a U.N. Security Council resolution adopted after the North's first-ever nuclear test in 2006.

North Korea's missile program is a major security concern for the region, along with its nuclear weapons development.

The country test-launched a Taepodong-2 missile in 2006, but it plunged into the ocean shortly after liftoff.

That test alarmed the world and gave new energy to the stop-and-go diplomacy over North Korea's nuclear program, though the North is not yet believed to have mastered the miniaturization technology required to put a nuclear warhead on a missile.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 06:22 PM

Most likely in the southern Indian Ocean in 1979, jointly with South Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 06:15 PM

One question, for all those who talk about nuclear weapons and so and so nuking whoever.

Israel's nuclear programme started in 1958, a good 10 years before the Nuclear NPT was proposed by Ireland at the UN. At that time the established "nuclear" powers, i.e. those who already had nuclear weapons conducted atmospheric tests.

Of the countries that were not signatories of the Nuclear NPT first India developed its nuclear weapon and conducted an underground test, so it knows it has a bomb that works.

This was followed by Pakistan who developed its nuclear weapon and conducted an underground test, so Pakistan also knows it has a bomb that works.

Next one down the line was North Korea who withdrew from the nuclear NPT having ignored its terms and conditions and developed its nuclear weapon and conducted an underground test, so we can assume that North Korea knows it has a bomb that works.

My question to all those who talk about Israel's nuclear arsenal and what they are longing to do with it - When did Israel conduct its test of its nuclear weapon?? Its something that you cannot do in secret and in the 60's and 70's it couldn't be done just by modelling it - So when did Israel conduct the testing of its nuclear weapon??

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 06:02 PM

No, Israel would successfully persuade the Western countries that they had to do it pre-emptively because of an existential threat (as they are trying to do now) and the Western countries wouldn't do a thing in response. No non-Western country would do anything in response either, because the US wouldn't allow them to.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:41 PM

I do not believe Israel has the destruction of any nation or genus in its agenda.

I actually do not believe any nation really does, despite the "Death to____" rhetoric that occasionally popos up from the fanatic quarters.

Rhetoric like that is too bizarre and other-worldly to take seriously unless and until some sort of evidence of active pursuit materializes, IMHO.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:38 PM

No. CarolC. If Israel uses nuclear weapons OTHER THAN IN SELF DEFENSE after being attacked by them, that would be the end of the Jewish people.


ANY nation that initiates nuclear warfare will cease to exist. Israel has had nuclear weapons since the late 1960's- WHY do you think they did NOT use them in 1974 ( when the Syrian attack ALMOST succeeded?)?

But IMHO Iran does not believe that they will be destroyed, and WILL use nuclear weapons, either directly or by their Hamas or Hezboallah proxies. Your comments do not provide any reason that they would not.- As for "deterence", the countries that are SAFE from nuclear attack are those that DO NOT HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:22 PM

The difference is that Israel would not be destroyed if it attacked Iran. Israel could attack Iran and accomplish its stated goals of regional hegemony without being destroyed itself. Iran could not attack Israel without being destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:57 PM

"Let's look at what the Iranian government would gain if it tried to nuke Israel....


...nothing. It would gain nothing. It would be destroyed and it would accomplish nothing else. There are many things Iran would probably like to do... becoming a major power in the Middle East is probably one of them. But destroying themselves for nothing doesn't accomplish anything they want."


And please tell me how the exact SAME thing does not apply to Israel??? BY THESE standards, ISRAEL , which would gain nothing and be destroyed, CANNOT be trying to destroy Iran.

Unless you keep applying a different set of rules to Jews than you do to the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:52 PM

Let's look at what the Iranian government would gain if it tried to nuke Israel....






...nothing. It would gain nothing. It would be destroyed and it would accomplish nothing else. There are many things Iran would probably like to do... becoming a major power in the Middle East is probably one of them. But destroying themselves for nothing doesn't accomplish anything they want.

They also feel quite confident that the regime in Israel will be dismantled without any help from them, so they don't really see any need to do anything to remove the regime themselves (thereby destroying themselves in the process).

Hitler only said he was going to kill those he actually intended to kill. Since the Iranians say death to things they clearly have no intention of killing (anything that pisses them off), it is pretty obvious that their use of that term is not similar in any way to Hitler's statement of his intentions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:18 PM

"And there is no evidence that Iran is not complying with the NPT. "



BULLSHIT!!!!!

Just the statements of the UN, the statements of Iran, and the facts of the matter.