people playing: 74, servers online: 23, games played: 142,000,000 Top Player: Imperial

  Toribash Community » General » Discussion
Register FAQ General Rules Community
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Feb 21, 2015   #1
TDCadmin
Junior Member
 
White Belt
Join Date: Jan 2015



[TDC] Nuclear Prohibition?
Housekeeping:
This thread is a part of an initiative by the Toribash Debate Club [TDC] to add fuel to the Discussion board. The TDC aims to educate the masses about the big current events. To boost activity and spread awareness of the TDC, once a week we’ll be posting a topic in the Discussion board, open to everybody for discussion.

As this is a TDC initiative, you are not permitted to insult, ridicule or demean anyone in this thread. Treat other posters with respect. There’s a different, less vicious spirit to TDC threads compared to regular Discussion threads. This said, let’s move on to the topic at hand.
--------------------------------------------------

Nuclear Prohibition?
Recently, there’s been a series of talks between Iran and the P5+1 powers regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions. Iran wants the economic sanctions (imposed for not suspending their nuclear enrichment activities) against them eased and the P5+1 powers want to restrict their enrichment capabilities to ensure that the Iranians are pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes only.

The Obama administration has taken a different tact on Iran with respect to their nuclear program, a good first step at trying something new, since everything else didnt work. You can’t get a 3D understanding of this issue without exploring the history of nuclear non-proliferation.

45 years ago, the countries who had nuclear weapons decided that everybody else can’t have them and they formed an exclusive old boys’ club (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). Everybody else was barred from entering, If you try to get nuclear weapons, then you’d be the new enemy No.1 (this is where Iran was/is). BUT, if you did manage to get them, though, that’s a different story. Rather than being a scrawny kid that could be pushed around, you’d be as buff as anyone else in the playground. What’s the reason why we can stomp all through Iraq, yet can’t set a foot in Russia - Russia have nuclear weapons. When you have nuclear weapons, you become invasion-proof. We incentivise countries that don’t want to be invaded to get this stuff, yet we do everything in our power to paint you as a rogue regime if you try. This naturally creates an unfriendly dynamic between us and whoever the new ‘nuclear kid’ on the block is.

The failure of the NNPT is due to the fact that it’s unenforceable. Keeping nuclear weapons out of states that want them is virtually impossible. Pakistan has them through North Korea. Israel is believed to have hundreds. Any state with the capability to produce nuclear energy can make them/trade them, and any state has the right to produce nuclear energy under one of the ‘three-pillars’ of the NNPT; ‘the right to peacefully use nuclear technology’. We worry about the weapons getting into the hands of the wrong people but the black market already has them. The NNPT is a failure and not pulling the plug on it is only damaging our international relations further.

We want Iran onto our side. Having them, the principal Shiite nation, on our side would be a game-changer. The focus on keeping them from acquiring weapons, depicting their success as tantamount to something like the end of the world, is a force that keeps things the way it is.

Iran is our natural ally in the Middle East. They are a young people, with Western sympathies, that like what the West has to offer and like the idea of more freedoms. When we look at Ahmadinejad, the guy that used to lead Iran before Rouhani, he didn’t look like a guy that we wanted in charge, but if you look at the Iranians themselves, they didn’t like him much either. He’s had to remove secular candidates from elections to prevent the young pro-West populace from voting them in, and he was constantly on the other side of efforts by the people to seek more freedoms. Now Iran has a far more moderate leader, Rouhani, who’s more in tune with the people and looking to improve relations with the West.

“If the Iranian’s are our friends then how come they’ve hated us?” Their rage is very justified. In 1953, because of oil (what else?), we overthrew Iran’s democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh and placed a guy subservient to Western interest named the ‘Shah’ in power. Long story short, the Shah led a very brutal, very oppresive regime. After the Iranian Revolution of 1979, when Khomeini revealed the Shah’s torture rooms and the extent of the atrocities of the regime, widespread national outrage and hatred towards Americans really exploded. From this, you get the creation of the ‘Death to America’ chant and the succeeding Iran hostage crisis. Since then, the Iranian govts. still haven’t really cooled down about all that - but the new generation of Iranians, a generation that doesn’t remember the Shah as much, is more inclined towards positive change.

There’s an old saying in power politics that goes, ‘The strong do what they want, and the weak suffer what they must’. Iran has pretty much been the dominant power in the Middle East since 2200BC. The Iranians are proud of this fact. The existence of this ‘nuclear old boys club’ and our treating them like some lesser, 3rd world nation is insulting and makes enemies from people who should be friends. The way you create friends is by being friendly. Hopefully, these talks are a step in this direction.

If you want to defuse the danger of Iranian WMDs, the best way to do that is to transform them into the kind of country that we wouldn’t fear having nuclear weapons.

tl;dr, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty doesn't work, and continuing to enforce it only worsens diplomacy and relations.

So, what’s everyone's thoughts on the issue - i.e. Iran specifically, nuclear non-proliferation more broadly?

Last edited by TDCadmin; Feb 22, 2015 at 01:53 AM..
TDCadmin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2015   #2
hawkesnightmare
WHERE'S MY DRINK?!
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,637



The NNPT itself isn't a bad concept. Give the members Terms and Conditions to sign without reading, and then try to keep nuclear weapons capabilities out of the hands of the bad guys. Its falling out though, is that either no one can agree on who the bad guys are, or they label everyone as bad guys as soon as they try to get the same sort of defense as the main powers. Iran suffers from the second issue, mainly due to its checkered past. Once the center of the Persian Empire, it controlled lands stretching across what is now Greece, Egypt and east India, rivalling the expanse of the Ottoman Empire at its height. However, as each leader replaced the last, the empire shrank, with various wars chipping away at their territory until the empire was officially retired in 1979 after the Iranian Revolution, and any remaining territory was either split into individual countries or allocated to existing neighbors. Because Iran held much of the Middle East for so long, many countries have either shunned or are hostile towards Iran. Fortunately for Iran, many of these countries are also hostile towards the US, creating an 'enemy of my enemy' relationship.

The US however, refuses to let Iran have nuclear weapons capabilities because there are still large amounts of troops stationed in the Middle East that their conventional weapons systems can reach. As far as I can tell, Iran is just ahead of North Korea in terms of technology advances, and as a result, they are making fast progress to being able to reach US borders with conventional weapons systems. This is scaring the US because of Iran's shady terrorist dealings. And that 'death to America' chant isn't helping. As TDCadmin(Ele) said, that is mostly due to the older population remembering the injustices of the US and wanting them gone.

Fortunately, there is that younger population that doesn't remember/is willing to forgive the US. Because of this, my thoughts are that we should do what we can in terms of keeping Iran from having nuclear capabilities while simultaneously repairing relations until the majority of the old beareaucrats have retired from the system and past prejudices won't have an effect on foreign relations. After that time (~20-30yrs) has passed, then serious talks about reforming Iran and making them friendly can begin.
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’'s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.
hawkesnightmare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2015   #3
ImmortalPig
ub3r
 
Yellow Belt
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,950



The NNPT is a joke. Preaching nuclear disarmament whilst increasing nuclear weapon reserves is hypocrisy at it's finest. No wonder India/Israel/Iran can't take it seriously.

Nuclear armament is part of the broader issue of state military. Optimally, hostile countries would not have any military.

The solution is simple, turn over all military to the authority of the UN (or some other organization), allow self defense (and yes, that means Russia can keep it's defensive nukes) but completely restrict all aggressive actions under the requirement of a UN vote.

Then all you have to do is force everyone to join.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
ImmortalPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2015   #4
Qukslice
Senior Member
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 654



My reply to ImmortalNot only do you have to force everybody to join, you also have to make sure they don't back stab you once they join meaning you have to further worsen relationships between countries by marching your armies through them. Immortal, the problem is, by restricting all aggressive actions(If your plan could even manage to get that far) is that the countries want their own freedom to do whatever they want. It's the reason they want countries. Your practically making your own revolution within 10 years of the plan initiating. Plus, to force all the armies into UN control means World War III since people will fight for the freedom.
The best thing to do at this point is to prepare for nuclear warfare by making defense interceptors and nuclear bunkers. It's way to late to stop nuclear warfare. If The U.S.A wants to go to war over nuclear weapons, go ahead but at least have some sort of way to save your civilians other than evacuations.
Nuclear things in general are bad when they break down. Like the Fukushima plant breakdown. It pretty much destroyed regular life there for millions of years. You can see why the U.S gets spooked at this kind of stuff. However, by going to war, they make things 10 times worse. If they had became a huge threat, then the UN could take serious action but the U.S.A had stepped in too early. What the U.S. should be doing is building there economy or helping Ukraine in their war against Russia. To be honest, I think the whole reason Russia went to war was because The U.S was distracted.

If you don't get my point, I'm saying if the U.S.A would stop stepping into other people's overall advancement, then the NNPT wouldn't have actually be needed. The U.S.A is constantly digging their own grave because they keep creating these stupid wars against people just trying to improve their own country. At the rate this war is going, it'll be never ending. Think about it. Let's say there was a man fighting for Iran. He had two sons. He dies and the two sons want revenge. They have children when they grow older and join the army. They die and then the sons want revenge and the cycle repeats itself over and over and over again. The real problem is the U.S and the government(which as you should know is essentially locked in it's current state since the democrats have the presidency and I believe the senate but the Republicans have have the House of Representatives) and the NNPT, not Iran trying to advance as a country.
Sincerely,
Qukslice
I'm pretty sure this is the most confusing thing i've ever written in my life.
"Who wouldn't pass up gay sex with Bercat?"
"Day is probably masturbating to Osu"- Hydra 2k15
Qukslice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2015   #5
ImmortalPig
ub3r
 
Yellow Belt
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,950



People will fight for the right to wage wars of aggression? It's already an international crime. They already don't have the right to aggression.

The twofold plan of banning wars of aggression and giving control of non-defensive nuclear weapons to the UN means that all UN member states are essentially uninvadable and they themselves are not allowed to invade.

Fukushima is an interesting case, people think the area is totally unlivable, but the radiation levels aren't much above normal (you get more from flying in a plane than from living in the Fukushima exclusion zone). Any source of radiation that takes a long time to decay will obviously not be very radioactive, so fukushima is practically safe. People just have a huge fear of radiation because they don't understand it.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
ImmortalPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2015   #6
Qukslice
Senior Member
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 654



If Aggression is an international crime, why are they letting wars like Russia and Ukraine slide and the war against the U.S.A and ISIS slide. That's aggression. Also, by giving all the armies the UN, your essentially just waiting for it to corrupt. It would be the reason for the revolution. The UN would collapse under it's own greed and corrupt government officials would appear in there place. You see it happen all the time in Brasil when a CEO or even a runner for office is stealing money from the people and/or company. Your just arming that but larger scale. It's better to have many smaller wars instead one huge war(Like World War 1 and 2). Not to mention a civil war(Hey, remember that american civil war. We should try that with 8 BILLIONpeople)Your plan suggests putting 8 billion lives into what will become corrupt officials that will essentially take over governments and control the world. What would happen if we got somebody like Hitler in office somehow. What would we do then if nobody has a force capable of taking out every single offensive army that will have better weapons and more troops than a couple of nukes could take care of. Now tell me. Would you do nothing but grow your economy until you can't grow it no more and have tons and tons of unprotected or very weakly protected land right next to you and not get the temptation to march in their and declare that land yours without a cost. Not a single person would tell you not to so why not. You already beat everybody in the military standpoint anyway. Any resistance is futile(ba dum tsh). The land is practically yours anyway even if it's unofficial. By giving away your army, your giving away your country. No amount of diplomacy or economy will change that. If you have nothing to fight with, how will you fight for what you and your country believe is the best course for human kind. You can't. No written piece of paper is going to stop an army completely in it's tracks. Rules don't do shit in this world. When people do something, they stop themselves because they know what the opposition will do and can plan accordingly. Children stop themselves from fighting because they know what the parents will do. People pay bills because if they don't, they know what will happen. Rules are just warnings. Nothing more. Nothing less.


I know I'm getting sidetracked but your completely wrong about Fukushima. This
evidence also proves that there is nothing living around Fukushima. "His device read 70,000bq/sqm on the gravel driveway. "That's not low," said Moross, adding pre-accident levels in the area were likely closer to 5bq/sqm." While you get very little from plane radiation as shown at this quote "Cosmic Rays Sound Scary, But Radiation Risk On A Flight Is Small". You can be on flights for more than a day but you can only stay in the Fukushima exclusion zone for at the most 6 hours. And your telling me that flying is worse than 70,000 bq's per square mile. If you want I have the prove of the quotes here, http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013...light-is-small and http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...489521261.html .
"Who wouldn't pass up gay sex with Bercat?"
"Day is probably masturbating to Osu"- Hydra 2k15

Last edited by Ele; Feb 22, 2015 at 10:09 AM.. Reason: edited away the nastiness
Qukslice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2015   #7
Zelda
 
4th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,958



Looking into qukslices quksouces.

"Caesium-137 is the radioactive isotope of concern, and it'll take about 300 years for it to break down."

Wikipedia: "About 95 percent [of caesium-137] decays by beta emission to a metastable nuclear isomer of barium: barium-137m"
"One gram of caesium-137 has an activity of 3.215 terabecquerel"

1 terabecquerel= 10^12 Bq so I imagine that the square foot of gravel qukslice mentioned had about 2.2x10^-8 grams of caesium-137. Not sure how that is relevant to anything but I enjoyed calculating it...

I struggled to find a comparable measurement of background radiation because such measurements tend to be in Sieverts which focus on health risk, not decay rate.

Anyway, I looked into safecast (who took the data you mentioned) and this is the best I could do so far Some safe cast event about fukushima.

In the presentation about fukushima one of the slides says "In our current situation it's rarely less than a factor of two" and "In many cases it's an order of magnitude of more i.e. +/- 10x [a factor of ten]. This is actually normal." However, I am not sure if this is referring or relevant to the measurements taken in Fukushima. I don't have nearly enough time to look at all the slideshows, and this seemed to be the only obvious indication of reliability, I would advise you have a look if you wish to continue to talk about the data qukslide quoted, however, I think the political side of this discussion is much more relevant and important
Good morning sweet princess
Zelda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2015   #8
ImmortalPig
ub3r
 
Yellow Belt
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,950




Remember global rate us about 2.7 μSv/h, so the vast majority is safe. Even at double the global average you are within ICRP limits. Even if you live right in the red, you are still much more likely to die from normal causes than ones from radiation.

But they could have used much safer designs that cannot go into melt down, and saved themselves some trouble...


It seems qukslice is concerned about corruption, but there could be adequate protocols put in place so one country can't hijack the entire military. As I already said, invasion can be stopped by having the military respond and by the threat of nuclear weapons. I think his desire to wage wars of aggression and conquer lands is rather outdated, but again if someone does that they can simply be invaded. The fact is that wars and invasions are uncommon regardless of the neighbour's armament.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
ImmortalPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2015   #9
Qukslice
Senior Member
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 654



Fine. Whatever. You win. We obviously have different standpoints on this but it's never going to happen since there's no way the UN will do drastic things like that. I mean they refused to help Ukraine but they'll change the world forever because of one country's growing capabilities. If that was going to happen, It would be stupidity at it's finest. Tbh, The UN hasn't been doing crap about anything. I haven't slept today and I feel cranky as fuck.
Sincerely,
Qukslice
"Who wouldn't pass up gay sex with Bercat?"
"Day is probably masturbating to Osu"- Hydra 2k15

Last edited by Zelda; Feb 22, 2015 at 03:15 PM.. Reason: grammar.
Qukslice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2015   #10
Zelda
 
4th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,958



Originally Posted by qukslice View Post
Fine. Whatever. You win. We obviously have different standpoints on this but it's never going to happen since there's no way the UN will do drastic things like that. I mean they refused to help Ukraine but they'll change the world forever because of one country's growing capabilities. If that was going to happen, It would be stupidity at it's finest. Tbh, The UN hasn't been doing crap about anything. I haven't slept today and I feel cranky as fuck.
Sincerely,
Qukslice

Read what he said more carefully and you might disagree less.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
to the authority of the UN (or some other organization)

It doesn't have to be the UN.
Good morning sweet princess
Zelda is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:34 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ragdoll fighting game physics fighting game ragdoll fighting physics funmotion joints martial arts karate pc mac free game turn based game