Support NeoGAF

[besada]

In terms of Iran, I don't actually think it makes a difference. If they weren't part of the treaty, do you think Israel and the US wouldn't be threatening them?

I suspect we'd be threatening them, but we'd be doing it without the support of International Law. Hasn't stopped us in the past, but the global reaction would certainly be different. We didn't bomb Pakistan, after all.

Military action sanctioned by the UN would be a difficult sell, whereas we can currently use the NPT to help sell such action.

 

[leadbelly]

I suspect we'd be threatening them, but we'd be doing it without the support of International Law. Hasn't stopped us in the past, but the global reaction would certainly be different. We didn't bomb Pakistan. Military action sanctioned by the UN would be a difficult sell, whereas we can currently use the NPT to help sell such action.

Well, at the moment, I'm not really sure how much support there is for a pre-emptive strike on Iran. If lets say concrete evidence of a Nuclear weapons programme emerged, I imagine there would be at least more support than there was for the Iraq war. I think even in the Middle East there wouldn't be too much issue over it. They're not Arabs, they're Persians. I don't think they have that much support from their neighbours.

 

[Jay Sosa]

I see Vienna in the OP: whoooho go former hometown.

 

[Bo-Locks]

Or Libya, which got caught with Pakistani nuclear technology, in violation of the NPT, and got away with it by ending its program and bending over for inspectors.

Or Syria, whose facilities ended up being bombed by Israel.

Does commedieu now see the bigger picture? The whole purpose of the NPT is to stop countries like North Korea, Libya, and Syria from acquiring these weapons.

Two of those countries are undergoing revolutions and are in the process of fighting Islamic Jihadists, and overthrowing brutal dictators. Do you really want people like Gaddafi and al-Assad (let alone the AQ-affiliated Jihadists) acquiring nuclear weapons?

Whether the West is any better or worse is irrelevant, as I said, playing childish games with nuclear weapons in the form of "If X has them why can't Y have them?" is not an option.

Anybody that wants world peace should support the NPT, and support sanctions (at least in principal) against the countries that break the NPT (like Iran and NK). To be clear, I'm not referring to military options here, that's a discussion for another day, but sanctions have to be available to encourage compliance with the treaty.

 

[Zzoram]

Because they, unlike Pakistan, India, or Israel, are signatories to the NPT, which explicitly denies them the right to work towards making nukes.

N. Korea was a signatory of the NPT, but withdrew from it, and were punished by sanctions. States withdrawing from the NPT ate required to give three months notice of their withdrawal.

Signatories of the NPT are allowed to develop nuclear power. Iran is a current signatory and has not withdrawn and is developing nuclear power right now. US intelligence even acknowledges that all Iran is doing right now is developing nuclear power, not a weapon. Yet, Iran is being punished with sanctions for doing something that the NPT explicitly allows them to do.