Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshmaker | Hacker News Reader

Because Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treat...) and their development of Nuclear weapons is thus in violation of international law.

View on HN

Violation of international law huh...as long as the law doesn't apply to America or Israel I guess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_s...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/29/us-israel-nuclear-...

Oh, that and the fact that America and Israel can't trust anyone but themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5-9aAFvWXA

No arguments on settlements, but would you point to hard evidence that the US is in violation of NPT? I am getting tired of sourceless claims here.

Would you please respond in addition to (or instead of) just downvoting something you disagree with in order to suppress it? Thank you

I didn't down vote you and I'll show you hard evidence when you show me hard evidence Iran is in violation of the NPT. We don't want any sort of hypocrisy going on around here, right? What the hell, here's some evidence just for kicks:

http://compliancecampaign.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/iran-and-...

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2619

You are changing the subject a little. The burden of proof for a strong and controversial claim is still on the person making the claim.

I haven't made any claim about what the Iranian revolution is doing, so I don't know why I would be obligated to show you evidence regarding what they are doing. Nobody else really knows what they are doing, that is the nature of intelligence secrets in Iran and everywhere else. If the general public knew, they would not be intelligence secrets any more. That is not license for inferring whatever you want to see.

I'm certainly not carrying water for the Bush administration's attempt to legitimize 'tactical' nukes (which accounts for the entire substance of your links, as far as I can tell). On the contrary, I strongly oppose that idea. But saying stupid, obnoxious, unwise things doesn't amount to a material violation of NPT. If it did, then there would definitely be plenty of hard evidence against the Iranian regime, which routinely says things just as gob-smackingly stupid and undiplomatic and ultimately harmful to Iranians as Bush's best.

It seems that you have stereotyped me as holding a whole package of views that I do not hold, and implied that I am engaging in some kind of hypocrisy, simply because I asked for substantiation of a claim. But if I disagree with you on one thing, it does not follow that I hold all the views of your rhetorical enemies.

Cheers

Changing the subject? I provided everything you asked for and it shows America blatantly disregards Article 6 of the NPT while expecting other countries to follow it. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Cheers

From your article, 'Article VI of the NPT explicitly obliges signatories "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."'

And your argument is that the US is in breach of NPT because Bush said stupid things about tactical nukes?

Question: at which date is a signatory in violation? What is the deadline?

Not in violation but they did withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1707812.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty#U...

Article 6 of the NPT obliges the US, and other nuclear powers, to make good faith efforts to reduce, and eventually eliminate, their massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

The US is so far away from ever putting any effort into this that Article 6 is all but unknown, and no one even remotely takes it seriously. International law is for nations without the power to effective ignore it.

I think the (debatable ) key point here is that the treaty was a bargain between the then possessors of nuclear weapons and non-nuclear states. The deal was that non-nuclear states wouldn't develop weapons and the nuclear states would disarm. After the treaty was signed and non-nuclear states (largely) complied the number of weapons increased radically for decades and the destructive power of weapons in theater today is still massively greater than the weapons at signing. It can therefore be argued that the holders of the weapons have consistently acted contrary to the terms of the treaty. They have undisputably acted contrary to the spirit of the deal underlying the treaty.

Uhh...

What?

Have you read the NPT? And are you able to point to the sections that the US is in violation of along with the evidence proving that violation?

I'm sick and tired hearing about these settlements. Wasn't that land captured after Israel's neighbors attempted to destroy it? Isn't Israel respectful to the 20% of it's population who are Arab? Hasn't Israel attempted to give a lot of that land back to the Palestinians:

The Clinton Parameters proposed a Palestinians state comprising between 94-96% of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip, with Israel annexing the remaining land, which would include almost all Israeli settlements, containing 80% of the settler population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clinton_Parameters

Things could be a lot better for Palestinians today, but a remarkable olive branch was shredded up by Yasser Arafat. The "International Community" continues his legacy by vilifying Israel every single day.

>>and their development of Nuclear weapons is thus in violation of international law.

What development of nuclear weapons? They have not developed anything.

Uhh...

What?

Have you read the NPT? And are you able to point to the sections that Iran is in violation of along with the evidence proving that violation?

Unlike Israel which has not signed the agreement and has not let anyone inspect their nuclear weapons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com