They're doing everything they can to derail negotiations; there's nothing the US can do to stop Iran from acquiring weapons if this deal doesn't go through.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Uh, new?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Foreign policy has generally been fairly bipartisan, particularly support for Israel has been widely supported by both Democrats and Republicans but now its been politicized. Between Congress unconstitutionally inviting Bibi to speak and now the Senate actively attempting to undermine the negotiations by informing Iran that any deal they agree to, the US won't honour it? It's a new low.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
I was referring to the title of the thread more than the content.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: Uh, new?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
though to be perfectly fair this level of capricious and blatant undermining of a president's constitutionally mandated duties is a somewhat intensified and clear version of what passes for worthwhile diplomatic engagement for them. it is somewhat fascinatingly clear.
it is an especially easy time to call conservatives bad dumb and wrong. it is an especially difficult time to act in apologia for acts by conservative legislators. it is an especially difficult time for critically thinking people to remain supportive of how the GOP behaves or pretend it's at all good for the country.
/
it is also worth noting: this shitty, obnoxious, condescending note to Iran, to inform those poor simpleton Iranians how our system works, made plainly and incredibly false statements about how our system works. It claimed that the senate ratifies treaties with a two-thirds vote. this is helpfully undermined by the easily googlable reality that the president ratifies treaties
but hey they're only top level GOP federal representatives we can't really expect them to know how our laws work, or how to email, or anything like that
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Irania mission to the UN didn't seem to enjoy being treated like backwards 7 graders in a civics class.
"Foreign Minister Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originaly posted by Samprimary: but hey they're only top level GOP federal representatives we can't really expect them to know how our laws work, or how to email, or anything like that
In that case...I'll run for office...I kno how to email. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, but to make it with that crowd you gotta be willing to vote 50 times to destroy obamacare
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My votes are cheap! All size bribes welcome!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The fact that the conservatives both (a) legitimately did this thinking that it was in any way a good idea and (b) legitimately forgot who ****ing ratifies treaties in our system of government speaks harder and louder to the fact that conservatism has cannibalized its own wonks into extreme deficit and now routinely feeds itself false information
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sen. Cotton has said that he intends for negotiations to fall. He believes we should be at war.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Gotta wonder how much Halliburton stock he owns...
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
At least he's being open about it. All the other people saying that Iran can't be trusted to keep a balanced treaty seem to think they can be trusted to keep a punishing one. They're agitating for war but are totally unwilling to say so.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Should we go to war Iran? Is that the best play?
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Might be. I don't see what we can offer the Iranians that outweighs the benefits of nuclear weapons, either self-preservation or ability for mischief making among their neighbours. Especially since they can't be sure we will keep to any agreement.
On the other hand, it's entirely possible that Iranians getting nukes will result in the effective end of non-proliferation as the rest of the Middle-East will want nukes to counter-balance the threat. Nevermind the freedom it'd give Iran to play the proxy game.
So they can't afford to stop chasing nukes because we might invade them for reasons of our own. We can't let them get nukes because it'll be horrifically unstable. Sounds like a recipe for war.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sometimes action is called for and of all political hot button topics...nukes & human rights violations are pretty decent reasons for war.
OTOH getting OUT of a war in the middle east is the hard part.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
No. War is an extraordinarily expensive endeavor, and a great way to ring up the national debt for no good reason.
Iran isn't going to go jihad on us or bomb the USA. Shias don't do jihad to begin with, and Iran's young people don't actually hate us, nor are they that rah rah about their government in private. Much of Iran is quietly atheist.
Well, lifting the crippling economic sanctions is a huge gain for them, and is something they very much want. Iran is lowballing it's ~30% unemployment figures (remember our recession was at like ~10%).
Iran is also a destination for Afghani refugees trying to escape all the garbage that's been going on there for the past decade. They're about as beloved as Mexicans here, and when the whole war on terror thing started, Iran actually offered to be an ally because 1. they know the region, and 2. nobody wants to have a neighboring country be a war zone.
As far as Iran is concerned, Israel and Pakistan already have the bomb and are not very trustworthy. Especially Pakistan, where we actually found Osama.
As for bombing Israel with it, bombing a country with the bomb is an extraordinarily stupid idea. However, if Israel bombed them (this love does go both ways), they can't do anything.
In the scale of people we shouldn't like because they are bad evil terrorists and are bad to human rights, Iran is no where as evil as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, our allies.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How do our allies compare to North Korea?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Everyone is better than North Korea.
Sometimes I wonder if we will have the appropriate shame about letting what has happened there go on for decades, as we do with the holocaust.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So, war is warranted in NK but not Iran by your estimation?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Gotta wonder how much Halliburton stock he owns...
There's no point with war in Iran. While the people do not hate our government and are pretty cool towards theirs, they categorically do not want us to come over and "fix" things for them. We did that in the 20th century with the coup we engineered in the 50s (we even admit it was us now). It went badly and basically made the 70s revolution happen (it was either the Islamists or the communists).
The new president is exceeding expectations (though I have also heard the Supreme Leader didn't want Ahmadinejad working with the USA in the last years about the whole nuke thing so he would get no credit). The best analogy I have about this is that he is like Pope Francis. Critics of Catholicism are happy to point out the horrible policies that are still going on, but man oh man is this guy a breath of fresh air and a major improvement over what came before. But ... baby steps, baby steps. The supreme leader is not that healthy these days either.
Unlike, NK, while Iran has also massive censorship and the government news is full of um, poo, illegal satellite dishes are rampant, and everybody just ignores certain laws in the privacy of their own homes. If you saw the 2009 Iran segments from the Daily Show, it wasn't an accident that one of the interviewees on the street was a fan of the show.
North Koreans are not necessarily in on the fact their government is lying to them. They're probably figuring it out, especially when the government couldn't feed them in the 90s, and law-abiding people resorted to the black market. "Nothing to Envy" is a very worthwhile read.
I don't know if "war" is warranted with NK. The people who we would fight and kill in what is conventionally considered "war" are not our enemies (though they've been brainwashed to think we are their enemy). They're victims.
Also, there's the matter of South Korea. The lines were drawn between the two countries with no cultural or geographical significance whatsoever. Lots of South Koreans have cousins there and would prefer we not go to war.
The end-game is reunification, and South Korea, while rich, will be footing the bill and have to deal with a population of millions people who are both damaged and living in the wrong century (think German reunification challenges and multiply them). They currently have a program where they take the handful (hundreds) of North Koreans who make it out each year and try to educate them on how to do things that we take for granted (i.e. eat at a fast food restaurant, rent an apartment), but they're going to have to scale that up and it's going to be rough.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Gotta wonder how much Halliburton stock he owns...
quote:Join us for an exciting LID Breakfast on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 featuring Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR). View a complete biography here.
All remarks are Off the Record and strictly Non-Attribution.
Oh how I hope someone sneaks a cam in there and puts it on you tube.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
theamazeeaz...what actions do you feel the US should take in both cases, Iran & NK? (also, thank you for all the info)
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
theamazeeaz, I don't think anyone with sense believes that Iran intends to use the nukes they get. The problem is that if Iran get nukes, others will follow. I'm pretty sure Saudi-Arabia has said they'll pursue nukes if Iran has them. Egypt and Turkey likely wouldn't be far behind. That's too many players in a very dangerous game. Both examples we have of stable nuclear hostilities(Cold War and Pakistan/India) only have two sides. This could have as many as four or five.
Then Iran is already meddling in Iraq and Lebanon. That meddling is likely to get worse if direct military action is taken off the table by the presence of nuclear weapons. Even less direct forms of diplomatic pressure would become less appealing, as it will become more important to maintain the stability of Iran. While I don't think the Iranian government would use nukes, I wouldn't put it past a number of non-state actors. If the current regime collapses the chance of nukes falling into the wrong hands would be unpleasantly high.
Obviously, the best way out would be signing this treaty and having everybody stick to it. But the GOP have no intention of doing so, and, without the assurance that US will adopt a less antagonistic stance towards them, Iran has no reason to.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Iran is not an imminent issue, despite the Israeli prime minister doing his best impression of a Jehovah Witness predicting the end of the world. We need to keep working with Rouhani. And embarrass them over any human rights issue that comes up, keeping in mind that they will throw ours back at us.
It also seems there is a dire need for a history of Iran, as well as a civics lesson for members of Congress.
As for North Korea, we need to work with other countries, especially, South Korea, which needs to call the shots on this one (as far as they are concerned, all North Koreas are legally their citizens). We should ask, in all seriousness, what exactly they are waiting for. Kim Jung Un's gout to turn deadly?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
as i have mentioned before, the only south koreans largely still trying to get reunification to happen are old enough to remember the war.
Young koreans want absolutely nothing to do with the absolute backwards hellhole that north korea has become. reunification would bankrupt south korea handily.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: theamazeeaz, I don't think anyone with sense believes that Iran intends to use the nukes they get. The problem is that if Iran get nukes, others will follow. I'm pretty sure Saudi-Arabia has said they'll pursue nukes if Iran has them. Egypt and Turkey likely wouldn't be far behind. That's too many players in a very dangerous game. Both examples we have of stable nuclear hostilities(Cold War and Pakistan/India) only have two sides. This could have as many as four or five.
Then Iran is already meddling in Iraq and Lebanon. That meddling is likely to get worse if direct military action is taken off the table by the presence of nuclear weapons. Even less direct forms of diplomatic pressure would become less appealing, as it will become more important to maintain the stability of Iran. While I don't think the Iranian government would use nukes, I wouldn't put it past a number of non-state actors. If the current regime collapses the chance of nukes falling into the wrong hands would be unpleasantly high.
Obviously, the best way out would be signing this treaty and having everybody stick to it. But the GOP have no intention of doing so, and, without the assurance that US will adopt a less antagonistic stance towards them, Iran has no reason to.
My concern isn't Iran using the nukes, it is the nukes getting "stolen" then ending up used by terrorist groups.
Would anyone disagree that Iran is a state sponsor of terror in the middle east?
The GOP is acting petty, more so than the democrats that boycotted Netanyahu.
I really hate Congress.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
The problem with "stolen" nukes from Iran's point of view is that no one will believe them. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, terrorists would be just another delivery system. Even if they managed to avoid nuclear retaliation, they'd have to let the US and/or the UN in to "secure" their weapons against further "thefts". Or they could go to war, but they probably want to avoid that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it just so happens though that conveniently enough there seems to be a potential solution to this whole issue, wherein the executive works out a treaty with an amenable Iran to the ends of nuclear nonproliferation hmm
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: My concern isn't Iran using the nukes, it is the nukes getting "stolen" then ending up used by terrorist groups.
Would anyone disagree that Iran is a state sponsor of terror in the middle east?
The GOP is acting petty, more so than the democrats that boycotted Netanyahu.
I really hate Congress.
Okay what, really, what.
First of all, I'm not actually convinced you think the GOP is 'acting petty' if you feel the need to falsely equivocate the Democrats boycotting Bibi's (not supporting the unconstitutional actions of the House) speech with the GOP literally undermining the President, the separation of powers between the co-equal branches of government, and attempting to derail a treaty to avoid war, almost certainly intending to cause one.
(Yes you technically say the GOP is "acting more petty" but this is still a dubious statement and not very accurate.)
So lets get that out of the way and straight up resolved, it isn't an act of 'spite' or pettiness for the Democrats to not show the House GOP support for their actions whose entire purpose is to show their abhorence to the President and the leader of their party, and to undermine the negotiation of an important treaty.
Additionally there's no reason to suppose the Iranian nukes would get stolen; none. The risk is no greater than the chance of stolen Pakistani, Russian, American or Israeli nuclear weapons. It'd be more consistent, and less red flag raising, to simply, and very consistently hold a general view that nuclear proliferation is bad. Period. And to support the prevention of the spread of nuclear armed states, and to support the rolling back of nuclear stockpiles the world over, including Israeli, American, and Russian nuclear weapon stockpiles.
All of this 100% can be done through honest dealings and negotiations in good faith. Iran wants nuclear power, it wants energy independence and to be able to use their uranium reserves that exist under their soil. These are reasonable goals of any sovereign state; and a treaty that secures their right under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty to pursue nuclear civilian power while securing the gaurantees they won't pursue militerized nuclear arms is certainly possible.
As for Iran being a sponsor of terror, well, so is the United States (Chomsky), but their nukes aren't getting stolen. Nuclear weapons can be easily traced to their origin. If Iran were to pursue such weapons and allow it, then they would likely cease to exist as a nation in short order. So its unlikely they would allow it; nuclear weapons *do* have a fairly good track record in calming down otherwise belligerent nations into realizing the folly of having such weapons. The primary example being Mao's China, whose bellicose desires for a world wide nuclear war became very mute in short order once they got a hold of their own nuclear weapons arsenal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Getting a nuclear deal with North Korea is probably impossible any time soon. It looked like there might have been a window for the last couple years because the Chinese were getting fed up with the new regime, and were willing to take a firmer line with them than they have in years (mostly because NK was a huge headache to them geopolitically).
But then they had a real falling out. Now NK is much more firmly in Russia's camp. Any deal with NK will require the partnership of Russia, which means Putin. Which means nothing will happen for years. Maube if the price of oil stays down for half a decade and Russia can't afford to be their patron things will get better.
On Iran -
Okay, if I'm Iran, I'm looking at three major things as the reason to get a nuke:
1. America treats nations with nukes differently than we do nations without them. Once you have the nuke, we tend to back off a bit and pull on the kid gloves.
2. More of a 1A, but nukes are a status symbol. A ticket into a more prestigious group of countries and a surefire announcement that Iran is the preeminent regional power.
3. Don't trust the US. We promised Ukraine territorial integrity in exchange for disarmament. Look how that turned out. Would Russia be invading if Ukraine still had nukes? Unlikely.
Despite all that, most evidence shows that, if Iran is working on nuclear weapons at all, it's not doing so with any real amount of haste, which means there probably is a lot of genuine room for an agreement. Iran may not want a nuke on a lot of levels, knowing that their nuke will beget a Saudi and Jordanian nuke, and then possibly an Egyptian and Turkish nuke thereafter. Then there's also the risk the Kurds end up with one someone in there, which puts Iranian territory at serious risk (already a problem, of course).
Iran stands a lot to gain by making a deal that guarantees them nuclear material but not nuclear weapons.
There are also a lot of problems with attacking Iran. Do we bomb their nuclear sites (the ones we know of)? If that's our play, there will be a lot of blood on our hands. Several intelligence estimates say that bombing all Iranian nuclear sites could have a death toll in the hundreds of thousands as poison gas and irradiated material rains down on neighboring cities, to say nothing of the tens of thousands within the facilities themselves.
Not only would doing so be incredibly immoral, it would instantly turn the situation around. Now Iran is the victim and the US has committed a small holocaust wholly disproportionate to the situation.
I really just don't think it's a feasible option.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sadly, it seems that half our senate does.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Luckily they'll likely never have the power to try to make good on their desires.
Unless they take the White House. Then all bets are off.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well they can try their damndest to scuttle peaceful options.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They don't have a terribly large number of tools at their disposal to do so.
They can't declare war without getting Democrats on their side. They can't scuttle negotiations until a Republican gets into the Oval Office.
The worst they can really do is refuse to pass legislation Obama wants, which is hardly new. It's basically expected that anything he wants he won't get, and Obama can undo a large chunk of the sanctions on his own. Furthermore, once this deal is signed, the international sanction regime in place will be dismantled, leaving only a relatively small number of Congressionally approved.
So if they want to throw a tantrum and damage US credibility around the world (which they seem to delight in doing on a daily basis anyway), they certainly can. But it won't get them what they want.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: 3. Don't trust the US. We promised Ukraine territorial integrity in exchange for disarmament. Look how that turned out. Would Russia be invading if Ukraine still had nukes? Unlikely.
It was never a feasible option for Ukraine to have retained the Soviet nuclear weapons for extremely good reasons. (1) They couldn't have afforded to maintain them. (2) Any sort of dispute they have would certainly have really racheted up tensions. (3) It wouldn't not have prevented Crimea or what's happening in Eastern Ukraine because its the just sort of salami tactics that makes responding with nuclear weapons impossible. (4) It would make US intervention possibly less likely, because politicians would think "Well Ukraine won't get annexed because they'll use their weapons before that happens." ala Israel.
That and it sorta sidesteps how for 25 years the treaty worked. No one could have predicted that Russia would slide backwards.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
I think Putin would have been far more cautious about mucking around in Crimea if Ukraine had nukes. Even if Ukraine didn't set out to use nukes, the kind of instability Putin is fostering is not something you want in a country that has nuclear weapons. If the Kiev government had collapsed, who knows what would have happened.
The point that Iran wouldn't want to spur a nuclear arms race in the ME is a good one. I'm still not sure it outweighs the benefit of forcing the US to back off. Iran seems to be the only one on the list of potential targets should the US need a short victorious war. With that kind of threat, why would they stop with a civilian nuclear program? Especially if they know that American and Israeli fear-mongering is based on exagerations or outright lies. It could easily look to them like certain parties are trying to fabricate a casus belli.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
No, he wouldn't have. Maybe eastern Ukraine things might have gone down differently but there's no way in hell Ukraine would launch a nuclear missile at Moscow for it and Putin would know that. Because they would end as a nation in response.
Also Putin *wants* an unstable Ukraine, the weaker and more unstable it is the greater his justification in intervening. "Intervening to restore order and protect Russian citizens from Ukrainian nazi's wishing to steal nuclear material to attack peace loving Russians in Ukraine." things like that.
The Kiev gov't collapsing is precisely what Putin wants, them having nukes would be better because it more clearly justifies Russian great power United Nation Security Council member intervention to "disarm" the Ukrainian failed state of its nuclear weapons.
This is effortless to spin.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Who said anything about aiming at Moscow? If Kiev collapsed, all the nukes go into local control and things get unpredicable. Unpredictable and nukes is pretty much the definition of bad. Someone might decide that a nuke going off might get the West off its ass.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, I don't think you're really thinking it all the way through Elison.
And the treaty working for 25 years is meaningless if ar the first sign of trouble the guarantors of the treaty back out of their responsibility.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Unless they take the White House. Then all bets are off.
Well, great.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah, I don't think you're really thinking it all the way through Elison.
And the treaty working for 25 years is meaningless if ar the first sign of trouble the guarantors of the treaty back out of their responsibility.
No, this is plainly sour grapes assertion. A treaty that works for 25 years was certainly meaningful for those 25 years; it was still worth signing and agreeing to.
That and, you're just plainly being silly. What was the United States supposed to do? Start WWIII? Airstrikes? Escalate the situation? None of these are valid options; the current Obama policy is probably the only valid option when dealing with a nuclear armed great power.
The Yeltsin government then was interested in friendly relations, normalization, reform, and westernization. You act like somehow Russia backing out on their obligations was just something people could have known or had enough information on.
Which country Chernobyl happened to? That might also have affected their decision making in some way, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
quote: Who said anything about aiming at Moscow? If Kiev collapsed, all the nukes go into local control and things get unpredicable.
Not really, then you have a justified Russian response to roll in troops to locate and disarm those weapons. Russian paras going in on Hind's to the known sites (which they will know because it's Ukraine) and tag em' and bag em' etc. I'd be surprised if Russia couldn't find most of them in the face of collapse.
Remember, Ukraine could not afford those weapons, they would not have good security, they would not be constantly shuffled around to hide or obscure their location; Russian intelligence would likely always be tracking them; if Kiev collapsed it is exceedingly unlikely they would be immediately sold or pawned off.
The west would not be more encouraged to stop Russia because of Ukrainian nuclear weapons because of the same reasons they don't do something now. The west/NATO wouldn't go "Well, it wasn't a good idea to do anything before, but now if Ukraine collapses a nuke may end up in Paris?!" But, "If Ukraine collapses can we secure their nuclear weapons before terrorists do?"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're having some short circuits here, Elison. First the assumption that because the treaty wasn't violated, the treaty was why. You haven't demonstrated that it was the treaty and nothing else or at least primarily which restrained Russian actions.
Second, I don't know what your authority is to speak with such confidence as to how Russia and Putin would've reacted had Ukraine been a nuclear armed power. I mean, how many analogous situations are there with any nation much less Russia dealing with a smaller neighboring former etc etc with nukes trying to deal with aggression?
To my knowledge, and I may be forgetting something, the closest comparisons wound be the United States and north Korea-which is a very bad comparison, but at least sort of relevant in relative powers. If Ukraine had nukes-which, by the way, the affording it argument seems pretty strange as they now face potential conquest by Russia-Russia *could* do all of the sorts of things you're describing, but you're assuming that the only variable which changes is 'Ukrainian nukes'. I'm not sure why that makes sense. It's generally accepted that states act with more caution and restraint, even if they eventually do some dirty tricks, towards nuclear armed states.
Why would this not apply to the Ukraine and Russia?
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:Remember, Ukraine could not afford those weapons, they would not have good security, they would not be constantly shuffled around to hide or obscure their location; Russian intelligence would likely always be tracking them; if Kiev collapsed it is exceedingly unlikely they would be immediately sold or pawned off.
The concern is that they would be used, not sold or lost. The reasoning would be that if nukes start going, Europe has a much more immediate reason to intervene. It's probably even odds that they'd go "**** it, let the Russians take care of it," but someone on the ground might decide it's worth rolling the dice.
Toppling a nuclear armed country is inherently more risky than going after one without nukes. If nothing else, the Ukrainians could go all The World is not Enough and nuke Sevastapol. A lot of good Crimea would do the Russians then.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] You're having some short circuits here, Elison. First the assumption that because the treaty wasn't violated, the treaty was why. You haven't demonstrated that it was the treaty and nothing else or at least primarily which restrained Russian actions.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. To me Lyrhawn was saying that Ukraine should have retained those Soviet nuclear weapons and I'm saying that's bollucks.
quote: Second, I don't know what your authority is to speak with such confidence as to how Russia and Putin would've reacted had Ukraine been a nuclear armed power. I mean, how many analogous situations are there with any nation much less Russia dealing with a smaller neighboring former etc etc with nukes trying to deal with aggression?
Because its common sense and squares with a lot I read about nuclear brinkmanship; particularly if you look at the Cuban Missile crisis from the American perspective. The US did a large number of hostile actions in regards to what was effectively a nuclear armed Cuba and got away with it. Precisely because of the reasoning that I am using; that salami tactics, of using small gradual violations are just plainly not going to result in the nuclear armed power responding with nuclear weapons.
This is a repost of an essay written by a notable nuclear warfare analysis who worked as a subcontractor for the US defence industry. You'll find in general the conclusion that having nuclear weapons makes you less likely to use them.
quote: the affording it argument seems pretty strange as they now face potential conquest by Russia-Russia *could* do all of the sorts of things you're describing, but you're assuming that the only variable which changes is 'Ukrainian nukes'.
Because that is how the argument is being presented, "Ukraine should have kept their nukes." You might as well also say "fast tracked into NATO" and "I wish for a pony and a unicorn." It was never going to happen.
But even if it did happen, there's plenty of evidence to show that Ukraine would have been extremely hesitant to use their nuclear weapons in response to either the insurrectionists in Donetsk or the Russian para's taking Crimea.
Remember, it was one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal in Ukraine. Over 5,000 nuclear weapons; are people seriously claiming it would have been a good thing for Ukraine to have kept them? Armed, Unready, and poorly maintained?
That's insane.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
The point was that nukes would have done more to protect Ukraine than a treaty where the primary enforcement mechanism was complaining to the security council. I trust you noticed how much good that did?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't have time right now, but allow me to qualify this much: I didn't suggest that Ukraine perhaps ought to have kept *all* of them. That would as you note be excessive and absurdly expensive. Why that means therefore they should have kept none, I don't know.-
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:No, this is plainly sour grapes assertion. A treaty that works for 25 years was certainly meaningful for those 25 years; it was still worth signing and agreeing to.
That and, you're just plainly being silly. What was the United States supposed to do? Start WWIII? Airstrikes? Escalate the situation? None of these are valid options; the current Obama policy is probably the only valid option when dealing with a nuclear armed great power.
I'll echo Rakeesh's point. Just because the treaty wasn't previously violated doesn't mean the treaty itself was why. Russia could barely bake a loaf of bread after the USSR fell apart, invading Ukraine wasn't high on their To Do list, and until recently they had a puppet in charge with a tacit understanding that the US would sort of keep away.
And then the FIRST time that Ukraine makes noises about looking West, Russia invades. The first time the Treaty is tested, it falls. And your point about what was the US supposed to do, well, 1. The US shouldn't make treaties it has no intention of enforcing. Why? Because it weakens the value of a US threat if everyone knows we'll blink at the end of the day. We prove that we're not really to be feared. And Russia's status as a "great power" depends ENTIRELY on its nuclear arsenal. Without it, they have a relatively outdated military that could never stand up to a sustained conflict against another halfway decent, determined force.
For that matter, their nuclear force is in an abysmal state. I'd be surprised if more than a handful of their ICBMs even worked. I bet that's roughly what Ukraine's missile force would look like, but despite all that, we're still hesitant to really tussle with them because of the mystique and fear of what a Bomb can do.
quote:This is a repost of an essay written by a notable nuclear warfare analysis who worked as a subcontractor for the US defence industry. You'll find in general the conclusion that having nuclear weapons makes you less likely to use them.
I didn't read your link, but please elaborate. Less likely than..what? Nations that don't have them? Nuke possession is a binary state. You either have them or you don't. If you don't have them, you CAN'T use them. If you do have them, you MIGHT use them. By their very nature then, having nukes makes it more likely you'll use them. I think history shows that by and large nukes are only dangled in front of the world stage when an existential threat is at hand. Modern history, anyway. Russia snagging a third of Ukraine is an existential threat. Nukes would get used long before Kiev fell.
In general, I think most rational nations wouldn't use nukes unless under incredible duress, an existential threat to their territorial integrity. That means Ukraine would be very reluctant to use nukes...until Russian troops set foot in Ukrainian territory. Nations with nukes tend not to get invaded for that reason.
I'll also echo the lat two points made, from Rakeesh and NobleHunter. Keep 5000 nukes? Of course not, they never would have made it past the first couple years. If they couldn't keep the Black Sea Fleet from rusting in the harbor, they were unlikely to keep 5,000 nukes serviced. Even Russia can't service their own nukes. But, they could have kept 50-100 working. That's all you really need for a good deterrent force.
And again, the point is that nukes would have been better than the treaty, which at the end of the day ended up being a paper tiger.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: My concern isn't Iran using the nukes, it is the nukes getting "stolen" then ending up used by terrorist groups.
Would anyone disagree that Iran is a state sponsor of terror in the middle east?
The GOP is acting petty, more so than the democrats that boycotted Netanyahu.
I really hate Congress.
Okay what, really, what.
First of all, I'm not actually convinced you think the GOP is 'acting petty' if you feel the need to falsely equivocate the Democrats boycotting Bibi's (not supporting the unconstitutional actions of the House) speech with the GOP literally undermining the President, the separation of powers between the co-equal branches of government, and attempting to derail a treaty to avoid war, almost certainly intending to cause one.
(Yes you technically say the GOP is "acting more petty" but this is still a dubious statement and not very accurate.)
So lets get that out of the way and straight up resolved, it isn't an act of 'spite' or pettiness for the Democrats to not show the House GOP support for their actions whose entire purpose is to show their abhorence to the President and the leader of their party, and to undermine the negotiation of an important treaty.
Additionally there's no reason to suppose the Iranian nukes would get stolen; none. The risk is no greater than the chance of stolen Pakistani, Russian, American or Israeli nuclear weapons. It'd be more consistent, and less red flag raising, to simply, and very consistently hold a general view that nuclear proliferation is bad. Period. And to support the prevention of the spread of nuclear armed states, and to support the rolling back of nuclear stockpiles the world over, including Israeli, American, and Russian nuclear weapon stockpiles.
All of this 100% can be done through honest dealings and negotiations in good faith. Iran wants nuclear power, it wants energy independence and to be able to use their uranium reserves that exist under their soil. These are reasonable goals of any sovereign state; and a treaty that secures their right under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty to pursue nuclear civilian power while securing the gaurantees they won't pursue militerized nuclear arms is certainly possible.
As for Iran being a sponsor of terror, well, so is the United States (Chomsky), but their nukes aren't getting stolen. Nuclear weapons can be easily traced to their origin. If Iran were to pursue such weapons and allow it, then they would likely cease to exist as a nation in short order. So its unlikely they would allow it; nuclear weapons *do* have a fairly good track record in calming down otherwise belligerent nations into realizing the folly of having such weapons. The primary example being Mao's China, whose bellicose desires for a world wide nuclear war became very mute in short order once they got a hold of their own nuclear weapons arsenal.
Blayne, please re-read your post and imagine I wrote it.
1) The House inviting Bibi was unconstitutional? A breach in protocol perhaps. I suppose if a member of the Senate visited Bibi in Israel it wouldn't have been?
2) The senate sending the letter was NOT unconstitutional and violated no part of the Logan Act. Seriously. Go read it. Then come and tell me how a letter violates it, but senators visiting Nicaraguan Presidents in the 80's or the Syrian President less than a decade ago against the president's wishes didn't. (Related to question 1)
Republicans are acting petty. If you disagree with me fine, but don't start throwing "Constitutional this! Unconstitutional that!" at me. Democrats making a big show of not showing up to hear Bibi speak was petty as well, but in my opinion didn't approach the level of the republicans. Kudos to Reid for showing up however, injured as he was.
3) You are likening Iran's support of terrorist organizations to the US? Really? And you want to lecture me on using a false equivalence? Then you want to just throw Chomsky's name out like he is the authority that decides who is and isn't a sponsor of terror?
4) Your argument for Iran getting nukes is because it will "calm them down?" Well damn, I didn't know the answer was that simple. Let's just give nukes to everyone, including Isis. Who knew the answer to world peace hinged on weapons of mass destruction! In all seriousness though, you know what would calm everyone else down? Not letting Iran have nukes. They have said they want the US and Israel wiped off the map.
Iran getting nukes is not a good idea. If you don't think one getting "misplaced" or "stolen" is probable, I'd like to know why other than "they are easily traced."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just as a question of fact, Geraine, the United States has certainly been a sponsor of terror before. In Iran, since you bring it up. It kind of bit us in the ass, long term. Much of Elison's post was over the top, I will agree, but on the question of terror and violence and ethics I'm afraid we don't have a whole lot of room to lecture Iran.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not only a question of who does worse overall, but who has done what to whom. Let's say for the sake of argument it's agreed that Iran has behaved with 50% more awfulness on those fronts than the United States, overall with respect to its own people and towards others.
Well, if that's true I don't recall Iran supporting a brutal and tyrannical regime with blood soaked hands for decades with both money and resources that was only overthrown in living memory. I don't recall Iran financing and supplying Mexico in its incredibly bloody ground war with us, in which it used chemical weapons. How many jetliners did Iranian warships shoot out of the sky, killing all aboard? (It's very possible you, like almost anyone in the US, knows nothing about that last bit at all.)
It's not just about who's worse, it's also about not looking like hypocritical jackasses if you're going to lecture.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bear in mind that it's not very 'historical' at all. Every event I referenced in that post, unless you are very young and your parents were when they had you, they were alive when it happened. And given life expectancy, there's about a 3/7 chance you were as well.
ETA: ahhhh, need to clarify! I meant the U.S. a whole with the last bit of the last post, Gaal, definitely not you personally. Apologies.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I had posted this before Rakeesh with an old username, just reposting:
quote: You think our current government doesn't have room to lecture Iran on terror, violence, and ethics? I understand historically we've our issues, but we're talking modern day countries here.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I agree with what you said and you're correct, I had to do some Googling to find out about Iran Air Flight 655 (that's what you were referring to, right?). But are we not allowed to demand improvement from Iran on any ethical front since we've also sucked in the past?
I remember a part in one of OSC's books, I think it was Speaker, where he retells the story of Jesus stating "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" except after the townspeople drop the stones to the ground, he picks up a stone, kills the sinner, and states "If we only allow perfect people to enforce the law, the law is useless."
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It was Speaker, but it wasn't presented as a positive example.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Nope, it was presented as an extreme, with the other extreme being a negative example of not doing anything at all because of your own sins. To tie that extreme into this example, I disagree with the US not having grounds to lecture Iran on improving its human rights or eliminating its sponsorship of terrorism just because of our own past transgressions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
On what other basis would someone lose their right to lecture, Gaal? I'm not saying we are equally oppressive, but just for the sake of argument imagine your father was tortured to death in prison. Forty years later, the guy who bankrolled the prison and who helped kill a bunch of your dad's friends wants to come along and lecture you about human rights abuses. He never apolofized and barely even acknowledged his hideous past transgression.
It doesn't matter what awful things you've done since (which, it could be argued, were helped along by having to have a government of religiously fanatic anti-modernity fanatics for much of the succeeding years, since they were the ones who finally won the revolution): how are you going to respond to that? Aren't you going to laugh at the bankroller and despise him for a hypocrite?
When we murdered nearly 300 Iranian civilians, do you know what HW Bush, a president himself and father to another said about it? I'm paraphrasing here, but it was something along the lines of not caring what the facts were, he would never, ever apologize for America, to anyone. I believe that passenger jet was destroyed in 1987?
Come on, Gaal. With Iran we have expended our moral authority. We don't earn moral authority back by *their* being awful too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Given our history with Iran, it's hard to quibble over who has dug themselves a bigger hole when you're both already in so deep.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think the issue isn't whether we can/should "lecture", but rather, given our history, adjust the manner and context in which we do lecture.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's what I mean. It simply isn't going to work with Iran, and hasn't, obviously. Nor would it work on anyone with whom we had such a history, nor should we expect it to. All of that is entirely aside from the question of whether we are an authority.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: I'll echo Rakeesh's point. Just because the treaty wasn't previously violated doesn't mean the treaty itself was why. Russia could barely bake a loaf of bread after the USSR fell apart, invading Ukraine wasn't high on their To Do list, and until recently they had a puppet in charge with a tacit understanding that the US would sort of keep away.
No. This is clearly bullshit.
Lets flip this around, should have Russia, never signed the ABM treaty because the US backed out of their obligations to it?
Israel broke its word to the Palestinian Authority multiple times, should have Yasser Arafat not agreed to the Oslo/Camp David Accords?
Anyways don't wanna distract from Geraine being wrong.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Elison, are you really saying the prospect of the Americans complaining to the Security Council is what kept the Russians from invading the Ukraine before now?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: 1) The House inviting Bibi was unconstitutional? A breach in protocol perhaps. I suppose if a member of the Senate visited Bibi in Israel it wouldn't have been?
It's clearly unconstitutional.
quote: 2) The senate sending the letter was NOT unconstitutional and violated no part of the Logan Act. Seriously. Go read it. Then come and tell me how a letter violates it, but senators visiting Nicaraguan Presidents in the 80's or the Syrian President less than a decade ago against the president's wishes didn't. (Related to question 1)
No one mentioned the Logan Act, I certainly didn't, and I certainly didn't mention treason. Are you copying and pasting from Free Republic?
quote: Republicans are acting petty. If you disagree with me fine, but don't start throwing "Constitutional this! Unconstitutional that!" at me.
It *is* unconstitutional. Not the extent that merits or standing could be proven before a court but it certainly is a violation of separation of powers.
quote: Democrats making a big show of not showing up to hear Bibi speak was petty as well, but in my opinion didn't approach the level of the republicans. Kudos to Reid for showing up however, injured as he was.
Again, you saying "Democrats making a big show..." clearly has some sort of baggage to it; mainly that you feel they *should* show up; why? To show support for Bibi trying to undermine and dictate the foreign policy of the United States? To show support for derailing the talks? Why should they? He has been going out of his way to antagonist the relationship between the US and Israel and is acting contrary to over 40 years of US foreign policy regarding the Two State solution; he tried to talk back his words about abandoning the two-state solution but he still said that there will not be a two-state solution; without that commitment from Israel the EU and most of the world will be a lot firmer on Israel and the US won't be able to do anything about it; nor will they want to.
quote: 3) You are likening Iran's support of terrorist organizations to the US? Really? And you want to lecture me on using a false equivalence? Then you want to just throw Chomsky's name out like he is the authority that decides who is and isn't a sponsor of terror?
How many democratically elected governments has the United States overthrown in acts of state terror? That was a rhetorical question, At least seven. How many as Iran overthrown? Zero.
quote: 4) Your argument for Iran getting nukes is because it will "calm them down?" Well damn, I didn't know the answer was that simple. Let's just give nukes to everyone, including Isis. Who knew the answer to world peace hinged on weapons of mass destruction! In all seriousness though, you know what would calm everyone else down? Not letting Iran have nukes. They have said they want the US and Israel wiped off the map.
Well excuse me precious but it seems like someone has reading comprehension problems. Because that is certainly not my argument.
quote: Iran getting nukes is not a good idea. If you don't think one getting "misplaced" or "stolen" is probable, I'd like to know why other than "they are easily traced."
I agree that Iran getting nukes is a bad idea for plenty of reasons that correspond to general principles that apply to virtually any non-UNSC nation. Would you also agree that Israel should also disarm since their weapons are just as dangerous and unaccountable as any hypothetical Iranian weapons would be.
How much do you wanna bet that your answer is not only completely hypocritical but is completely applicable to Iran?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: Elison, are you really saying the prospect of the Americans complaining to the Security Council is what kept the Russians from invading the Ukraine before now?
No? I haven't suggested this as a reason in anyway, shape, or form. My position is that its very complex and based from the arguments of more learned people that I that sounds correct to my ears its incredibly oversimplifying it to reduce the reason to just "Because Russia recovered enough since 1991 to redraw the borders by force." Which is false.
Its implying that its either in the Russian national character to be imperialistic and that the Russian statements such as Yeltsin were just greedily rubbing their hands waiting for the right moment to strike; its so incredibly wrong and shallow; and worse, lazy; its crafting an enemy in your mind rather than trying to understand the enemy before you.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
You say the treaty worked. The only other way I can think of it "working" is that Russia felt obligated to honour its international agreements on principle alone. If you believe that, I totally own some choice Ukrainian farmland to sell you.
ETA to your ETA: Actually, I'm suggesting nations do things that are in their self-interest. Nations stick to international agreements because the consequences of doing elsewise are worse than the obligation. Given that the agreement was entirely toothless, without imposing any obligation to actually punish a transgression, there is no reason instrinsic to the treaty that it would be kept.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait, are you suggesting that imperialism and expansionism, especially with regards to Ukraine, isn't w recurring theme for Russia, Elison?
Cmon Elison, I know you're more familiar with Russia than that.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wait, are you suggesting that imperialism and expansionism, especially with regards to Ukraine, isn't w recurring theme for Russia, Elison?
Cmon Elison, I know you're more familiar with Russia than that.
I don't know what to tell you, it just seems so obviously a case of sour grapes and not really an honest argument based on the facts or a thorough analysis of Russian history and geopolitics since 1991. Remember Lyrhawn's claim, that Ukraine, should never have given up nuclear weapons, regardless of the number kept because it means not signing that treaty.
Why? Because of reasons not a single statesmen or specialist could have possible have known. I guarantee that this is 100% the case; the only way it could possibly be a reasonable position is if it was somehow known then that Russia was just bidding its time as a revanchist power until the moment was right.
This is 100% absolutely bullshit without a single ounce of evidence to support it. Show me any shred of evidence from that era that this was a serious positioned argued, or considered, by any senior geopolitical analyst or statesman involved.
The current situation, was 100% impossible to predict given the facts people then knew, absolutely so.
As for nations only holding onto agreements that are in their interests to keep, yeah, I'm aware of this, that's neorealism's hat, and I agree that is honestly a good way to look at things; to bring back to my previous question its like with NAFTA, anyone here recall the softwood lumber dispute? The US didn't honour the treaty and costed Canadian's a hefty amount of money. The United States didn't honour its word, but does that mean there's no benefit in Canadians signing that treaty? That there were no benefits for Ukraine to signed theirs? It comes back to that given the information they had, that we know they had, it was clearly in their interests not to be a nuclear weapons state.
A key thing to remember is that in the 90's, Russia was honest to god interested in integration with the West, in democratization, in open market reforms; there was no cause to believe then that Russia would snatch Crimea, defy international law, or use armed force.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
The Ukrainians got rid of the nukes, as you pointed out, they couldn't afford. The Russians got their nukes back. The US got a bunch of nukes moved to a more secure location without inconvenient defense obligations.
What the Ukraining didn't get was any meaningful guarantee of their borders.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
What do you mean by "meaningful guarantee"?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A third party willing to act as a deterrent to potential Russian aggression.
America and a couple Europeans were supposed to be backing that part of the agreement up, but it ended up being smoke and mirrors when russian troops rolled into the Crimea.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
That the consequence laid out for violating the treaty was sufficient to deter violation. Something with enough teeth to make Russia think twice.
But that part was always smoke and mirrors. It only required that the party not violating Ukrainian territory complain to the Security Council. That was the full extent of the US treaty obligations to Ukraine. Guess how much Russia cared.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: The Ukrainians got rid of the nukes, as you pointed out, they couldn't afford. The Russians got their nukes back. The US got a bunch of nukes moved to a more secure location without inconvenient defense obligations.
Russia with American assistance dismantled those weapons actually. I doubt that very many cold war era nuclear warheads still exist due to the shelf life isn't all that long, retired, dismantled and replaced by this point. The nuclear stockpiles of the US and Russia is a small fraction of what they used to be.
quote: What the Ukraining didn't get was any meaningful guarantee of their borders.
Bullshit. The Great Powers of the world all signed various proclamations, there was no better guarantee that could have been arranged short of treating the Russia that desperately wanted to be friends as a pariah akin to WWI Versailles Germany and we all know how that went am I right?
Blame Germany for having significant investments in Russia, blame the EU for not adopting serious measures to reduce dependence on Russian natural gas and petrol, and blame Bush for the Iraq misadventure that makes the US shy for foreign entanglements, and blame Putin; but not opine a lack of a fantasy of having any chance in hell of ever happening without consequences.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Who said anything about treating Russia like a pariah? A simple clause requiring the US to intervene militarily would have been enough teeth to make Russia think twice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Elison,
quote:Bullshit. The Great Powers of the world all signed various proclamations, there was no better guarantee that could have been arranged short of treating the Russia that desperately wanted to be friends as a pariah akin to WWI Versailles Germany and we all know how that went am I right?
This is the second time I've noticed that you seem to be shifting the goalposts. I don't think it's intentional, though, so please let me elaborate. For the sake of argument, let's say that the guarantees (some of the most important of which we in the United States cheerfully broke, btw) given to protect Ukraine were the best that were available: that still doesn't mean the guarantees were meaningful, do you understand what I'm saying? I mean clearly they weren't: most of the guarantees were backed by threat of US and European disapproval and even intervention.
In the actual event, however, even the disapproval was muted and the intervention was economic and political at best.
quote:As for nations only holding onto agreements that are in their interests to keep, yeah, I'm aware of this, that's neorealism's hat, and I agree that is honestly a good way to look at things; to bring back to my previous question its like with NAFTA, anyone here recall the softwood lumber dispute? The US didn't honour the treaty and costed Canadian's a hefty amount of money. The United States didn't honour its word, but does that mean there's no benefit in Canadians signing that treaty? That there were no benefits for Ukraine to signed theirs? It comes back to that given the information they had, that we know they had, it was clearly in their interests not to be a nuclear weapons state.
This as well. I don't think anyone is suggesting the agreements were valueless for Ukraine since the 90s to the present, but we're not quite talking about their value as a whole unless I'm mistaken.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: This is the second time I've noticed that you seem to be shifting the goalposts. I don't think it's intentional, though, so please let me elaborate. For the sake of argument, let's say that the guarantees (some of the most important of which we in the United States cheerfully broke, btw) given to protect Ukraine were the best that were available: that still doesn't mean the guarantees were meaningful, do you understand what I'm saying? I mean clearly they weren't: most of the guarantees were backed by threat of US and European disapproval and even intervention.
In the actual event, however, even the disapproval was muted and the intervention was economic and political at best.
The problem here then is I have no idea in good faith what "meaningful" would mean in any context you'd accept.
Lets look at another example of arms, control, suppose the nations of Chernorus and the Federation of United Nations enter into a treaty to reduce their stockpile of catapults by 80% over 15 years.
Now let us suppose that after 14 years Chernorus and the FUN enter into a dispute about water rights, FUN refuses to stop building dams upriver from Chernorus, so Chernorus rescinds the arms control treaty.
Was this treaty lacking in meaning even those Chernorus eventually breaks it? Supposing we don't exactly know how many catapults were eventually dismantled, only that we know none were used in that timeframe?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Turns out the spying isn't what was what irked the WH, but the whole "stealing those secrets and feeding it to the GOP to undermine the talks."
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Oh, and WH calls for the occupation of the West Bank to end.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote: This is the second time I've noticed that you seem to be shifting the goalposts. I don't think it's intentional, though, so please let me elaborate. For the sake of argument, let's say that the guarantees (some of the most important of which we in the United States cheerfully broke, btw) given to protect Ukraine were the best that were available: that still doesn't mean the guarantees were meaningful, do you understand what I'm saying? I mean clearly they weren't: most of the guarantees were backed by threat of US and European disapproval and even intervention.
In the actual event, however, even the disapproval was muted and the intervention was economic and political at best.
The problem here then is I have no idea in good faith what "meaningful" would mean in any context you'd accept.
Lets look at another example of arms, control, suppose the nations of Chernorus and the Federation of United Nations enter into a treaty to reduce their stockpile of catapults by 80% over 15 years.
Now let us suppose that after 14 years Chernorus and the FUN enter into a dispute about water rights, FUN refuses to stop building dams upriver from Chernorus, so Chernorus rescinds the arms control treaty.
Was this treaty lacking in meaning even those Chernorus eventually breaks it? Supposing we don't exactly know how many catapults were eventually dismantled, only that we know none were used in that timeframe?
Incomplete hypothetical.
The agreement wasnt a bilateral one between Ukraine and Russia. Also, you're losing something in the details
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
You said that the treaty wasn't meaningful; I an constructing an analogy, an analogy doesn't need to be exact in order to illustrate the absurdity of your statement; in fact 'losing something in the details' is the point because the goal is to stretch your statement to its logical conclusion.
That no treaty should ever be signed if there's any possibility it will not be adhered to in the future when circumstances completely change; because otherwise it is "meaningless".
You frankly have not presented any substance as to what a meaningful treaty would be that doesn't immediately fall apart in practical circumstance.
There have been numerous treaties where the parties have at one time or another not abiding by them, but real good has likely occurred from them; often this good is difficult to define; but to suppose that all such treaties are automatically meaningless is plainly untrue.
You're upset that Ukraine's territorial sovereignty is being violated and almost next to nothing is being done about it, I get that; but your just metaphorically lashing out and searching for causes to assign blame; you're not being critical or objective.
Under any reasonable standard the treaty was worth signing which automatically by definition presents it meaning. Which is why the current situation is a tragedy; to say the treaty was meaningless is to actually reduce the full impact of current events, and make it less of a tragedy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The biggest problem with your analogy is that both sides are left with recourse when division erupts. It's more representative of bilateral nuclear reduction talks between Russia and the U.S.
But Ukraine was left with no recourse. None at all. The agreement ended up being Russia saying they'd play hands off just so long as they felt like it. And that theory was never tested because Ukraine almost always was a puppet state with a Russian friendly government, but the moment they lean towards Europe the treaty is broken with no way for Ukraine to enforce. So yeah, I think it was meaningless, because it was only ever in force so long as Ukraine danced to Russia's tune.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:The agreement ended up being Russia saying they'd play hands off just so long as they felt like it...
...So yeah, I think it was meaningless, because it was only ever in force so long as Ukraine danced to Russia's tune.
This can apply to all treaties between states that are unequal to each other; should these treaties never be signed in the first place?
Some states just simply need to play the game; for example South Korea can play both the US and China; its a small country but one with an infinitely better geopolitical hand in which to bluff with. If Japan gets too uppity it can turn to China; if China presses too hard over the Norks or trade deals then they can turn to the US/Japan.
quote: But Ukraine was left with no recourse.
What was Nicaragua's? Should Nicaragua never engage with the United States? Never enter into any discussion on any matter?
quote: but the moment they lean towards Europe
This isn't true. Ukraine has been decently Europe leaning for over a decade; Russia only took action because of the incoming gov't looked like it might break the leasing of Sevastopol and because Kiev was too weak to stop it; Motive+Opportunity. I note that Cuba would probably have had the same fate befall it if they attempted to equally cancel its lease of its sovereign territory to the United States; doesn't make it right, but the idea that this was "as soon as" sort of situation instead of one that had years of events that lead up to the trigger is like saying that WWI happened "as soon as the Serbs gave the Austrians cause" instead of decades of prior history to contribute to it.
Its a very simplistic view of history and you're discrediting your position by holding such a view.
Ultimately you have a very spurious definition for "meaning" that is plainly unworkable in any context except the most rose tinted glasses wearing idealism.
In an ideal world all nations abide by their treaties even when it doesn't favour them or when circumstances change, or better, circumstances don't change and all treaties are mutually beneficial.
However in the real world they don't abide by their treaties; nations rarely keep their word either in spirit, in writing, or both; and circumstances are constantly changing.
Skilled statesmen can draft treaties and steer their nation in such a way to minimize these effects; and unfortunately Ukraine did not have such clever statesmen; but for 25 years the status quo was preserved and benefitted both parties.
If I pay rent for a year and then suddenly the landlord steals my playstation; that's criminal but I wouldn't dare claim I didn't get a service during that time. Ukraine got what it paid for.
To further elaborate on your mistaken notions about meaning, what does it mean to have meaning? On Reddit the common answer I got searching is whether something had an intrinsic value; there is no doubt that the treaty had value, so it had meaning.
You can not like it, but don't pretend to me that you can say that it objectively didn't have meaning; because its transparent that your trying to fabricate a fantasy where Ukraine kept its nukes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Ultimately you have a very spurious definition for "meaning" that is plainly unworkable in any context except the most rose tinted glasses wearing idealism.
quote:If I pay rent for a year and then suddenly the landlord steals my playstation; that's criminal but I wouldn't dare claim I didn't get a service during that time. Ukraine got what it paid for.
quote:To further elaborate on your mistaken notions about meaning, what does it mean to have meaning? On Reddit the common answer I got searching is whether something had an intrinsic value; there is no doubt that the treaty had value, so it had meaning.
Ok everybody, that's a wrap, we hit peak blayne
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Blayne
If Ukraine had kept say, 100 nukes, how much of Ukraine do you think Russia would have annexed before 2014?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Ukraine has been decently Europe leaning for over a decade; Russia only took action because of the incoming gov't looked like it might break the leasing of Sevastopol and because Kiev was too weak to stop it;
Nonsense. It was the European Association Agreement with Ukraine that Russia was rabidly against -- which Yanukovich had been forced to promise in order to get elected, that Yanukovich went back on his word in the last minute before the signing (probably because of the threats from Russia that I link to below), and the abandonment of which agreement (for no good explained reasons) triggered the 'Euromaidan' protests.
Since the previous year, September 2013, the threat had been made by Russia and it was again about the European Association Agreement, not about the bases in Crimea: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia "The Kremlin aide added that the political and social cost of EU integration could also be high, and allowed for the possibility of separatist movements springing up in the Russian-speaking east and south of Ukraine. He suggested that if Ukraine signed the agreement, Russia would consider the bilateral treaty that delineates the countries' borders to be void."
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Blayne
If Ukraine had kept say, 100 nukes, how much of Ukraine do you think Russia would have annexed before 2014?
I did some research and I really do not believe you even remotely researched this yourself.
I glanced through parts of this and it both shoots down the notion that Ukraine didn't benefit (Ukraine in fact received financial assistance), but START I wouldn't have been signed without Ukraine abandoning those weapons, and thirdly even 100 weapons Ukraine couldn't have maintained. The costs so outweigh whatever potential gains that there is just simply no way.
And in general since Moscow is protected by an ABM shield and the S-300 system can be used to in theory shoot down ICBM's (The Russians don't object as much to nuclear tipped ABM missiles), Ukraine wouldn't have been able to hit relevant or valuable strategy counterforce targets to maintain a credible deterrent.
That and the fewer weapons Ukraine has the less capable they are in fielding a second strike capability and open themselves to it being taken out immediately.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And in general since Moscow is protected by an ABM shield and the S-300 system can be used to in theory shoot down ICBM's (The Russians don't object as much to nuclear tipped ABM missiles), Ukraine wouldn't have been able to hit relevant or valuable strategy counterforce targets to maintain a credible deterrent.
what is your definition of "valuable strategy counterforce targets"
even assuming that moscow's system would defend against even modestly capable icbm's (it wouldn't) you seem to be trying to advance the case that if ukraine couldn't hit moscow specifically with missiles, nuclear capacity would not be an effective deterrent
if that is what you are actually arguing then ok wow
quote:That and the fewer weapons Ukraine has the less capable they are in fielding a second strike capability and open themselves to it being taken out immediately.
and this sort of reads like "ukraine was more safe from russia the more disarmed they were!" which is also wow.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
moving back away from endless talk on russia again
Are you going to act like one of those people who says Chinese ICBM's "Likely wouldn't even work" and the US can just safely ignore the Chinese nuclear deterrent? Because that's not how policy planning works.
To Ukrainian planners by 2015 would also have no idea as to how capable the system is, and to even have a chance at bypassing it, would need to allocate all 100 warheads to Moscow alone. The result being Ukrainians becoming protected by the endangered species act so they absolutely would not use nuclear weapons in response to either Crimea or Donetsk.
As for "wow" well, blame actual US Nuclear analysts who think in purely game theory terms, I believe I linked Stuart Slade's essay earlier where at one point he embarks on a tangent of furiously masturbating to slide rules and circle plots of the extent of nuclear devastation he could inflict on another country; I consider this not specific to him but to think tanks suits about nuclear strategy in general.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:To Ukrainian planners by 2015 would also have no idea as to how capable the system is, and to even have a chance at bypassing it, would need to allocate all 100 warheads to Moscow alone.
So I want you to be absolutely clear, before I accuse you of sort of really not knowing what you're talking about: you are saying that unless the ukranians launched literally 100 missiles at moscow, the russian missile defenses would prevent any missile from hitting moscow?
Do you think that the united states possesses any sort of missile shield that would stop 100 nuclear missiles from hitting a city if someone launched them all at that city? 50? 25?
quote:As for "wow" well, blame actual US Nuclear analysts who think in purely game theory terms, I believe I linked Stuart Slade's essay earlier where at one point he embarks on a tangent of furiously masturbating to slide rules and circle plots of the extent of nuclear devastation he could inflict on another country; I consider this not specific to him but to think tanks suits about nuclear strategy in general.
I have no idea what point you intend to have contained here in a roundabout way so I'll just ask more directly: Is it your opinion that the ukranians were safer from russia the more disarmed they were?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think his point was that he is smarter than "think tank suits."
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)