• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Israel be required to sign the NPT? [W:348]

Should Israel be required to sign the NPT

  • Total voters
    41
shrubnose said:
Right, but they can't enforce that requirement and if they tried they might get nuked.
Click to expand...

Luckily, most of the trouble makers do not have the means.
 
shrubnose said:
How many wars has India fought with Pakistan?
Click to expand...

Only a half dozen. Those two are still deciding on where the boarders are.

But that is another point. Even peaceful countries fight. And the danger of atomic strike is especially large, where human error is a major problem and short delivery periods reduce the time to check for them before your second strike capability is gone.
 
Apocalypse said:
So you're asking why should the West trust its own nations such as the US and Israel with nuclear weapons?
What kind of ridiculous question is that?
Click to expand...

Why should we? The US is the only nation to use the weapons. Israel has sold its tech to a hostile racist country. Why on earth should we trust them any more than Iran or North Korea? The US and Israel spies on us.. assassinates and kidnaps people on our streets. When was the last time the UK or France or Germany were caught in killing people in the US or Israel?

There is a different between blind trust as you want, and quite scepticism and alert-fullness that Europe is moving more and more towards. Trust has to be earned, and that trust there once was started to be seriously erode when Bush came to power and ever since even under Obama.

And why do you believe that you speak in the name of the West? You who detest it? You who hate America and Israel with great passion and oppose anything Western, siding with the darkest and most backwards regimes such as the Iranian one or practically anyone who opposes the West? Give me a break. :lol:
Click to expand...

Where the hell have I said I speak for the west? My opinion are quite mainstream all across Europe, especially since the whole NSA surveillance issue. For decades we were taught to trust and admire the US and what it stands for, but since the fall of the wall we have gain our independence once again and started to question the validity of what we learned.. American citizens could do a dose of reality as well these days.

Tell me, why should any European trust what America or Israel says or does? We barely trust our own governments..
 
Peter Grimm said:
Didn't the US spy on Germany? We're still allies. Nations spy on each other. It's not that big of a deal.
Click to expand...

Yes you are, but not as big allies as you use to be. The US has burnt quite a few bridges over the last 15 years.

Much as it displeases Muslims around the world, the US/UK and Israel are strong allies, and will continue to be so for a long time.
Click to expand...

No doubt about that, as long as APIAC is around and which is why the US will always be seen as an Israeli puppet. As for the UK, that relationship with Israel has changed a lot and will change a lot after the next election. Bibi calling for Jews to go to Israel from Europe did not go down well among all established political parties.
 
Simpleχity;1064330256 said:
No nation is required to sign the treaty. The NPT is strictly voluntary.
Click to expand...

I know. Only, we carry on as if some must, while others need not. I suggest that none are in the position to say who can have, and who can not.
 
PeteEU said:
What ally? Israel? HAHAHAHA you have got to be kidding. Israel is no ally of the US.. at best a tolerated accomplice in a sea of hostile fish. Allies dont attack your military. Allies dont spy on you and plant moles in your intelligence organisations. Allies dont assassinate people in friendly countries.
Click to expand...

I do not think you understand the concept of an ally. Allies do not see eye to eye on every matter. Not even on every matter of great importance to one or the other. As a matter of fact, allies can be allies on a very narrow but overridingly important objective. Think FDR and Uncle Joe. I cannot really imagine any important country that does not spy on its most friendly neighbors to an extent. Or do you want to tell me that France does not spy on EU institutions and German activities? That would be irresponsible.
 
justabubba said:
that's the height of hypocrisy
if israel is seeking to reign in nuclear proliferation it should sign the NPT
and comply with its terms
until then, its views should carry NO weight on the matter

and if it truly wants to deny iran nuclear arms, it should abandon its own nuclear arms
then, iran would have no more justification to attain nuclear parity
israel is an international hypocrite on this issue
Click to expand...
Heckling the other team while supporting your own is not hypocrisy. Likewise Isreal trying to deny Iran nukes while protecting it's own is not hypocrisy. We do all play by the same rules but those rules aren't what you think they are.

And if Isreal does sign the treaty, they're fully justified in carrying out a black nuke program. Isreal has a moral blank check to do absolutely whatever it needs to do to survive.
 
If the EU ever began settlements in Israel, you can bet your ass that the US would fly to their aid in a second. General Dempsey already said that no matter who threatens Israel, the US military will respond accordingly.
 
justabubba said:
that's the height of hypocrisy
Click to expand...
Wrong. There is no hypocrisy there. None.
Maybe you just do not know what hypocrisy means, you surely haven't pointed to any.
You do not have to be a party of a treaty to speak to others noncompliance. Especially when said noncompliance has the potential to affect them.
Saying so is ridiculous.


justabubba said:
if israel is seeking to reign in nuclear proliferation it should sign the NPT
and comply with its terms
until then, its views should carry NO weight on the matter
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Again.
Bs. They don't just have a right, but it can be said it is a duty to speak out against a known hostile nation obtaining nukes.​


justabubba said:
and if it truly wants to deny iran nuclear arms, it should abandon its own nuclear arms
Click to expand...
What an absurd suggestion.


justabubba said:
then, iran would have no more justification to attain nuclear parity
Click to expand...
Wrong. Pointing to Israel is not justification.


justabubba said:
israel is an international hypocrite on this issue
Click to expand...
Wrong.
You clearly do not know what the word means.
 
joG said:
I do not think you understand the concept of an ally. Allies do not see eye to eye on every matter. Not even on every matter of great importance to one or the other. As a matter of fact, allies can be allies on a very narrow but overridingly important objective. Think FDR and Uncle Joe. I cannot really imagine any important country that does not spy on its most friendly neighbors to an extent. Or do you want to tell me that France does not spy on EU institutions and German activities? That would be irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Allies are equals. Europe has never been treated as equals and when they forced the issue, then the US called countries like France and Germany as disloyal and all that bull****. Just look at when the UK pulled out of Iraq, how the attitude towards the UK suddenly changed overnight. They went from being key competent allies to being incompetent baffons.. classy.

As I stated.. trust has to be earned and gained. It can also easily be lost. The "special relationship" with the UK is only as special as long as the UK is in the EU.. that has been US policy since Reagan when Thatcher threatened to leave.. it is no different today. Is that a real ally or a bully in a so called complicated marriage?

So I ask again, why trust Israel or the US with nukes more than other countries? Should there not be equal standards on the subject?
 
PeteEU said:
The US is the only nation to use the weapons.
Click to expand...
That is a lame argument.
The full scope of there use and why they should only be a weapon of last resort was not known at the time.
 
PeteEU said:
.. American citizens could do a dose of reality as well these days.

Tell me, why should any European trust what America or Israel says or does?...
Click to expand...

You shouldn't. If you do, you will get from us exactly what you deserve.
 
PeteEU said:
Allies are equals. Europe has never been treated as equals and when they forced the issue, then the US called countries like France and Germany as disloyal and all that bull****. Just look at when the UK pulled out of Iraq, how the attitude towards the UK suddenly changed overnight. They went from being key competent allies to being incompetent baffons.. classy.

As I stated.. trust has to be earned and gained. It can also easily be lost. The "special relationship" with the UK is only as special as long as the UK is in the EU.. that has been US policy since Reagan when Thatcher threatened to leave.. it is no different today. Is that a real ally or a bully in a so called complicated marriage?

So I ask again, why trust Israel or the US with nukes more than other countries? Should there not be equal standards on the subject?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "equals" in this context?

As far as Germany and France helping Putin steep the game towards an invasion of Iraq, it was indeed a an act not of "disloyalty", but of callousness and/or enmity. A lot of people do not understand enough about negotiation and game theories to have picked that up, believing in, what is said and not looking behind the words for effects and intent. But one would come to understand that, were they to do the maths on the situation back then. Most are too lazy, however, or to little educated.
But you are right that some in the US misinterpreted Schröder/Chirac to have been "disloyal" instead of just understanding that that is the nature of the scorpion. You just have to keep an eye on nations. They tend to be loose cannons.

Where you would be right, if we had a system of robust and believably general security enforcement with r2p at the global level with the appropriate legal recourse and all that, we should have general standards of weaponry. But that is something that would only be logically consistent under those circumstances. Until countries are willing to stop free riding and initiate, maintain and pay for that type of system it would only make the world more dangerous. Lots of people argue the way you do. But that is always from a position with no responsibility for international security for themselves or others and where the security is paid for by others.

Denmark BTW is not the worst offender in this, but are one of the free riders and does not honor its treaty spending obligations nor has it for very many years.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Required by who and what would the benefit of the requirement be?

Since we are talking about the UN nations here we have to evaluate the "resolution request" and its origin (which was not offered as a requirement.) What we are really talking about here is a resolution that started with Egypt that has plenty of Arab nation support.

The main problem is it becomes dubious to suggest Israel is the sole problem as to why others in the middle east (and extended areas around) are pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Primarily, India and Pakistan have not signed the agreement either and they both have them. Secondary, we have question on Iran's interests. Lastly, we are not so sure we can trust Syria in the long run.

The other problem is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is inherently flawed. India argued this best, and it goes to the core of why the UN itself is flawed. The agreement basically condones a group of nations to have nuclear weapons and a larger group that does not. To restrict the development and possession of nuclear weapons argues that we trust those nations with them far more than the others, and as such the treaty is discriminatory and not universal in handling all those that sign it. That means there is no such thing as "balance and order" to the possession of these weapons that the treaty claims. We need to start being honest about this, either we all have them with some sort of international safeguard or no one has them at all. The treaty does not accomplish either, nor can it as designed from origination through implementation as of today.

Because of these concerns there is no real benefit to the region for Israel to subject themselves to the "safeguards" of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency given these flaws. I would even go so far as to suggest the US leave the resolution, clearly our international opposition is suspect no matter what the disposition of the agreement is around the globe. But for Israel, it creates a level of bureaucracy that Israel would have to deal with some of it's strongest enemies that would be associated to that bureaucracy via this flawed agreement. In this case I can clearly see the argument Israel would have about putting their stockpile under international supervision.

The other thing to keep in mind is how this latest round of using the NPT has played out. Not surprisingly the US voted against the measure, Canada on the other hand voting against it was a bit of a surprise.
Click to expand...

So basically your contention is that Israel should not sign it because it is flawed. So do you think the world should try to do anything about the proliferation of nuclear weapons other than to keep nations that might be hostile to Israel and/or the U.S. from having them?
 
radcen said:
If by "useless" you mean that they're only worth the paper they're written on, and that people/countries are sometimes prone to break agreements, then yes.

The human species is not practical, btw. It's a nice thought, but it ain't so.
Click to expand...

What I meant was do you think nuclear NON proliferation is practical? If you understood me properly and that's your response, it appears you feel that there is nothing the world should try to do about the proliferation of nuclear weapons except to let nations do whatever is in their power to keep other nations that are hostile to their interests from having them.
 
PeteEU said:
Why should we? The US is the only nation to use the weapons. Israel has sold its tech to a hostile racist country. Why on earth should we trust them any more than Iran or North Korea? The US and Israel spies on us.. assassinates and kidnaps people on our streets. When was the last time the UK or France or Germany were caught in killing people in the US or Israel?
Click to expand...

If you believe that the UK, France and Germany do not spy on other nations you are being ridiculous, and even more ridiculous is the fact that you remember the use of nuclear weapons during WWII by the US - should I remind you what some in Europe have done at the same time? Seriously, if anyone can't talk about historical morality it's the Europeans.

There is a different between blind trust as you want, and quite scepticism and alert-fullness that Europe is moving more and more towards. Trust has to be earned, and that trust there once was started to be seriously erode when Bush came to power and ever since even under Obama.

Where the hell have I said I speak for the west? My opinion are quite mainstream all across Europe, especially since the whole NSA surveillance issue. For decades we were taught to trust and admire the US and what it stands for, but since the fall of the wall we have gain our independence once again and started to question the validity of what we learned.. American citizens could do a dose of reality as well these days.

Tell me, why should any European trust what America or Israel says or does? We barely trust our own governments..
Click to expand...

There's a huge difference between not trusting America and Israel in general and not trusting America and Israel over backwards, dark regimes such as Iran and North Korea.
I don't have to explain to you how ridiculous that notion is. And I don't believe you represent the mainstream European opinion. Not saying that Europeans are all pro-American, pro-Israeli folk but not all of them engage the issue with such hateful passion that you choose to engage it with. We have more than enough European posters here and yet only one European poster whose opinion I can always predict with 100% accuracy.
It is also not true because unlike you European leaders clearly show that they do not wish to see an Iranian or North Korean nuclear capability. They clearly understand that such a situation is a risk to themselves as well, and not just to Israel or just to the US.
 
Last edited:
The U.S. needs to stop shielding and funding Israel. It's simply not worth it.
 
PeteEU said:
Hell yes.. since the west almost "requires" countries like Iran and Pakistan to sign up, then why not Israel? After all Israel has actually sold nuclear tech to a hostile nation.. Iran and Pakistan has not..
Click to expand...

You know this how?
 
MildSteel said:
The U.S. needs to stop shielding and funding Israel. It's simply not worth it.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, as soon as Russia stops helping Iran, right?
 
MildSteel said:
The same can be said of Iran.
Click to expand...

Not really.
In your case you've brought up a quote of Ariel Sharon saying things that he never intended on following with. He talks about Jewish morality and how it backfires on Israel according to him and how if it didn't exist Israel would be allowed to defend itself more fiercely, but during his time as PM did he follow any of that? No, he did the opposite of that. He was the one responsible for the withdrawal from Gaza. So it's empty propaganda on your side and nothing more. On Iran however, its leaders are actually following with the agenda dictated by their words - they claim the US is the big Satan and that Israel is the small Satan, and indeed they've been known to support anti-American and anti-Israeli terror organizations for years to this very day. They are a backwards and dark regime and attempting to defend them by claiming that their words are taken out of context the same way you did with Sharon here is shamefully immoral. There is no basis for comparison between any of the Western democracies and the Iranian government. None at all.
 
Simpleχity;1064330262 said:
Total nuclear disarmament has not occurred during the past 70 years of the nuclear age. There is no international instrument currently available to remedy this situation. So yes, at this juncture total nuclear disarmament is a Utopian dream. That said, I would totally support such an initiative.


It is possible, but not likely. Einstein had his share of foibles. The cosmological constant and quantum mechanics come to mind.
Click to expand...

Wow, it's both totally supportable, and a utopian dream, lol. And dismissing Einstein, oh boy.
 
MildSteel said:
What I meant was do you think nuclear NON proliferation is practical? If you understood me properly and that's your response, it appears you feel that there is nothing the world should try to do about the proliferation of nuclear weapons except to let nations do whatever is in their power to keep other nations that are hostile to their interests from having them.
Click to expand...
Every nation wants to prevent nations that are hostile to them from having them (if they can).

I'm right there with you on the warm-and-fuzzy desire to diminish (and/or eliminate) nuclear weapons, but as long as those who already have them insist on keeping them, I simply don't see it as being practical, so I'm choosing the side of practical reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom