Comment: Of course it's not "okay"

(See in situ)


Cyril's picture

Of course it's not "okay"

Of course it's not "okay", in the principle, to let them do whatever it pleases them to do without any attempt to some DIPLOMATIC relationship to have them at least not enter the "undeclared" category below, as Israel supposedly did around 1979.

But how come people just can't apply Ron Paul's simple common sense after due research and homework on historical facts and/or former press releases?

We, in the Ron Paul camp, sure did get the spirit and the idea, but I believe we still have some effort to do to not only better educate people, but also to start with ourselves to speak with the minimal required structure and accuracy.

Facts:

The first five nations to have acquired the nuclear power, from supposedly independent research and test programs, without even asking each others' permissions, were, in chronological order:

The US, in 1945 w/ 1950 warheads active today;
Russia, former USSR, in 1949 w/ 2430 warheads active today;
The UK, in 1952 w/ 160 warheads active today;
France, in 1960 w/ 290 warheads active today;
China, in 1964 w/ 180 warheads active today.

All five are also today either signatories or ratifiers of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

4 other countries are known to have the nuclear power without any doubt :

the first three are non-NPT signatories, though have acknowledged the power : India, since 1974, no more than 100 warheads; Pakistan, since 1998, no more than 110 warheads; North Korea, since 2006, no more than 10 warheads

the fourth is Israel who not only is non-NPT, but didn't even acknowledge having the power, with anywhere from 80 to 200 warheads assumed today, and since circa 1979.

So, question : what does Ron Paul EXACTLY mean when he says it is non-sensical to think or claim deceptively, like the warmongers among GOP do, that Iran entering a nuclear program would pose ANY immediate threat to the USA?

He means this:

anyway, it takes 15 to 20 years for a country to build up a nuclear weapons program of any significance to its IMMEDIATE neighbors.

Oh, yes... Sources? This is really not difficult to find; this WP page has no current reserves about issues or disputes, for instance:

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

He also certainly means this:

even in the event of a major crisis or recurrent/repeated tensions between two or more close countries (e.g., USSR and Cuba vs. the US, in the 1960s or France+UK+Germany vs. USSR, repeatedly as well though to a lesser extent, between the 1970s and the 1990s) EVEN the country with the LARGER power think twice if not more times before raising the argument towards threats of higher levels (nuclear ones).

France and UK have REPEATEDLY been firm and applying both economical and diplomatic (embargos, U.N. blames, vetoes) sanctions against USSR never fearing the crisis to go so bad that the threat of the use of nuclear power would be the implied or most likely retaliation to prepare themselves against.

Someone : please just read the newspapers from the 1970s to the 1990s about the many tensions and crises the European western block had to cope with w.r.t. an often arrogant USSR lead. Again, I challenge anyone to find in the press archives that at any single point in time it went so bad that the nuclear threat catch phrase would be mentioned seriously by either sides' officials. I would remember : I was a kid, a teen, or young adult!

Let's use our own memory of what strikes our minds in our daily lives in each period for our reality check; we don't need the MSM to teach a biased history : we can read books or use our own brain memory cells, too!

Anyway.

So, the thought that Iran, by MAYBE entering, ONLY today, the dawn of its WOULD-BE nuclear weapon program, COULD pose any sort of IMMEDIATE threat if only to Israel itself ALONE, its closest ennemy, is pure SCARE TACTIC aimed at convincing American citizens they think politically NUMB and/or DUMB enough to fall into.

But this is NOT just that : by appealing to go for a "PREEMPTIVE" RETALIATION and AGGRESSION BY ANTICIPATION over Iran is TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE -- as this is ALSO setting an ADVERTISED precedent for other unfriendly countries like North Korea to prepare themselves even better as they sure know they would be next on the list.

Am I making sense or did I miss something REALLY BIG ?

Just say'n.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius