with one player (Israel) having no qualms about attacking anyone, anytime, anywhere, even if they are unarmed. (see generally, Palestine)

protecting their oil fields in the Mediterranean and deterring Iran is their reason for being.

And it is not a new arms race - the ME has been one continuous arms race for 60 years and counting.

OK Pakistan and India have them, too, as does China and Russia.

Which makes sense considering they had just fought a couple of wars of annihilation and would fight another in the 70's.

Israel has already modified the other subs to carry nukes, and the Germans are still letting Israel have another nuke sub. There might be an actual reason why Israel gets them. Perhaps the upgrade is necessary for the Israeli nuclear weapons capacity not to degrade.

While I have no problem with Israel being able to defend itself, the era of nuclear weapons being useful in any shape or form is over, I think.

When Israel dismantles its nuclear weapons complex and delivery systems completely, we can start thinking about lifting sanctions.

No nukes is good nukes.

there are no legal ground for sanctions.

Your course of action would also have to involve sanctions against India and Pakistan - Israel can't be singled out. No one is willing to go that far.

You see how this will go?

The Associated Press
Published Wednesday, April 8, 2015 8:09PM EDT
Last Updated Wednesday, April 8, 2015 10:27PM EDT

Iran accused the five nuclear powers Wednesday of failing to take concrete action to eliminate their stockpiles and called for negotiations on a convention to achieve nuclear disarmament by a target date.

Iran's deputy U.N. ambassador Gholam Hossein Dehghani told the U.N. Disarmament Commission that "a comprehensive, binding, irreversible, verifiable" treaty is the most effective and practical way to eliminate nuclear weapons.

He accused the nuclear powers -- the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France -- of promising nuclear disarmament but making no significant progress.

Dehghani's speech came days after the announcement of a framework agreement between Iran and the five nuclear powers and Germany aimed at keeping Tehran from being able to develop a nuclear weapon. It has to be finalized by June 30.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/iran-demands-nuclear-disarmament-from-u-s-russia-china-britain-and-france-1.2318184

I would appreciate it.

I was just pointing out that they all seem to be OK with Iran running it's mouth like this. That's from April 8th.

they want it. That would be hilarious if there was a mums the word clause
in there, especially given how public the negotiations have been..for the most part.

I wouldn't put it past them to try though lol

I think the deal is already done, regardless of what gets signed, and will hobble along with or without the agreement of the US Congress. But loudly, no doubt, with plenty of noise.

than some noise coming their way..I hope I am wrong about that. The neocons
really like that Iran meme and at the same time telling Obama..sorry on ISIS.

However, Russia may have just helped to speed up the process, with their military sale
to Iran. Putin is in a money hole so there's that, and we don't want these kinds
of headlines. Putin is an aggressive opportunist, he reads the papers, not too hard
to connect the dots about the Republican/Democrats neocons alliance.

I think he is a very paranoid guy too, but that is because Ifeel he is the one
who gave the order on Nemstov...a man who really was no threat. But now I am off topic,
as I digress here.

I think the obvious dissarray and fecklessness of the US Government, and Congress and Pentagon in particular, has lead various other nations long in our shadow to start ignoring us and pursuing their own agendas.

order, but I get your greater meaning. The US super power bubble has deflated, you're
allowed just so many fuck ups..then poof.

If Putin did have him killed, I would indeed think that was an indication of non-sanity, stupidity, but in the larger sense Putin has plenty of enemies, and they are out to get him, and he is a dangerous opponent, not crazy, and it was a mistake to not take him seriously all along, and an intelligence failure too.

Once you lose credibility, it's gone. That is going to be Bibi's problem too. People don't try to correct you, they just stop listening, and although you can make people sit there, you can't make people listen.

for the US.

I am very angry about Nemstov and deeply saddened for Russian activists, they
are more frightened now, with good reason. As I understand it, the activists
who have been interviewed since his murder by human rights groups all say
pretty much the same thing, they all talk about what happened to Nemstov,
whether they're interviewed alone or in a group. It was devastating for Russia.

Nemstov's mother is beloved by much of that community and she expressed something
quite poignant soon after, which was..Russians will need to think long and hard
about what happened here, as the question is not whether one agreed with
Nemstov political positions but do you want to live under a government that
would do such a thing.


Obviously I am in the, there is likely no one else who did order it, no one
is murdered like that in front of the Kremlin, he had no body guards, he
could have been killed anywhere else..took public transportation all
the time..that was one hell of a symbolic photo op.

Boy, I am still off topic...I'll stop now.

a part of the NPT, as they never signed it. Therefore you cannot impose sanctions on it under the NPT.

Iran however did sign the NPT, which is why they can be sanctioned.

The NPT actually has universal sanctions on members who proliferate to non-members. That makes the US, France, and Germany sanctionable under the Treaty for giving Israel the technology it used to build its own nuclear arsenal. Most of the enriched uranium used to construct the first Israeli bombs at the time of the 1967 War came from a Pennsylvania facility that produced weapons grade materials for the US Navy.

Thank goodness for the MSM, they are so careful to avoid unnecessary information.
Don't want to plaster facts like that around.

1) the treaty was not ratified until 1970, after the time Israel already had the access they needed for nuclear technology, weaponry, and energy
2) it would still mean that Israel is not subject to sanctions.

other NPT signatory states since 1970 in violation of the Treaty, making those proliferating states sanctionable under Article I:

Article I: Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices.

A sanctions regime, or UN authorized military action, may also stem from the UN Charter Chapter VII collective security "threat to the peace" provision:

Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be jus cogens (literally: "compelling law", in practice: "higher international law&quot , and prohibits all UN members from exercising "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". But in the modern framework of the UN Charter, it is the phrase "armed attack occurs" in Article 51[39] that draws the line between legitimate and illegitimate military force.[29] From this it is reasonable to assume that if no armed attack has yet occurred that no automatic justification for preemptive 'self-defense' has yet been made 'legal' under the UN Charter. In order to be justified as an act of self-defense, two conditions must be fulfilled which are widely regarded as necessary for its justification. The first of these is that actor must have believed that the threat is real, as opposed to (merely) perceived. The second condition is that the force used in self-defense must be proportional to the harm which the actor is threatened.

that Israel continued to receive nuclear technology post 1970? Pre-emptive attacks are not considered aggressive because they are considered to be a defensive measure against another nation that poses a threat (hence the term pre-emptive).

Borger's piece here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal

says that countries sold Israel nuclear technology post 1970. All the dates in it are pre-1970 (in terms of technology being sold).