|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 18, 2018 17:53:10 GMT
Jonah is the administrator for the week of January 22-29th.
Original Posts by 11:59pm Thursday, January 25th
Two Peer responses by the start of class on Monday, January 29th
|
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jan 18, 2018 17:57:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Olivia Girdwood on Jan 22, 2018 22:27:19 GMT
It is not right to limit nuclear power in countries, unless there is a reason for a country not to have it. These reasons include the country has been know to make rash decisions and try to take out large areas of people or they are known for their terroristic ideals. “Some of the countries are scary to think of with nuclear weapons, but it is reassuring that most will take a long time to “Break-out” a bomb or missile that has nuclear properties (BBC). Overall, there is something that is missing from this puzzle. No matter what the background and past of our President is, our President would not say something so specific or harsh without having backing. To me it appears that there is an underlying motive for Trump to accuse such things against Iran. “[The people] are undoubtedly aware that the President’s choice will most likely undermine or end U.S. participation in the nuclear deal, split us from our European allies, reduce the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program, and reduce America’s global credibility and negotiating power” (Cato). With all of this at stake there is no reason to make comments without having evidence to support them. I believe that if Trump is so insistent on this issue that some countries at least meet with him and listen to what he has to say. I do not believe Trump should be on such a quick schedule. These sort of things take a lot of time and thinking, at least I have always thought. He seems to be in a rush. Trump is being rash it seems especially because “Yet...the President’s decision is not based on any reality-based assessment of the deal. Iran is in fact complying with the deal, a fact verified repeatedly by the International Atomic Energy Agency” (Cato). There is no good that could come out of this it seems. “Iran says its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes and that it will stick to the accord as long as the other signatories respect it, but will "shred" the deal if Washington pulls out” (Town hall). If this were to be the final resolution, it may cause even more issues that are unimaginable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2018 13:57:15 GMT
Olivia provides a nice model example of referencing specific sources and thinking across the majority of the readings provided by Jonah- Well done!
She also raises an interesting point: "It is not right to limit nuclear power in countries, unless there is a reason for a country not to have it." Qualify the criteria of what would determine a "reason for a country not to have it" (nuclear weapons) and discuss who gets to make this determination and who would enforce it. "Should" it be a unilateral enforcement (meaning one country's responsibility) or an international response?
|
|
|
|
Post by Makayla Rieder on Jan 24, 2018 1:17:07 GMT
Trump is going out on a pretty crazy limb right now. Personally, i don’t like the idea of anyone having nuclear power, but i think that it should be limited if countries are going to have it. Countries that are known to be unstable or have a quick temper should not have nuclear weapons. When you have the power to start a nuclear war with just the push of button, you should not have someone who acts impulsively sitting behind it. I’m ok with smaller countries having the same nuclear powers as the world powers if it’s used to protect themselves. As long as they aren’t going to start the war, they should have the power to protect themselves during it. I really don’t think that Trump should pull out of the Nuclear deal. Being able to punish Iran more is not going to stop them from helping terrorist groups. He’s trying to tackle something small by getting rid of something huge that could affect the safety of billions of people. I feel like Nuclear war is a more urgent problem than dealing with terrorists.Without the deal, Iran could easily start back up their nuclear program and one wrong move from anyone could start a war with the snap of a finger or the push of a button. I think that just recertifying the deal would be the best move right now on the presidents part. Terminating the deal is only going to turn allies into enemies and make a lot of people mad, and in a time where nuclear weapons seem relatively easy to get for the countries who have the resources, it seems like a good idea to be making friends and not enemies. If the U.S. really is going to leave the deal if something isn’t changed, which doesn’t make any sense because it’s fine, as Emma Ashford states “Contrary to the Trump administration’s statements, the nuclear deal with Iran is working.” (Cato) then i think it would be in the best interest for other countries to help us make it a little more suitable to Trump but not so much that it’s overbearing on Iran. It’s better to have Iran’s Nuclear program under control with a little bit of negotiation than letting them roam free to do whatever they want and nuke whatever they want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 24, 2018 17:15:07 GMT
I am posting a MODEL example of a peer response from last discussion board as an example. One sentence will not suffice for credit.
@laura, I fully agree with your thoughts on the US influencing the barrier between North and South Korea. The tensions have been there so long and despite wanting to be a united country, South Korea has confided in the US since the end of WWII and spent generations living in fear of their communism fueled evil twin. It has become their nature to flinch at the slightest movement in the North, with fair reason. Now that North Korea is reaching out to seemingly begin to make amends, South Korea seems to have come to an unspoken "fork in the road". They can chose to go in with extreme caution towards North Korea's offers and likely ruin any trust of North Korea by continuing to be backed so strongly by a large US militant force. The other path would mean refusing US protection, leaving the safety they have long confided in, and practically trust fall into the arms of a life long bully in the name of growth and unity. If the US hadn't have taken such a strong, outward opinion against North Korea, they most likely would not be causing such a barrier and could be a more silent support in the background. Though it is hard to say, everyday more and more troops are being deployed to South Korea and surrounding areas in Japan. We'll just have to see what the future holds, either way we're in for some monumental history.(Student work: M. French)
|
|
|
|
Post by Maddy Crighton on Jan 24, 2018 21:33:01 GMT
The topic of nuclear war and nuclear weapons is not a new one. In fact, According to the Chicago Tribune, only countries that were deemed unlikely to start a nuclear war and had the capability and finances to build nukes are part of a special club known as the Nuclear Club. With that being said, the club remained small until 2006 when North Korea became officially nuclearized. Now the club has members from all over the world including countries such as Pakistan, Israel, Iran, and more. However, more recently there has been talk about President Trump kicking Iran out of the 2015 Nuclear Deal proposed by former President Obama. In the BBC article, “Iran Nuclear Deal: Key Details,” Trump states that Iran has broken the deal by exceeding the heavy-water limits and their access to international inspectors. Trump called for new sanctions on Iran and the deal is being sent to Congress for revising. The BBC article also states that according to EU foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, Iran had not broken any of the details bestowed in the agreement. So there is a bit of surprise when Iran complies with Trump’s allegations and decision. According to the Cato article, Trump also is planning on undermining American involvement in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Many of his advisors believe that it will end participation in the Nuclear Deal and split the U.S. from its European allies, as well “reduce the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program and reduce America’s global credibility and negotiating power.” (Cato) According to Townhall, the reason for Trump’s allegations and decisions are due because he believes Iran is a threat with nuclear weapons. However, “Iran says its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes and that it will stick to the accord as long as the other signatories respect it.” With all the information in the articles, I believe it is fair to say that Trump is afraid of more opposing countries starting a nuclear war with the U.S. like North Korea. However, I agree with him, if there is suspicion that another country may attack then we should be taking all the precautions needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maddy Crighton on Jan 24, 2018 21:43:14 GMT
@makayla I totally agree with you that large countries that are more likely to start a war should not have nuclear weapons. Smaller countries should be able to use it in order to protect themselves against enemies. However, I disagree with you about Trump just needing to stay with the deal. Iran has been one of the many countries that the US has had disagreements with and if the president feels the need that they might use their nuclear weapons against us then it is a good call. Even though his advisers feel that the US may lose its allies over ending the deal, there is no way to know for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maddy Crighton on Jan 24, 2018 21:49:57 GMT
@mastrean If a country is more likely to start a war and has an unstable government they should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. The United Nations should be the one to determine whether or not countries are allowed nuclear weapons. They should look at their infrastructure and their previous actions and therefore determine whether or not nuclear weapons would benefit them and not be used for mass destruction and war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooke Gentile on Jan 24, 2018 23:40:23 GMT
Former President Barack Obama "lifted crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for limitations to the country's controversial nuclear energy programme, which international powers feared Iran would use to create a nuclear weapon"(BBC) which in my opinion has been working out smoothly. However current President Donald Trump recently announced that he will not be re certifying this deal. President Trump has claimed that that the deal was too lenient and that rules have been broken. The funny thing about that is that no violations have even been broken by Iran yet.I loved what Olivia had to say about this issue and I firmly agree, she stated "it is not right to limit nuclear power in countries, unless there is a reason for a country not to have it." Without this deal there may be something horrifying right around the corner, when you come to think of it nuclear power should be available for anyone that needs protection, under the circumstances of a stable leader. Our leader however has mentioned numerous times about how his "Nuclear button is much bigger"(nytimes) than North Korea's. We should not be flaunting this around like is it some sort of joke; nuclear warfare is a serious topic which should not be "joked" about by a leader. The point I'm trying to get across is being that Iran has not broken any rules, OR made any comments about using them as does our president. Therefore there should be no reason whatsoever to not recertify this agreement. I feel that the best move the U.S. could make at this moment would be recertifying the deal. I also feel that under no circumstances should we “leave” the deal if there is no further change. Whatever decision the president makes, lets hope it works in our favor.
Also, Do you feel that Trump is taking things too far by wanting o leave the deal if there is no further change? Or would you as President make the same move?
|
|
|
|
Post by Laura Gutauskas on Jan 25, 2018 0:17:44 GMT
Limiting a country’s nuclear capabilities can be purely justifiable and in most cases today, it has been. It’s typically done for the sake of international peace and security, although I don’t even like knowing that world powers have nuclear weapons because it only makes them more powerful, not more trustworthy. If Trump decides to end the deal, he would be burning bridges for no reason with not only Iran, but other parts of the U.N. as well. By no reason, I mean that Iran fully respects the deal and doesn’t want to risk going against it and yet Trump accuses them of violating the code despite this being proven false. The fate of what Iran will do falls entirely in the hands of the U.S. since they “will ‘shred’ the deal if Washington pulls out” (Townhall). If Iran actually did violate the deal, then the so yearned for sanctions by Trump would be reinstated on them, which Iran of course does not want. While a revision could be somehow possible, Iran is unlikely to be up for making negotiations and if they’re so “unstable,” as assumed by Trump, why risk disrupting what is currently in place? Russia has also already denied support towards revising the deal. Trump has tried diverting the topic to something more “political and strategic” and believes that Iran “frustrates U.S. objectives in places like Iraq and Yemen, and that the nuclear deal hasn’t done much to solve the problem” (Vox). The issue with this is that he’s too busy focusing on his own agenda to look at the big picture as to why the deal was implemented in the first place, which was purely to limit their nuclear weapon possession. The unintended benefits are that “the deal has halted Iranian proliferation and opened lines of communication and negotiation which can be exploited to defuse future tensions and improve relations over the long-term” (Cato). This means international opportunity for agreement and mutual gains. Pulling away from this current peace only gives Iran more freedom to do whatever they want since no one would be able to prevent them from doing so. U.S. sanctions wouldn’t be approved by other nations if the deal is broken and they cannot put sanctions on Iran themselves. All control would be lost over them and the nuclear program could easily start up again; the entire point of tackling the nuclear issue would be ruined and nothing from the U.S. could stop that. Recertifying the deal is the only safe option since Iran could be unpredictable without this cooperative global agreement in place. “Just letting the U.S. leave” would be extremely ignorant of the rest of the U.N. since they know what could happen without the U.S.’s compliance to the deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barbie Cessar on Jan 25, 2018 2:00:52 GMT
Jonah is the administrator for the week of January 22-29th. Original Posts by 11:59pm Thursday, January 25th Two Peer responses by the start of class on Monday, January 29th Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons in the World. The less people who obtain them, the better it is for humankind. I think that restricting nuclear weapons to certain countries is not oppressive because they can cause immense destruction and untold retaliation that jeopardizes our existence. In present day, this is not the case. Nuclear weapons are “contagious” as Mastrean would say because everyone is entitled to protection. This means that if the United States is allowed to have nuclear power then every other country is going to feel threatened and want to create nuclear weapons to stand a chance to the nations that possess nuclear arms. It would be in Trump's best interest to recertify the deal because new sanctions against Iran will cause to much tension. “President’s choice will most likely undermine or end U.S. participation in the nuclear deal, split us from our European allies, reduce the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program, and reduce America’s global credibility and negotiating power (Cato.org).” Nuclear weapons are lethal but causing tension with other Nations is not the solution. The world needs to be all in or not in at all when it comes to nuclear power. Allowing only some nations to obtain nuclear weapons causes more tension then the weapons themselves. Are all nations entitled to protection? Does protection include obtaining nuclear weapons? |
|
|
|
Post by Olivia Girdwood on Jan 25, 2018 12:41:44 GMT
@barbie
You start off by saying that the less countries that have nuclear weapons, the better it is for humankind, but then you go on to say that having nuclear weapons make a country feel more secure and protected. So by the comment of "the better it is for humankind" do you really mean "the better it is for us, United States Citizens?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Olivia Girdwood on Jan 25, 2018 12:50:42 GMT
brooke In your response you made a comment about how Iran is not flaunting their "nonexistent" nuclear weapons and receiving back fire from our President who does flaunt his nuclear weapons. The way you worded it made me want to ask you, do you see President Trump unfit to be in charge of weapons of such capabilities? From my viewpoint and what you said it appears that President Trump seems to be acting like a spoiled middle school student who wants to show off why he is better. I know it is rude of me to say but with formalities out the window that is how I am seeing his actions. President Trump is taking things to far, for the information that is being released to the public about the issue, and either needs to explain why he is making the comments he is or just forget about it. If I were president I would not make the same move unless I had valid evidence to support what comes out of my mouth, and if I did have valid reasoning behind making a comment like that, I would tell the public why I am saying that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meghan Miller on Jan 25, 2018 13:23:55 GMT
The Iran nuclear deal is stirring up a lot of tensions around the world. The United States’s sour relations with Iran makes the United States lean towards putting harsh restrictions on their nuclear power. The power of which countries get to have nuclear power should not be decided by other countries but should be decided by the largest group of countries’ representatives as possible, the UN. Not everyone should have nuclear power, as the Chicago Tribune spoke about the newly nuclear countries saying that “Neither North Korea nor Iran is democratic. Neither is a stable country”. The instability of these countries poses a risk to all other people, because if one of these countries decides to take out their hatred on other countries using their nuclear power then the entire world could be at risk of a full scale nuclear war. No country should have nuclear power because of the risk that comes with the control of nuclear power, but this nuclear power can not be taken away now. The countries without nuclear power (and without nuclear enemies) are the safest and this amount of safety is not repressive, no country wants to be seen obliterating a ‘vulnerable’ country. Many countriest that use nuclear power have had disasters with incidents out of their control, in March of 2011 Japan had a nuclear disaster as a result of a tsunami (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx ). The less stable countries that have nuclear power are not necessarily a threat, Iran may have gone nuclear without permission (from whom they need permission from is beyond my understanding of world politics) but they are now willing to follow and compromise with the UN about their nuclear production. The BBC article says that the Iranian government “Under an interim nuclear deal agreed in November 2013, Iran agreed not to commission or fuel the reactor” and Iran even adjusted their nuclear reactor to fit the guidelines that they were given. This willingness to comply is a good sign, nuclear power production can not be stopped in the countries that already have it, but nuclear guidelines help to keep the world safer.
The United State’s involvement with Iran should be kept to a minimum and the U.S. should not be involved at all in the decision making with Iran. As the Chicago Tribune says, the United States and Iran are enemies, the country of Iran hates the United States and its allies. The United States Secretary of Defense said that “it was in the U.S. national interest to remain in the deal” and the comment on his point of view was that Congress is “undoubtedly aware that the President’s choice will most likely undermine or end U.S. participation in the nuclear deal, split us from our European allies, reduce the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program, and reduce America’s global credibility and negotiating power”(CATO). The split in the government’s view on how to handle the Iran negotiations shows how emotionally invested the United States is in the topic, which is the biggest sign that the United States should get out now before the deal is compromised.
This deal is a global topic that the United States needs to get out of because we are like a toddler who destroys everything it touches.
Question: How is U.S. involvement going to impact the negotiations (positively and negatively)?
|
|
