|
|
Post by Brooke Gentile on Jan 26, 2018 1:55:17 GMT
@olivia
I honestly hate to say it but yes. I feel that we have lost our rights to have nuclear weapons in our power. There is no need to threaten other countries with a weapon we are so very fortunate to have in the case that we are in dire need of protection.. The fact that we throw it in other countries faces repeatedly is an issue, the United States should want to be looked up to. When we make snarky comments like that it brings us right down to North Korea’s level which I’m my opinion solves nothing. Of course I believe the U.S. has earned its privileges to obtain nuclear weapons, but as of right now with our leader abusing this privilege, I feel that other countries have the right to soon start pointing fingers at us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maya French on Jan 26, 2018 3:28:27 GMT
In one of the discussion questions it asks if the other countries involved in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) should “team up with the US to resolve the flaws in the pact or just let the US leave?” The issue with either of these ideas is that there are, legally, no flaws occuring. BBC news reports that in the deal “Iran's uranium stockpile is set to be reduced by 98% to 300kg (660lbs) for 15 years. It must also keep its level of enrichment at 3.67%.” and that “By January 2016, Iran had drastically reduced the number of centrifuges installed at Natanz and Fordo, and shipped tonnes of low-enriched uranium to Russia.” On every account, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has cleared Iran for operating perfectly within limits set by the JCPOA. So in reality there is no “fixing” that can occur. It seems to me that Trump is using the wrong language when speaking about his plans and wants. He does not want to fix what Iran is breaking, he wants to rewrite the terms within the deal itself to better suot what he deems to be right. When Trump discusses his views, his train of thought is a bit scattered to follow. Beauchamp for Vox quoted Trump as saying “They are not in compliance with the agreement and they certainly are not in the spirit of the agreement in compliance...I think you’ll see some very strong things taking place if they don’t get themselves in compliance”. He appears to be covering his true intent behind poorly stated excuses with no real evidence to support them. Every article pointed out the Trump’s Administration had provided no real evidence to back their claims and that there was, in fact, staggering evidence against them. These concealing actions have the possibility of ending in utter disaster. Michelle Nichols wrote for Town Hall stating “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.” Iran has made its intentions clear, no strings attached. Many of Trump’s advisors are against his plan to drop out from the JCPOA but he appears to be bullheaded on his choice and there is a slim chance of him backing down from his claims. The other countries, any of which are allies, who are also in the JCPOA will lose their trusting relationship with the US if Trump continues on the path of destruction. In a world that has been pushed towards war for the last few decades, this could be the beginning of the end. The globs eyes are on the actions of one, stubborn, selfish man who is speaking for a country, the majority of which disagrees with his views.
What do you think could be Trump’s ulterior motive?
If you don’t believe there is more to this decision than what meets the eye, argue why Trump is being just in his actions.
|
|
jonah
New Member
Posts: 16 
|
Post by jonah on Jan 26, 2018 3:31:21 GMT
The ban from some countries not having nuclear power is a necessary action. Without this who knows, the world might be in nuclear apocalypse and in shambles. Without the limitation of nukes it would be chaos and just about every and any country would have nukes. With the limitations only countries that can be trusted and countries that aren’t childish can have nukes. I feel like it is only right for a select countries to have nukes. And this is good because then we can add new countries in whenever we feel it is right, and they are ready. The P5 + 1 is primarily democratic, so probably in order to be a country trusted with nukes then they would have to be a strong democratic nation. If Iran is breaking the deal with the US among other countries then the US and other countries should not recertify the deal. With the non-recertification of the deal it would put sanctions on Iran and possibly make them rethink their nuclear program and take a few steps back. I do agree with President Trump that new sanctions should be in place for Iran especially if they don’t follow the ones in place now. NEw ones should be more strict and not allow leeway like the ones in place today. Other countries should at least investigate the allegations Trump has put forth and not just look past them. He can’t be pulling this out of his butt like they say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyatt Heyl on Jan 26, 2018 3:36:15 GMT
See the whole limitation on who can have nuclear powers is oppressive, but it is tolerable oppression. Because the first article states the unspoken rule, "The Soviet Union and the United States also informally agreed during the Cold War that their own dependent allies that had the ability to go nuclear — including Eastern Bloc nations, most Western European countries, Australia and Canada — would not." The article also stated, "During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the United States adhered to an unspoken rule that their losing Axis enemies of World War II — Germany, Italy and Japan — should not have nuclear weapons. Despite their financial and scientific ability to obtain them, all three former Axis powers had too much recent historical baggage to be allowed weapons of mass destruction". President Trump for sure does not seem too ecstatic about the whole Iranian deal. Being how he has kicked the issue to congress all together. Something that I am greatly confused about is the 90% decrease in uranium in Iran for fifteen years. Why only fifteen years and not just forever? Just since President Trump is decertifying it wouldn't that just mean that all together it should be put to an end? Also why doesn't just stay in the deal? "Many of Trump’s own advisors disagree with his decision. On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense James Mattis told Congress that he believed it was in the U.S. national interest to remain in the deal. They 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" since there seems to be more negatives then positives. Plus, even though Iran is considered one of those instable countries it can still be under close watch and restricted by neighboring countries.
Now that the possibility arises that America could back out on the deal, what does this mean for the rest of the countries involved in the deal? How could this further affect Iran's nuclear project?
|
|
|
|
Post by Maya Borland on Jan 26, 2018 4:19:42 GMT
In the beginning of the making of the nuclear bomb only a few countries had the resources and nolleg to make it. After a while more countries became more developed and wanted the right to make nuclear weapons. By the 1970 the US, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union had the right to make nuclear bombs. Over time with the support of one of the eight founding nuclear countries, other countries could be then be allowed to make nuclear bombs.
Some countries on the other hand could not wait to be let in the the nuclear club so they could start making their own nuclear weapons. Iran started in 1958 by joining the International Atomic Energy Agency. It was not until the 1970 that the US supported Iran's admission into the nuclear club. Ever since then the world has found out how extreme Iran has taken their to make nuclear weapons. With the nuclear agreement in 2015 was with the six other nuclear club countries and Iran. “The initial framework 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). This agreement fell through do to the new president Donald Trump. Trump did not agree with the terms set in the first deal. He has pulled the deal and demands the terms be reworked so that he is then happy with the deal.
After reading the material given I do agree that the deal should be reworked do to what Iran is doing with that large amount enriched uranium that they are collecting. They are also are accumulating almost 20,000 cans of centrifuge. With already having an abundance of these two items the facts show that would only take Iran two to three months to make almost eight to ten bombs. All Iran would need is the other ingredient in order to make it. If Iran goes along with the request to lower the amount of resources and slow down the timeframe to make then I see no reason revolt against Iran. The question is why is Iran in such a big hurry to make all those nuclear bombs in such short of time. Some of these other nuclear countries have more than 160 nuclear weapons. North Korea just started making nuclear bombs in 2006 and they have started a collection of nukes that could possibly hit the US. So does Iran have a reason to make these nukes to attac someone or are they only trying to protect themselves?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cole on Jan 26, 2018 4:24:40 GMT
First of all, as a person who loves researching and learning about nuclear weapons, this is a great topic. To start this off, Yes, there should be a limit on how many countries are allowed to possess/create nuclear weapons. The list should have been set to the 4 countries that possessed nuclear weapons during WW2. If there was a list implemented back then, then we would not be worrying about North Korea each and every day. Now to look at the other side, human nature is full of competition, Competition that could make normal people into extremists that all need to seek revenge. This could also lead to some sneaky business that is going down behind the backs of everyone else in the world, such as the Iran Nuclear Deal. If the list was created, Iran wouldn’t have been creating some 20,000 centrifuges of Uranium and then sending them off to Russia to “get rid of them”. Countries like Iran and North Korea do not deserve to have these weapons. The Iranians have done way too much bad to the entire world that with one press of a button, the could cause some serious damage, And same goes for the North Koreans. The “crazy short man” as President Trump called him has way to much power over his country, let alone what he could do to the world with nukes. In conclusion, everything goes back to right after WW2. If they would have cracked down on who could possess nukes and who couldn’t, things would feel a ton safer in this world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cole on Jan 26, 2018 4:26:17 GMT
Questions I pose to you guys:
Should the United States do something about creating a list? And if we were to do something like that, how would we do it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ricky on Jan 26, 2018 4:45:04 GMT
Nuclear weaponry is the worst invention man has ever made. There is every right for the "World Powers" that were able to be the first to produce nuclear weapons to regulate and choose who is able to control the number of nuclear weapons in the world. Nuclear weapons should not be a commodity because the smaller and more volatile countries would love to have them but they would be too rash in their decision to use them. Nuclear weapons should be owned by a select few countries, and should only be used for protection or in case of a desperate circumstance. Nuclear weapons should always be the last resort. There are many countries at war and i'm sure if every country had nuclear weapons then there would be many more tragic instances involving nuclear weapons. Iran having nukes is very similar to North Korea having their nuclear weapons, they are both highly unstable and could snap at any minute. The Chicago Tribune also makes that connection and briefly and talks about how these 2 countries could easily spark a nuclear war. In my opinion, President Trump is taking preventative measures towards Iran if he wants to re-implement the sanctions. He wants to implement the sanctions before it is too late. The sanctions will put harsh restrictions on the lives of the Iranians if they continue forward with the nuclear program in the future. How will Iran's economy react to the new harsher sanctions president trump is trying to put in place?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chloe Fetter on Jan 26, 2018 4:56:57 GMT
This is a very interesting topic and I found it difficult to form a reply because there are so many what ifs surrounding the subject. It’s booming with gray areas. I believe that nuclear weapons should be limited to countries that will be apt to use them responsibly but how are you to quantify responsibility? On the opposite side of the spectrum, limiting the use and possession of nuclear weapons might make more countries want to get them. I compared this to how crime rate goes down as there is more leniency in the law. The idea of something being forbidden can be very powerful in and of itself. I mean, who’s to say that these more elite countries will refrain from using their nuclear capabilities on the less “advanced”? According to Hanson, writing for the Chicago Tribune, “...the Soviet Union and the United States adhered to an unspoken rule that their losing Axis enemies of World War II — Germany, Italy and Japan — should not have nuclear weapons” (Victor Hanson). This concerns me because assuming can bare some results that are extremely traitorous in nature. If the nuclear capable countries ,as I will refer to them as, fail to set a common standard, this assumed rule can become ignored as it has proved to be. As for Trump’s decision to abandon the deals makes little sense to me because the Iranians will suffer virtually no damage to their ballistic missile program. As quoted in Vox, “if the Trump administration quit the deal for no good reason, which would mean Iran wouldn’t suffer very much from an American pullout and thus would have no reason to stop its misbehavior.” (Beauchamp) I want to know if anyone has any ideas of how to regulate the use of nuclear weapons as well as if you think nuclear weaponry should be used in warfare at all and why.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 26, 2018 13:09:13 GMT
Please review Meghan and Maya French's original post above. These are high quality posts that would receive a 5/5.
Also- Some interesting points posed by your peers to consider further:
Chloe's point that this topic has "a lot of gray areas" and the "assumption" aspect. The United States felt the consequences of accusing Iraq under Saddam Hussein of having what President Bush called weapons of mass destruction only later to find that no such weapons existed. It certainly served as a reason for the US to invade and subsequently overthrow Hussein, but today Iraq is left in shambles without a stable government.
Jonah's point: "The P5 + 1 is primarily democratic, so probably in order to be a country trusted with nukes then they would have to be a strong democratic nation." What are the implications of this statement?
Barbie's point: "Nuclear weapons are “contagious” as Mastrean would say because everyone is entitled to protection." What are the implications of this statement?
|
|
|
|
Post by Maya French on Jan 27, 2018 19:52:56 GMT
@cole. With your phrasing in the statement "Countries like Iran and North Korea do not deserve to have these weapons." I was intrigued by the idea that certain countries "deserved" to have nuclear weapons. This label is far too subjective to hold any ground in an argument. Every country could argue why they deserve to have nuclear weapons. It is true that to us, from the US and allies point of view that we find it fair to only allow those aligned with us to have these weapons of possible world destruction. To those not aligned, that is an unfair rule and if a nuclear war was to break out, the outcome for them would be detrimental A list such as that must be based on something qualitative, stability is impossible to measure so I am not entirely sure what the qualifications would be for countries on the list. That poses an interesting argument in and of itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooke Gentile on Jan 28, 2018 16:29:43 GMT
@maya
I think Trump’s ulterior motive is that he wants all eyes on him. A move with this much baggage attached to it will clearly draw attention to our leader if we were to back out of the deal. Trump wants everyone to believe that he is scared of no one and that he is anything but afraid of what they can do to us. ”Now we truly never know ones true motives” Mastrean would say, so my view on his ulterior motives could be completely opposite from his true motivation, but from what I have read and whiteness of the news it seems to me that President Trump is always about proving to be the best and wanting to “outdo” the other countries for example with his “huge” nuclear button he can press at any given time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laura Gutauskas on Jan 28, 2018 16:41:02 GMT
“Are all nations entitled to protection? Does protection include obtaining nuclear weapons?”
@barbiecessar Of course all nations deserve protection, but realistically that doesn’t mean that they are entitled to it. As you said, “The less people who obtain [nuclear weapons], the better it is for humankind,” and I agree because having them does not make you safer. Possessing these weapons means you would be willing to use them in war which would just put you at risk for retaliation and therefore making you less protected as a result of using them. If no one had them, there would be nothing to worry about, but it’s too late for that option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barbie Cessar on Jan 28, 2018 18:59:59 GMT
@olivia
That is a good question for clarification. I was trying to say that the less nuclear power that is available the better it is for humankind. In theory there would be less of a chance of a nuclear war that wipes out human existence. It would also be better for U.S. citizens because we have the rights to possess them while many other Nations do not. I wish this was the case in present day but I can see why other Nations feel as if they need to obtain nuclear weapons to stand a chance to the U.S. and other nations who have nuclear powers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meghan Miller on Jan 28, 2018 19:36:34 GMT
brookeIn reply to your question about Trump taking his status too far, I believe that he has. He has been treating diplomatic delicacies as harsh business deals, as if he can just buy everyone out of their decisions. His bragging about having a bigger button should put into question the United States's ability to have nuclear power. The deal was already set into place before his presidency and because of who created the deal (former president Barack Obama) he wants it destroyed so it paints the former president in a bad light. This deal is working, so why try to change it. Especially if the instrument of change would be about as diplomatic as an elementary school bully (AKA do it or I will beat you up). Nuclear power is a delicate topic, one wrong move and there will be millions of people dead. So, in short, the president has gone to far and Congress needs to shut off Trump's twitter and ground him from the internet until he learns from his mistakes.
|
|
