Balta1701

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:27 PM) 50 years? That is an acceptable period of time for you? Technically that's happened in about 20 years, since the signing of START 1.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:14 PM) And as long as this continues, I will not blame other countries for calling bulls*** on us. And as I said, I cannot really blame them. And frankly, once that treaty collapses in the Senate, other countries will suddenly have immense reasons to consider pulling out of deals they have with the U.S.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:11 PM) I guess I would find our position a bit more tolerable if we spent less time proclaiming the evils of all the other nations wishing to explore nuclear weapons technology and more time trying to determine the best method of eliminating our gigantic stockpile. Talk to the U.S. Senate. There's an agreement sitting there to continue work on that. I'm sure you can guess which party thinks doing so is a terrible idea.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:04 PM) I wish somebody could go through all the threads last year saying how people were sick of Thome. I can't believe suddenly big Jim is so popular around this board when people were glad to see him go. I think a whole lot of us vehemently disagreed with the folks who said Thome was part of the problem. I know I did.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:01 PM) Give me a break, Balta. What other option is there, really? So because there is little or no other alternative in this mess we have created, that somehow makes this beneficial to everyone? As if this is a favor we have done for the rest of the world? Now that we and the Soviet Union have designed and built enough weapons to destroy the entire world thousands of times over, we give the gift of the NPT to everyone! Hooray! Frankly...that's exactly the truth. The cat is out of the bag, pandora's box is open. Either we can pretend that it never was opened and have every country out there developing the bomb (does anyone remember the South African nuke program? The Brazilian nuclear weapons program?), or we can come to an agreement that acknowledges reality and works to the benefit of everyone else. It's not a "favor" we've done. It provides us the same strategic benefit that everyone else has...preservation of the status quo, and a chance to work in other ways towards improving it (i.e. the START framework)

QUOTE (J.Reedfan8 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 04:57 PM) Add Bobby Cox to that list.. retiring or not. Joe Torre would lift his hand as well, except its weighed down by all those rings.

Furthermore...consider the countries that have not signed. India...Pakistan...Israel. Can anyone convincingly argue to me that the long-term situations of those countries are improved by having the bomb? The Pakistan and Indian situation has been a mess. Despite both sides having the bomb, terrorism has remained common and war was only narrowly averted between them once. Furthermore, neither side seems particularly secure in its hold on its weapons (Pakistan especially) and as such, all of the neighbors of those 2 countries have potentially been put under threat. Israel...it may have enhanced its short term security through the presence of the bomb, but look at what we're discussing here; it's an exact carbon copy example of why the NPT framework is necessary. Because Israel has the bomb, other countries in the region who have interests hostile to Israel's interests feel it necessary to procure and develop nuclear technology. When you break the NPT framework, everyone loses.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 04:49 PM) Now if that is how the issue was presented, then it would be a lot more realistic and even trustworthy. But it isn't. And frankly, I don't blame other governments and citizens of those governments for seeing right through it as a giant hill of horses***. Let's take a look at the countries that aren't signatories to the NPT. Israel, India, and Pakistan have chosen not to sign it, and North Korea pulled out of the agreement in 2003 while we were invading Iraq. First point is...they have every right to have done this under international law. There is no punishment for choosing to not join a treaty, and, with Israel as a case in point, there certainly has not been penalties. The question to ask then is...why have so many nations accepted that framework? Why does Iran, for example, continue to accept it, when simply pulling out of the agreement would leave them unencumbered and free to develop those weapons if they so desire? The answer is...it's not just the U.S.'s citizens who benefit from this framework and agree to it. Iran might want to develop a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes, but Iran isn't going to leave the NPT framework. Why? Because many nations benefit from a maintenance of that framework. Nearly all of Iran's trading partners benefit from that framework, and as such, they would have their situations hurt if Iran pulled out of it. Those citizens are most of the time more than content with the NPT framework as it is, because even if it may be a giant hill of horses*** to some eyes, it is a massive benefit to those citizens at the same time.

Utley's back.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 04:45 PM) It's not a hidden secret anywhere the Sox would prefer Dye over Thome as a DH. Players say things and do change their mind and they had their hopes on that. Really? I hadn't heard that anywhere. If this thing comes down to 1-2 games in the end, then one could certainly say that it is a reason. It's silliness to say it's the only reason, but it's equally silly to downplay it as not a reason at all.

Former Major Leaguer Bobby Thomson has died. You likely know 1 of his at bats.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 04:19 PM) Since the invent of the atomic weapon, how many countries possessing nuclear weapons have been invaded after possessing the weapon? Im pretty sure the answer is 0. Israel likely had the bomb as their ace in the hole when they were invaded in the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 04:11 PM) I have no idea what you guys are seeing in the behavior of the US government which would make other countries feel as "in good hands" as you are trying to argue here. Let me ask you the counter-argument then...why would I feel safer as a smaller country if my country were to attempt to possess the bomb on its own?

QUOTE (danman31 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:49 PM) Josh Phegley promoted to AA, Jason Bour sent back to High A. I guess the Sox think he is healthy. After two stints on the DL I thought there was no way he would be able to stay healthy in the long run. He has played well since his 2nd return. He's even thrown half of his runners this year. Great news for Josh.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 04:05 PM) Damnit, you're right, that wasn't worded properly. Of course, any nation has the right to ask, plead, request or demand another nation to do something. But they don't have the authority to force them to do it (outside of treaties/ UN agreements). And that's what brings us to the game of diplomatic relations. If a country wants to make a demand upon the U.S., they ought to have something to offer to the U.S. in return for meeting that demand. The NPT system works because the countries that weren't nuclear powers at the time that the agreement was established received things in exchange for accepting the nuclear status quo; they received the right to develop peaceful nuclear technology with the assistance of the nuclear world, they received inspections and control of the nuclear technology of their potential adversaries, and they received large cost savings by not having to worry about being forced into a situation where they thought they needed nuclear deterrence. Even without the Red, White, and Blue glasses (and this is probably the first thread I've ever been accused of wearing those), the rest of the world, and the smaller nations in particular...have achieved significant gains by the NPT system.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 04:00 PM) No, that is not the claim. The claim is a lack of authority of one nation over the interests of another. Why doesn't Iran have the authority to demand that the US stop all nuclear development? We are hostile to them, we've invaded two countries in their backyard, we've supported revolution in their country and we're the only nation to have actually used the damned things. They certainly do have the authority to demand that. However, they have little to offer the U.S. to convince the U.S. that it would be in either the U.S.'s best interest or any other nation's best interest if that were to happen. As such, they can demand whatever they want, but there is no reason for the U.S. to acquiesce to that demand. Furthermore, if they were to base their behavior on U.S. compliance with that demand, it could easily hurt Iranian interests as well.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:54 PM) Its bad for the "Muslim" world for Iran not to have nukes. Gotta totally disagree with you here. First of all...anything that raises the possibility of a nuclear exchange in the Muslim world, such as Iran developing the bomb...that's a terrible thing. Secondly...much of the Muslim world is not on friendly terms with Iran, and as such, Iran gaining influence through possessing the bomb is a terrible thing for them. An Iranian bomb, for example, is highly likely to set off a crash Saudi bomb program.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:53 PM) And you would trust that nation not to screw it all up? Why would I trust my own government not to screw it all up? Especially when you consider that the other nation, by virtue of having gotten there first, has already had the chance to develop a command and control system and learn from its mistakes in how to deal with the opened Pandoras Box. If I can't have a nuclear-weapon free world...then the fewer countries that have the bomb, the less chance there is for an exchange, and the less chance there is for a mistake.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:39 PM) D1 and M-56 and all Gavin gets is "G"? Why not "G Series" since G already sounds like Gatorade's new branding. I just recently decided that calling Mark M-56 sounds like I'm calling him some sort of Machine Gun. Gavin's just been so good that he doesn't need any embellishment. I'm leaving him as "G".

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:46 PM) First of all, they are not your interests, the are the interests of the US government, so we shouldn't even use the word "our." Secondly, if we are arguing from a philosophical standpoint, you're saying that if you were on the other side of the fence, perhaps a citizen of a Finland or something, would you willingly accept that the US was dominating the discussion because it was in the interests of the US government to do so, or would you wish to argue the issue philosophically? I have a hard time accepting the answer would be the former. Frankly, yes, if I was a citizen of some random European country, I would have zero desire to have my government developing nuclear weapons for any reason, and I would find there to be a huge benefit to simply outsourcing my nuclear security to another nation or set of nations through treaty obligations. That way, my nation doesn't have to invest huge resources into developing the weapons (resources which could be put into civilian programs or lower tax rates), my nation doesn't have to worry about controlling the weapons, and my nation doesn't have its relations poisoned because other countries believe that I might be developing those weapons.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:40 PM) Obama signed something that states we will slowly eliminate our stockpile. Maybe when I'm 90 we'll have 3,950 of them. Good luck getting that through the Senate. Obama just wants us to surrender to Brezhnev. Thank God we have the Senate to prevent that.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:31 PM) Because "our" interests are for the protection of most of the world, in this case. The rest of the world benefits if there are not nuclear armsraces between small countries every time there's a dispute between them. Every country in the world benefits if they don't have to worry about the country they're in a trade dispute with going off and starting a nuclear weapons program to make sure they control that product. Just some examples.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:20 PM) Legitimate interest, sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean a legitimate authority to tell other countries what they may or may not build for (ostensibly) peaceful purposes. But the NPT and the IAEA complicate that matter and I won't pretend to know if the US really does have legitimate authority on this issue. In this case, the NPT allows the U.S. and other countries legitimate inspection authority over all nuclear facilities, but allows Iran the right to enrich uranium to low levels to use as nuclear fuel. Anything beyond what could be used in a civilian reactor is prohibited. The reason why so far sanctions have not been an open and shut case is that Iran has not been shown to step over the line regarding enrichment levels. Until that point, other NPT signatories can play coy even if Iran violates some of the inspection requirements.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:19 PM) So if this was a nation that, in our opinion, was not bats*** crazy, we would be fine with them acquiring the bomb? No...our obligations under the NPT allow us to be concerned with any signatory that makes a move towards acquiring the bomb, to the point of international referral, sanctions, and even military action.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:19 PM) Most studies guesstimate that they'll have a weapon in 2-3 years As they have for 20 years.