It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Given the risk of a major military confrontation between the United States and Iran, and the possible involvement of Israel in military action, ORG is engaged in a substantial programme of analysis of the risks of war and of its likely consequences.
Following a similar programme prior to the start of the Iraq War in 2003, which turned out to be remarkably prescient in its assessment of the consequences of that war, ORG has held a series of roundtables and published a briefing paper, Iran: Consequences of a War.
Given the risk of a major military confrontation between the United States and Iran, and the possible involvement of Israel in military action, ORG is engaged in a substantial programme of analysis of the risks of war and of its likely consequences. Following a similar programme prior to the start of the Iraq War in 2003, which turned out to be remarkably prescient in its assessment of the consequences of that war, ORG has held a series of roundtables and published a briefing paper, Iran: Consequences of a War. ORG plans to extend its work to a study of alternatives to military action in the context of wider issues concerning the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
ORG's work on Iran is closely integrated with its other programmes, including those concerning global nuclear issues and also relating to the Israeli/Palestinian confrontation. We are also coordinating our work on Iran with other partner NGOs through Crisis Action.
Publications:
- Iran: Consequences of a War
Professor Paul Rogers, February 2006
A Constructive EU-US Approach to the Iran Nuclear Dispute (pdf)
BASIC, December 2005
- Iran's Nuclear Activities
Dr. Frank Barnaby, November 2005
Addressing the Challenge of Iran (pdf)
BASIC/ORG, April 2005
- The Bush Administration, Insurgencies and Iran
Professor Paul Rogers, March 2005
- Endless War: The global war on terror and the new Bush Administration
Professor Paul Rogers, March 2005
- Iran Comes into the Frame
Professor Paul Rogers, July 2004
(See also, our North Korea project
www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk...)
Originally posted by Born British
the fact is the more countries that have nuclear weapons the less likely thye will be used.
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Thats a interesting view. So you think every country should have stock pile of nuclear weapons, because that would make the chances of using nuclear weapons less? That would make the world a safer place?
It might just be me but thats a scary prospect IMHO and would actually increase the chances of some one using nuclear weapons. This is the Basic concept behind the NPT treaty which BTW Iran is still a member of.
Originally posted by Born British
Iran should have the ability to obtain nuclear weapons for the reasons of deterrence, the fact is the more countries that have nuclear weapons the less likely thye will be used. For example if Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons then the U.S.A has the option of nuking Iran in a war. If they do have them the U.S.A wouldn't risk a retaliation.
Originally posted by Sep
Do you by any chance know when Iran signed the NPT and who was in government when this was done and if there were any promises the US made to Iran in exchange for it signing the NPT? Just curious.
Im not aware of any promises made by the US or any other country concerning Irans membership in the NPT
Donald Weadon, an international lawyer active in Iran during that period, points out that after 1972, and the oil crisis, the United States was rabidly pursuing investment opportunities in Iran, including selling nuclear-power plants. He writes that "the Iranians were wooed hard with the prospect of nuclear power from trusted U.S.-backed suppliers, with the prospect of the reservation of significant revenues from oil exports for foreign and domestic investment."