Humanities desk
< July 9	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 10

Doesnt USA have also Nuclear Program?

These days news number 1 in the world in Irans nuclear program and USA opposing it. My question is: does not USA have even more deadly weapons then Iran,and how come they can have them,but they wont allow Iran to have it? Thanks! -- 87.116.154.181 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, the USA still has I think over 10,000 nuclear bombs, but they do not want Iran to have them because perhaps they fear it could use them for harmful purposes. Iran insists it is using its nuclear program for peaceful purposes only, but the US are often suspicious as Iran often carries out nuclear tests and stuff that become big news (see the Main Page in the news section). Also, see Iranian nuclear program. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iran has never carried out a nuclear test. It does not have nuclear weapons. What is has conducted recently is a missile test. In the past it has made claims about enrichment technology. Neither of these constitute nuclear weapons. Iran claims that it is not developing a nuclear weapons program, but that it is developing a civilian power program. The US disputes these claims; the IAEA says that Iran hasn't been totally up front about things, but hasn't accused Iran of actually trying to manufacture weapons. At this stage in the Iranian program, they are probably not trying to manufacture nuclear weapons, but if they gain complete mastery over enrichment technology, then in the future it would be less difficult for them to develop weapons. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty basically allows the Security Council "Big 5" to have open possession of nukes, while all other nations which sign the treaty are supposed to renounce posession of nukes -- and Iran signed the treaty. AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Nuclear weapons and the United States for information about the US nuclear program, stockpile sizes, history, etc.

The reason why the US, UK, Russia, France, and China are technically allowed to have nuclear weapons is based on old Cold War agreements to limit proliferation, which none of the nuclear nations would sign if they infringed upon their existing stockpiles in any way. It was a compromise to limit the total number of nuclear nations in the world, based on the idea that the more nations in the world that had them, the more dangerous the world would be. Recognizing that doesn't mean you have to think that it's a good thing that the US (or Russia, or China, or, god forbid, France) has nuclear weapons, or that they have any real "right" to them. The problem is that serious non-proliferation efforts didn't take place until those five nations had them, and to securely stop nuclear technology flowing from those nations who had already developed it, you needed to have them sign on to a plan, and they wouldn't (in the high Cold War of the 1960s) without being able to keep their own weapons. (See the Baruch Plan as an example of another non-proliferation attempt that was a non-starter because it involved one party—the USSR—putting too much faith in the other—the US—actually getting rid of its own stockpile at some point).

Now not every nation has to sign the NPT—India, Pakistan, and Israel did not, for example, and all three countries eventually developed their own nuclear arms. Iran signed it way back when under the US-supported Shah. Signing the NPT gets you certain benefits but it also entails certain limitations on what you can do, and how much information you have to give the UN about what you are doing. Iran could withdraw from the NPT—like North Korea did in 2003—but that would carry with it threats of sanctions, though, historically, the punishments for not joining or withdrawing from the NPT have been pretty mild (though it's a small sample size).

So, anyway, the long and short of it is: yes, the US has nuclear weapons, but that doesn't make it a good thing, and it doesn't mean that the world would be any better off or safer if more other countries had nuclear weapons as well, especially countries in very unstable parts of the world like the Middle East. (But I should add that it doesn't mean that Iran having a nuclear weapon will be the end of the world. Historically nuclear weapons have actually brought about a lot of stability within states, and have limited their military options dramatically. Ever since 1945 there has been a lot of "the world will end if X happens" regarding proliferation, but after it eventually happens, if it does, it ends up being more business-as-usual than had been predicted. Personally, as an American, I don't think the risk of Iran getting a nuclear weapon is worth a war with Iran.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One side of the nonproliferation movement was that the nuclear superpowers would refrain from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against the countries which agreed not to develop them. To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. has not made a pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries which have not attacked the U.S. or its allies. Iran signed the nonproliferation treaty, but I understand that they have the right to abrogate the treaty on so many months notice and develop their own nuclear weapons. The puzzle is why they have not done so. What do they gain by remaining a nonproliferation treaty signatory? The treaty also called for the nuclear powers to get rid of nuclear weapons (which has not happened) and to refrain from providing assistance to nonnuclear powers who wished to develop the weapons, yet a couple of nuclear powers are said to have assisted Israel, India, and Pakistan in their nuclear programs. Edison (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I think Iran doesn't want to leave the NPT because threatening to leave the NPT is probably worth more on the international political scene than actually leaving it. It's still a card for them to play. At the moment they get more out of doing some compliance, some non-compliance, and seeing what they get out of it that way. It gives them more room for claiming it is a civilian program, gives them some legitimacy (some of which is, I think legitimate—they've been much more open about their nuclear program than, say, most countries developing bombs ever were. You can get wonderful high-res pictures of Iranian centrifuges, a level of purposeful transparency rarely seen among prospective nuclear powers). But who knows what they are thinking at the top levels. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it: they'd be fools not pursue nuclear weapons when the US is so openly bellicose towards them. --Sean 19:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fools they might be. I don't think they're actively pursuing nuclear weapons—they seem to have stopped that phase of their work in 2003. They're seeking enrichment capabilities under a civilian program, no doubt with full knowledge that if they later choose to they can convert that into a weapons program. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Iran would actually attack Israel with nuclear weapons, since the Israelis would return the favor. However, having nuclear weapons would mean Iran was completely safe from attack and could not only continue their support for terrorism in Palestine/Israel, Lebanon, and Iraq, but could dramatically up their support for such terrorists. This would be quite destablizing for the region. Also, a large Shia nation like Iran having nukes might scare Sunni nations, like Saudi Arabia, into thinking they need them, too. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the idea that nukes makes one totally safe from attack is false. It just means that the types of attack change considerably—less outright war, more subterfuge, proxy battles, etc. And it does not give a country unlimited latitude in terrorism, regional actions, etc. In most cases getting nukes has historically actually constrained actions considerably. I'm not predicting how things would happen or saying nukes don't change things, but the idea that they give countries blank checks for power is historically untrue (note that Israel does not have such latitude—it still gets attacked, it still gets into regional wars). They appear to reduce total war between nuclear armed countries. But there's a lot more to war (and peace) than just that. It's way more complicated than, "if they get nukes, they will be able to do whatever they want," especially since, for many years, any hypothetical Iranian arsenal will be small and limited in range. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidiarity principle

How has the subsidiarity principle, present within the European Union, influenced economical and business aspects between member states ?

I have found a page on Wikipedia which provides information on the principle, but only from a legal point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulbazarel (talk • contribs) 08:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a difficult essay question, designed to test your detailed knowledge of EU history. You can use History of the European Union and the sub-articles on different periods to identify conflicts about economic and business matters. At the foot of those pages is a list of EU topics that you might find useful. Unfortunately our articles do not contain many references to the kind of academic books and articles you probably need. Of those books we do mention, Hoskyns and Newman (2000) Democratizing the European Union... looks from its title to be a useful source. If you find good sourced information, please add it to the relevant articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "economical and business aspects between member states" strikes me as muddled: aspects of what? Broadly speaking, I don't think subsidiarity is very relevant to business, it's about democratic decision-taking. Perhaps if decisions are taken and contracts awarded locally, or regionally, and not nationally, then businesses have to be able to reach out and sell themselves and their services in different ways (viz., more locally), but "aspects between member states" is looking the other way, at supranational relations. Clearly, subsidiarity means a small number of decisions moving the other way from national governments - up to the European level, at which level only really major multinational undertakings can compete.

It would be a mistake, by the way, to see subsidiarity as a purely European Union principle, its roots are more in the Council of Europe. Xn4 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Fake) DVD sellers

Advertising has started appearing in London (possibly government funded), urging the public not to buy cheap (ie. counterfeit) DVDs from street sellers. The official sounding reasons given are that the money goes to fund criminal activities like "drug trafficking", "people smuggling", "child porn" and "terrorism". Is there any evidence to support this reasoning, or is it simply scare tactics on behalf of the big studios? Astronaut (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, other than terrorism, all of the above mentioned illegal activities are pretty much self-funding, even lucrative. Though it is true to say that criminals can be involved in "digital piracy". Counterfeit DVDS (and CDs before that, and cassette tapes before that) have long funded paramilitary groups here in Ireland. Though by the scare-ad's argument we would all be better off downloading pirated torrents. At least that way nobody benefits financially, because any financial transaction could aid the baddies. Fribbler (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The campaign is called "Knock off or not". It's industry funded - the "Industry Trust for Intellectual Property Awareness" set up in 2004 to tackle film and TV copyright theft in the U.K. and is backed by 22 members spanning film and television distributors, theatres, DVD retailers and home entertainment rental companies, and spending £1.6m according to Reuters. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think it's that naff "knock-off Nigel" campaign - that seems more concerned with telling viewers it's simply "uncool" to buy such DVDs. I was referring to a much stronger bus shelter advert I saw the other day, basically telling people they're funding terrorists if they buy a fake DVD. Seems to be a totally different campaign - more MI5 than ITIPA. Astronaut (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organized criminal groups do engage in piracy to help fund theirselves, although this varies by location (in China and Russia this is true to a much greater degree than in the UK and US). So, the answer would be that it can be used to find drug trafficking, smuggling, and child porn if the organized syndicate that engages in piracy also engages in the aforementioned crimes. It is a tenuous link though.--droptone (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an actual court case in the U.S. where income from cigarette smuggling activities between different states in the U.S. (which have different levels of tobacco taxes) was used to fund Hamas... AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only argument that makes any sense at all is that the money from those sales could go to terrorism. However, money from otherwise legit businesses could also be sent to terrorists, so the question is if a larger percentage of illegal sales go to terrorism than legal sales. I don't see any reason why it would. To the contrary, terrorist funders would likely prefer to use legal activities for funding as those are less likely to draw police attention and expose the terrorist organization. There could also be an argument that not-so-bad, but highly profitable, illegal activities will convince criminals to give up much worse activities. A drug dealer who gets shot at on a regular basis might well decide that selling cheap DVDs is a better alternative. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the suppose argument was that they used activities such as selling pirated DVDs (possibly of pirate films, arrrr!) to launder the money they made in other areas? 79.66.54.186 (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, in order to launder money, you need to earn it again via a legit business, so the authorities won't know it had an illegal origin and investigate. For example, a Mafia boss could open a used car dealership, give large sums of illegally obtained money to his lackeys, and have them use it to buy cars there at highly inflated prices. The money is then legitimate, and the Mafia boss can do things like buy a yacht with it, without the IRS wanting to know where it came from. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientist

Is there a scientist who had an instrument named after him that had something to do with light diffraction? He invented a few things? I`m not sure if his work was with cameras or telescopes or some kind of optics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.108.210 (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelson interferometer? Astronaut (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://i34.tinypic.com/35c2bf6.png I found this. Its something along those lines, your very close methinks tho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.108.210 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fresnel lens? I mean, there are tons of things in optics and etc. named after scientists. Need a bit more than that. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, diffraction is an issue here, indeed its a problem with this design, but this is a vague question so worth a stab: Newtonian telescope. Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persian-speaking Iranians

Which provinces are considered as Persian due to the population of Persian-speaking Iranians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.33 (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question could be put more precisely. Anyhow, almost half of 30 provinces of Iran have the most Persian-speaking population, including Tehran, Markazi (meaning Central), Esfahan, Fars (associated with Farsi proper), Semnan, Khorasan (birthplace of Farsi-ye Dari; now itself three provinces), Kerman, Khuzestan, etc. (all with their own regional dialects). All of these provinces would be considered Persian. --Omidinist (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White population

When did Toronto start receiving immigrants to end the growing of white population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.33 (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Immigration to Canada and History of immigration to Canada as starting points. - Eron^Talk 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the first of those articles says

Immigration since the 1970s has overwhelmingly been of visible minorities from the developing world. Restrictions on non-white immigration were altogether removed, starting when Lester B. Pearson was prime minister with the revised Immigration Act, 1967, and this continued to be official government policy under his successor, Pierre Trudeau.

which would seem to be the answer that the original poster wants. Curiously, I don't see a similar statement in the second article, even though you would think such a major policy change would be a major feature of the "history of immigration to Canada". --Anonymous, 18:47 UTC, July 11, 2008.

Toronto started receiving immigrants as soon as it was founded. They later became known as the "white population". DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the white immigrants did not "end the growing of white population", so this is irrelevant to the question. --Anonymous, 18:47 UTC, July 11, 2008.

But it never ended. According to Immigration to Canada there are about 5k immigrants from the UK each year. I would guess a fair number of these are white immigrants. The percentage of Canada's population that is white may be decreasing but their population is still increasing (and if it's not, it because of a low birth rate not because of no immigeants) Nil Einne (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget emigration. With only 5000 a year coming in from the UK, Canada could easily have more than that headed back there. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]