Over at Rationally Speaking, Massimo Pigulicci hits the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned regarding nuclear weapons:
I am baffled by the fact that nobody seems to notice the obvious flaw in the US, Russian and European effort to stop Iran's path toward nuclear weaponry: we have them, why not them?
Because they are not a democracy, you might say. I have news for you: neither is Pakistan, but they have nukes, and yet this apparently isn't keeping Bush up at night. Well, but Iran is a "rogue state." What the hell does that mean, anyway? Is a rogue state a state whose policies we don't like? Or one who treats its people unfairly and undemocratically? Because if that's the case, I'd like to add China, Russia, and a few other big guns to the list, way ahead of Iran.
No, the problem is that some Western nations, the US chief among them, insist in treating the rest of the world as a bunch of children. They have to quit even trying to get nuclear weapons, while our silos are chock-full.
I couldn't agree more.
- Log in to post comments
What's different about Iran? (and North Korea, too?) My take on it is that the existing nuclear powers you mention all have a proven track record of having nukes, but not using them. Except America, of course. Sixty one years of abstinence, and counting....
Neither Iran nor North Korea appear to have so much restraint that I'm willing to bet anyone's life on it, let alone millions of lives.
And I couldn't agree less. The whole non-proliferation thing is based on a very simple principle: the less countries have nuclear weapons, the better. We won't give them away ourselves (obvious) and we can't take them from those countries which have them already (also obvious), but we will stop those which don't have from acquiring them. Unfair? True. But this is what ultimately guarantees my country's (among others) security: that the USA, UK, France have nuclear weapons, and when the worst comes to be they will use them in defence of their NATO ally. I very much prefer it to the situation when all stable, predictable and sane countries, in a sudden fit of Mother Theresa-style politics, get rid of their own weapons, leaving themselves -- and their allies -- at mercy of countries like Iran or North Korea, which would have no scruples whatsoever when it comes to nuclear weapons.
The naivete of people who willingly would disarm their countries just to look "fair" to strangers, a part of them would be glad to jump to their throats, is amazing. It reminds those Cold War-era, probably Soviet-sponsored Western "peace" organizations which loudly condemned US ballistic missiles but considered the Soviet ones as harmless.
"First we got the bomb, and that was good..."
I'd broadly agree with Roman, though. This is a realpolitik issue rather than a strictly moral one, but that doesn't mean it's not sensible.
It was the lesser evil, after all. The alternative -- invading mainland Japan -- woould be much worse.
I'd like to point out that in agreeing with Massimo, I wasn't necessarily claiming that unilaterally disarming would be a "good thing". I was merely making the point that there are certain inconsistencies in US policy and that claims about "democracy", treatment of citizens, or "rogue" status are problematic particularly when viewed within larger policy concerns.
Maybe I'm dumb, but what do you mean by that?
There's no debate that Iran is a state that blatantly and unapologetically sponsors and supports terrorism in a variety of forms. Everyone knows this to be true.
That's a major distinction between Iran and other countries already in the Nuclear Club.
If Iran gets nukes one has to consider the very real possibility that suddenly one or two fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organizations might have access to them as well.
It is an understatement to say this would be a profoundly disturbing and dangerous development.
There are so many good reason for not allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons unimpeded that concerns about consistency in foreign affairs are trivial compared to the consequences if they were to do so.
1) It is in the strategic interests of the USA, Russia, EU, et al to oppose Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and all other things being equal, a country can't be blamed for supporting its strategic interests.
2) Iran is more actively antagonistic towards its its most likely enemy in nuclear exchanage (Israel) than any other potential pair of (possibly, since neither is actively acknowledging a weapons program) nuclear powers are.
3) Adding one more potential proliferator makes further proliferation more likely.
4) The disadvantages of nuclear proliferation aren't necessarily linked to other bad behavior. Even among non-"rogue" states (ex India), nuclear proliferaton isn't a good thing as it tends to start arms races.
5) Once a state has nukes, there isn't much you can do about it, so it make sense to focus on countries that are on the path to developing weapons but don't have them yet.
6) Multilateral arms reduction/elimination gets more difficult with the more parties that are added and unilateral elimination just doesn't happen. Preventing Iran from going nuclear now eliminates the possibility of them being a holdout in future negotiations, which regional instability would tend to make more likely.
7) Consistency in foreign policy is neither expected by other countries nor particularly beneficial. Pretending that we aren't specificly interested in containing Iranian power compared with other less hostile countries that doesn't fool anybody.
So, even if it isn't consistent, trying to keep Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons is still a good policy insofar as it is possible. In foreign affairs, consistency is typically a luxury.
Someone's always going to be the most powerful player. I'd rather be it the USA then China or Russia.
I agree with Roman, Lee, and MattXIV. Nuclear proliferation is a good thing to try to contain in general, and Iran is one of the worst countries that could possibly have them (along with North Korea, Syria, Pakistan, and any other countries which have had terrorist connections). And I also include Pakistan on the list because of its role in getting nuclear technology to Iran, as well as the persistent stories of terrorist links to its ISI.
If you know anything about Mahmud Ahmadinejad, you'll pray to nonexistent god Iran doesn't get nukes.
OK, let's get this clear once and for all ... I am not saying that Iran should get nuclear weapons. I am just agreeing with Piggliuci that *some* of the reasons being tossed around aren't consistant with our dealings with other countries.
We deal a lot more "carefully" with Pakistan, China, Russia and others with similarly dysfunctional leaderships, and all the macho saber rattling by the likes of Cheney isn't going to help anyone.
I am of the oppinion that the fewer countries with nuclear weapons the better, but that particular argument is not a very good one, as the same could be said of the US, if one was inclined to do so, and of Russia, and most certainly of Pakistan.
If you know anything about Mahmud Ahmadinejad, you'll pray to nonexistent god Iran doesn't get nukes.
Or rather, if you know anything about Ali Khamenei.
Only when you make the assumption one should treat all countries equally. Which is a dubious one.
Actually, since 2004 I notice that the US are much harder towards Russia then before (incl. Clinton's times) -- which is a GOOD THING. Russia is not a country you can persuade with nice words, they only understand stern will backed up by economical and military force. I think the problem with Iran is going to be solved with the same means, they are not going to just let go their nuclear ambitions because we *ask * them to.