I just knew the Hanson article I posted would get juices flowing around here.
Thanks to Neocon for his sage comments.
Unfortunately, no one has mentioned the last paragraph in Hanson's article, which made reading it worthwhile. I'll refresh collective recollections: Hanson makes the point that the Iranians and the N. Koreans will learn the Saddam Lesson, namely, to be effective, they must develop their nukes before the US confronts them. Otherwise, the efforts to get them are worthless.
If the rest of the world fails to cooperate with the US in its Crusade--oops, wrong word--to rid the world of odious genocidal killers intent on getting nukes, the US is likely to simply set up a missile defense and other systems that will protect only the US and perhaps the UK. The Israelis can probably handle things on their own.
Who is not cooperating under those circumstances? Who is putting themselves at peril? Certainly not the US and its trusted friends.
Cooperation is a two-way street, something that is routinely forgotten by many posters to this august forum.
What will France, the Germans, and other assorted nations that will face Iranian or N. Korean nuclear threats do when the threats become a reality?
Come crying/begging to the US for help? Try to get the US to do the heavy lifting again? Capitulate to the threats?
The time for the French and Germans to cooperate with the US has passed. We did the heavy lifting in Iraq and Afghanistan, with not inconsiderable ill will shown to us for our efforts. Why pull the ingrates' chestnuts out of the fire when Iranian and/or N. Korean nuclear weapons are used to blackmail them into submission?
Face it, the Iranians are likely not developing nuclear weapons for deterrence.
Sorry, folks, it's a bad nasty world out there. Idealized claptrap might work in a world where there are no truly nasty actors intent on harming us. Until then, keep your powder dry.
And don't piss off friends that can help. |
