Michael, re: "ARent you concerned that all the euros agree about the danger of iran nukes? I am not so much worried about them using it but i do worry about further proliferation..."
Just how long do you think the US can effectively bully, bribe and intimidate other sovereign nations from getting nukes?
5 years?
10 years?
Two decades?
How long?
Technology doesn't run in place, it runs downhill. In future years the technology of nuclear weaponry will improve and spread and if the desire to possess such weapons still exists then more nations will get them. The Jack is out of the box, the horse has left the barn, the dam has cracked...you choose the metaphor.
But so what? Do you think they'll use them aggressively? Do you really think that any nation could effectively threaten to use nukes in this world where we're the gigantic wmd holder and delivery master?
No, despite Bush/Cheney scare tactics the desire to possess nuclear weapons is not primarily based on the desire to use them offensively but rather on the desire to create a nuclear deterrent.
And who is it that many of these nations want to deter?
And which nation is intent on maintaining and widening the already huge gap in the deadliness of it's nuclear arsenal?
And which nation preaches the loudest about the dangers of other nation's possessing nuclear technology?
Given our current policies and actions, aren't we more the problem than we are the solution?
A large factor in the desire of other nations to hold nuclear weapons is a response to other nation's view of us as an aggressive superpower that only respects nations that can threaten to effectively defend themselves.
And maybe they're right. Just consider what we've said we'd like to do to "help" North Korea, Iran and now Cuba. For instance, Bush just asked the Cuban people to rise up and overthrow their own regime, effectively endorsing their using violence if necessary. Our unfettered interventionist intentions has such nations more than a little worried and what we've already done to "help" the Iraqis is well understood by the entire world.
If I was a sovereign nation and possibly next in line for some US "help" I'd want my own nukes too.
And how dangerous is it when these little nations get a few nukes. It doesn't take a genius to understand that unless the rest of the world is stone cold mad, no NATION would dare to strike at the US using conventional weapons, much less using nuclear weapons. So the danger would arise only if a nation had nukes, an effective delivery system and a madman with the authority to launch at the helm.
That's the scary scenario and that's why we're fed so much BS about that deadly combination; nukes and madmen.
But are there "mad" rogue leaders like that in the real world? Can suicidal "madmen" actually survive and become leaders of nations like Iraq, Iran and North Korea? Well, one of them got saner...don't hear too much about the Libyan "madman" any more, do we?
It's all ridiculous. A nuclear Iran with a few nukes and a very limited ability to deliver them is not a great "world war 111" threat. It's all been built way out of proportion and we're heading up the wrong path.
With our limited ability to unilaterally stop the spread of nuclear technology we'd better start looking for long term solutions instead of these head knocking, short term, failing, threatening policies whose primary effect is to create a headlong rush of nations for more and more deterrent weaponry.
And that means more treaties with more nations, less interference in the internal workings of sovereign nations, more respect for, and compliance with, international law, and a "do no harm" solid foundation for our foreign policy.
Then maybe this stampede for more numbers of, and more deadly weapons, will subside. Ed |
