Nukes!

Remove all ads!

OK, question time: Everyone urinates on North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and other "axis of evil" regimes for wanting Nukes. They act as if it is illegal to develop such weapons. Well, if those countries never signed a non-proliferation treaty, then it is their right to pursue those weapons technologies just as it is the right of the current nuclear powers to hold them, right? I mean, if the whole world got together and said "Canada, you cannot pursue solar power anymore, and because the majority of us have agreed, it is now binding law" the Canadians would say "we are autonomous and soveriegn (sic) and we'll make our own laws, shove it!"

This is not to say that I advocate NK or Iran or any of those douchebags getting the bomb, but I'm looking at the legality of the issue.

 

the 2 countries who worry me the most with nuclear weapons already have them, so whats the point of complaining about others seeking them, the argument could be made that they are trying to protect themselves against the threat of nuclear weapons from other countries, in much the same way countries which already possess these weapons make the argument to keep them.

 

Iran did sign the non-proliferation treaty, though. I don't know about others, but Iran did. And I think they're the ones people are really the most concerned with, since they would actualy hand them over to terrorists. Iraq... isn't an issue any more, and NK probably wouldn't give them away and almost certainly wouldn't use them (guaranteed retaliation, plus no more gifts from the international community).

 

The real problem is that some of these countires may decide to sell them, to anyone who will pay enough for them.

 

how can you trust anyone with nuclear weapons? hasn't the US and the UK sold nuclear matieral to allies?

 

How can you trust anyone with any weapons system? -- they might sell any technology to any ally.

And how can there be a prohibition if you didn't sign the treaty in the first place, or if you can convince yourself and your allies that you were strong-armed into signing it? IMHO, all that this sort of thing does is slow down the rate of nuclear weapon acquisition -- we won't be able to keep determined nations from getting them eventually.

 

They did indeed, and have all their nuclear material under constant NPT inspection, and the IAEA, the agency tasked with inspecting stockpiles under the treaty, continues to find that there has been no diversion of Uranium for non-peaceful purposes. Iran has no right to nukes, but they have a right under the NPT to enrich their own fuel for their power generation and research and medical reactors. And if they want to power up their Busheer reactor for power generation purposes that's their god damn right.

It is more than ironic that, of all countries, Israel, which isn't even a member of the NPT, demands that Iran strictly adheres to the NPT, and more, insists that the Iranians do not have a right to enrich uranium (which is simply false).

So the NORKs are sane but the Iranians are so crazy that they cannot be trusted with getting nukes? Why? Where's the difference between the two regimes as far as reliability is concerned? So the Iranians with their 74 million citizens cannot be deterred by threat of nuclear incineration, but the NORKs can? How come? And why would Iran hand their nukes over to terrorists, unlike North Korea?

Do you even notice how facetious these assertions that you reiterate are?

 

Ragusa - Iran is a different situation than Korea. IMO, and it's just that, my opinion, Korea would sell them to almost anyone, I believe. I don't believe that the "regime" would bat an eye at losing a million citizens. There is something about that regime that seems almost entirely self-serving.

Iran is different. They can certainly move the balance of power in the ME with nukes. I'm not certain they would sell them to terrorsits, nor is that really the concern as much as how they would bully others in the region if they had nukes. There is little doubt in my mind that they want them, and will eventually develop them, but the question is when.

 

If more countries get nukes then the risks of nukes being used grows (obviously). I may be a fan of the Fallout series I'm not eager to see what would happen in the event of a wide scaled nuclear war...

They don't really need nukes for that. The current balance of power there is a direct result of the war against Iraq (the only Arab country that could possibly counter Iran's ambitions in the region).

Iran needs nukes as a "deterrent" towards the US and Israel though.

 

They really do need them because of Israel. The current balance is definitely in Israel's favor.

That seems to be almost making my point. But the US has little to with it, since we have far more nukes than anyone in the world and we can deliver right to anyone's doorstep with little trouble.

 

I want to be clear here -- I feel the Iranians and the NK are more likely, at the current time, to use nukes than any other entity. Iran just plain doesn't give a flying <snip> about world opinion, and has enough allies that want its oil that they might think they could place a nuke onto Tel Aviv without being pulverized. The NK are just plain crazy. I don't relish the thought of them having nukes. But they are going to get them, one way or another. How do we rein them in then? How do you negotiate with someone who doesn't understand the ideas of "give and take"?

 

NORKs? Is this some german abreviation I'm not aware of? I assume you mean North Korea (NK)*, aka the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)*? If so, then no, I don't think they're sane. Not by any measure of the term. They're a classic case of paranoia, and that's why they won't give their nukes to someone else unless that someone else will trade them something of massive value (probably more than money, probably technology or the like). They're the kind of people who will hold onto their nukes with an iron fist, only giving them up when it means using them, and only then when it looks like they'll loose. The Iranians, on the other hand, are quite sane. Evil, hateful, and violent, but sane. They have no problem using a proxy to conduct a war.

*These being the two abreviations I'm familiar with.

You're right, though, that they have a right to refine their uranium for peaceful purposes. The issue is that they keep refining to higher and higher levels for 'peaceful' purposes that can use them (i.e. reactors, then more efficient reactors, then medicine, then research...). They're still a long way from weapons quality, but they're consistently inching closer. That's every reason to watch them carefully, though I agree with you that it's not reason to restrict them in any way yet.

 

Then you just leaned a new abbreviation: NORKs has long been used for quick reference to North Korea, like in 2008, when the US de-listed the NORKs as sponsors of terrorism.

The North Koreans are decidedly peculiar, but not crazy or suicidal. Their actions follow a certain logic of their own. So do Iran's. That you don't understand that doesn't make either of them crazy.

North Korea wants nukes because of their military inferiority vis a vis the south and the US. They are interested in continuation of their system of government. This current confrontation is not just about them crazy NORKs; the current administration in South Korea are themselves hard liners. First decision that party made when the came to power was to dissolve the government department set up to facilitate national unification.

Or take that island shelling. Both halves of Korea claim that Island for themselves. The maritime border was drawn by a US officer during the armistice negotiations. There have been two incidents over that blasted island in the last fifteen years (one in 1999, the other in 2002) and the 'SORKs' decide to hold a major military exercise in the immediate vicinity? Talk about provocative. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that in a place where a dispute is still unresolved and where nasty things happened as a result two times already nasty things may well happen a third time. That must have also dawned on the US military in Korea, since the US opted out of participating in that exercise.

But that means nothing to rabid US right wingers like Glenn Reynolds, who use the incident to live out their genocidal fantasies, in Reynold's case by suggesting to just nuke the NORKs. With lunatics like that around shaping public opinion, who needs enemies? I am just waiting for the next Op-Ed from John Bolton on this topic.

In Iran, the regime is equally interested in perpetuating the achievements of the Islamic revolution, in their view. That and going up in the smoke of nuclear fire don't go well together and since the Iranians are not the cartoonish villains in the image off Ahmedinad but rather smart and sophisticated people who are acutely aware that in order to do that they need to live and retain a people to rule. It is worthwhile to keep in mind that Iran, under the veeeery eeeevil Ayatollah Khomeini, stopped fighting Iraq because they had been bled white (to wit: they had about a million casualties). It suggests their tolerance for pain is well below the threshold of national annihilation, which in turn means the assertion that Iran cannot be deterred is nonsense.

The biggest fear I have is that the Israelis, since they have boxed themselves in so foolishly - for ten years now they tell the rest of the world that Iran will have nukes in two years (which again and again just failed to manifest themselves) - might just attack them for exercising their inalienable rights anyway, and that would be a major geostrategic disaster. The current worst case scenario circulating among national security people in the US appears to be that in such a case the Pakistanis will probably intervene to defend that other Muslim country that had just been attacked by infidels. Pakistan has nukes, and their missiles can reach Israel.

Speaking about the fallout, almost literally, of Israeli follies in that regard, the US and US interests would be hit severely as well. In all likelihood the US position in larger parts of the middle east and Afghanistan would probably become untenable.

 

That, I seriously doubt. Unless they really are religious zealouts without a handful of functional braincells - and that breed seldom tends to get to the pinnacles of power, even in a theocracy - they would be well aware that nuking Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, or anywhere else on or near Israeli territory would result in them getting nuked back, period. Yeah, they might not care that much for world opinion, but do you think Israel cares enough for it to not retaliate to a nuclear attack, or even a reasonable chance of one?

 

Ragusa, while your analysis of the situations with respect to NK and Iran, I think you leave out some distinct features. While NK hates SK, they don't actually want to see them destroyed. They want to see them conquered. They may want to see Japan destroyed, I'm not sure, but not SK. And their distaste for the Japanese isn't a rabidly fanatical one. Iran, on the other hand, would love to see Israel completely leveled. If Iran had nukes, and thought they could get away with it, I don't think they would hesitate to nuke Israel.

Now you're right that Iran is most interested in survival, just like everyone else is, but I think they think (whether it's accurate or not I don't know) that they could get away with nuking Israel, or at least part of it, or maybe the US, or maybe Germany, or maybe France, or Egypt, by a terrorist proxy.

I also think you're analysis of the situation on "that island" leaves one remarkable fact out: SK actually inhabits the island. NK doesn't. It isn't like this is something that is up for debate, like the Gaza Strip.

 

NOG, re: Iran and the NORKs, assertions, assertions, assertions ...

And then, by terrorist proxy? Are you joking? You imagine the Iranians to build a nuke, and expend sweat, limited resources, brainpower and treasure - all while inviting international condemnation, sanctions and pressure - to hand over the biggest bargaining chip in their arsenal, their crown jewels, to some party that they do not even control, knowing that in case of use by that other party retaliation in kind will be directed against them? That assertion was implausible already when levelled against Iraq. Re-use didn't make it any more plausible.

And for Pete's sake, out of what do you read that asserted Iranian desire to, I quote, nuke "Israel, or at least part of it, or maybe the US, or maybe Germany, or maybe France, or Egypt"? As we are talking maybes already, maybe nuke no one at all, or nuke the moon! How can we know? Good grief! Get serious already.

As for that island: The border is disputed. That is so because borders in that area have not been bindingly agreed upon between the NORKs and the SORKs. The reason for that is that the NORKs and SORKs are still at war; it ist just that with the armistice the major fighting stopped. Finally, the point that the SORKs have people and troops on that Island doesn't mean that the SORKs actually possess it under international law. If mere possession was proof of ownership, Iraq would have become the 51th US state in 2003.

Now I would certainly be happy to see the NORKS and the SORKs fight it out at the international court as the Dutch and we have done about our naval borders, but alas, I don't see that happening. My reading of the incident is that the NORKs are in their inimitable way suggesting SK to start talking with them again.

 

My, aren't we all sunny and rosey optimistic about two of the most oppresive regimes on the planet. Let me put my sunglasses on from all the glowing sunshine.

Yes, if the Middle Ages is the standard for sophistication, than yes. This is a country that guns down its own young people in the streets when they question elections; send goon squads out to partrol and beat citizens for improper conduct and dress - and let's not talk about the "sophisticated" conduct towards women in their society. But we can talk about public hangings for gays, since they make the religious right in the US, and even the likes of John Boulton, look like open-minded paragons of tolerance (which they are not). And that's just how they treat their own people. Maybe they would be kinder towards the rest of us, and its just their own people they treat in this manner.

I will never understand regimes and autocrats that despise liberty, at least for their own citizens, as much as these oppresive bully-boys.

I wanted to take a moment add clartiy to this remark I made:

They really do need them [in their own minds] because of Israel. The current balance is definitely in Israel's favor. Iran really doesn't need nukes at all. But life would be that much easier to be the big bully on the block with them.

 

A few things, Ragusa. One, Iran's sponsoring of terrorism and it's inflammation rhetoric are guide enough as to what it would like to do, given the option. The rhetoric by itself isn't much indication, as it could just be idle boasting, but when backed with material support for terrorism, it suddenly looks more realistic.

Two, in my thinking, if Al Qaeda managed to nuke, say, Israel, and someone managed to get a sample of the fallout and prove that it came from an Iranian mine, I have no doubt the Iranians would have a patsy all lined up to put before the public, show how he had 'illegally' sold the material, all without anyone's knowledge, sacrifice him for the public theater, and move on. Sure, there would be a public outcry in the international community, and many wouldn't believe the ploy, and heightened observation of (or even restrictions on) Iran's nukes would follow, but not WWIII. Iran would survive.

Three as for the island, the South Koreans have a military base on the island. You can talk all you want about disputed borders, but a military base is likely to have periodic military drills. If NK doesn't like the maneuvers, then what they're really objecting to is the base (of which I have no doubt), and that's there 24/7/365 and has been for a while.