Old Dog, Old Tricks
What can we do to stop Iran from utilizing nuclear technology? More importantly, how do we justify stopping them? Obviously Iran is not the most stable, western-loving country on Earth, but what specific reasons do we have for telling them to "do as we say and not as we do?"
As various types of technology become more affordable and ubiquitous across the globe, we are going to realize serious repercussions from our cavalier attitude. Don't you think we'd have stronger legs to stand on with countries developing nuclear programs if we started to phase ours out? If the USA led by positive example, just once in the history of the world, I think humankind would be astonished at the good that would come of it.
As various types of technology become more affordable and ubiquitous across the globe, we are going to realize serious repercussions from our cavalier attitude. Don't you think we'd have stronger legs to stand on with countries developing nuclear programs if we started to phase ours out? If the USA led by positive example, just once in the history of the world, I think humankind would be astonished at the good that would come of it.
posted by Smorgasbord at 1:24 PM
9 Comments:
Smorg,
I think that the U.S. is so tarnished in the world's viewpoint that it would be too little too late. When I lived overseas it was notable that many of the governments of other countries are friendly to the U.S. (for one reason or the other) but the medias (which are largely believed by the populace) were not. I think our own government has done wonders to reinforce this also.
I have been reading a lot of blogs lately about Iran and its nuclear capability, and what many don't understand is the geo-politics behind the whole issue. To understand the debate more fully a thorough knowledge of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is helpful.
Also, at the heart of this issue is the legitimacy of the Iranian government. Although they are a U.N. member state, they are a theocratic republic (clerical dictatorship). According to many in radical Islam, (clerical authorities say that it is only 10% of them--which amounts to about 200,000,000) the earth has to be cleansed of the infidel, and they would only be content with the death of the white devil--I am not sure how far appeasement would go. (Given history as a model, there existed a worldwide theocracy during the Dark Ages called the Catholic Church--it executed many peace-loving pagans and ana-Baptist--people who didn't believe they way they did. Some estimate it was almost 50 million people who were tortured, burned, hung on crosses, etc. Keep in mind that this is where these Islamic people are right now--it took centuries for the Catholic Church and its bastard offspring--protestant reformers--to overcome their lust for blood. It is hard to get through to that kind of fanaticism)
Then there is the official statement from the Iranian government that "Allah wants Iran to have nuclear weapons". We won't go there...
Keep in mind that my age tends to make me a bit jaded. :)
Interesting link:
http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_2919.shtml
-Jack
I'm not saying by any means that the course of action I suggest would be a walk in the park. It's extremely tough to take the first step down a new, more righteous path. And the path itself is covered in mines. It's really, really difficult. But what are the alternatives? How many countries can we invade until we've taken over every developing nation and pissed off every developed one? Then where will we be? Looking down the road we've been traveling for at least a century now, the only logical outcomes are become a global empire (ala Rome or England--and we know those won't last) or more immediate self destruction. I choose plan B.
I believe as you do, Smorg. I would have all nuclear weapons in the world destroyed if there was a guarantee that there were none left, but I kind of look at it the way I do weapons in general. My reasoning is that if we take away all the guns from law abiding citizens then bad people will still manage to get guns, and the good people will fall prey to the evil. I have guns in my home (that's a surprise isn't it!:), I have never shot anyone, will never shoot anyone--but if someone invades my home to threaten my family, they will need a bigger gun and more skill in using it than I do. I consider it my duty to protect my family, and to be without the means to do so is irresponsible of me. We empower our government first and foremost to protect its citizens above all else. At this time, nuclear weapons seem to be a means of protection. (This may not always be the case--there are many future scenarios that render nuclear weapons obsolete--it would be wonderful if we witness that in our lifetime!)
Smorg, as long as there are evil men on the earth, there has to be something to protect oneself from them. Possessing that firepower and forbidding bad people who have not demonstrated their ability to handle such responsibility from possessing it may be our only option.
-Jack
I think that's how governments have been approaching the issue for..... ever. And it really hasn't accomplished anything. It's like I said, if we try just ONCE to lead by example on a global issue, I think we'd be pleasently surprised.
It is not about whether the US does or does not have nuclear arms, it is about engaging other nations in useful dialog regarding the issue. The US has never sat down to the table with Iran since Shrub got into office; rather he has left it up to the European nation to try and solve this problem. In Korea this Administration refused for the longest time to enter any meaningful talks because it demanded that there be multilateral discussions opposed to the bilateral discussions that North Korea wanted. The US has become an isolated nation expecting every other nation to capitulate to its desires because is has a large military. Until the US establishes credibility by actually engaging in meaningful talks and entering and honoring treaties with nations, it will not have credibility on any topic be is nuclear arms, the environment, or any other matter.
The Atlantic(not sure if you need a subscription to access this article) had an editorial on the Iran issue and among other things it pointed out that military intervention will not prevent Iran from getting the bomb in large part because Iran has gotten smart enough to move all of its facilities far enough away from one another to make air strikes ineffective. Military intervention is not the answer, meaningful talks and diplomatic agreements are the solution. (I highly recommend The Atlantic essay as it sets out a lot of the issues in a comprehensive way that blogs and comments just cannot accomplish.)
It's quite a double-standard for the US to condemn other countries on the premise that they would develop nuclear weapons, when we have been nuking our enemies all along. Especially when we have a history of foreign intervention and aggressive invasion for non-defensive purposes. It's not surprising that any country would regard the US as a threat to their security, and take steps to defend themselves however they can, including imitating American-style nuclear "deterrent".
Hi WL,
There are many nations willing to engage in meaningful dialogue, but I don't think Iran is one of those.
Shea,
It would be helpful if you looked into the NPT also.
-Jack
Oh, also WL- very good article at the Atlantic.
-Jack
Assuming that a nation is not willing to engage in diplomatic dialogue is a failure on all nations parts. In the early 1990s the Clinton administration reluctantly engaged N. Korea in talks and struck a deal to keep them from building nuclear reactors. The problem was that the newly elected GOP Congress was not willing to fund the deal which required significant amounts of coal being sold/given to N. Korea. This reneging on a prior deal has had a lot to do with the problems in N. Korea today.
Iran has consistently been the most stubborn right before it was willing to capitulate to the diplomatic demands that were being asked of it. The more it appears that Iran is unwilling to comply with reasonable requests, the more likely it is that the diplomacy is working. In other words, even if it appears that it is not working, it is not an excuse to abandon diplomacy.
Post a Comment
<< Home