It’s generally assumed, without question, that a global catastrophe would occur if Iran were to become a nuclear power. After all, didn’t that country’s leader call for the extinction of Israel? And isn't he a little unbalanced?
Mahmoud Amadinejad - that is his name - has also asked Russia to help mediate his nuclear standoff with the UN, and has even proposed that the enrichment of uranium for his power plants be done on Russian soil. Most Americans haven't heard anything about that, however. But, of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that he still isn't a fruitcake.
In the current slash and burn propaganda campaign against Iran, what we do hear from our administration is that it is a rogue country that is exporting advanced weaponry and giving other assistance to the insurgents in Iraq. However, the administration has yet to provide any evidence, and an independent investigation by the LA Times alleged there simply wasn't much to be found.
But, getting back to the bomb, I just want to begin by saying that, personally, I don’t support proliferation in any form, except possibly to achieve a state of equilibrium. Nevertheless, in the spirit of challenging conventional wisdom, let's just take a few moments to look at the other side of the issue.
The nuclear bomb is the deadliest weapon known to man. However, over the past sixty years its history would seemingly indicate that it might just as well be called “the peacemaker.”
To be sure, we dropped two on Japan in August of 1945, ending the lives of over 200,000 men, women and children. The purpose, of course, was to bring about a quick end to a long and bloody conflict, and it did just that. It accomplished much more, however. It impressed a shocked world with the immense killing power of the weapon, and this, in turn, contributed greatly to the fact that it has never again been used in conflict.
Indeed, the only reason we felt we could drop those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was because we knew that there was zero chance that Japan could respond in kind.
Today, there are nine member nations in the nuclear club, and while some have been considered enemies against each other, no wars have been waged between them.
The United States and the Soviet Union squared off in the cold war for nearly fifty years. There were crises, to be sure, but never was there a war. And the reason was simply the bomb. Each country had the ability to annihilate the other, and this guaranteed an era of peaceful coexistence.
Another example of the bomb’s peacemaking influence occurred in Asia. After they were simultaneously granted their independence from England in 1947, Pakistan and India fought a series of three wars over the next 24 years. However, once they became members of the nuclear club, with the ability to render devastation on one another, they entered a period of flare-ups, but no wars – just 30 years of relative peace.
In the Middle East, there is only one nuclear power – Israel – and it’s not unreasonable to ask if this lack of equilibrium is truly in the best interests of avoiding conflict in the region.
Incidentally, although Israel’s membership in the nuclear club has been generally known for some time, it was only two months ago that it actually seemed to be confirmed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in an interview on German television. Experts estimate that Israel has between 100 and 200 sophisticated nuclear weapons.
In examining the issue here, the crux of the matter seems to be whether Israel can really be trusted to live up to its alleged quiet understanding with the United States that it will avoid using its nuclear weapons.
On the plus side, it can be said that it hasn’t used them to date. However, the country's track record with other ordinance is not particularly good. And the term “other ordinance,” in this respect, refers to cluster bombs.
Cluster bombs are extremely lethal munitions defined by the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, as “air dropped or ground launched shells that eject multiple small submunitions,” known as bomblets. There can be hundreds of bomblets in a single shell.
President Carter pointed out in his book, “Palestine Peace not Apartheid,” that when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 it used “American-made antipersonnel cluster bombs against Beirut and other urban centers, killing hundreds of civilians and leaving thousands homeless.” President Carter went on to say that “such use of American weapons violated a legal requirement that armaments sold by us be used only for Israeli defense against an attack.”
When Israel subsequently withdrew its forces from Lebanon, President Carter refrained from reporting the violation to Congress. If he had, all military aid to Israel would have been cut off, President Carter said.
Last July, some 28 years later, Israel again invaded Lebanon. The first sign that something was amiss came with a report by United Nations deminers, immediately after the conflict, that they had identified 10 locations, in just two days, where Israel had used artillery-delivered cluster munitions.
“Dangerous unexploded submunitions, duds that fail to detonate on impact but are still live and at risk of exploding, are present in areas of Nabativeh, Tabnine and Beit Yahoun,” UN officials said.
Eleven days later, Steve Goose, Director of Human Rights Watch Arms Division, said at the Fifteenth Meeting of the Group of Government Experts, “There is a cease fire in Lebanon, but civilians are being killed and injured every day. Cluster munitions are the main culprit. The realities in Lebanon should inform every session of this meeting, every statement, every consideration - states should not be using inaccurate and unreliable cluster munitions. Not under any circumstances.”
And just last Monday, Sean McCormack, spokesman for the U.S. State Department said that Israel probably violated an agreement on its use of U.S.-made cluster bombs during the country’s invasion of Lebanon last July. A classified preliminary report has been delivered to Congress, according to the State Department, and that could lead to the cancellation of any future deliveries of cluster bombs to Israel.
Meanwhile, at this moment, the United States and Italy are among the nations trying to remove tens of thousands of unexploded bomblets in the civilian areas of southern Lebanon, according to the L.A. Times.
To all appearances, therefore, the State of Israel has not acted responsibly with respect to its custodianship of the cluster bombs provided to them. But is it fair to compare this with the responsibilities that fall on it as a member of the nuclear club? I’m not sure.
Certainly, as Iran becomes more of a threat, I have to admit to a greater feeling of uncertainty. And, that feeling is only magnified by the realization that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran could cause extensive harm to other nations, including Russia, in the form of fallout, and could lead to unintended consequences.
On the other hand, if Iran were to become a member of the nuclear club, the world could face the threat of other problems. For example, there would be the possibility that Iran might share its technology or weapons with third parties. The significance of this risk would, of course, depend upon the effectiveness of the international controls that would be imposed. And, bottom line, is that risk any greater than what already exists today, as in the case of - say - Pakistan?
So, the question remains, is it safer for the world for Israel to be the sole nuclear power in the Middle East, or would the region be more secure if Iran and Israel were essentially checkmated by the ability of each to annihilate the other?
Perhaps it really wouldn't be the end of the world if Iran got the bomb - or would it?
Dave McGill, News Correspondent Dave’s column, “The Contrarian,” published every Wednesday to Gather Essentials: News presents a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate point of view to the conventional wisdom of the day.Dave has been a senior officer of a large eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development.You can find all of Dave’s “The Contrarian” columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarianKeep up with Dave’s other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network – just click here: http://atadaskew.gather.com and select the orange”Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page. You’ll find Dave and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 24
Pakistan and India haven't had any major wars against each other in thirty years, thanks to each having nuclear bombs for thirty years I am guessing...
Israel invaded Lebanon in 1970's and again this past July for, (from what I gather from your post), no damn good reason at all. And Iran, with an almost thirty year history of supporting terrorists with weapons and training, (including those fake missiles that were fired at Israel this past July, thereby forcing Israel to use cluster bombs to defend itself... I mean yes that was illegal because those missile apparently weren't real, and those lying Jews made it all up, not to mentions Iran's non-involvement and those soldier who were never taken prisoner... All of it was horrible lies), YES, Iran having nuclear bombs (plural) would be a perfect balance to keep Israel in check because it has been the Jews who have started every war that has happened in that region… and those poor poor Arabs need the bomb to keep those threatening land grabbing Jews from taking over that entire region!
Once again I say WOW!!!
David McGill, your post has got to be the biggest bastardization of world history I have ever read in my life! Your logic is not only horribly flawed, it horrifically inaccurate and your conclusions are down right ignorantly scary as hell!
Steve, go get a drink, loose the sour grapes and come back when you have something useful to add.
The only nation to offensively use nukes is USA. The only nation to promise first strike of nukes is USA. The only time nukes were used was when there was no threat of retaliation in kind. The only nation actually prepared to use nukes in a ongoing conflict was Israel in the darkest days of the '73 war. That's the facts like 'em or not.
The Israeli example is the one to examine. If Dumb Dubya attacks Iran with the intent of overthrowing the government they may, if armed with nukes, do what Israel planned before Uncle Sam started flooding in supplies. Since 1945, with the exception of Israel, nukes are the ultimate defensive weapon, ensuring their holder with national integrity. They can never be offensive, as the consequences are too horrible to consider. That's the reality on the ground despite the frenetic Israeli lobby and American drive for oil hegemony in the Middle East.
I understand many people were saying the same thing about Hitler in the '30's. I do not care much about who happens to president, I do care about us as Americans. I so wish we could just talk about facts. BTW, you don't really believe everything you read in the LA Times, do you? lol. I stopped my subscription even before bush was president. lol.
Have a nice day. Oh, btw, Ahmadinejad also said America will be destroyed as well. Sleep well, my friend.
All a good idea.
Just as it was a good idea to pass out billions of US dollars out the back of a pickup truck in brown paper bags in Iraq to whomever was there to receive the money. As the trickle down effect of all that money (Billions) in Iraq is good.
No matter what the reactions are to your article here, one thing is certain. In the long-run (if there is to be one for the human race) there will ever be better and better weapons to kill and maim enemies or persons (like civilians and children) who unfortunately get involved whether they like it or not. The CREATIVE potential for the construction of ever more powerful destructive weapons to be built, is inestimable. And I should also suggest to you that whole new concepts may arise too that will, at first, not look like weapons in the traditional sense: psychological, deliberate misinformation to feed the flamea of 'hate' which is so essential to have a successful military campaigning, use of drugs to confuse and to destroy judgments, radiation warfare, atmosphere corruption, water poisoning, radiation poisoning of crops, economic--like destroying currencies and thus the banking systems, information flow disruptions. I am sad to report that many of these -- more than fifty years ago -- were partly investigated. The creative abilities of human minds is unfathomable, and given enough time, rationalizations based on 'the need to solve tough problems by very unwise leaderships, will end up possibly using these absurd WEAPONS. I don't want to sound like a mamby-pamby but :LOVE and RESPECT, for the glory and potential glory of HUMAN LIFE, is the only REAL weapon we have to stand against OURSELVES and our potential and destructive irrationalities.
When I read your piece here I was transferred back in time to activities with which I was personally involved five or so decades ago. A few years before the early fifties (before the Korea War times) in memory, I can go back to the time when i was one of the armed forces persons, 'now veterans' , SAVED by the use of the old fashioned KILOTON atomic wepons during World War II. (We're probably, by now, beyond MEGATON equivalents and into BILATONS now) I was a Navy Officer and being readied to go abroad for the Japanese invasion. The generations that have grown up in the period after World War II and after the early 1960's only have very imperfect ideas about the horrors we are talking about when we think 'quick wars with modern weapons'. Once one has read classified damage reports about the 'horrors' of the early nuclear, and yes, chemical, biological, and radiational weapons too, one must cringe when one imagines the consequences from use. Warring in these emerging days is manifestly ABSURD and STUPID. There's simply no other asessment possible IF any kind of powerful weapon system is used that has been developed somewhat recently.
Does any sensible person really think that a well-connected militia group, insurgency group or terrorist group will not be able to find, buy and develop horrible weapons they want and think they need? All they need is determination to do so and the money and weapons specifictions to do so.
=======
Insofar as IRAN is concerned, I will go back to the early fifties and sixties when I was rather deeply involved in thinking about WORLD wars and peace, and their links to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Fifty years ago I knew a lot about all that destructive capacity that unwise humanities could and might use. I was part of the problem and possibly a most small part of the solution.
At the start of the Iraq current war I never thought that Saddam had WMD's and I was possibly wrong in my assessment. I thought of him as a shrewd man and possibly evil (if I could believe what I read and heard.) But I also thought he had to have a brain and was likely no fool. His accomplishments had to be weighed in, and he was the surviviing leader of his country. He must have known that if any use of WMD's anywhere in the WORLD were traced to IRAQ, IRAQ's days would be numbered -- perhaps on one hand. The "West" -- in this case the USA and Israel -- have the weapons and the delivery systems (then and now) to wipe any country off the world map if provoked or convinced that there is an apparent danger. In the case of nuclear weapons of course, think of Russia's Chernobyl and guess properly that the land where the bombs hit will be out of commission for many, many decades, centuries, or more, and that the prevailing winds make trouble in near by and not so near by places (think Belarus, Finland, etc in the Chernobyl case). I never thought that Hussein was unaware of such dire potentialities. He kept from developing and storing WMD's because he knew -- or guessed -- about consequences IF ... . This is my guess why we failed to find WMDs. There were none!
Now lets go to your point about IRAN and its plans (?) to have a nuclear CAPACITY (a nuclear capacity is vastly different from a nuclear WEAPON). Recall too that the 'political' organization of the Nation, places the President in 'spot 2, or lower' when important 'life or death' decisions are being made and will have an effect upon the Nation State. The real 'boss' is the presiding Ayatolla, the wise 'imam' MUSLIM leader. Also involved is their equivalent of our USA Congress, their legislators and representatives.
My hope is that the real reasons for their ongoing confrontations with the USA have to do with 'changing minds at the USA political and citizen levels.' They know now that two factors of importance are operative: (1) World support in the UN for their position is not in a frenzy, and (2) The USA is being seen by the rest of the world as a bully and basically uncooperative. A third factor may be operative too: they recognize that fear and unrest and anger are being generated in the citizenry of the USA by the prospects of the non-cooperation of our government in thinking about the 'dangerous' WORLD and the basic seeming incompetence of both our congress and our presidency. My guess is that the Iranians may be making WE THE USA PEOPLE far more conscious of the need to change our postures internationally. In short the Iranian religious leaders may be by-passing the formal political USA mechanism and are trying to deal with WE THE USA PEOPLE more directly.
I heard something either on TV or Radio or both a couple of weeks ago, but have not heard the point made again, even though I thought it was 'right on'. First, note that their President has had two major interviews with our USA Press so far as I am aware. I saw the interviews and concluded that President Amadinajead was a most intelligent and seemingly very wise and friendly person. That gave me a good feeling, because IF he is a devout Muslim, I know that the intent of ALLAH is probably well understood by him , and that intent is likely then NOT nefarious and thoughtless. Perhaps I'm wrong!
The comment about IRAN that I heard went something like this, paraphrasing: the top leaders in IRAN know that if they ever used an atomic weapon against any nation state or its personnel (like USA troops) they (IRAN and IRANIANS) would likely not be alive the next day because of an almost instantaneous retaliation by overwhelming forces, and those forces might be INTERNATIONAL. I found this a good argument because that's what I believed Saddam Hussein might have thought back in the early years of the new century. Why then the development of their nuclear CAPACITIES? The Prsident is an engineer and was a Professor of Engineering before he entered into his political career. He possibly understands that energy needs will go on growing and growing and growing WORLDWIDE and that OIL has better uses than to be burned up. So why 'waste' OIL?
Also, with lessening (WORLD?) trust in the USA to be even-handed with its distribution of NUCLEAR KNOWLEDGE, there is no better way to LEARN about new technologies than to 'work at and with them'. An engineer knows this; I doubt that many lesser trained politicians do. In DEPTH, at any rate.
So David, as usual, THANKS a bunch for providing us gatherites with such fascinating materials. We need these prods to understand ever more fully.
Dick
http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html
No matter what happens here be totally assured that the whole region would be glass.
With the Soviets MAD-Mutualy assured destruction prevented War just because of the sheer number of nukes going off at the same time,when calculated, could blow up the worls like 18 or 19 times over, I forget exactly.
But I say we don't even let Iran get to a nuclear energy point. All wepons grade uranium is just enery grade uranium cooked in the centrifuge a little longer.
Well written and thought provoking article, as usual! You brought out a lot of good points to consider and think about.
Steve,
David sure put a burr under your blanket, didn't he? I'm amazed at the precision with which you know the minds of all who post on Gather!
I have to assume that you wrote your piece in anger and before the logic part of your brain kicked in as I don't believe you to be that rude and insulting a person!
I do understand what you have said. I don't necessarily agree with it. However, you made one reference I'd like to note:
"Until humanity as a whole "grows up", or, in the shorter term, until we humans recognize that WE must deal with the amoral butchers of the world (and the war profiteers), things ARE going to get worse. The REAL oppressors and the REAL imperialists will just keep on keepin' on."
In this you touched upon a point I've repeatedly made. It is imperative that the worlds people and nations grow up or there will be no world for us to inhabit!
I believe we may have 50 years for that growing up process or it will be too late! Not having a decent crystal ball I could be a long way off but that's the way it looks to me. In the mean time, no one elected the US to be policeman of the world and assuming that role will prove disastrous eventually! And are you including Bush among the "amoral butchers?" I don't espouse that view but there are many in the world who do based on our actions in Iraq!
As far as your "what to do"list it sound like we'd better just become the worlds policeman and whip everyone so that we can insure the delivery of oil to all nations and save all the people of the world living under any kind of oppression as you seem to feel is our responsibility!. Don't know about your but I think Red China is going to take exception when we go after them and they do have nuclear capabilities!
There was a time that we didn't attack sovereign nations until they committed an act of war against us (Pear Harbor) and while the 9/11 was an act of war it was not committed by a nation. We did properly in going after the ones who planned it. However, we cut and run on that project so we could get into the oil producing country of Iraq instead of going into Pakistan after Osama, the terrorist! Our invasion of Iraq blew the moral integrity of the United States out of the water and made us one of the true imperialistic nations you deplore!
To save you trouble I have included a list of your favorite insults below and will plead guilty to any and all of them so if you respond you may limit your remarks to facts!
I do appreciate your comments, without contrasting feelings there would be no real discussion.
INSULT LIST:
"tunnel-viewer" - "Holier Than Thou" " sanctimonious "wise men" "you're a fool" "ego is beyond your control," "unprincipled abuses" "because you simply "don't like" something, and that emotion is equally beyond your control" "dependent on oil, what do YOU suggest we do about those who would restrict the free flow of that ECONOMICALLY ESSENTIAL commodity " "profoundly stupid people I've ever come across",
My guess is that Iranians want something up their sleeves to keep from being treated like their next-door neighbors in Iraq. As for taking their hard-won "do not invade me" insurance policy and peddling on the street, I would worry more about North Korea.
Steve, there is one word I agree with in your comment, and that is "negotiate," but I don't think you meant it. I do agree that it is unfortunate that so many people are being mistreated across the world, both in countries that are our enemies and countries that are our "friends." I could be mistaken, but I thought I picked up a little rank prejudice against Islam in your remarks. Anyway, I get the feeling that both you and Charles may have graduated from the Alan Dershowitz School of Oblique Critcism Which Avoids Dealing With the Facts.
Thanks for the link, Rosemary...The item on Shiite Iran's growing influence in Shiite Iraq is interesting but should be a surprise to no one. The removal of Hussein, which Nixon, for example would never have done, has made it inevitable that Iraq will end up in Iran's sphere of influence.
Many good and interesting observations, Dick Maffei, including your reaction to the interviews with the Iranian president......Thanks.....
Ann, that is a great link...it makes it seem like the Iranians are almost human (just kidding)......I hope Charles and Steve check it out......
Also, thanks for your comments as well, Kevin, Sam, Ron, Richard B., and Tom.
How you bastardize world history.
You wrote:
***President Carter pointed out in his book, "Palestine Peace not Apartheid," that when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 it used "American-made antipersonnel cluster bombs against Beirut and other urban centers, killing hundreds of civilians and leaving thousands homeless." President Carter went on to say that "such use of American weapons violated a legal requirement that armaments sold by us be used only for Israeli defense against an attack."
When Israel subsequently withdrew its forces from Lebanon, President Carter refrained from reporting the violation to Congress. If he had, all military aid to Israel would have been cut off, President Carter said. ***
Yet Israel actually pulled out of Lebanon in the YEAR 2000 after 22 years of occupation.
Here's a source:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june00/israel_5-24.html
But that is not all you bastardized, lets continue on....
You said,
***Another example of the bomb's peacemaking influence occurred in Asia. After they were simultaneously granted their independence from England in 1947, Pakistan and India fought a series of three wars over the next 24 years. However, once they became members of the nuclear club, with the ability to render devastation on one another, they entered a period of flare-ups, but no wars – just 30 years of relative peace. ***
Before I provide the proof, lets first do some simple math... 1947 + 24years =1971 and according to your post, it seems you are stating India and Pakistan have had the bomb for thirty years, and have lived in relative peace ever since… Hmmm... Lets see what real history shows...
Pakistan become a nuclear power on May 24, 1998 ... Two weeks prior, India detonated 5 bombs as well...
Link: http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A091
Not to mention the last war they had started in 1971, and they have had numerous border fighting for years after their last "major" war... They have only recently had relative peace, meaning the last 8 to 10 years, not thirty! And that's totally ignoring the fact that they almost had another war in 2001-2, just 3 to 4 years after they became Nuclear Powers... 40,000 to 90,000 casualties have been reported between those two nations since 1989 to now...
Link: http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f2i1.html
(I could post several other links providing a lot more information, detailed information, but I believe this site is good enough for now!)
Also, please explain to everyone why Israel went into Lebanon in 1978... Please!
Redeem what little creditably you have left... Explain it to them... The facts! Or if you won't I will be more then happy to provide more reading material for all those who are interested in real world history!
Thanks in advance!
Now David your picture show a man with a completely white head of hair, which to me signifies a man who has been around for some time… Though I am finding more gray hairs in my head everyday, I would be willing to bet you have witnessed more then I regarding world events. However, I know the history of the 80's, 90's and 00's because I have been actively involved from one degree to another. However, I am well read on world history, I know from were I speak.
I don't mind the fact you are making the argument that Iran having the bomb would stabilize that region… Though I personally find that to be ignorantly scary as hell! I would not mind debating your reasons verses mine… However, I cannot allow history to be stated when I know for a fact, what is being presented is horrifically inaccurate!
"After consulting with key supporters of Israel in the U.S. Senate, I informed Prime Minister Begin that if Israeli forces remained in Lebanon, I would have to notify Congress, as required by law, that U.S. weapons were being used illegally in Lebanon, which would automatically cut off all military aid to Israel……Israeli forces withdrew, and United Nations troops came in to replace them in Southern Lebanon, adequate to restrain further PLO attacks on Israel citizens."
You also challenge the fact that the mutual nuclear arming of India and Pakistan decades ago lead to a period of relative stability, and you say that Pakistan, in fact, didn't get the bomb until 1998.
In that regard, the last war that those two countries fought was in 1971. Soon after that war was concluded – not successfully for Pakistan – Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto called a meeting of Pakistani nuclear scientists in the city of Multan to initiate that country's nuclear weapons program.
The program was accelerated and Pakistan moved further into the nuclear arena when India conducted its first test in May, 1974. The world reaction to India's test was quite negative, and Pakistan was reluctant to test its own weapons out of fear of international sanctions.
India was well aware that Pakistan had the bomb, however, and this neutralized India's far larger conventional land, air and sea forces, and resulted in an extended period "of flare-ups, but no wars," to quote my article.
Then, in 1998, challenged by a sudden series of five Indian nuclear tests and belligerent statements by Indian leaders, Pakistan finally risked the possibility of sanctions and conducted its own test, if only to get India to back off. This test gave the country formal admission into the so-called nuclear club, but the fact is, it had been a nuclear power for many years.
By the late nineties, when you say it just got the bomb, Pakistan already had 25 to 40 of them, by their own admission, and after 9/11, the country took steps to move them to more secure locations within the country, in accordance with the recommendations of the Bush Administration.
On your last point, feel free to write your own blog about why Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978. It has no relevance to this article.
Now I purposely used that PBS website so as to lesson the flak I expected from liberals to illustrate not only my point, but your and Carter's revisionist remarks regarding Israel. They do not fit the reality of the history…
Regarding Pakistan and the bomb... I do not dispute the fact that they had the bomb before 1998... What I dispute and history proves you to be wrong, is your contention that they had the bomb for thirty years prior to 1998 or 2001, thereby allowing for peaceful co-existence between them and India... That is just not an accurate statement... History also proves there have been many mini wars between those two countries since 1971... I could provide you a link that walks you through every battle they have fought in the last 35 years if you would?
I must admit however, I have not read Carters book, nor do I plan to... I believe he was the worst President in the twentieth century and did more during his 4 years in office to cause the problems the world is facing now then any other person on the planet... I do not dispute he is an honorable and honest man... But that doesn't mean his actions in office where in the best interests of the United States... I could give reasons why I say this, but that is for another thread entirely...
Back on point though… If you could provide me with a couple links that I can read, regarding Pakistan having the bomb for thirty years, let alone, Israel leaving Lebanon in 1978 that would be appreciated. I mean I personally watched the last forces leave Lebanon's territory the day it happened… On TV of course… And I remember Israel having to go back in for just a little while later to kill some terrorists… But if you can provide the links, I would be more then happy to say I was wrong… I too am an honorable and honest man! And when I am wrong I admit to it... We are only human!
***On your last point, feel free to write your own blog about why Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978. It has no relevance to this article. ***
It does have relevance, if Israel used those cluster bombs in defense. When a large portion of your enemy uses civilians as human shields, and in so doing they occupy a large area of land... Cluster Bombs are a good tactical choice... BTW I am looking into that fellow Sean McCormack, and his political affiliations, so as to ascertain why he would make such a statement... But first I have to find the statement and then do my research.
Perhaps that will be tomorrow's chore, I've been reading more papers regarding Solar Flares and their impact on the Earth's Eco systems... But I digress!
A discussion of the diplomatic consequences of nuclear proliferation, in my view, should proceed from a series of understandings.
1. Horror. The barbecuing of children, women, innocents, by the hundreds of thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be confronted up close by anyone who wants to understand the content of the discussion. Radiation sickness, coughing up blood, organ failure, and painful death, indiscriminately applied by geography, is the currency of this proposed tool of international diplomacy.
2. Nuclear fear. Old farts with gray hair (as featured in earlier comments) have come in contact with this Cold War relic that brings pain and uncertainty to children, housewives, and grown men alike. It is a cousin to the fear imposed by terrorism, but in its heyday, more pervasive and ever-present. After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was an abatement of nuclear fear, although some Americans were and still are anxious for the decommissioning of nukes on both sides of the old Iron Curtain.
3. MAD and communications. Mutually assured destruction between the US and the USSR was always understood to be a high-stakes poker game. But like all poker games, there were rules. The Red Phone was always available for a Hotline call to Khrushchev, Brezhnev, or Gorbachev. There was a link, if only semantic in the final analysis, between madness and rationality. There was the consciousness of a known enemy and "rules of engagement," even if the engagement was an endgame.
4. Governance and control. The faltering control over the Soviet "nuclear button" was maddening enough. Chernobyl, leaky and unsecured nuclear sites, radiation dumps in Arctic waters, unemployed physicists pawning off hunks of uranium, all gave new meaning to the concept of an escaping "nuclear genie." The formal state-by-state tally of membership in the Nuclear Club gradually melts, like an out-of-control core, under the inexorable flowing magma of off-chart distribution of nuclear materials.
5. Chaos. If there are two nuclear powers, one discussion (or Hotline call) is necessary to talk about a crisis. If there are ten nuclear powers, forty-five discussions are necessary for everyone to consult one-on-one. Terrorists, however, aren't even interested in talking.
In the traditional days of MAD, there were two states of equilibrium seen: deterrence and counterforce. Deterrence was the product of MAD, while counterforce was a state of superiority (currently proposed by the Bush administration against North Korea with the aid of the "Starwars" system). It has as its goal the successful repulsion of any attack, followed by the annihilation of the enemy. Any significant progress toward counterforce dictates a first-strike response from the enemy, and is therefore destabilizing.
If one attempts to project traditional understandings of nuclear politics on the matrix of proliferation pressures now seething around the world, the impetus is all in the direction of first use. And terrifying. This is where I see the issue.
The greatest nuclear risk, though - and again, in my opinion - is the India and Pakistan situation. Sometimes those countries tend to display what appears to be an astonishing indifference to nuclear annihilation, and that is more than a little unnerving. Also, it seems to defy the theme of this article, but - in any event - they haven't gone over the brink yet, so I think it's still appropriate to say that the threat of mutual destruction has apparently worked to avoid an all out war between them, so far.
Charles, I'm willing to accept the word of the president of the U.S. who was intimately involved in the situation as pretty much gospel.
Also, we probably won't know exactly when North Korea gets the bomb, unless it tests one. By the same token, the exact date that Pakistan got the bomb is known only to certain Pakistanis. However, given that the country's nuclear scientists began to develop the bomb in 1972, and they accelerated their efforts after the 1974 test by India, it's highly likely they had the bomb by - say - 1976 or 1977, at the latest. After all, these nuclear scientists weren't inventing the wheel. The United States had blazed the trail on this and it only took us a few years.
And the point is, India thought they had the bomb by 1977, and that, in itself, became the deterrent.
For the record, I meant to say - above - "We wouldn't have known that N. Korea had the bomb had they not tested it last fall. By the same token, the exact date that Pakistan got the bomb is known only to certain Pakistanis.....etc....."
I got here too late for the fun. You have such patience with squirrels. Just a thought which I may have brought up elsewhere. Is it possible that we have a huge vested interest in not having Iran develop nuclear capability of any kind; ie. the world is scrambling to line up energy supplies. An Iran without nuclear "energy" is crippled. Just like we, as Bush puts it, are "vulnerable" to those who have oil and will use it. Just a contrarian thought which you may want to elaborate upon in an upcoming article.