Or you could call your second school of thought the 'soveriegnty is more important that anything else' school of thought. Of course that implodes on itself when you add the Macbeth Doctrine of self-determination to the mix. Now we can play my favorite game called 'Watch JAG/Macbeth Disappear.' Here's how you play. You ask him 'Do you think any country should be able to acquire nuclear weapons if they want?' And he disappears. At least that is what has happened in about ten of these threads where he's been put to the question. Since we are neither colonizing countries we DO intervene in, nor are we enslaving the populations of those countries, your examples don't match up.
I understand your point, but the world and the civilizations therein have changed quite a bit in the last 150-200 years. The standards of the major foreign powers at the points in history you mention were not measurably better than those of America.
1) I have answered you before, and will do so again. I believe that those currently seeking to acquire nuclear arms should seek that mandate from the same place we applied to before we acquired ours...the ability to do so. We sought the approval of NO ONE, therefore who are we to require it of others? Add to that the fact that we used the damn things, and we are in no position to act as arbiters of nuclear justice. When you sow the whirlwind.... Besides, a cursory look at history reveals that any military innovation becomes proliferated as time goes on, and that the idea that you can control it is laughable...Hence Openhiemer's statement " I am become death...destroyer of worlds." Could the Assyrians ahve foreseen siege warfare being turned against them? Could the Hyksos have anticipated being destroyed by a chariot driven Egyptian army using composite bows? Could the Hittites have prevented iron weapons from being raised against Hattusas? Were the Greek city states aware that their fall from power would be ensured by the Macedonian phalanx? It goes on and on...blitz warfare and the Nazis being the most recent significant example...We need to seek a shield to use against the sword we have unleashed into the world, not try in vain to keep that sword only in the hands of our friends...Friends change, swords get misplaced or stolen or, worse still, re-invented. 2)And yes, these examples are very relevant. There have been several examples in history with direct parallels...Athens would conquer other cities merely to impose a 'democracy' similar to it's own, and they were called tyrants and imperialist. The Mongols often left entire political structures of conquered peoples in place, asking only for tribute or...say it with me now...free access to the resources it needed (oil, anyone? Panama canal, perish the thought) and were hardly thought to be saviours...Again, there are examples on examples...Rome actually tried NOT to invade/conquer/colonize Macedonia/Greece for over 100 years after their capacity to do so, but ultimately did because Rome felt that the political instablity present in that sector was becoming a threat to Rome itself, and was interrupting it's trade profits...sound farmiliar? When you define right and wrong according to your own standards, you will often find that your actions seem justified to yourself.
"A young Turkish woman recently explained to me that while the Turks dislike their neighbor, Saddam Hussein, they also despise the Americans. When asked whether her country feared Saddam, though, she replied that it did not, because it was fairly certain that in the event of trouble, the US would sort matters out. In this respect, the US is in a terrible situation, resented and relied on in equal measure." -from a British newspaper today... Maybe haven has a point. Its pretty darn scary to think about (for example) pulling out of NATO and rolling the dice that other countries will take up the slack in the UN, but with people all over expressing the same sentiments as above, maybe its time to let them see what that world would be like. Let China spend less on defense and more on UN multilateral operations. Let Europe pay for their own defense force, which they've planned out but refused to fund. Let Europe and Japan pay in money and blood to secure their oil supplies from the Middle East. As for myself I like the famous Thatcherism - 'You can turn if you want to, but the lady is not for turning.'
So to summarize what Mandela wants: 1. The US to keep funneling money into the UN to pay the bills and to let the UN give money to developing countries, which will probably never be repaid. 2. The US to maintain the strongest militia so the UN can use it to enforce when it needs to 3. The US to not use the military unless authorized by the UN Suggestion for Mandela: 1. If you totally rely on someone (financially as well as physically) like the UN does to the US don't tell us what to do in public 2. Build your own Army if you want one at your disposal, quit coming to us everytime something needs done I know he is a great man, but the holier than thou crap gets old. The UN needs the US more than the US needs the UN. Let the US leave the UN and see what you have left. Nothing. Saddam is working on weapons of mass destruction I assume, since he won't let the UN inspectors in. Give Saddam one chance to let in the inspectors on the terms of the treaty. If he says no then let Bush finish his dad's work. If the UN gets ticked so be it. THe UN without the US is nothing. No one will listen to them. Just do it!
Good post chuckie. I don't think you need to throw the "I assume" caveat into this argument. Practically nobody, outside of Scott Ritter (and I've never been able to figure out what his agenda is) believes that Sadaam doesn't possess WOMD and is hell bent on acquiring more. From the WaPo: "LONDON, Sept. 9--Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon "in a matter of months" if supplied fissile materials from an outside source, according to a report released here today [by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a prominent military and security think tank]. Saddam Hussein's government also has an extensive biological weapons capability, a smaller chemical weapons stockpile and a small supply of missiles to deliver them, the report concluded. The report called Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction "the core objective of the regime," and said it had pursued this goal relentlessly for the past 11 years--in defiance of its own commitments made in agreeing to a cease-fire and an end to the 1991 Gulf War." And people seriously believe that he won't use, or at least threaten to use, these weapons?
You're, in the local lingo, a nutter. When you think about Saddam or Kim Junior in North Korea, or Osama possessing nukes, and yet somehow feel no obligation to prevent that outcome if possible, I cannot understand you. This isn't some paper you're writing in a philosophical vacuum. Well, it is a fact that nuclear proliferation has been SLOWED by policy, so you are incorrect. Fortress America. Sounds appealing. To abandon attempts to slow proliferation is insane unless we are truly in a position of resource self-sufficiency, AND unless we HAVE a foolproof shield against all forms of nuclear violence. As is we NO shield from ANY of the forms of nuclear violence. Your suggestions are pure folly. History is also filled with examples of countries that tried to insulate themselves from the outside world. How many of THOSE are still around? And while discussing the Assyrians, Hyksos, Egyptian, Hittites, Hattusas, the Macedonian, and the Nazis makes you sound hip and academically enlightened, its hardly on par with the problem presented by nuclear weapons. And I'll point out that if we are to take your view, we are all doomed, as nuclear war will undoubtably be in our future. And there are examples after examples of your particular brand of relativism breeding the harms that it seeks to avoid. 'Hey, its their option' justifies standing aside and watching acts of slavery, genocide, human sacrifice... and on and on...
Other arguments aside, I must say this "matter of months" argument is the worst. Any good physics major from a decent school could build a nuclear weapon "in a matter of weeks" given "fissile materials from an outside source." And I could dress nicely, given a big bankroll and a flight to Milan. The argument applies to all nations and all factions everywhere in the world. They can build a bomb if they get the materials. Rain is wet already.
When you put in context it is not 'the worst.' Saddam has thousands of scientists working on the bomb. They have already tested the device absent the nuclear material (the sphere implosion model - not sure what the official name is). Defectors have revealed he has changed his tactic from trying to construct his own material to acquiring it, since he gets bombed everytime he gets close to developing his own (Israel '81, UN '91). '...all nations and all factions everywhere in the world' do not have the money to purchase the material, nor the means to construct a complex device, nor the motive to do so.
HayesStreet -- I can listen to the "look at how this violent freak is trying to build a bomb" argument, if it's backed up nicely, and you've started a good case there if all the references check out. My main point, though, will counter your last line about a "complex device." I am sad to say, and I say it with confidence, that a devastating device is not that complicated to build, and I have no idea how we make sure that the 6.2 billion people on this planet are NOT doing such a thing. So I just want good evidence from the politicians making the case for an attack. And the statement I originally quoted (in contrast to yours) is NOT anything but weak fear-mongering. By the way, I'm not saying it's easy to build a true "professional" weapon. But if you've got a couple of melon-sized chunks of decently processed plutonium and a way to bring them together with force, look out. (I am creeped out that I typed "professional weapon". Blech. )
1) Glad to see you're actually as open-minded as I suspected...Defining what leaders should/should not have nukes based on their relationship with the US is not only hypocritical, it's impossible...and it would also defy historical logic...During the Cold War, the Soviets stole the secret...as did the Chinese, etc.,,,and, as yet, they didn't use it. In fact, the score on the Willingness To Use Nuclear Anihilation vs. an Enemy was, and remains, USA 1, The Rest Of The World Combined 0...In fact, recently released documents show that the Major cause for the USSR's desire to acquire the bomb was their fear that the US would use it on them, just as they had on Japan. They were not alone in this, as studies of European/Asian industrialized nations as late as the 1980's showed that the vast majority believed that the US represented a more likely nation to use the bomb. This was also supported by the fact that, during the Cold War, the actual use of nuclear first strike was only officially threatened 3 times...by Kennedy during the Cuban situation, Carter during the initial Afghan crisis, and Reagan, during the Korean Airline crisis...All three times the Soviets responded that, if attacked, they would retaliate in kind, but even Kissinger admits that the US was the only nation to ever overtly play the Nuclear card. ( not surprisingly, he sees it as both a sign of strength and a mistake)... Besides, I have stated that it will become increasingly impossible for us to prevent other nations from getting the bomb..However it is much easier, and more justifiable,to prevent individuals (like Bin Laden ) from acquiring it...There is not the deterrent of M.A.D. in his case, nor does he have the established B.O.O./infrastructure required to become a significant launch threat. 2) No, I am not incorrect. The primary purpose of our policy was to prevent our enemies from getting the bomb...since which time our two greatest enemies, the USSR and China, have both gotten the bomb. Hardly a success...it will continue thus. 3) Firstly, I wasn't suggesting the Fortress America that you are responding to..I was suggesting that our focus should be to try and find a defensive response to the offensive terror we have unleashed. Secondly, of the nations which did adopt isolationist policies, the two most significant are/were Egypt and China...both of which still exist, and each of which were world powers of such monumental duration that the US would have to continue as one for a dozen or so more centuries before comparisons could even be begun...And I don't get your 'hardly on a par' thing...And I would suggest that it's not my view that suggests that nuclear war, in some form, is inevitable, it is the view if history...You can't control the cat once it's out of the bag, even if you were the one who let it out...I do sincerely hope that it never comes to pass, and I realistically hope that if/when it does it will be on a very localized scale, but we are the perfect example of the axiom that weapons are invented to be used, and always fullfill their destiny... Last Point...Re: Your Favorite Game...I have asked you a question to which you have never given a real response, and will try again, but first, I would like to give an analogy of the kind of response you have given in the past, and why I have never felt it actually addressed my question... *** This in no way condones child-beating, i was just trying to find an appropriate analogy for human rights violations*** Jim: Hey there Bob, what's got you so steamed? Bob: That damn arsehole Mike was beating his kids again last night. I'm on my way over to get him out of that house...Do you believe the guy beats the kids with a broom!?!? That's just not right! I can't live in a neighbourhood with someone who beats his kids! Anyone who does has to have his kids taken away, and his house too! Jim: But...er..Bob..I don't think you can just go over and do that...Besides, the rest of the neighbours don't think we have any right to go into Mike's house... Bob: Well, to hell with our pansy-arsed neighbours! If they dont know what's right, then I'll do it..Besides, I'm the one that Tom and Terry come running to whenever they need help...So I can go into Mike's place if Mike is doing something wrong, and beating your kids with a broom is just plain wrong! Jim: Uh, I agree with you on that, Bob, but shouldn't we do what the neighbourhood thinks is right? Not everyone is even convinced Mike is beating his kids...I mean, do you remember the time you went charging into Ned's place, because you were sure he had rats, and that if we didn't get rid of the rats the whole neighbourhood would become infested...and when you broke his door down, and killed his pets, and hurt his kids, it turned out that he he had guinea pigs, and he had them as pets because he wanted them..Do you remember that? Or the other time, when you.. Bob: Yeah, yeah! But this is different! This time I know I'm right! Besides, that was a while back...And rats are maybe wrong...but beating your kids is just pure evil, and anyone who does it doesn't deserve any consideration at all. Jim: But, uh, Bob...you used to beat your kids all the time...We all knew about it...remember, we even asked you to stop several times? Bob: That was a long time ago...besides, I never used a broom! ************************************* My point, Hayes, is that when I ask you this next question, please don't answer it the Bob's broom way, ie ignoring the question to concentrate on semantics, thereby absolving the US... Would you have supported other superpowers if they had invaded the US, done away with our political system, and imposed a copy of their own, back when we were practising genocide on our native population, or were the (by far) last Western industrialized nation to practice slavery? Should our government have been toppled, as it was obviously the support structure for these atrocities? Or did we have the right to self-determination, flaws and all, irrespective of how those flaws appeared to the rest of the world? Or If Denmark invented a SuperWeapon, which suddenly made them the most powerful country on earth, would it be then right for them to judge our nation ACCORDING TO THEIR STANDARDS and should they find us wanting, invade us and replace our system with one of their own? And PLEASE don't do the Bob's broom thing;ie..Well, if we were killing off kurds, or, if we were (Insert something which applies in specifics only to our current enemies, but whose literal translation can't be attributed to the US, despite the fact that it's on a moral par with our past human rights violations..) then, yeah, I'd support it! I answered your question, please be so kind...
Great post. Macbeth. Nailed him. What is very interesting is that liberals have argued for almost 60 years that we should prevent nuclear proliferation. They have argued that eventually the technology would not be so hard to develop and the more countries that had it, the more chance of it getting into the wrong hands. This was one of the reasons they also objected to nuclear power plants. Conservatives have consistently resisted most attempts to limit testing, production and proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Doctrine of Right-Wing Nuclear Non-Proliferation . After decades of opposing arms and nuclear controls, now conservatives have decided to use the non-proliferation ssue selectively. Given the scariness of nuclear weapons they employ nuke scare as a club to whip up US opinion to invade any nation that attempts to make these weapons. This is provided we don't like the country, they are small enough to not be a military hassle or they have resources we want. Nuke scare is very effective tactic witness Hayestreet and other conservatives employing it frequently. As Macbeth points out it is silly to think that we can keep these weapons only for countries we approve of. Given the silliness of this position it is stupid to send our soldiers to die for this ridiculous doctrine. I''ll call this the doctrine of "right-wing nuclear non-proliferation", to separate it from true nuclear non-proliferation, which would include us, too. The only consistency in the conservative approach is that they always want to use military might including nukes or nuclear threats to intimidate other countries in to doing the will of the US. In retrospct the fact that the USSR and China got nukes probably turned out to be a good thing. I'm sure conservative hard ball types could have justified nuking Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, North Vietnam and others. If the nuke us score was US 5 or 6, rest of the world 0, it would make the resto of the world that much more dtermined to get the weaons and use them against us. In a similar vein, maybe Israel might settle down and make peace with their neighbors if they didn't feel that their nukes make them impervious to the just demands of the Palestinians and the rest of the world. It is just a matter of time till an Arab state gets nukes and given Israel's present policy toward the region, it is doubtful that the Arabs will be more moderate when that occurs. This is especially true after with Israeli urging the US invades and occupis much of the middle east.
It might not be possible to keep every country from proliferating, but it is certainly possible to keep some countries from proliferating. For example, Iraq has wanted nuclear weapons since the 70s. Do they have nuclear weapons? No. Why? Israeli strike '81 and UN strikes '91. That is fact. Another example? Taiwan had a nuclear program fairly well along in the 70s. They discontinued it after the US assured their security. That is a fact. Another example? Germany and Japan both would more than likely have proliferated had they not had US security guarantees. First, that is speculation. Second, to assert that Stalin only wanted to acquire nukes as defensive weapons is revisionist history. Where did you read that, a Christopher Hitchens article? Third, it may be hard to prevent two of the largest countries from proliferating, but that does not mean it is as difficult to stop proliferation in smaller countries. Fourth, deterrence and containment, which have been the core of US anti-proliferation doctrine since WWII, clearly cannot stop all proliferation, as you suggest. That is the reason for a more proactive approach in some cases. Yes, its called deterrence and its a good thing. And the vast majority of proliferation studies show the reasons for the drive to acquire nuclear weapons is PRESTIGE, not defense. Both internal and external. You are simply wrong again. Brazil and Argentina had nuclear programs in the 70s. Which of those was afraid of a US nuclear strike? Oh yeah, neither. France and the UK got the bomb. Which of those was afraid of a US nuclear strike? Oh yeah, neither. Israel and South Africa developed the bomb. Which of those was afraid of a US nuclear strike? Oh yeah, neither. India and Pakistan developed nuclear bombs. Which of those was afraid of a US nuclear strike? O-H Y-E-A-H, N-E-I-T-H-E-R. Not sure about that, or its relevance to our non-proliferation policy. Just so we're clear, you are saying that: (a) Kennedy told Kruschev we would nuke the USSR if they didn't remove missles from Cuba, (b) that CARTER told Breschnev he would FIRST STRIKE the USSR if they didn't abandon Afghanistan, and (c) that Reagan threatened to FIRST STRIKE the USSR if....what? They shot down another airliner? I want to make sure we're clear on those before I answer. I think you're smoking crack. There is no doubt that with the demise of the bi-polar Cold War world non-proliferation efforts will be more difficult since we and the former USSR no longer de facto control the policies of so many proxy states. But you don't say 'what the ****, go ahead and build your bombs.' That is crazy. And the more states that DO proliferate make the acquisition by non-state actors more likely. Sorry. You are wrong. First, there were not proactive attempts to disarm either the USSR or the PRC, primarily because of their size. The failure you speak of does not lay at the door of a proactive non-proliferation policy. RATHER AT THE OPPOSITE DOOR, the view that between offering carrots and controling technology, we could stop proliferation. Second, proactive interventions into Iraq already empirically prove the ability to at least delay proliferation. There is no reason we cannot do this also. One does not rule out the other. Are you being facetious? When I go walk on the Thames there is the Cleopatra Oblisk. Very cool. Very old. It has a nice plaque that says 'kindly given to the people of England by the Viceroy of Egypt.' Of course the Viceroy was appointed by the British after they had conquered North Africa. And they were conquered several times before that. To say today's Egypt paid no price for their isolation is you PURPOSELY misusing your historical knowledge. The same is true of China. WHY did they take such a beating from the West in the 19th century? It is directly linked to their attempted isolation from outside developments. "They" say a good small fighter will not beat a good large fighter. Now if you gave the small fighter a freakin ray gun he could vaporize you with, it might be a different story. Well, you can be a doomsayer if you want. I do not subscribe to that view of humanity. AND your solution is plain stupid. We can slow proliferation at worst, stop it at best. Maybe continue our own disarmament at the same time, eventually putting all nations in a position to make civilian use of nuclear technologies without the drive for the bomb. Under the MacBeth Doctrine of anybody can have a nuke, all you have to do to qualify is control a particular strip of land. You could be Pol Pot, you could be Adolf Hitler, you could be Idi Amin, or Milosevic, or ANYONE as long as you control a country. THAT is not silly, its criminal. Actually, I have answered the question in the past, and you...guessed it, disappeared. I don't need an analogy to point out that under the MacBeth Doctrine, you would sit on the sidelines as the Jews were slaughtered. You would sit on the sidelines with Bosnia. The Bosnian Serbs have a right to self determination don't they? You would sit on the sidelines with Pol Pot. I would not. If there is hypocracy in there, so ****ing what. We are hypocrites over and over and over. Should we excert influence again the will of another population? You say no. That means no trade negotiations, no subsidies for our industry, no military beyond our borders. That is not realistic, nor is it wise. I won't ignore it. In fact, I'm going to make you look more ridiculous that you already are by pointing out that I HAVE ALREADY answered this. You used this same analogy, except it was the Swiss with a raygun last time. Look it up, toughguy. If the US was a totalitarian state, and our own population was subjegated and the Danish could come in and free us, HELL YES I would want them to do that. For example, if we had the same system as the former Soviet Union, or the PRC, would I want the Danish to come make our country like thiers. If their country sucked then no, probably not. But then again, I BELIEVE in our country and its system. Not perfect but closer than any alternative. I'm not sure if just did what you asked me not to, so this is just asking for clarification. We are not currently committing the genocide in this country nor are we advocating slavery, so does my answer meet your request or not? If not let me know and I'll readdress it.
This is a pretty skewed view of non-proliferation policy, and hardly accurate. One of the main reasons liberals opposed nuclear power was because of proliferation? That is a laugh. How about the ENVIRONMENT. Do the Greens in Europe protest over proliferation at a nuclear plant? NO. Which country that proliferated was supported by US conservatives? The fact is that technology control has been the cornerstone of non-proliferation policy and that stems from conservatives anti-communism. You are talking out of your ass. The ABM Treaty was under a liberal President? SALT was under a liberal President? The INF Treaty was under a liberal President? You AND MacBeth are smoking crack, apparently together. What countries have we invaded to stop nuclear production? Why are you labeling me? My advocacy crosses many lines and I resent being pidgeonholed. I am against the War on Drugs and for a War on Poverty. How are those conservative stances? Nucelar weapons are SCARY and THAT is why moving against their spread is important. What enemy has proliferated aside from the former Soviet Union and the PRC (who was less an enemy)? The US continues to reduce its nuclear stockpile. You just don't want to invade Iraq, regardless of the reasoning. You brush with broad strokes that are simply untrue. If you think so then you are a loon. Israel was stomping Arab ass conventionally without nukes. Yeah, so what we should do is allow a nuclear war to happen as quickly as we can instead of trying to slow that event down. That's your platform glynch and I for one am happy as hell you are not a decision maker. glynch, you should get out now. At least MacBeth can babble on about the Babylonians.
