posted
I think most people agree it would be far better if Iran did not have nuclear weapons. I certainly don't want them to have them.
But I do think it is kind of strange countries like the United States that possess nuclear weapons can demand other countries to cease the acquisition of them. It seems like a double standard. And I try to avoid double standards whenever possible.
But on the other hand, I don't think it's a good idea for Iran to have nuclear weapons.
How do you reconcile this?
Posts: 12 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could try and make the argument that the United States is far more stable and unlikely to use nuclear weapons than Iran, and that if Iran got them, they could end up in the hands of crazy terrorists, or fanatics who have less respect for the awesome power of a nuclear weapon than we do. But that argument doesn't really go anywhere.
"The United States is more responsible and less likely to use a weapon." "Aren't you the only nation to use one on actual people in World War II?" "Well that's different, we were at war!" "And the next time you're at war?"
The lesson learned I think is that nations with nukes aren't messed with quite so easily, and they have negotiations with North Korea as the best most recent evidence in that regard. That sort of ignores the fact that militarily, North Korea isn't a pushover even without nukes, but they still take that lesson from it.
What it really comes down to is the fact that we got there first, and it's not fair, but we don't really care about fairness when it comes to nukes. Geopolitics and threats of mass destruction sort of throw ideas of fairness out the window, and I'm perfectly willing to admit that I don't care even the tiniest bit about fairness and hypocrisy when it comes to a nation like Iran having nuclear weapons. I know why they want them, and I know why they think they need them, but I worry that in the end, Israel and Iran will create a miniature Middle East Cold War, and I wonder at the end of the day if they'll be able to come out of it unscathed, and I worry about who would be caught in the crossfire.
So, how do I reconcile this? The fewer nuclear weapons out there and the fewer countries that have them make the world that much less likely to explode. That's an overly simplistic way of framing my argument, but at the end of the day that's what it comes down to. Iran could spark a Middle Eastern arms race in one of the most volatile parts of the world, and the last thing I want to see happen is the Middle East turned into one giant sheet of glass.
I am however, with some reservations, okay with the idea of trading civilian nuclear power technology and assistance in exchange for them not developing a nuclear weapons program. I like Obama's plans to significantly reduce our nuclear arms stockpile, and God knows Russia's is in a shambles at the moment. I'm maybe more worried about Russian nukes than I am Iranian ones, but I think Obama has a good handle on the subject of loose nukes as well.
Anyway, to sum up: You reconcile it by recognizing that there are situations in which people are perfectly okay with double standards, and that fairness isn't a suicide pact.
PS. Welcome to Hatrack.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the nuclear powers have clearly broken Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so why would the non-nuclear powers hold up their end?
The US, Russia, China, and the rest need to completely disarm. Then they can hold the moral high-ground for countries like Iran.
If I were a third-world country looking to have more power (and aren't they all?) the first thing I'd do is pursue a weapons program.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alternatively, you can move the Canada. Then you can demand that other countries give up nuclear weapons, land mines, torture, etc. without having to live with double standards Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
American Exceptionalism. So it is a double standard. One standard for the US; another for everyone else in the world.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier: the non-nuclear powers are free to withdraw from the treaty whenever they choose; of course, if they do they don't get access to the best civilian nuclear technology, either. However, there would be no treaty stopping them from pursuing nuclear weapons.
This isn't some vast imposition on the non-nuclear powers. They know what they're getting in exchange for what they're giving up. Iran is giving up the moral high-ground by lying about what they're doing, and doing it in direct violation of a non-ambiguous clause of the treaty; the provision you cite has certainly been followed at least in part, and is nebulously vague on the parts that the nuclear powers could arguably be called on, especially as regards timeline.
Of course, most of why we're trying to stop Iran from being nuclear has nothing to do with the moral high-ground. We know with absolute certainty that it is not a good idea for Iran to have nuclear weapons, whatever one thinks of our possession of nuclear weapons. Having a decent perspective makes things remarkably clear.
I'm going to assume you aren't actually arguing the US, Russia, China and "the rest" should disarm (are you including the two nuclear powers that aren't NNPT signatories?), since I think you can easily imagine a world where, say, NK and Iran had nuclear weapons, but none of the western nations did. I doubt you'd enjoy having terms dictated to us.
And yes, going all out for nuclear weaponry makes a lot of sense for a third-world country looking to have more power. That's why we try to persuade them not to, and offer significant carrots (lots of civilian nuclear tech that they wouldn't have for decades upon decades even if they reached the point of building a bomb).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: American Exceptionalism. So it is a double standard. One standard for the US; another for everyone else in the world.
Well, not the rest of the world, just the parts we don't like, which doesn't really fit under the theory of American Exceptionalism. That's the theory that we're the absolute awesomest country ever. Traditionally anyway, it wasn't an idea created to mean that America was an exception to world rules, just that we were an exception to conventional theories, cultures, etc of the world, and that we were special. And we didn't even start it, I think de Tocqueville did. Republicans sort of appropriated it at the beginning of the 20th century, but even then, not with regards to bullying the rest of the world. That didn't come about until the 40s and 50s.
Republican jingoism aside, it's not something I hear pushed very much these days, especially since Obama's "our bad" approach to foreign policy began.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: American Exceptionalism. So it is a double standard. One standard for the US; another for everyone else in the world.
Yes it does seem that the United States does make an exception for countries who are friendly to their interests. Or countries that already possess nuclear weapons and there's not a lot that the United States can do about.
But for other, small and developing countries, there does seem to be a double standard here.
I find it interesting that the most powerful nations on earth possess nuclear weapons and go around telling other developing nations what they can and cannot do. One of the reasons United States is so powerful is because of its military might which I believe includes the possession of a nuclear arsenal.
I think one of the greatest threats to freedom and peace and prosperity is the consolidation of power. When a select few hold all the cards and have all the power bad things happen.
Now I'm against nuclear proliferation. I don't want to see any more countries develop them.
I also have trouble with countries that possess them and refuse to dismantle them telling other developing nations that they can't have them. I have trouble with other nations threatening to use military force to stop the development of nuclear weapons. It is hypocritical.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with American hypocrisy in this case. I don't care if we are the biggest hypocrites in history-- our hypocrisy is NOT an argument for Iran/North Korea to have nuclear weapons.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We invented them. We're just protecting our intellectual property.
Or, if you prefer a serious answer... We were the first to make them. We used them to end the bloodiest war in human history. After we saw how awful they were, we never used them again.
We're obviously responsible about it, but we can't be sure about others, especially countries that don't value human life, like Iran and NK.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, personally, have no problem reconciling so long as we're actively working to reduce our nuclear stockpile.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I, personally, have no problem reconciling so long as we're actively working to reduce our nuclear stockpile.
Reducing in number doesn't mean much when the new ones are the type that split up into dozens of mini-missiles (like these).
I'm not convinced we've reduced our capacity to destroy the world one bit.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: We invented them. We're just protecting our intellectual property.
Or, if you prefer a serious answer... We were the first to make them. We used them to end the bloodiest war in human history. After we saw how awful they were, we never used them again.
We're obviously responsible about it, but we can't be sure about others, especially countries that don't value human life, like Iran and NK.
No they're technically the countries that don't share US interests.
IP: Logged |
quote:I, personally, have no problem reconciling so long as we're actively working to reduce our nuclear stockpile.
Reducing in number doesn't mean much when the new ones are the type that split up into dozens of mini-missiles (like these).
I'm not convinced we've reduced our capacity to destroy the world one bit.
As far as I know, when we count these things, we count warheads. Since those missiles have multiple re-entry vehicles, each with a separate warhead, one missile would count for several warheads, no?
Perhaps a better metric for a nuclear arsenal would be total tonnage (as in mega-)? I have to admit I'm not really all that educated on the subject.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is in every nation's interest to have a nuclear monopoly. Failing that, it is in every nuclear power's interest to have as few nuclear powers as possible. And this remains true for every technology from ironworking onwards; it's just that modern infrastructure and the large industrial base needed for nukes makes it a bit easier to enforce. Fairness doesn't come into it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: "The United States is more responsible and less likely to use a weapon." "Aren't you the only nation to use one on actual people in World War II?" "Well that's different, we were at war!" "And the next time you're at war?"
"We've been at war several more times and have not used them. We understand the horror of nuclear war and the responsibility of having/using nuclear weapons. We have not declared our intention to wipe any other country or race of people from the Earth as Iran has done. Additionally, what would deter, if anything has a chance of deterring, Iran or North Korea or some other country from using nuclear weapons other than mutually assured destruction?"
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What would deter the US, should it happen to be fighting one of those nations? To argue that it is not in the US national interest for Iran to have nukes is perfectly reasonable, if unlikely to convince an Iranian; to argue that the US has a unique moral understanding or position is a non-starter.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: We have not declared our intention to wipe any other country or race of people from the Earth as Iran has done.
Good point. We haven't threatened to wipe out Isreal or any other country.
But the US has invaded and occupies 2 countries, both of which share a border with Iran.
quote:It is in every nation's interest to have a nuclear monopoly. Failing that, it is in every nuclear power's interest to have as few nuclear powers as possible. And this remains true for every technology from ironworking onwards; it's just that modern infrastructure and the large industrial base needed for nukes makes it a bit easier to enforce.
Very true. And if only 1 country had I think they'd be much more likely to use them if other country's didn't do their bidding.
A lot of people believe that the US is always good and the world's peace keeper and therefore will always act responsibly with its military might. I don't believe this is always true.
The US has its interests that it wants to protect and I don't always trust its motives for doing things.
I agree the Iran, NK, etc shouldn't have nukes. I am just a little ambivalent about the enforcement of it.
I also don't like the consequences of enforcement like providing extra aid to countries if they stop the nuclear development. Then when they want more aid they threaten to build nukes again.
This aid comes out of the taxpayers' pockets.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also have trouble with countries that possess them and refuse to dismantle them telling other developing nations that they can't have them. I have trouble with other nations threatening to use military force to stop the development of nuclear weapons. It is hypocritical.
On the bright side, the total stockpile of the world's nuclear arms has decreased noticeably since the end of the Cold War, and if Obama gets his way, will be reduced even more. MIRVs have been around for decades, but I'm not sure if they count the weapons by warhead or by single bombs. I know they don't count the individual bomblets in cluster bombs.
I know they are making smaller nukes, and I know that under the Bush administration, research was going on even as of a couple years ago into the next generation of nuclear weapons, probably in some form of miniaturization technology, though with W80 warheads that fit on the ends of Tomahawks, I really don't see how much smaller we need to make them. I think Obama nixed the funding for that, but I'm not sure.
I think since the end of the Cold War we've shifted our ideas about how nukes work. Deterrence and bribery seems to be their biggest function. Not that they aren't still massively dangerous, but there's no huge outcry over talks of reducing the US stockpile by a couple hundred weapons. No one really thinks that such a massive stockpile is any guarantee of safety.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
