When it comes to mutually assured destruction you want fewer players, not more. It should be patently obvious, really. It is bad enough that we have anyone with the capability of wiping out an entire state with one weapon, much less multiple groups. Mind you if we are going to have one, I am glad there is at least a second. That keeps number one in line, but beyond that, the odds get a little scary. The more that have them, the more likely someone is going to be foolish enough to use them. That is why I do not understand some of my fellow leftists attitudes when it comes to Iran and nukes.
Please understand, I am not calling out those who rightfully question our governments assertion that Iran is even pursuing them. Likewise, I am very grateful that there are people out there pointing out the bullying tactics we use. Too much of our “diplomacy” sounds like the prelude to yet another adventurist war to line the pockets of war profiteers at the expense of our social programs and the lives of our soldiers. So thank you, to all of you peace activists with level heads.
I have heard from some, from way more than I am comfortable with, however, the very poor logic that it is not fair that we can have a nuclear arsenal while other countries cannot. Leaving aside the treaty almost all those countries signed (because we don’t have the best record keeping to them anyway, and did not go after allies for breaking it) there are a few really problematic issues with that line of thinking.
First off: fair? Really? Fair is a word you want to bandy about when discussing whether anyone should be allowed the capability to kill millions with the push of a button? Seriously, how can some school yard mentality of right and wrong come into play with this? The very existence of nukes is a pretty black and white issue for me, I will be honest. They should not be, but since they are, their presence creates a lot of moral ambiguity. When you apply this sort of Disney-esque thinking to a very weighty issue, it is no wonder people are so ready to dismiss us as Kumbaya singing goofballs with no chops when it comes to international politics.
Second, and most important, is my argument in the opening paragraph. I am already deeply disturbed by the likelihood of a nuclear attack by any group (including, maybe especially, my homeland) and that is with less than ten nuclear powers on the planet. Adding more nations to this already volatile mix is just asking for disaster. Sooner or later, one of these nations is going to use it, and the best case scenario, the best, is no one else loses their shit and we only have a few million deaths to worry about. In all likelihood it will come down to strategic and retaliatory strikes by paranoid world leaders. If we are lucky, mankind might survive that.
So no, I do not think it is “fair” to let Iran, if they are (and I have my doubts,) pursue the development of nuclear weapons. Then again, I don’t think anyone should, even the nations we like. What I want, what I really want, is for us to get rid of those damnable things altogether. Until we can safely assume that everyone is disarming, however, I am glad that there are at least two powers with that horrible privilege and responsibility keeping each other in check. Hopefully one day soon we won’t be so afraid of each other that we have to play this disgusting game of Russian Roulette anymore.
- Rogue US-Israeli cyberwar weapon ‘infected Russian nuclear plant’ (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
- World powers set for new round of Iran nuke talks (boston.com)
- Iran blames West for talks failure (bbc.co.uk)
- Celente explains why France doesn’t want an Iranian nuke deal (marketsanity.com)