World War Three Coming Soon?

[Captain.Sassy]

If that's actually the case, then Iran has the right to withdraw from the NPT. Three months notice -- that's all it takes.

Of course, if that's the case, then most of the nuclear powers will no longer be willing to sell it nuclear technology (and uranium) under the terms of the NPT. But it can always try to buy from, say, North Korea.

What it doesn't have the right to do is buy uranium on the open market for "peaceful" purposes and then build bombs out of it.

Yeah I get what you're saying. There's obviously a calculation involved here, obviously. If they withdraw, then it suggests that they're developing bombs. This is interesting from the perspective of diplomatic tactics, but the moralistic argument doesn't hold much weight for me (see previous posts in this thread).


obviously it's totally obvious

 

[Pardalis]

You're right, I don't understand those words.

Obviously.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

One new bomb is always one bomb too many.

THe bombs we have now are just the right amount [interrobang]

There's this great movie from the '80s called 'How to Get Ahead in Advertising'. It's super weird. Anyways, at one point, this character in the movie (he's an ad-man, kinda) has this great speech about the secret ingredient in American nukes being 'peace'. It's an f'n brilliant piece of pop culture/sociopolitical commentary. I'll go see if it's on youtube.

Forgive my spamming.

 

[Pardalis]

BTW, Captain, who will "balance" North Korea, in your nuclear Jenga game?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

BTW, Captain, who will "balance" North Korea, in your nuclear Jenga game?

Why are you putting quotation marks around the word balance like it's some loony concept I just thought up over a line of coke?

If your questions is serious, and you honestly don't grasp the theory, then North Korea's nukes are an effort to balance vis. the US, i.e. the power it perceives as threatening.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

test

 

[drkitten]

Why are you putting quotation marks around the word balance like it's some loony concept I just thought up over a line of coke?

Possibly because it's a loony concept.

If your questions is serious, and you honestly don't grasp the theory, then North Korea's nukes are an effort to balance vis. the US, i.e. the power it perceives as threatening.

That doesn't address the question. Obviously, North Korea wanted nukes because it perceives the US as threatening. But just as obviously, other countries (such as Japan and South Korea) now see North Korea as threatening.

What will "balance" North Korea?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Possibly because it's a loony concept.

Yes, it's a loony concept in the same way that the prisoner's dilemma is a loony concept. It is not a loony concept in the way that bigfoot is a loony concept.

That doesn't address the question. Obviously, North Korea wanted nukes because it perceives the US as threatening. But just as obviously, other countries (such as Japan and South Korea) now see North Korea as threatening.

What will "balance" North Korea?

American nuclear umbrella.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I don't get the idea that all governments are interchangable from a moral perspective; if it's ok for the US or Israel or France or the UK to have the bomb, it must be ok for Iran, North Korea, or any other oppressive undemocratic regime to have it.

I think it's a better attitude to want free democracies to be strong and for oppressive thugocracies to be weak. I just don't understand justifying strengthening the oppressive because the free are stronger. To my mind, that's a bad thing.

 

[Pardalis]

Why are you putting quotation marks around the word balance like it's some loony concept I just thought up over a line of coke?

You don't want to answer?

I'm all for getting rid of these evil devices altogether, but how are we supposed to destroy ours if these news states get theirs?

If your questions is serious, and you honestly don't grasp the theory, then North Korea's nukes are an effort to balance vis. the US, i.e. the power it perceives as threatening.

North Korea is run by lunatics, it will view anything as a threat.

So you think a nuclear North Korea is a good thing?

 

[drkitten]

I don't get the idea that all governments are interchangable from a moral perspective; if it's ok for the US or Israel or France or the UK to have the bomb, it must be ok for Iran, North Korea, or any other oppressive undemocratic regime to have it.

It's not that they have to be interchangeable from a moral perspective, but they are interchangeable from an authority and sovereignty perspective. If you want rules to apply to the People's Republic of Ruritania, you need to get the Ruritanians to affix their signatures to an appropriate treaty, which means that you need to make them feel that it's in their best interests to sign the treaty.

In the case of the NPT, there was a very explicit carrot and stick involved; the existing nuclear powers promised not to use their weapons on the non-nuclear powers (the implicit stick) and also to help the non-nuclear powers develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (the carrot).

Iran agreed that this carrot/stick was an acceptable reason for signing the treaty.

I think it's a better attitude to want free democracies to be strong and for oppressive thugocracies to be weak.

Perhaps, but you're not going to get the oppressive thugocracies to agree to a treaty specifying that they remain weak. The best you'll be able to get is an agreement among the free democracies that they act in a way to weaken the thugocracies, which is more or less what the current sanctions are trying to accomplish.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It's not that they have to be interchangeable from a moral perspective, but they are interchangeable from an authority and sovereignty perspective. If you want rules to apply to the People's Republic of Ruritania, you need to get the Ruritanians to affix their signatures to an appropriate treaty, which means that you need to make them feel that it's in their best interests to sign the treaty.

In the case of the NPT, there was a very explicit carrot and stick involved; the existing nuclear powers promised not to use their weapons on the non-nuclear powers (the implicit stick) and also to help the non-nuclear powers develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (the carrot).

Iran agreed that this carrot/stick was an acceptable reason for signing the treaty.



Perhaps, but you're not going to get the oppressive thugocracies to agree to a treaty specifying that they remain weak. The best you'll be able to get is an agreement among the free democracies that they act in a way to weaken the thugocracies, which is more or less what the current sanctions are trying to accomplish.

I agree completely. I was not criticizing the NPT or the efforts to enforce it.

I was criticizing the posters on this thread who were arguing that Iran SHOULD get nuclear weapons because other countries also have them.

The Iranian government is not a good government by the standards we judge countries by.

I was criticizing the posters who argued that bad governments should be strong because good governments are strong.

 

[drkitten]

I was criticizing the posters on this thread who were arguing that Iran SHOULD get nuclear weapons because other countries also have them.

Well, that's Iran's line of reasoning (presumably). And by the standard international sovereignty principles, we (non-Iranians) have to accept that.

For that matter, we have to accept the line of reasoning that Iran SHOULD get nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons are k3wl.

What we don't have to accept is the line of reasoning that Iran SHOULD have nuclear weapons, for any reason, in violation of their agreement not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Well, that's Iran's line of reasoning (presumably). And by the standard international sovereignty principles, we (non-Iranians) have to accept that.

I see no reason to accept this. I can see that we would have to accept that international sovereignty principles would accord them the right, as that is a fact. That fact says nothing about whether it is a good or a bad thing, about whether we should want Iran to have nukes, or anything else.

For that matter, we have to accept the line of reasoning that Iran SHOULD get nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons are k3wl.

This is absurd.

 

[Cynic]

I was criticizing the posters on this thread who were arguing that Iran SHOULD get nuclear weapons because other countries also have them.

The Iranian government is not a good government by the standards we judge countries by.

I was criticizing the posters who argued that bad governments should be strong because good governments are strong.

The above doesn't represent my position, should I be included in the list said posters. My position is that we're being hypocritical about it, which is undeniable. Whatever the justification for it, hypocrisy is what it is. I'm a parent -- I understand that a little hypocrisy is required from time to time. But I'm tired of it being our primary MO. My other position is that we're creating the monster. If you treat a nation like they're ******** long enough, they're going to be ******** -- at least to the people treating them like that. If we must act like the world's parents, it would be nice if we acted like competent parents.

There's an old saying. If you're forced into a fight you didn't ask for, the only fair fight is the one you win. It's an interesting idea, but faulty of course, because so much is predicated on the concept of "didn't ask for", and because what fair isn't necessarily right. You can't pull a gun and shoot the guy you're about to lose a chess game to, for instance. Or more relevant to this scenario perhaps, the guy who stole your TV might not have asked the police to get involved, but that doesn't make it fair to pull out all the stops to defeat them. People who adopt this attitude and retain it are inevitably immature.

That said, America isn't the only country with a strong sense of "my country, right or wrong". They're all like that. While we're going around thinking and telling everyone how superior by those standards we judge countries by, those countries are too. Their self-esteem doesn't flow from us. We have no reason in the world to expect other nations to react to us differently than the way they do, yet we persist with the delusion. Whatever side justification falls on, the only fair fight from their perspective is the one they win -- and we wouldn't be any different. Blind nationalism is an inherently immature phenomenon as I judge maturity, and it would be nice if the world's governments acted as if they understood that and grew up.

 

[drkitten]

The above doesn't represent my position, should I be included in the list said posters. My position is that we're being hypocritical about it, which is undeniable.

On the contrary, I deny it. Vehemently.

It's no more hypocritical for the existing nuclear powers and the existing non-nuclear powers to write (and agree to) a treaty formalizing the status quo than it is for a car rental agency and a customer to write (and agree to) a contract that formalizes the idea that the customer gets to USE the car, but the rental agency still OWNS it.

The whole point of the NPT is that the non-nuclear states felt threatened both by the existence of the then-existing nuclear stockpiles and by the prospect of the creation of new ones. And, of course, the nuclear states felt threatened by the creation of new ones.

So the nuclear states offered the non-nuclear states something they wanted -- immunity from nuclear attack from the existing stockpiles. They sweetened the deal by offering assistance with peaceful nuclear technology.

In exchange, the non-nuclear states offered to forego acquiring nuclear weapons of their own. And, incidentally, promised each other not to develop new nuclear weapons.

Everyone gets something that they want out of it. That's what makes a good agreement. A good agreement does NOT need to have identical terms for all parties (the customer at Hertz Rent-a-Car doesn't get 50% ownership of the car -- he does, however, get something that he wants, which is the temporary use of a car). It just has to be an agreement where everyone gets what they want.

Iran wanted (and was happy to sign for) the protection from the American nuclear arms. They still have that, as long as the NPT holds and they stick to the terms.....

 

[quixotecoyote]

The above doesn't represent my position, should I be included in the list said posters. My position is that we're being hypocritical about it, which is undeniable. Whatever the justification for it, hypocrisy is what it is. I'm a parent -- I understand that a little hypocrisy is required from time to time. But I'm tired of it being our primary MO. My other position is that we're creating the monster. If you treat a nation like they're ******** long enough, they're going to be ******** -- at least to the people treating them like that. If we must act like the world's parents, it would be nice if we acted like competent parents.

Dr. Kitten's got the right of it from the legal side, but I don't think you've hurt my position on the moral side either.

If your idea of hypocrisy is saying that because a country has nukes it can't want other nations not to have them, you have a misguided idea of what hypocrisy is.

This assume all nations, and here we are really speaking of national governments, are equivalent for the purposes of the discussion. They aren't.

You have a variety of nations under a variety of different kinds of governments. They range from strong to weak, from free to oppressive.

Wanting to stop the oppressive governments that we are weak enough to push around from having nukes isn't hypocritical at all.

The only way that would look hypocritical is if one subscribed to a view of moral equivalency that all governments are equally good or bad.

That looks to me the direction you are heading with lines like this:

That said, America isn't the only country with a strong sense of "my country, right or wrong". They're all like that. While we're going around thinking and telling everyone how superior by those standards we judge countries by, those countries are too.

...

Whatever side justification falls on, the only fair fight from their perspective is the one they win -- and we wouldn't be any different.

This can be used to justify or excuse any atrocity. It's one thing to acknowledge that morality is relative to cultural and social norms. It's quite another to disavow any claims to moral judgment as a result.

You can acknowledge that in Country X killing women for cheating on their husbands is moral and giving them equal rights is immoral, but that doesn't mean you have to give up your own morality that says it is abhorrent or try to limit their ability to spread that ideology.

 

[Praktik]

I was criticizing the posters on this thread who were arguing that Iran SHOULD get nuclear weapons because other countries also have them..

This doesn't describe my position or others I think you're directing this at - perhaps I was reading myself into the comments of others here - but I think one thing that all of us can agree on is that nuclear proliferation is a risky business and that it is not desirable to see nukes proliferate anywhere really.

What's happening often in this thread is that people confronted with explanations from game theory, the self interest and sovereignty of nation states, balance of power, deterrence, etc react as if these descriptions of self-interest and geopolitics are in fact expressions of partisan support for the nation whose actions and motives we are discussing.

I don't think that Iran SHOULD have nuclear weapons "because other countries also have them", but I recognize that other countries having them drive other countries to seek the same. I also recognize that nations, especially weaker and alienated ones, will see a nuclear deterrent as a very tempting way to immunize themselves from foreign interference.

To describe these dynamics is not to express support for Iran, or animus against the United States - it is simply an attempt to describe the forces at play.

And it is only with a dispassionate, clinical look at a problem in world affairs that we can come to understand best how to get the outcome we want.

I would think here that all posters in this thread think the Iranian government is not a "good" government (to simplify things) and that nuclear proliferation should be arrested as much as humanly possible. We all would like to see a better government for the Iranian people and less conflict in the middle east.

Our worldviews are so different however, and the routes to our shared goals so different, that some on your side seem to think that people on my end are actually working (un)consciously for the enemy. This does have a mirror on my side though so I cannot claim to be angelic: I do see some of the prescriptions and ideas presented from the other side as ultimately dangerous as well. For one example, I think the increasingly bellicose rhetoric and belligerent stance of America against Iran over the last decade have intensified the factors that would lead Iran to want a bomb.

I don't think that the people responsible for that rhetoric are working for the enemy though - I have no doubt they're sincere. They just have dangerous misconceptions and a reflexive, rather abstract way of looking at the way the world works.

 

[quadraginta]

Not clear.

If the Islamic Republic of Iran had played the geopolitical game appropriately and had sought out US support and friendship, America probably wouldn't have encouraged a fractricidal fight between allies. The "big game" at that point was the Cold War with the USSR, and if Iran had established that it could or would be a helpful player against the Soviet bear, the United States would probably have tried to keep the lid on the local tensions and keep the war from happening in the first place.

The US was no great fan of Iraq, either. Remember Kissinger's marvelous line on the Iran-Iraq war : "It's a pity they can't both lose." If Iran had managed to befriend the US, they might even have had US support against a rather lukewarmly supported Iraq.

But there is/was no reason for the US to lift a finger to help the Iranians after the Iranians specifically declared themselves enemies of the USA.

This comment pretends to the rather bizarre conceit that the Iranian Revolution somehow occurred spontaneously, as if fully formed from the brow of Zeus. It didn't. It was a direct result of the many years of profoundly brutal behavior by a regime installed and supported by the United States. At the time of the embassy hostage taking the very figurehead of that puppet regime was being ostentatiously sheltered ... in our country ... by our government.

The students (not Iranian government) who took those hostages did so explicitly because they felt the de facto Iranian Revolutionary government at that moment was showing signs of seeking rapport with the U.S., and they wanted to prevent that. With the witless complicity of American politicians responding in a predictably knee-jerk fashion they succeeded in that goal.

No one in Iran had any cause to expect either understanding or honor from the U.S., much less "support and friendship". They had had a generation, literally, of incontrovertible proof that such would not be forthcoming, or that if it was there would be razor blades buried in the offerings. The kids who stormed the embassy had been born to parents that learned firsthand and to their regret about terror from the hands of the CIA trained SAVAK, the secret police of a U.S. sponsored dictatorship.

You keep talking about "Iran" violating diplomatic protocol as if it was a recognized government that had agreed to recognition and then abrogated that agreement. This is not the case. The hostage taking was not an act of even the de facto government of the revolution, much less any Iranian government with any diplomatic ties to the U.S. The debris of that government was taking shelter behind the borders of the countries which had been paying for it.

If you want to play the quid pro quo game you can't just start the narrative wherever you choose and feign ignorance of all prior history. The American game in Iran began long before the hostage crisis, when we elected to choose the British side in an undisguised colonial oil war and started pinch hitting for the AIOC. We became known by the company we kept, and then outdid them at their own game. That is the U.S. you speak so blithely about the Islamic Republic of Iran seeking support and friendship from.

 

[Praktik]

This comment pretends to the rather bizarre conceit that the Iranian Revolution somehow occurred spontaneously, as if fully formed from the brow of Zeus. It didn't. It was a direct result of the many years of profoundly brutal behavior by a regime installed and supported by the United States. At the time of the embassy hostage taking the very figurehead of that puppet regime was being ostentatiously sheltered ... in our country ... by our government.

The students (not Iranian government) who took those hostages did so explicitly because they felt the de facto Iranian Revolutionary government at that moment was showing signs of seeking rapport with the U.S., and they wanted to prevent that. With the witless complicity of American politicians responding in a predictably knee-jerk fashion they succeeded in that goal.

No one in Iran had any cause to expect either understanding or honor from the U.S., much less "support and friendship". They had had a generation, literally, of incontrovertible proof that such would not be forthcoming, or that if it was there would be razor blades buried in the offerings. The kids who stormed the embassy had been born to parents that learned firsthand and to their regret about terror from the hands of the CIA trained SAVAK, the secret police of a U.S. sponsored dictatorship.

You keep talking about "Iran" violating diplomatic protocol as if it was a recognized government that had agreed to recognition and then abrogated that agreement. This is not the case. The hostage taking was not an act of even the de facto government of the revolution, much less any Iranian government with any diplomatic ties to the U.S. The debris of that government was taking shelter behind the borders of the countries which had been paying for it.

If you want to play the quid pro quo game you can't just start the narrative wherever you choose and feign ignorance of all prior history. The American game in Iran began long before the hostage crisis, when we elected to choose the British side in an undisguised colonial oil war and started pinch hitting for the APOC. We became known by the company we kept, and then outdid them at their own game. That is the U.S. you speak so blithely about the Islamic Republic of Iran seeking support and friendship from.

This is a very helpful corrective and an accurate description of the history involved. If we truly want to understand how Iran got to where it is today, we need to go back further than last year or 10 years ago. I would like to note here that I do not think you are ideologically aligned with the Iranian government, nor do I think you hate America..

Excellent post!