| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2006/1/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:41478 Activity:high |
1/21 "India must not allow itself to be dragooned into joining the
Washington-led nuclear lynch mob against Iran," The Hindu, one
of India's most influential newspapers, cautioned Thursday.
http://tinyurl.com/baa48
Iran Sanctions Could Drive Oil Past $100
Looks like US and Bush admin addiction to oil is compromising
our abililty to impose sanctions without hurting ourselves.
$100 oil will tip US into recession.
\_ Trolling at its finest.
\_ Simple answer--India wants gas. Iran has lots of it. Viz.
China and Sudan. -John
\_ Iran supplys something like 18% of petro to China. and
Iran is only major oil-producing nation which China has
big investment in it. To ask China to mess around with
Iran is like asking USA to mess around with Saudi's.
\_ Sort of my point, isn't it? The only difference is that
some nations exhibit more scruples about the types of
government maintained by their energy suppliers (at least
when it suits them to do so.) -John
\_ absolute monarchy which export extreme version of Islam?
FYI, China deals a lot of nasty government for its
energy needs (Sudan, for example). But Iran is *NOT*
one of those 'nasty' governments.
\_ I'm pretty sure everyone here but you would consider
mainland China to be one of those 'nasty' governments.
\_ Uhm, wow...chicom troll doublethink at its finest.
\_ Chicom troll, I am sad. After all my intensive troll
training, your reading comprehension still equals your
grammar skills and no more. -John
\_ care to explain how US-Saudi relationship is morally
more superior than China-Iran relationship?
^more
\_ Why should I? You did catch the "when it suits
them" part, right? You may also have noted a
mildly sarcastic tone in my post. Back to
reading comp 101, grasshopper. -John
\_ To the person worried about Pakistan as a greater proliferation
threat than Iran, one of the key problems with Iran getting
nukes is they're a terrorist state and, unlike Pakistan, would
be very likely to try directly or help their proxy terrorist
armies smuggle a nuke into some other country's harbor. There
can't be any retaliation for such an act since it would be
impossible to prove who nuked the city. That city could be any
coastal city with a port (all of them) in the world, or any city
reachable easily by land due to lax boarders. "Iran getting a
nuke just isn't that big a deal" is a stupid concept for this and
many other reasons. This whole thread is troll heaven. Have fun.
\_ Iran is not a terrorist state. They support certain group to
\_ Iran is *NOT* a terrorist state. They support certain group to
achieve their foreign policy. If anything, USA has outdo Iran
in Afganstan in the 1980s, both in terms of amount of money
involved, and the degree of extremism which the group receiving
the aid. Iran, though eccentric from our point of view, is
nevertheless a rational State. No rational state would give
out nuclear weapon to any group just because chances of getting
backfired is very high. Pakistan is a problem because their
intelligent service, one of the best in the world, has close
tie to Pushtuns/Taliban in Afganistan. N.Korea is a problem
because they have an army which is one million strong but
could barely eat two meals a day... and that they don't
really need any delivery mechanism to do some harm across the
38th parallel. By comparison, Iran is a much less of a problem,
as their youth is demanding more and more reform and open policy
in the near future.
\- It is extremely unlikely any state would as *a matter of policy*
give away nukes. Schelling and Waltz [see links below] agree
with this position and the scenario you spell out seems
ridiculous ... iran would give one of its only nukes to a
"terrorist army" to do whatever it wanted with it ... something
that doesnt really advance iranian state aims in any concrete
way but does run massive risks of getting caught and in
which case iran faces a gret likelihood of this getting traced
back to them. so the "policy" of xfer to terrorists scenario
is not likely. the "loose nukes" -> terrorists scenario seems
more likely and the more reasonable threats there are russia
[lots of nukes], pak [state meltdown] or nkorea selling nuke
tech. again the issue isnt "should we be happy or sad about
iran getting nukes" but "what should he us policy be" and
the policy formation stage depends on your beliefs about how
this changes iran's "intentions and capabilities".
\- What does a nuclear Iran with a small number of bombs with
limited delivery options let Iran do that it cant do now,
except significantly deter say bombing Tehran. This is a
serious question and I have some ideas but I want to hear
what other people think first. --thehindu@soda
\_ much of US' attitude toward Iran is irrational. We
overthrow their democratic government in the 1950's, then
the Shah we installed got overthrown, and we were angry at
Iran ever since. So, answer your question, a nuclear
Iran is probably less problematic than Nuclear N.Korea or
Pakistan. By the way, India were on the side of USA last
time UN voted on this matter.
\- i didnt ask "why is the us concerned about iran"
[which would be a foreign policy question], i asked
"how is the iran+nukes scenario different from
the iran-nonukes scenario" which is a question
about prediction or capabilities. anyway, one
scenario which i suppose is possible is that
the new iranian leader will feel a little more
emboldened to pursue low level terrorism sponsorship
[unlike libya or syria now] with nukes than without.
btw, aside from anti-western fatatics, you can hardly
blame reasonable iranians for being pissed off about
how the us handled the aftermath of the vincennes
shooting down the iranian airliner.
\_ Hi pro-Iranian Troll! No one gave a shit about the Shah.
Are you totally unaware of that little thing we called
The Hostage Crisis that went on for a few hundred days?
\_ no one give a shit about Shah? The demand *WAS* about
1. apologize the overthrow of Mosaddeq and
2. hand over Shah back to Iran so USA won't try to
install him again.
This is typical... memory selectively failed on
all the wrong doings beforehand, then react violently
to the repercussion in the name of self-defense.
\_ Threaten to hit southern Europe. I don't understand how this
isn't obvious.
\_ why Iran want to bomb southern Europe again? it's not
obvious at all.
\_ I'll rephrase it from the other point of view: if you
were in south europe would it concern you if the crazies
in Iran got nukes? (yes, you're in reach in S.E.) Crazy
people should not have nukes. That should be obvious.
\_ it is *NOT* obvious that Iran is a "crazy" state.
Just because USA doesn't like Iran doesn't make it
crazy. There are plenty of nations having plenty of
normal bilateral relationships with Iran. They are
no less / no more diff than any other countries in the
region. In fact, if anything, Iran is a much normal
state than, let say, Saudi Arabia.
\_ BUD DAY does *NOT* like your tone, son.
\- So if Iran gets 10 nuclear bombs they may threaten
to nuke Athens? Rome? Nice? Can you spell out this
obvious scenario a little more? I would be helpful
if you signed your name since I want to know if I am
speaking to the same person in a followup. Just out of
curiosity, why isnt Pakistan interested in hitting
southern europe. Obviously it is implicit in my question
"what could they do and would have some interest in
doing".
\_ I think I'm being trolled so my answer will be brief:
Pakistan is a secular dictatorship who wants nukes
because their long term enemy next door has them.
Pakistan also doesn't have the range to hit most of India
much less Europe so that isn't an issue even if they
wanted to do so.
Iran is run by religious fundmentalist Muslims who
believe it is their duty to spread their form of Islam
over the entire world.
Europe is a secular super nation/state and happens to be
the closest interesting area to Iran.
Finally, what is the point of asking for my name when you
don't give yours? How do I know any responses will be
you?
\_ Two additions. They are willing to spread Islam
by murder/conquest if necessary, and they seem to
think it would be a good idea to nuke Israel. -!pp
\_ you are mixing up Iran with Saudi Arabia.
Further, USA spread democracy by murder/conquest if
necessary too, right?
\_ When did you stop beating your wife?
\_ My eyes, they see only happy things!
\_ You and chicom troll, man. Maybe you
should switch to a lower dosage....
\_ Some possibilities that I can think of:
1. Nuke strategic targets in Israel. I do not think that
Iran has sufficient conventional weapons that can be
delivered as far as Israel and cause serious damage.
2. Give the nukes to Iran friendly factions currently
fighting in Iraq or Afganistan. Iran's conventional
capability, again, is probably insufficient to signif-
icantly affect American forces.
3. Give the nukes to Pakistan for use against India (or
perhaps direct use against India).
--yaHindu@soda.
\_ Seriously, each of your points are so dumb,
you really need to stay out of this discussion.
What does a faction struggling for political
control need a nuclear bomb for? Given that
Pakistan already has nukes and Iran doesn't,
doesnt it seem a little odd to be talking about
Iran -> Pak nuke xfer. And what does Iran get out
of seriously pissing off India? Are you are troll
or are you an idiot? To be ignorant of politics
is ok, but to be so dumb as to wade into a
conversation where you have no grasp of any of
the relevant facts, is just ...
the relevant fact, is just ...
India and Iran are on decent terms. Khatami was
the guest of honor at the 2003 Republic Day
festivities. Later this week, this year's chief
guest will be the Saudi king.
\_ Do you seriously think there would be anything left of
the place formerly known as "Iran" within several hours
of a nuclear attack on Israel? Israel almost certainly
\- or france, or italy or ...
has the H-bomb, and presumably already has everything in
Iran targeted with the finger on the button, and one would
imagine that Iran knows this. I would also hope, as an
American, that if they ever used a nuclear weapon on Israel
and Israel was unable to retaliate for some reason, that
the U.S. would level their country.
\_ Do you seriously think the nutheads running Iran share
your belief in Mutally Assured Destruction theories or
your western view of the value of life? Willing to bet
a few million lives on it? Not even the Iranians are
willing to try to push that line. Their entire public
stance is that this is about peaceful energy sources
for their own country which is a crock since they're
the fourth largest oil producer in the world and have
relatively tiny energy needs.
\- yes the public stance is a lie but the
bush administration also knew that the
steel tarriffs were illegal. and the us
signing on to plank ii of the NPT is also
a "crock". the rhetoric is not important.
whether you would choose to bet on it is
also not important, since preventing this
is not a free choice. the question is
what should the us do about it, and then
three categories are accept that it will
happen [not necesarily quietly], try to
prevent it without military action, try
to prevent it with military action.
i personally think the us will not be able
to prevent iran from getting nukes although
it is possible some actions can make it
take say 10yrs instead of 5. i also dont
think the mullahs actually in power are
as irrational as you seem to think they are.
this isnt an especially great interview
but it is from a long time commentator on
nukes who isnt a liberal fruitcake on this
exactly question. BTW Schelling also won the
Econ nobel last year, in part for this work
on nuclear deterrence theory:
http://csua.org/u/eql
After stumbling on that article i searched
for some other good names. see the last
page of this article:
http://csua.org/u/eqm
Nicely put: "the us worries as much
about being deterred as being attacked".
Well i dunno about the "as much" but
if you factor probabilities in, that is
probably true. Waltz is ex-UCB and
"The world's most influential International
Relations scholar" and "most cited book
ever written in the field of International
Relations". Mearshimer is also a pretty
interesting fellow. Allison is a little
airy-fairy. Jervis is solid. I am not
familar with the other fellow.
BTW, do you think the people advocating
SDI dont believe in MAD? do you think they
are willing to bet millions of lives on
SDI/ABM technology?
Relations scholar" and author of "the most
cited book ever written in the field of
International Relations". Mearshimer is
also a pretty interesting fellow. Allison
is a little airy-fairy. Jervis is solid.
I am not familar with the other fellow.
\- look the "iran nukes X" scenario is ridiculous.
one thing that is possible is they will be
emboldened to more aggressively pursue low level
terrorism and figure the US is less likely to
bomb tehran in retaliation [along the likes of
Raygun bombing Khadafi]. i actually think the pakistani
bomb is more dangerous than the iran bomb because
a meltdown of the pakistani state in the crazy direction
is a lot more likely and then you may have loose nukes.
if pakistan has a meltdown in the next 10 yrs ... say
their maximum leader is assassinated and different
military generals start a violent struggle and one
tries to ally with a fundamentalist faction ... it will
be an interesting question whether india or the united
states will freak out more.
\_ How would a "meltdown of the pakistani state in the
crazy direction" look any different from what Iran
already is?
\- iran is not an anarchy. i would worry more about
the period of anarchy than the aftermath. that's
what i mean by "loose nukes". nuclear weapons are
good for deterring threats against the homeland.
the big problem with the is the problem of
accidents and proliferation to non-state actors.
what effects nukes have lower of the "ladder of
escalation" is unclear. like would the iran-
iraq war have looked different if one side had
5-10 bombs? i dont think that is clear. if both
sides had 5-10 nukes do you think it would have
happened at all?
\_ Pakistan is a different issue and is not
currently 3 months from having nukes running
around loose. And even if Pakistan was in
the midst of chaos the Iran situation would
remain a problem and need to be dealt with.
I don't understand this "we can only deal with
or think about one problem at a time and the
worst problem makes the second worst problem
ok and acceptable by comparison." This sort of
deflection is the second weakest form of
rhetorical debate tactic.
\- i'm not the one saying "we can only
deal with one problem at a time" and i
am not sure anybody else here is.
my position is:
1. i think iran will get nukes
2. i think from their point of view it makes
sense for them to get nukes [just like it
makes sense for pakistan and the israelis,
and note "makes sense/is rational" !=
"is a good thing/makes me happy"]
3. i would personally be more worried about
the PAK nukes[#4], but that is a estimation
of risks not a policy prescription ...
i might think Las Vegas real estate will
do better than Phoenix real estate but
that doesnt mean i am suggesting buying
into Vega$.
4. in gereral i think the concern about
proliferation is really about "loose
nukes" rather than states we dont line
having the bomb. so the problem is
stability and competence more than
ideology.
[once again, you may wish to see the
adelphi paper "the spread of nuclear weapons,
more may be better", written by a now
fmr ucb prof kenneth waltz.]
5. sure iran is doing lots of lying but
guess what, that's standard in diplomacy.
if country A asks country B, are you
spying on us, what are they supposed to
do, answer the question completely and
truthfully? when the us signed the non-
proliferation treaty which says the
nuclear states should eventually be
pursuing the goal of total disarmamanet
did the us lie?
\_ Sell their oil to whomever they wish, continue with theocracy
without fear of US inteference, etc. Nukes are a deterrent.
They say leave us the hell alone.
\_ No one is invading Iran. Their 18 year effort to get nukes
and the lies they've told about it are not about getting a
deterrent.
\_ Instead of speaking in negatives, how about explaining
what Iran is doing, then?
\_ Various elements in the Bush Administration have
threatened Iran with invasion and Bush included them
in his "axis of evil" so I think it is reasonable that
they are concerned about an invasion. If things had
gone well in Iraq, Bush proabably would have invaded
Iran by now. |
| 5/25 |
|
| tinyurl.com/baa48 -> biz.yahoo.com/ap/060122/iran_nuclear_the_oil_weapon.html?.v=4 AP Iran Sanctions Could Drive Oil Past $100 Sunday January 22, 6:39 pm ET By Brad Foss and George Jahn, Associated Press Writers Oil Could Top $100 a Barrel if UN Imposes Sanctions on Iran Over Nuclear Program A surge in oil prices last week to almost $70 a barrel on concerns about the restart of Iran's nuclear program only hints at what may lie ahead. Prices could soar past $100 a barrel, experts say, if the UN Security Council authorizes trade sanctions against the Middle Eastern nation, which the West accuses of trying to make nuclear bombs, and Iran curbs oil exports in retaliation. That's the dilemma the United States and European nations face as they decide whether to act. But Iran would also pay a hefty price if the petro-dollars that now represent 80 percent of export revenues are reduced, potentially stirring civil unrest in a nation with a 14 percent unemployment rate. "They would shoot themselves in the foot," said Mustafa Alani, director of national security and terrorism studies at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center. "It's one thing to test the market psychology, it's another to take the actual step and stop oil exports." Iran, the second-largest oil producer within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, exports roughly 25 million barrels per day -- 1 million barrels more than current excess production capacity worldwide. It also controls the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping lane in the Middle East. "Even if Iran pulled a small amount of its oil off the market, say it pulled a half million barrels a day, I could see oil prices literally jumping over the $100 per barrel mark," said James Bartis, a senior researcher at Rand Corp. But other oil analysts say prices would likely not climb much higher than $75 a barrel before strategic reserves would be released and demand would begin to taper off as economic activity slowed around the world. The United States and other nations say it would be Tehran and argue against succumbing to economic blackmail in any case. "We cannot be intimidated by economic threats from their side," Sen. The US Department of Energy estimates that oil exports finance about half of the Iranian government's budget. And while high oil prices have boosted the annual growth rate to about 5 percent, Iran has never really recovered from its 1980-1988 war against Iraq and trade restrictions on sensitive technologies. The Iran Nonproliferation Act, which the US Congress passed in 2000, deters international support for Iran to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and missile-delivery systems. For weeks, Iran's state television has sought to show a people united behind the leadership, showing passer-by on Tehran city streets expressing their support for the country's strivings for nuclear independence. Still, Alani of the Gulf Research Center questioned "whether the ordinary citizens will be willing to risk sanctions and endure a lot of suffering like the Iraqis suffered for 13 years" under UN sanctions. Oil consuming nations, meanwhile, have at least one ace up their sleeves -- crude reserves. The United States and other members of the International Energy Agency have a combined 148 billion barrels of oil in their emergency stocks. That's equivalent to about 600 days of Iran's net oil exports of 24 million barrels per day. OPEC might be able to add 15 million barrels per day to world production, mostly from Saudi Arabia. in New York said Russia might be able to crank up exports by about 500,000 barrels once its domestic home-heating demand eases. Gregory L Schulte, chief US delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency, accused Iran last week of deceiving the world about its atomic program, declaring that moves to haul it before the UN Security Council were meant to deny "the most deadly of weapons to the most dangerous of countries." His comments were part of increasing international pressure on Iran since it removed seals from uranium enrichment equipment earlier in the month and said it would start small scale work on the process that can make both fuel and the fissile core of nuclear warheads. "It's a very difficult situation where you don't know which side is going to blink first," said Leonard Spector, deputy director of the Monterey Institute of International Studies' Center for Nonproliferation Studies. It's also not clear the United States could win a referral on sanctions at the Security Council, where members Russia and China are Iran's main allies. Both have strong economic and strategic ties to Iran, with China a large oil consumer and drilling partner and Russia a key supplier of arms and nuclear technology and services for what Tehran says is a peaceful program. Additionally, oil-rich Russia would benefit from higher prices and increased demand for its crude if Iran's oil were off the market. Influential India, which imports 75 percent of the crude it consumes, some from Iran, is a wild card in the referral struggle. It joined the US, Britain, France and Germany in September to back an IAEA resolution that set the stage for reporting Iran for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But pressure is building on the Indian government not to vote against Iran when the 35-nation IAEA board meets Feb. "India must not allow itself to be dragooned into joining the Washington-led nuclear lynch mob against Iran," The Hindu, one of India's most influential newspapers, cautioned Thursday. "Aside from the lack of any legal basis for threatening Iran with sanctions, India should consider what the US pressure on Tehran will do to international oil prices as well as to the overall security scenario in West Asia." The United States and its allies are thought to have the majority behind them on any vote for referral. Still they would like to see India, China and Russia on board -- all three countries carry weight among other IAEA board nations, and Moscow and Beijing have a vote on the Security Council on what to do about Iran, once it is referred. Associated Press Writers Alex Nicholson in Moscow, Constant Brand in Brussels, Laurence Frost in Paris, Nirmala George in New Delhi and Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran contributed to this report. Brad Foss reported from Washington, George Jahn from Vienna, Austria. Currency Data Solution Need currency data for your application? This Xignite web service provides all the data you need in one reliable, cost-effective and easy-to-integrate XML/SOAP-enabled solution. Heritage Rare Coins and Currency Heritage buys, sells and auctions for great prices among more than 132,000 members, including images and descriptions, research data and over 525,000 past auction prices. Try 4 weeks risk-free of the FT and get Currencies and more. If you like it, subscribe for just $99 for one year (306 issues) - a savings of 79% off the cover price. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. |
| csua.org/u/eql -> www.digitalnpq.org/articles/nobel/29/10-27-2005/thomas_c._schelling NOBEL LAUREATES PLUS 10-27-2005 IRANIAN USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPON ON ISRAEL WOULD BE 'SUICIDE BOMB' Thomas C Schelling was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics for 2005. A professor emeritus at the University of Maryland, Schelling has long been active on nuclear-weapons issues. He spoke with Nobel Laureates Plus editor Nathan Gardels on Thursday, Oct. By Thomas C Schelling NATHAN GARDELS: There has been no nuclear war for six decades -- mostly due to the Cold War balance of terror, or deterrence, as well as the "taboo" of universal moral revulsion. However, as more and more players get the bomb -- India, Pakistan and now perhaps Iran or North Korea as well as terrorist groups, and as the US plans to build "bunker busters" for battlefield use -- isn't that bound to change? THOMAS SCHELLING: The hope for the future rests on the fact that, despite plenty of opportunities to use the bomb in these past few decades -- whether the US in Korea or Vietnam, or Israel when Egyptian troops crossed the Suez in 1973, or the Soviets in Afghanistan -- it wasn't used. This reality ought to impress India or Pakistan or anyone else who acquires nuclear weapons. By looking at these foregone opportunities, they will realize for their own case that using the bomb would incur universal opprobrium, if not bring devastation down on their own house. By calling this record to the attention of the Iranian leadership in particular, I hope they will see that any actual use of nuclear weapons other than holding them in reserve for deterrence would cause them to lose any friend they have and multiply their enemies. GARDELS: Iran is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon. And now President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for "wiping Israel off the map." Doesn't this combination of capacity and intent call for Bush-style preemption instead of old-fashioned deterrence? SCHELLING: I don't think the ayatollahs or anyone else in Iran wants their own nation wiped off the map. They know that Israel has enough nuclear weapons and delivery systems to utterly destroy Iran in retaliation for any attack on Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. GARDELS: And suicide bombing is not a tactic that works for nations or cultures. I'm sure they are studying the history of the past six decades, and of the Indian and Pakistan bombs, to see what nuclear weapons are good for -- defense and deterrence -- and what they are not -- actual use. GARDELS: Deterrence and fear of opprobrium may work for those with rational geopolitical calculations, but what about the al-Qaidas or Aum Shinrikyos who are either nihilists or make their calculations in some metaphysical realm? SCHELLING: I don't know if deterrence fits somehow into their metaphysics, but these groups are not likely to have much physical competence. Aum Shinrikyo did a lousy job of trying to poison people in the subway. They don't strike me as the kind of people who could put together a nuclear weapon if they had the fissile material. They might not be able to recognize if fissile material bought on the black market was really any good. Most terrorist groups would have a hard time finding people who actually have the technical competence in making a bomb who would be willing to devote themselves to doing so -- going off into seclusion, leaving their jobs and families for long periods and risk, in the end, being vilified as the bomb builder. It is simply too hard to recruit topflight scientists, engineers and machinists needed to do the job. And if they were able to do that, they would have put together an intellectual team that would have a hard time submitting to terrorist goals. Once such a group managed to put together a bomb, they would likely find it too precious to use and instead try to leverage influence from its threatened use. GARDELS: Doesn't the stated US intent to build a new generation of nuclear weapons, like the bunker buster that can be used on the battlefield, undermine the taboo that has kept the nuclear peace? SCHELLING: The US government ought to recognize the taboo is in its favor. I'm afraid a lot of people in the Pentagon think, "We are so rich in nuclear weapons, it is a shame not to use them." They should learn we are so rich in people and infrastructure that we will risk losing that if we encourage others, by our own example, to look positively on the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, among other things, it is important to get the United States Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- not because testing is important, but because that treaty is a pillar of the taboo, another nail in the coffin of the idea of weapons use. The US, above all, should never say nuclear weapons should be used preemptively. GARDELS: Well before Iran argued that global "nuclear apartheid" was unfair, the Indians made this argument in the long years they built up to testing. After the end of the Cold War, is there any justification for some to have nuclear weapons while others can't? SCHELLING: I don't think the US has a convincing argument against this Iranian charge of nuclear apartheid -- especially since we've been allies of Israel for many decades knowing they have nuclear weapons. Although, the Iranians should recognize clearly the limits on Israel -- even when it had the perfect target for tactical nuclear weapons of Egyptian troops as sitting ducks out in the Sinai desert in 1973, Golda Meir didn't use them. I don't know if there is any way to stop the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons. If they do, we should try to persuade them to declare -- as the Indians and Pakistanis have done -- that they are for deterrence and defense, not for offensive use. Further, we should assist the Iranians in making sure custody of their weapons are secure in any time of disruption. In the case of a riot in the streets, will the weapons be safe? It is important for the Iranians to understand -- and have access to -- technology like we have in the US that disables bombs if they get into the wrong hands. US weapons, for example, have "permissive action links"-- a radio signal code that arms weapons but that will also automatically disarm them it if launched at an unauthorized target. This will be a big dilemma for the US If the Iranians get weapons, will we be willing to share the technology to ensure the security of their use? NOBEL LAUREATES PLUS Distributed by Tribune Media ServiceS INC. |
| csua.org/u/eqm -> www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/03/20/give_nukes_a_chance?pg=3 Ideas Left: Pakistan's Ghauri missile, shown being tested in May 2002, has a range of 900 miles and can carry nuclear warheads. Right: A March 2002 satellite image shows the Yongbyon nuclear facility in North Korea. North Korea announced in February that it had manufactured nuclear weapons to protect itself against a US attack. Left: Pakistan's Ghauri missile, shown being tested in May 2002, has a range of 900 miles and can carry nuclear warheads. Right: A March 2002 satellite image shows the Yongbyon nuclear facility in North Korea. North Korea announced in February that it had manufactured nuclear weapons to protect itself against a US attack. The Boston Globe Give nukes a chance March 20, 2005 Page 3 of 3 -- John J Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago and another preeminent realist thinker, describes himself as closer to Waltz than to Allison on the issue. Mearsheimer agrees with Waltz, for example, that nuclear states, no matter how ''rogue,'' are unlikely to give their weapons to terrorists. Whatever its sympathies, Mearsheimer argues, ''Iran is highly unlikely to give nuclear weapons to terrorists, in large part because they would be putting weapons into the hands of people who they ultimately did not control, and there's a reasonably good chance that they would get Iran incinerated'' if the weapon was traced back to the regime in Tehran. The problem of ''loose nukes''-in particular, Russia's inability in the years since the Cold War to keep track of all its nuclear materials-shows that even a country's strong interest in maintaining control of its nuclear weapons is no guarantee that some won't fall into the wrong hands, raising the threat of nuclear terrorism. Nevertheless, thinkers like Waltz and Mearsheimer, with their dogged focus on the calculus of national advantage and interest, raise a question that tends to get lost in much of the news coverage of proliferation: Do nuclear states like the United States oppose proliferation simply out of concern for their citizens' safety, or is there something more strategic at work? In Waltz's formulation, nations acquire nuclear weapons not to menace their neighbors but to protect themselves. And to the governments of North Korea and Iran, the primary threat is the United States. The United States, in other words, worries as much about being deterred as being attacked. According to political scientist Robert Jervis, Waltz's colleague at Columbia, ''We can't threaten to invade them. As Jervis notes, Washington's deep and vocal concern over proliferation only enhances the perceived value of such weapons. Whether or not nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous place, they certainly make it a more humbling one, and their spread only narrows the options of the world's sole superpower. TOP E-MAILED ARTICLES India's long-range Agni II missile, shown in January 2000, can carry conventional or nuclear warheads and reach targets deep inside neighboring Pakistan and China. India's long-range Agni II missile, shown in January 2000, can carry conventional or nuclear warheads and reach targets deep inside neighboring Pakistan and China. |