Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: Sovereignty and Inherent Threats

August 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Now that August is almost over, and things have -- for now -- calmed in Lebanon and Israel, the chattering class's focus has moved on to weightier things. This column by Charley Reese sums things up nicely. What right do other nations have to tell Iran or North Korea whether they can develop nuclear power or weapons?

Reese says none. I'm inclined to agree, at least on the first level of analysis. However, I wonder, like the cat with the ball of yarn. Reese points out that so many other nations have nukes, why not Iran and North Korea?

I of course would prefer that NO nation have nukes. Nukes -- unlike other weapons -- not only devastate their target, but when used affect the planet in most injurious ways. Regardless of sovereignty matters, stopping nuclear proliferation seems a worthy goal. It seems we could construct an argument that nukes threaten everyone, including the US, even by far away Iran and North Korea. Yes, the practical consideration comes into play. Perhaps in the short term, a nuke in the hands of the Iranians and North Koreans could only be delivered to those nation's neighbors.

But that's only TODAY. Once in the nuclear club, it's so far been impossible to make them exit the club. Which makes any nation with a nuke -- in my view -- inherently threatening to all.

Does that mean the US should commence bombing Tehran tomorrow, to send them a stern pre-emptive message? Here I suggest No. But does that mean, at least in the context of these times, that something should be done to dissuade the Iranians from moving forward? Yes, to me that seems abundantly prudent.

Respecting sovereignty should, it seems to me, be a strongly held bias in international affairs. If Iran enforces any number of illiberal internal policies, it should not be a matter for US or international foreign policy. Reese points out the downside to such meddling in 1953, one that the Iranians frequently point to as their grievance with the West.

But it seems obvious that nukes are an entirely different kettle of fish.

Or something.

-Robert Capozzi

Comments

I have rather the completely opposite opinion on nuclear weapons. I think nuclear weapons are the greatest instrument of peace ever developed.

If there are to be states, there ought to be a second amendment for nukes. We can't get rid of nukes in the global community, any more than we can remove guns from the streets of our local communities.

The thing about nuclear weapons that other weapons lack is a singular ability to inspire terror, or at least a wake-up call in a broad spectrum of the populace. Unlike other weapons, nukes are the one thing that will get the attention of the masses of a democratic country. The result is that countries with nuclear weapons do not go to war (directly, at any rate) with other countries with nuclear weapons. People will ignore or support conventional wars, but nuclear wars... the sheer insanity of the weapon causes a majority to turn out for peace.

We could rattle the sabre all we wanted at Iraq. Somalia? Send in the troops whenever we want. Bosina? Kosovo? Anywhere and everywhere in Latin America? Send in the troops!

When was the last time we rattled the saber at China? How about Russia? We're rattling it hard at Iran... gotta get that saber rattling in before they join The Club. We no longer rattle it at North Korea, so far as I can tell.

I am of the opinion that nuclear weapons play, in matters of international security, the same role that guns play in matters of personal security: a general posession by states results in the same sort of safety that general posession of firearms by individuals serves within communities.

Posted by: Tarvok | August 28, 2006 02:58 PM