|
If the mullahs are warm and cuddly then I want to have a hug....hehehe...
*comic relief*
Ok, back to subject. That's an interesting question:
Nuclear weapons as offensive or defensive?
It really is too ambiguous isn't it? If it's defensive in nature (as a deterrant), it still has an offensive "effect" as it triggers an arms' race (usually i.e.- US-USSR, India-Pakistan).
If we try and analyze it at a state level, we can look at Iran's track record of foreign policy making.
Are they defensive dominant, offensive dominant? Neorealist convention says that when there is balance or equality (in military capability etc), that is states are roughly equal, then war will occur. So, if Iran tries to balance Israel by procuring nuclear weapons, war becomes more likely (in theory mind you).
If one state has overwhelming power and everyone knows it (unipolar in as a regional hegemon), then othere states will not bother trying to counter balance. So accordingly, would the MidEast be more stable and peaceful if we arm Israel even more? And definitely keep nukes out of IRan.
As a deterrant or defensive dominant alignment, then presumably we would have to have a bipolarity in the region. That is, Israel and Iran would have to be waaaaaayyy above all the other regional players to be the bipolar regional superpowers. According to the neo-realist, this would create a stable and peaceful region.
Unless.....one of the powers desires global hegemony..
Anyways, I think Iran should not have nuclear weapons.
|