Scipio

The general wisdom about nuclear prolif is that it's something to be avoided, and that the US should exercise policies designed to prevent it.

This year I got paired up with an exchange student for a roommate. He's from Morocco, and we were talking about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Being the good dem that I am, I noted that Bush's policy of attacking Iraq took attention away from the actual proliferation risks in the world, ie Iran, Pakistan, and NK. I suppose that's a fair enough statement, and world events support that supposition.

Here's where it gets interesting (and I'm going to elaborate on his argument a bit). He said that nuclear weapons are a responsibility. If Iran gets them, it will be greatly constrained from actually using them in an overt way. Why does Iran want them in the first place? If we take a realist perspective, and assume that they're acting rationally, they are seeing that countries with nuclear weapons get respect (ie Pakistan), and countries without them (ie Iraq), are vulnerable. The only surefire way to guarantee security is to get nukes, and that's what Iran has done. Further, we can assume that Iran has no intention of using them. They are too valuable to Iran the state to pass them on to terrorists. The consequences of use are too catastrophic to contemplate. What is certain, however, is that the mere possession of them as a form of potential energy has profound geopolitical consequences.

So, what do you guys think about this line of argument? Is proliferation really so bad? I'm not so sure myself, but I find it quite interesting.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

filtherton

I think there is reason in the argument that america doesn't want certain states to get nukes because we'll then have to deal with them with diplomacy, rather than outright military aggresion.

irateplatypus

a porcupine will always benefit from having more quills... but it's erroneous to say that the US opposes proliferation on the grounds that it'll be less likely to use military force. diplomatic solutions are always preferable... this is true for all sides of the political debate.

i think the primary reason for the US's concern w/Iran is the destabilizing effect it has on whatever balance is left in Arab/Israeli relations. We in the US may think of it in terms of Iran -vs- us, but in the middle east motivations are always viewed through the lens of the Israeli disputes. At least, more so than i think they're often given credit for over here.

by having a fundamental Islamic regime possessing nuclear weapons in the region, it nullifies Israel's trump card (their own nukes). the balance of power would shift in a way unfavorable to the US and its allies.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

OpieCunningham

Yes, diplomatic solutions are always preferable - but that doesn't mean diplomatic solutions where one side is far weaker is not preferable to diplomatic solutions where both sides have nukes.

I'm quite certain the U.S. opposes proliferation for many reasons - one of them being the reality that any diplomatic negotiations with a state controlling nuclear weapons is not going to be as easy or effective for the purposes of the U.S. To state this is erroneous is simply false.