That is such an interesting question and one we ponder all the time but not about Iran.

I think at least one of our Presidents was nuts so insanity isn't a reason in and of itself not to let Iran have nuclear arms. What for me would be the reason is, let's face it, Ahmadinejad is just more than clinically insane. He denies the existence  of the Holocaust. I think anyone taking that position shouldn't have a gun in his hand let alone a button to blow up the world.

Jo said…

That is such an interesting question and one we ponder all the time but not about Iran.

I think at least one of our Presidents was nuts so insanity isn't a reason in and of itself not to let Iran have nuclear arms. What for me would be the reason is, let's face it, Ahmadinejad is just more than clinically insane. He denies the existence  of the Holocaust. I think anyone taking that position shouldn't have a gun in his hand let alone a button to blow up the world.

---

One of our Presidents was nuts?  Which one?  Back to the question.

No such right exists.  We do however have the Responsibility
to keep such devastating weapons out of the hands of unstable dictators.

It is indeed quite ironic that it falls to us, the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons on another nation but the world is a strange and often dangerous place.

How well will you sleep knowing that "the bomb" and a means to deliver it are in the hands of Iran or N. Korea?

RudiXeno said…

No such right exists.  We do however have the Responsibility
to keep such devastating weapons out of the hands of unstable dictators.

It is indeed quite ironic that it falls to us, the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons on another nation but the world is a strange and often dangerous place.

How well will you sleep knowing that "the bomb" and a means to deliver it are in the hands of Iran or N. Korea?

---

i have to agree with that.

Jo,

A given nations' leader's mental state should be the sole criteria for determining in which fashion a sovereign nation decided to defend itself.  After all, any given nation is more than the sum total of its leader.  A (very) creditable argument can be made the Stalin, and Krushev were certifiable, and yet nuclear weapons were developed under one madman and widely deployed under the other (nary) without a peep from the world that they should be stopped!   And just because Ahmadinejad is a (sometimes) Holocaust denier is no reason to call him insane, if so there are plenty of others who also deny the Holocaust ever took place that could keep him company in the not house!

So the question stands: why these two nations?

Rudi,

Why do we have "Responsibility to keep such devastating weapons out of the hands of unstable dictators?"  Because we developed the technology; because we-the United States-are morally obligated?  And who, or what body determines who is stable vs. unstable?  By that measure if the leader of Great Britain or France becomes unstable should the country be made to give over their arsenal of nuclear weapons for safe-keeping until a more stable person can be found?

To answer your last questions, I would sleep as well as I do now, and as well as I did during the height of the Cold War when the threat of a nuclear attack by the then Soviet Union was real and credible.  Neither North Korea, nor Iran have the capability of hitting the U.S. with a long range nuclear weapon and will not have for some years to come.

Frankly I would lose more sleep over the growing threat of China; that country does have ICBM's and is fast developing the means to deliver nuclear weapons from the under the sea.  That should give the nation pause, not Iran or North Korea.

Sorry, Vincent. I simply cannot agree with you on this one.

I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons per se.  I know the history of how and why they were developed, why they were used, and I am also very aware that given the advanced state of physics in the early 1940s, all the major warring powers during World War II were at least researching nuclear weapons.  And with perhaps the exception of the Japanese and some ultra-liberal people here in America (and elsewhere), most of the people who either lived through or have parents who lived through World War II are thankful that it was the United States that developed nukes.  I doubt that Hitler or the Japanese militarists would have had any qualms about using A-bombs on Moscow, Pearl Harbor, London or New York City if they had had them first.

I, personally, wish nuclear weapons did not exist at all.  However, because the scientific principles on which they are based are out there and cannot be "taken back" or "put back in the genie's bottle,"  they are here to stay, no matter how sincere President Obama's proposal (which echoes one made by Ronald Reagan back in the day) to abolish them.  We might as well wish for a world without submarines or planes or guns.  Nice idea but it's not going to happen.

Thing is, all those enemies, past and present, that you mention (the old Soviet Union, Communist China) are not ruled by religioius fanatics who believe that their God tells them that it's their duty to spread the Islamic revolution all over the world.  Indeed, Iran has a clause in its constitution that it must do so.  That Holocaust-denier President of theirs has no say in the matter, either.  If the Supreme Leader told him that Allah told him that New York City must be nuked, that guy will then say Aye aye sir and he will move heaven and Earth to make sure Manhattan becomes a radioactive parking lot.

The sole fact that the President (and I use the term loosely) of Iran is a Holocaust denier and would not hesitate in nuking Israel if the Supreme Leader told him to is a big reason why Iran should not have nukes.  As irrational as the Soviets and Red Chinese once seemed to be, they knew, from painful experience, what losing millions of their citizens would be like.  I'm not thrilled that Russia and China have nukes, either, but I think that as long as they have a vested interest in not starting a nuclear war, I am not going to lose sleep over them. (I already did the whole "What if the Soviets nuke the U.S." thing once in my 20s....)

The former Soviet Union understood and appreciated the concept of "mutually assured destruction".  To my knowledge, no Soviets developed the habit of strapping explosives to their bodies and boarding a bus.

I don't think I can point to a body who judges the stability or instability of a national leader, but we usually know'em when we see'em.

Now as to why the responsibility.  This isn't a pretty answer, but, because we can and others can't or won't.  In a lightning fast world where action and reaction can be almost instantaneous with catastrophic results someone has to belly up to the bar.  Like it or not, most of the rest of the world is willing to sit on the sideline secure in the knowledge that the US is on watch tonight.  They may or may not voice their opposition at the UN after we act, but they sleep well at night.

Your original question assumes that these nuclear weapons are for defense.

Most of the world community assumes that these nuclear weapons are for offense, given the track rcord of these countries.

Alex,

I agree with you insofar as wishing nuclear weapons were never developed; they are very dangerous weapons and should in no way be taken lightly. 

How, when, and why did we become Israel's protector?  The Jewish state has proved time and again that can well take care of itself, so whether or not the Supreme Leader orders the Iranian President to nuke an Israeli city does not play into my reasoning.  Israel should be set free to fend for itself independent of America's defense shield, as it were.  And the whole spreading Islam at any cost thing, rhetoric for the most part.  And no I have not forgotten that Iran has been accused of sponsoring terrorism.       

Rudi,

I truly believe that Iran fully understands and appreciates the concept of "mutually assured destruction."   To my knowledge there were no Iranian terrorists in those planes that attacked the U.S. on 9/11; indeed most were Saudi.  Aren't they our allies?  We must resist the painting all followers of Islam with the same terrorist brush despite their disquieting rhetoric.  The Iranian leaders know full well that any nuclear attack on the U.S. or its allies, traced to his country would be answered with overwhelming force; I doubt the Iranian people have a death wish. 

As for our responsibility, I acknowledge it, but I don't agree with it...

Nay, my original question does not assume these weapons are for defensive purposes only.   

To the greatest degree Israel does fend for itself independent of the U.S. defense shield, often to the chagrin of Washington.  Israel has long resisted the signing of a formal mutual defense pact with the U.S. since it would call for greater reliance on a sometimes not so reliable partner.  However, in 1975, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Foreign Minister Yigal Allon signed a memorandum that stated: "The United States Government will view with particular gravity threats to Israel's security or sovereignty by a world power."

The U.S. can afford the luxury of viewing these threats with particular gravity.  But Israel's needs are far more immediate and are better served viewed through the canopy of a fully armed F-14 Tomcat.

I wish I shared you view of the rationality of the Iranian leadership.  I don't.  And while none of the hijackers of 9/11 were known to be Iranian, the founders of the radical Islamic Revolution were.  The same revolutionaries that held Americans hostage in 1979.

I try never to paint with a broad brush.  I believe you are right about the Iranian people not possessing a death wish.  I just don't think the current leadership represents the Iranian people.  Perhaps that's why the people are now demonstrating in the street.

Well, my friend, it's late, I'm tired and there's always tomorrow to resume this conversation. 

The Ameri-... Coalition Armies are in both Iraq and Afghanistan, surrounding Iran. Does that help?

TheBard said…

Alex,

I agree with you insofar as wishing nuclear weapons were never developed; they are very dangerous weapons and should in no way be taken lightly. 

How, when, and why did we become Israel's protector?  The Jewish state has proved time and again that can well take care of itself, so whether or not the Supreme Leader orders the Iranian President to nuke an Israeli city does not play into my reasoning.  Israel should be set free to fend for itself independent of America's defense shield, as it were.  And the whole spreading Islam at any cost thing, rhetoric for the most part.  And no I have not forgotten that Iran has been accused of sponsoring terrorism.       

Rudi,

I truly believe that Iran fully understands and appreciates the concept of "mutually assured destruction."   To my knowledge there were no Iranian terrorists in those planes that attacked the U.S. on 9/11; indeed most were Saudi.  Aren't they our allies?  We must resist the painting all followers of Islam with the same terrorist brush despite their disquieting rhetoric.  The Iranian leaders know full well that any nuclear attack on the U.S. or its allies, traced to his country would be answered with overwhelming force; I doubt the Iranian people have a death wish. 

As for our responsibility, I acknowledge it, but I don't agree with it...

---

Well, Vincent, I know you're going to disagree with me on this one, too, but i'll still respectfully express why I believe the U.S. has a moral obligation to the defense of Israel even though, as you say, Israel is quite capable of taking care of itself. 

In my view, it's pretty basic.  In the 1930s, anti-Semitic sentiment among American policy makers, poliiticians and even the general public closed America's doors to European Jews who were fleeing the escalating persecution at the hands of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi minions.  One incident, the turning back of the ocean liner S.S. St. Louis, which carried some 700 Jewish men, women and children, resulted in the passengers' denial of entry to any U.S. port and resulted in their return to Nazi Germany and their eventual deaths in the concentration camp system.

The U.S, government also repeatedly batted aside reports from Jewish leaders that documented German atrocities during World War II, and the U.S, media often either shared that same attitude or, if they published news articles about the Holocaust, it was always deep, deep inside the newspapers.  (The rationalization? That during World War I British and French propaganda had incited unfair anti-German sentiments in the U.S. and spread outright lies about the German army's conduct during the war.)

Not only that, but the Allies never even attempted to bomb Auschwitz-Birkenau, saying that it was too far out of range of the P-51 escorted B-17s.  Yet, in the National Archives there's a photo of B-17s flying a bombing mission over Poland, with parts of the death and labor camp in the frame.

Finally, as a member of the United Nations Security Council that tried to fairly divide Palestine into two separate states and setting up Israel, it is our moral obligation to make sure that there are two states there.  If the Arabs had not refused the 1948 arrangement, that's their fault, is it not?

And though I'm sure Rudi can reply to the comment about MAD, I'll add my own two bits.

While the Iranian people don't have a death wish, who is to say that the leaders of the Revolutionary Guard and the Supreme Ruling Council simply don't care about mutually assured destruction?  They have a very clear vision of what they want for their nation, which is namely to spread their version of Islam around the world and the destruction of Israel.  The current defense minister is a wanted man with an Interpol "arrest on sght" warrant for the bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina.

And all right, let's say that the Iranian government doesn't build ICBMs to hit the U.S. as you say they may not.  ICBMs are not the only delivery system of nuclear weapons, you know.  What if they use a short range IRBM or cruise missile, or even a crude bomb on a freighter, against a carrier group in the Persian Gulf?

The U.S. defense of Israel is logical and correct on moral and ethical grounds.  How it is done is a matter up for debate and how irresponsible Israel sometimes has been in it's own interests is unfortunate and controversial to say the least.

No one should develop a nuclear weapon.  We have taken on the role of being the big bad military giant and we should try and stop anyone from developing another destructive military device.   Yes, that means we will have the biggest baddest weapons ever developed and that's not right or fair in many ways, but to get onto the road of peace and end war.. No more nukes.

We actually have no right of course to interfere in another nation's affiars.  Our interference in Iraq and Iran's wars in the 70s led to a huge rise in Anti-American sentiment and the overthrow of the Shah and the hostage crisis in Iran which eventually led to the rise of Khomeni and Hussein and the current regime.

If we ignore History and the mistakes made in the past.. we are doomed to repeat them.   Let's not.

How is the U.S.'s continued defense of Israel "logical and correct on moral and ethical grounds?" 

Alex, I understand your moral argument and I once shared it, but in my mind we have long since repaid and moral debt we owed the Jewish people for our failings before and during WWII.  It is interesting that the Europeans do not share our moral dilemma over Israel! 

And what of the Great Britain's moral obligation to its once colony; how did they get absolved and us involved, U.N. Security Council membership aside?      

As for IRBM that Iran might develop, why is that OUR concern since they cannot hit the U.S.?  I would think the Europeans and the Arab state surrounding Iran would be more concerned than they are about Iran since those missiles might be aimed at them.  It is high time we threw off the yoke of the Cold War for good, withdraw from our forward bases in Europe and Asia and let those nations shoulder the burden of their OWN defense.  I am not downplaying out interests in the area of the Persian Gulf, but it high time we stopped playing World Sheriff don't you think? 

I, unfortunately, beg to differ on the implication that there's a statute of limitations on moral debts regarding the Jewish people.  I'm not knocking your opinion nor will I attempt to sway you to change your mind.  You have your views on the issue, I have mine,  And that's okay. We'll remain friends even if we don't agree.

Regarding the issue of IRBM's with nuclear warheads....I'm not implying that they can't do our national security any damage.  They can still do so even if they don't harm the lower 48, Alaska or Hawaii; all they need to do is attack any of our naval task forces in the Persian Gulf or the Indian Ocean and they can do worse damage than the Al Qaeda terrorists did on September 11 or the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor.  If memory serves, a single Nimitz-class carrier has a crew of over 5,000 sailors, right?

I also do not believe in withdrawing from Europe or Asia.  I'm not into neo-isolationism or "let's withdraw into our safe homeland and let's let the world take care of itself."  We tried that in the 1920s and 1930s and look where it got us.

Do I think Europe should do more for its own defense? Absolutely.  I think Western Europe went from one extreme - rampant militarism before World War II - to another - extreme pacifism and accomodation of its former colonial peoples on the other.  Of course, a war that kills tens of millions in one continent tends to leave its inhabitants feeling that way, especially if the U.S. is willing to extend an umbrella to help defend them.

Given the fact that Russia did not become the great best hope for democracy lots of us hoped it would be after the collapse of the USSR, now is not the time to simply say, "Okay, Europe, you guys are on your own now.  You deal with Ivan yourselves."

As for the Brits....well, World War II pretty much emasculated the former British Empire.  I believe that they, too, have a lot of post-imperialistic angst and don't want to own up to the fact that their policies (and the French) were the catalysts for the modern Middle East conflict as it now exists.

Add to this a certain amount of anti-Semitism still felt in most of Europe and a fear of ticking off the growing Muslim populations in their countries, and you'll probably understand why there's very little interest in the Old World to have any moral dilemma over Israel.

When we insist on being the most powerfuland influential nation on earth, overseeing the great American democratic way and we are responsible for the world even to the point of hosting most nations to discuss with each other their mutual futures, then we continue to have a moral and ethical responsibility to all of the those who have been affected by our actions. 

Our in-action or reversal of past policy would mean disaster for Israel.  We are meddlesome destructive Godfathers to many nations. Just ask Cambodia, Iraq, Nicaragua and others.   I wish we would heal ourselves and stay out of international affairs... but that's not our history.

There are no time limits only choices made for political or financial reasons.

Alex my friend, you are right we will have to agree to disagree on Israel and America's (long since played out) obligation to her.  I do not think we should abandon Israel wholesale, but I do think we need to "rethink" our relationship to the Jewish state, European hostility notwithstanding. 

Yes, the typical forward deployed carrier with air wings deployed has over 5000 sailor onboard.  But all carrier task groups have at least two Aegis-class warships as escorts and no doubt the incoming missile(s) would be shot down long before they reach their objective. 

The Russia military has declined to the point that it is no longer an effect fighting force outside the confines of say Georgia wherein the Army is puny and not, well NATO.  True, the Russian are pumping more money into their military, but the days of Cold War antagonism between the Soviets, Europe, and the U.S, are gone-may they rest In peace-therefore a large standing U.S. Army and Air Force presence on the continent is no longer needed or prudent. 

As for Asia, it's time for South Korea and Japan to step up and shoulder to Lions-share of their own defense.  Do 33,000 U.S. Army troops in South Korea still make sense?  Do some 54,000 American troops and sailors stationed throughout Japan still make sense?  My answer to both questions is NO.  Where is the credible threat? 

Don't get me wrong I am not into "neo-isolationism" either (China would be quick to fill the power void) but the U.S. has the ability to rapidly deploy forces overseas, we no longer need large expensive overseas bases to project power.     

ChrisJarmick said…

When we insist on being the most powerfuland influential nation on earth, overseeing the great American democratic way and we are responsible for the world even to the point of hosting most nations to discuss with each other their mutual futures, then we continue to have a moral and ethical responsibility to all of the those who have been affected by our actions. 

Our in-action or reversal of past policy would mean disaster for Israel.  We are meddlesome destructive Godfathers to many nations. Just ask Cambodia, Iraq, Nicaragua and others.   I wish we would heal ourselves and stay out of international affairs... but that's not our history.

There are no time limits only choices made for political or financial reasons.

---

The only point I disagree with here is the "when we insist on being...."  I don't think it's a matter of national choice; it's more of a matter of historical imperatives and the result of a chain of events which, like it or not, made the United States the heir to Britain's Empire as far as global stability is concerned.

While I'm not comfortable with the notion of America-as-superpower and the pros and cons that come with that title, I'm less comfortable when I envision the world being run by a horde of petty dictators who spend billions on weapons (even nukes) and indoctrinate their children with hate toward the U.S. and a loathing toward our way of life.

My biggest criticism of U.S. foreign policy echoes yours; we seem to have a most unfortunate penchant of injecting ourselves (militarily and otherwise) into countries and entire regions with a devil-may-care attitude.  We (and I'm including regular citizens) often think that we can waltz into a country with a different culture (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanustan) and, without properly studying its people, history, traditions and religion, can achieve our goals (whether it's defeating Communism or fighting terrorists) through superior firepower or economic largesse.  Just because that worked in Western Europe during and after World War II doesn't mean this approach will work elsewhere; it worked marvelously in the Old Countries because, after all, we are mostly transplanted Europeans anyway and have certain shared cultural and religious traits.

In other regions, however, American foreign policy (even when it's benign in nature) often runs smack into walls of resistance because of huge, huge cultural differences.    So, Chris, we are in harmonious agreement on this point as well.

The only other comment you make that I'm somewhat at odds is the "Washington Farewell Address"-like sentiment of wishing that we would stay out of international affairs.   No nation can simply stay out of international affairs in this world.  We are, as much as some would like to say otherwise, all interconnected now. 

However, as I said earlier, I heartily agree with most of what you wrote.

And suppose we remove our World Sheriff's badge.  Do you really believe it will just lie wherever we drop it.  Nature abhors a vacuum, but not nearly so much as world power politics.  Who will attempt to pick it up and try it on in order to fill the vacuum of our retreat?  Will the world applaud our retreat or will we be scorned by our followers (yes even our reluctant followers) for abdicating the role that only we can currently fill?

Leadership is often a lonely mission and unfortunately one devoid of love.  But the world is far more populated by followers and always has been.

So I ask, is there someone you trust more to wear the Sheriff's Badge?  For surely someone will want to try it on.

True Rudi, power loves a vacuum and no doubt if we fully retreated from the world, Russia or China would happily step into our shoes, but would the world follow?  But I am not advocating  abdicating the throne of the world as it were, just letting the vassal states do more of the moderate lifting.  As President Obama rightly stated in his speech to the U.N. the world cannot chastise the U.S. for going it alone, yet expect America to solve all of the world's ills; we can no longer afford it. 

I'm not suggesting we stay out of international affairs at all.  We do need to take a step back in many areas and we also need to work with others much better than we have in the past.   Not having many people in the State department, FBI and CIA who have high level clearances and speak various Arab lanaguages fluently was an absurd oversight that we are still scrambling to fix (for instance).   It's outrageous we could be part of a nation's re-building and have such a limited capacity to understand its culture and speak its language.

And now that we have stirred a hornet's nest, running away is not a solution either but a new kind of diplomacy is definitely needed.   Some steps have been taken but there will be a backlash in both political and public arenas that is likely to be very critical and difficult to deal with.

We are use to how our political parties banter back and forth and it doesn't appear to be unstable or horribly, lethally dangerous to us.. however to those who live in other countries that's another story and other political leaders with thier own agendas can twist and shape what we do in various ways and create their own versions of Orange Alerts and paranoia in their countries creating a difficult atmosphere for anyone to work with a degree of calm and measured diplomacy.    So few understand as it is.. let alone the general public, media etc.

We must recover from many mis-steps already made and do a bit of retreat in terms of our positioning before we can work with others to balance world power again.   The upside is that diplomacy and non-violent solutions are much cheaper economically in both short and long term.     Russia went broke trying to keep up and we will do the same if we stay the course that was started a few years ago.

We can't police all the hot spots of the world that have political and financial value to us.  We can't afford it.. for one.. and no one can logistically, politically or even by a sane military approach  control Afghanistan.  It's eluded super powers since the Roman era.   

TheBard said…

True Rudi, power loves a vacuum and no doubt if we fully retreated from the world, Russia or China would happily step into our shoes, but would the world follow?  But I am not advocating  abdicating the throne of the world as it were, just letting the vassal states do more of the moderate lifting.  As President Obama rightly stated in his speech to the U.N. the world cannot chastise the U.S. for going it alone, yet expect America to solve all of the world's ills; we can no longer afford it. 

---

On this point you'll get no argument from me.  President Obama framed the issue perfectly.