To many people, the continuing saga of Barack Obama as U.S. president is one of often noble declarations of intent, with stumbling blocks of reality along the way.
At the UN, he told the 15-member Security Council (five permanent, 10 non-permanent members) “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”
Who can disagree with that as a goal? But how to achieve it?
The Security Council is hopeless, specializing in declarations of intent that rarely come to fruition. Remember how Saddam Hussein jerked them around. The summit is now over, having endorsed an Obama-like resolution to “seek a safer world . . . without nuclear weapons.”
The stumbling block for Obama (if not the Security Council) was French President Nicolas Sarkozy scolding: “We live in a real world, not a virtual world, and the real world expects us to make decisions.”
“Decisions” are more than declarations of intent. “Decisions” don’t come as easily to Obama as platitudes – witness his reluctance to decide on whether more troops are needed in Afghanistan, which his hand-chosen military leaders say are essential to avoid defeat.
With this in mind, it came as a refreshing surprise to many when Obama seemed to hurl a gauntlet at Iran’s quest to develop nuclear weapons by exposing a new nuclear site in Iran that international intelligence sources agree is only useful for weaponry.
Flanked by Sarkozy and Britain’s PM Gordon Brown (who said the time has come to “draw a line in the sand” with Iran), Obama talked tougher than usual in warning Iran to desist and dismantle.
The denials by Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were more pathetic than persuasive. Neither China nor Russia seemed supportive of Ahmadinejad.
While total nuclear disarmament is unlikely to inconceivable in the lifetime of most of us, Iran and North Korea are the main obstacles to nuclear progress – both being rogue regimes intent on developing and expanding nuclear weapons.
If Iran gets nukes, neighboring countries will also want them. How long before they reach Hamas? And al-Qaeda?
The world has no shortage of nutbar leaders and terror activists who’d relish a nuke to detonate in an unsuspecting city. Sarkozy recognizes this, and has called for action that will realistically deter the lust for nukes.
No problem if Russia and the U.S. agree to trim their nuclear arsenal by, say, 25%. Neither is likely to behave irrationally. Can the same be said of Ahmadinejad?
One hopes Obama goes beyond platitudes about banning nuclear weapons — “That is our task, that is our destiny.” More says Obama. Just rhetoric.
The UN resolution to seek a safer, better world, preventing nuclear proliferation with “new, comprehensive, legally binding agreements…” is not reassuring.
Such agreements are meaningless. As Sarkozy points out, Iran has flouted five Security resolutions since 2005, North Korea 15 or more since Kim Jong Il ventured into nuclear blackmail.
So far, only Israel faces international condemnation if it takes direct action against Iran’s development of nuclear capabilities. And it’s the target country. UN members are never reluctant to condemn Israel if it defends itself, or fights back against terrorism.
Would NATO ever take action against Iran if it developed nuclear weapons? Doubtful, since most NATO countries are too craven to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Iran tests its new surface-to-surface Sajil missile with impunity.
10 responses so far
1 sinz54 // Sep 30, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Liberals have always believed in the perfectability of man. They believe that if crimes occur or wars break out, it’s the easy availability of weapons that makes “misunderstandings” or “desperation” erupt into wars or shootouts.
That’s why liberals have always been hot to trot about gun control here in the States. International disarmament is just gun control scaled up to the level of national regimes. And arms-control treaties have never brought peace, any more than gun control laws have brought peaceful societies.
The marauders will always be there. And they’re not deterred by pieces of paper.
And I predict Obama is going to learn that lesson in the not too distant future.
As that other naif, Jimmy Carter, learned, 30 years ago.
2 midcon // Sep 30, 2009 at 3:25 pm
The U.S. has never been able to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons: Israel, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea. Does anyone believe that it can be successful in doing that in Iran without extreme action. So, Obama is faced with the same dilemma that his precedessors, both Republican and Democrat were faced with – accomodation and control or drastic action. We have a long history of accomodation and the likelihood of drastic action on our part is almost nil.
We rule out accomodation because we believe that Iranian leadership is fanatical and that their use of nuclear weapons is not just conceviable but probable. Yet, countries like Israel would think nothing of employing their weapons if they were face with the threat to their existence. Are they no less fanatical?
The reality is, the only way to stop the spread of nuclear weapons is to eliminate them all and to take decisive action against any and all states who are engaged in a program to develop those weapons. Otherwise, we will continue to face new threats from other nations who want to join the nuclear club. Only when all nations come to the conclusion that their national security does not depend on nuclear weapons will the need for nuclear weapons disappear. You will not have world where all other nations accept that just a few nations can and should have such weapons. Negotiation and accomodation are merely delaying strategies. They are not solutions.
I am not a peacenik by any means as I work in the nuclear weapons arena, but I am a realist. If I were able, I would create a world where we were the only ones with nuclear weapons, but then if I could do that there would be no need for ours.
This is a no win situation for Obama; for administrations the preceeded him and for administration that will succeed him.
3 sinz54 // Sep 30, 2009 at 4:59 pm
midcon:
“Decisive action” will mean pre-emptive war. Against any pipsqueak nation that attempts to violate the international restrictions.
And that’s a pipe dream.
Once all nukes are eliminated, the first pipsqueak nation that defies world opinion and builds even a few nukes, even Lower Slobbovia, will hold the United States hostage.
4 sinz54 // Sep 30, 2009 at 5:02 pm
midcon:
But it does depend on nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are the ULTIMATE deterrent against invasion by a hostile power.
If Kuwait had nukes, Saddam would never have invaded in 1990.
If Taiwan has nukes, they will never have to worry about being swallowed up by the Chinese again.
North Korea has nukes, and that’s the main reason why the U.S. has taken military options off the table. U.S. planners don’t want to lose South Korea to a retaliatory nuclear strike.
You can’t wish those facts away.
5 midcon // Oct 1, 2009 at 8:30 am
sinz; and yet you cannot stop the spread of nuclear weapons. To carry the scenario to it’s logical conclusion – nuclear weapons spread until all nations and all groups who can afford them have them. And then what? Let’s see you live in Mass. So let’s say someone is sitting at Logan with a nuke and off it goes. Let’s say we retaliate against the nation or group – Mass. is still gone. We get our revenge. But Mass. is still gone.
It’s the Second Ammendment argument – If everyone had guns then everyone would be safe? Is that the argument for nukes? If that’s the case, shouldn’t we proliferate nukes rather than engaging in futile efforts to preven their spread?
The real argument against the spread of nukes is that the more nations that have them, the more likely they will be used at some point. Perhaps we have already reached that stage, especially if direct military action is being discussed to prevent their further spread. How much of leap is it from there to actual tactical use to prevent their further spread?
6 sinz54 // Oct 1, 2009 at 10:20 am
midcon:
Yes, up to a point, this is the gun control/gun rights argument all over again. Do more guns in the hands of the decent and law-abiding deter crime?
BUT the analogy breaks down when externalities are considered:
If you shoot someone to death, eventually the body is removed, the blood on the ground is mopped up, and that is that. Maybe an innocent bystander or two is caught in the crossfire, but that can be cleaned up easily as well.
Whereas if two nations that are separated by some distance attack each other with nuclear missiles, the arable land may be poisoned for who knows how long. And the radioactive fallout may drift into other nations, or into the sea, killing the fish on which the entire world depends for food. In the worst-case scenario, some of the nuclear missiles may drift off-course and hit neighboring nations, dragging them into the conflict. This could cause a chain reaction in which more and more nations get dragged into what started out as a “regional” nuclear war.
So while it seems to be too politically incorrect to say it, nuclear missiles should be reserved for nations with DEMONSTRATED maturity and restraint: The U.S., China, India, and Russia. A nation that has shown irresponsibility in the past should not be trusted with nukes either.
7 sinz54 // Oct 1, 2009 at 10:26 am
midcon:
Here in the United States, the Second Amendment does not obviate the need to get a gun license. And when you want to drive a car, you have to get a driver’s license. The point is for you to demonstrate that you know what you’re doing and can handle these deadly instruments responsibly. Even the National Rifle Association has programs to teach safe and responsible gun ownership and use.
What is needed is something like that on the international level:
The NPT tries to stop other nations from getting nukes. They invariably reply why should the U.S., Russia and China have them while they can’t?
The answer is to require them to get a United Nations “Nuclear Missiles License.” A top-to-bottom check of the regime to determine its stability, maturity, and peaceful intentions toward the rest of the world. Only if they’re judged responsible, sane, mature, and peaceful will they be allowed to obtain nuclear missiles.
8 Jim // Oct 1, 2009 at 8:03 pm
So, one world government is perfectly reasonable and conservative.
Got it.
9 midcon // Oct 3, 2009 at 9:07 am
sinz,
Sure I’ll buy your plan of a Nuclear Missiles Licence, along with Jim’s one world government. But in the meantime – the more nations that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is they will be used. It is simple probability. No different than individual firearms. And further if you would propose such a scheme for nuclear missiles, one could argue for a U.S. Firearms Licence, along with a top-to-bottom review, etc.
I honestly believe that the only way to stop the spread of nuclear weapons will be the use of such weapons by some nation. Only that will bring home the horror of such weapons and contribute to non-proliferation. I expect that given a nuclear Middle East (multiple nations with nukes) we will witness their use. I also believe that we should be conducting research in how to handle and use radioactive oil and even how to drill, store and ship oil that comes a radioactive environment. The only value that comes from the Middle East is oil. Otherwise the entire region is not worth any time, effort or investment and is actually the cause of much of the strike in our world today.
Imagine a world without the Middle East! I do.
10 midcon // Oct 3, 2009 at 10:58 am
Oops I said “actually the cause of much the strike in our world..” I meant to say strife.
You must log in to post a comment.