Being an old lefty, whose wife was once publisher of the late Nuclear Times, I have trouble accepting the Nukes-maintain-order line from realists. It goes against my ideological training. Nukes scare me. I think about minutes before midnight, the test ban treaty my mother worked for, and, now, how many minutes before someone shows up with a dirty bomb in an American subway… I'm for non-proliferation. I'm not big on the Second Amendment either. But realist Mike Desch makes a compelling counter-argument for "nuclear optimism" in the new American Conservative:
The
first two nuclear adversaries the United States faced—Stalin’s Soviet
Union and Mao’s China—were hardly democratic regimes. Indeed, they rank
among history’s most totalitarian political systems. Yet neither of
these totalitarian regimes risked nuclear war.
Both regimes engaged in mass murder of their own citizens. Conservative
estimates of the human cost of Stalin’s rule begin at 20 million
deaths. Mao killed approximately the same number of his countrymen.
Despite these sanguinary tendencies, neither regime was willing to risk
nuclear war with the United States.
Both also indulged in irresponsible nuclear rhetoric. Stalin publicly
pooh-poohed the American atomic bomb when told about it by President
Truman at Potsdam in July 1945. Behind the scenes, however, he
understood that atomic weapons represented a dramatic change in the
nature of warfare and secretly began a crash program. The rhetoric of
cavalier dismissal concealed a deep concern about nuclear weapons that,
in turn, induced caution.
During his 1957 speech at the Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers’
Parties, Mao also dismissed the nuclear-armed United States as “a paper
tiger” and remarked elsewhere that a nuclear war with the U.S. would
not be such a catastrophe because “if worse came to worst and half of
mankind died, the other half would remain while imperialism would be
razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist.” But in
private conversations with Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery in
September 1961, he argued that nuclear weapons “are not something to
use. The more there are, the harder it will be for nuclear wars to
break out.” This latter view apparently governed Chinese behavior…
One
could go further and suggest that a nuclear Iran might even be
beneficial to the United States. The nuclear stalemate played an
important role in American efforts to contain the Soviet Union, and
containment, in turn, had the effect of “mellowing” the regime, as
George Kennan predicted in his famous Foreign Affairs
article. Why should we not expect a regional stalemate involving the
United States, Israel, and Iran to have a similar effect by
simultaneously bolstering each nation’s territorial security without
providing any of them with the means of conquest against other states?
Arguing that an Iranian nuclear capability could benefit Israel is
admittedly a more controversial claim. But in addition to the possible
mellowing of the Iranian political system, which would be a long-term
benefit for Israeli security, there could be some immediate payoffs,
too…
Isn't that called deterrence? Worked for the Cold War.
The bar for mellowing is high. Currently, Iran is not mellowing, but the oppossite, and that is the basis of fears.
The Real Issue of Nuclear Iran
Yes. It would make us all much safer. Since MAD is assured, no regime is actually going to use a nuke – unless its own existence is threatened. What a nuclear Iran means is an end to hare-brained talk about regime change by coup or invasion. And that would be a boon to every sane person on earth.
Iran has not exhibited any militant aggression since its revolution, while Israel, with US gifted weapons, has continuously used militant aggression against Palestinians, Lebanese and other civilian populations. There are two nations in this wold that need mellowing, neither is Iran. Shiites seem to be a very mellow people. What helped the US mellow after it took control over most of the world immediately after WW II, was the development of nuclear arms by the Soviet Union and France. Perhaps if Iran had nuclear weapons it might deter Israel's greater territorial ambitions and mellow its treatment of Palestinians, but it is doubtful. The best way to mellow Israel is to withhold economic and military aid from the US until it removes all of its military forces to within the Green Line and renounces sovereign claims on the settlements outside it.
I agree. Israeli governments have grown more belecose and self-destructive because they had no real check on their behaviour. By shielding Israel from the consequences of its actions (like the irresponsible parent of an out-of-control teenager), we have eliminated any incentive for Israel's leaders to act like adults. A nuclear Iran simply can't be bombed or invaded. Likewise, unless the Iranian mullahs are sucidal (and I see no evidence of this), a first strike on Israel is also out of the question. The only possiblity left is to assume some level of mutual respect and hammer out differences with diplomacy.
capitalism had a 300 year head start on communism and was/is no slouch when it came/comes to slaughtering innocents
Iran is as at least as "mellow" as Israel, if not more so. And Israel has nukes and has a worldwide delivery system.
Jacqueline, I enjoy your comments, I really do. Phil, you don't seem to have the faintest idea about the nuclear industry. The possibility of "a dirty bomb in an American subway" is absolutely unrelated to whether anybody can make a nuclear bomb or not.
Richard, over at Patrick Lang's blog not too long ago "Andy" had a highly interesting take on our topic here. I'll copy it here with a link, since he basically balances just as Phil's friend Mike Desch your position: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085619.html All, Now, the title of this post is, in part, "not a good day for Bibi" but I think an equally good title might be, "not a good day for Israeli strategic doctrine." Since 1973, Israel has operated under the doctrine that it cannot affect the intentions of its enemies, only their capabilities. So for Israel, strategic choices were often pretty clear – if an enemy was developing a capability that could threat Israel's position or the Israeli state, it would take action. Over the years, cracks and breaks in the validity of this doctrine steadily developed but the situation with Iran threatens to completely discredit it. Iran is a case that puts Israel into a strategic corner painted by their own doctrine. Iran is a case where Israel cannot affect the capabilities of an enemy without significant assistance – if it could have done it solo, it would have long ago. So Israel is presented with a case where they believe they cannot influence Iranian intentions while their ability to diminish Iran's (latent) capabilities is very limited. Israel still hopes the US will help them out of this strategic conundrum by facilitating an attack on Iran. This was something even GWB was not willing to do, and Israel clearly struck-out here with President Obama. So the conundrum remains and it is a very dangerous one because the result is an Israel that believes it is cornered and out of options but extreme ones. This is where Col. Lang's posts on the possibility of an Israeli nuclear strike come in. With no other "out" available, a nuclear option suddenly becomes viable. This kind of myopic strategic thinking can be found at the root of many conflicts through history. Japan in the early stages of WWII, for instance, deluded itself into believing that a war with the USA – a war it knew it would likely lose – was its only viable strategic option. Things didn't turn out too well for them in the end. Israel, I believe, is in a similar position unless it can break out of its current mindset. What can the US do to help Israel transition out of their strategic morass? There seem to be many who comment on this blog that loathe Israel, wish to see the US "dump" its ally, etc. I say be careful what you wish for and consider the consequences – kicking Israel to the curb will only heighten its fears and increase the likelihood it will do something extreme. A better approach, as Col. Lang has indicated, is to make it clear to Israel who is the Alpha dog. Beyond that, I see to main tasks for US policy: First, the US must try to prevent Iran from provoking Israel and playing into its fears. The comments of Pres. Ahmedinijad and several senior IRCG commanders are taken very seriously – literally – in Israel. Influencing Iran is, for now, not an easy prospect because the Iranian leadership is, in my view, currently full of triumphalism and overconfidence. I think Pres. Obama is right to take a wait-and-see approach until after the Iranian elections and hope that new, more reform-minded leadership comes to power. Secondly, the US must work to foster the development of a new and viable strategic doctrine in Israel. This will require quite a bit of "tough love" from the Alpha Dog USA to guide Israel out of its myopia, but ultimately Israel is going to have to figure out a lot of this for itself. Posted by: Andy | 19 May 2009 at 08:30 PM If you find this argument far fetched, take a look at this. Also via Patrick Lang. And don't stop reading till you have arrived at the only option Israel has, if it is forced to do it on its own, the nuclear one. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085619.html Here's how Israel would destroy Iran's nuclear program By Reuven Pedatzur
why should that be completely unrelated. If, let's say 100 countries on earth would have their own nuclear production, don't you think the risk would increase comparatively to now?
The US government, and probably every government that has developed nuclear weapons, has irradiated more of its citizens with nuclear waste than any dirty bomb ever will. The governmental officials responsible for irradiating their own citizens are not treated like Iranian mullahs.
Yes, but Communism made up for its late start by concentrating the potency. It's akin to the difference between methamphetamines and filtered cigarettes. Interesting, ambitous Jewish authoritarians seem to thrive in the hierarchy of both. I guess if it kills, they're all for it.
I wouldn't say Stalin's Russia circa 1949 was exactly mellow, or Mao's China when it got the bomb.
No. there's simply no relation between the two things at all. You probably don't know what a "dirty bomb" is. A "dirty bomb" is a bomb that uses conventional explosives laced with radioactive material of any sort to spread radioactivity — radioactive material of any sort at all — even, for instance, used medical isotopes.
Nukes maintain order? To some extent, sure. But the first thing is, they raise the cost when things go wrong. And secondly they assume that the players remain in full control of the game. Then increasing the number of players is a bad idea. I thought that the reason nuclear war was avoided in the sixties was sheer luck. That's not good enough for me. In the long run nukes are a guarantee for annihilation – even though in the short run they can have benefits.
"Netanyahu looked like a thuggish oaf next to our brilliant presdent. " Netanyahu has always looked like a thuggish oaf no mater whom he was next to.
Phil, Your instincts are right. Regarding proliferation as comforting is false. Its like investing in a stock, then finding out that a competitor of the company has just released a better product than yours and cheaper, and claiming that that is a good outcome because it will motivate your company's employees to work harder.
Dear Phil, Thank you for all you do!. You may wish to re-consider you view of the 2nd amendment after reading some quotes from tyrants. here's some but there are more.If you can't say no, you're a slave. What Dictators/Mass Murderers had to say about Gun Control "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall." – Adolf Hitler "Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." – Aristotle, Politics Ch 10 para 4. "1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!" – Adolf Hitler "If the opposition (citizen) disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves." – Josef Stalin "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." – Mao Tse-tung