Nuclear disarmament: a reminder
President Bush and Condi Rice have been stepping up their rhetoric against Iran, accusing the regime there of being undemocratic (true) and of harboring ambitions to acquire a nuclear arsenal (unknowable).
I think it's time to go back and give the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) a good, close reading, and to think a lot harder about what role we want nuclear arsenals to play in our world. The treaty is still, of course, in force.
First then, its text. To be precise, Article 6, to which the US like all other parties to the treaty is subject:
- Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
And what role, actually, do we want to see nuclear weapons play today?
I think in 1968, as now, the desire of the vast mass of the world's people was that nuclear weapons should play zero role in world affairs. Then as now the world's people want to see complete nuclear disarmament (and the "complete and general" decommissioning of all other forms of military weapons, as well.)
But at the governmental level, something big has changed since 1968. Back then, all the major governments of the world were content (if not, perhaps, exactly overjoyed) to sign their names to a treaty that called for complete nuclear disarmament-- and therefore, presumably, for the definitive ending of the role that nuclear weapons have played in world affairs since August 1945.
Now, however-- if say, the NPT had to come up for ratification once again by the U.S. administration and Senate-- do you think they would agree to Article 6? I sincerely doubt it. Too many people in the US political elite have simply become accustomed to a world in which the U.S. has unparalleled military and power-projection capabilities, a world in which the U.S. Navy can sail around the world bearing its nuclear weapons to just about anywhere it wants--including, most assuredly, into the Persian/Arabian Gulf today...
And meanwhile they consider it quite legitimate to raise all kinds of scare stories and threaten all kinds of repurcussions at the allegation that NPT member Iran might, just might, be able to acquire a small nuclear arsenal "within three to five years"?
Members of the US political elite across nearly all of the political spectrum here have become quite accustomed, too, to a world in which both everyone knows that Israel has a sizeable nuclear-weapons capability while at the same time everyone in the US agrees not to talk about this openly.
So in the weird kind of shadow-world that results from all this, it seems quite "natural" to issue threats against Iran, and even to accuse Iran of having "aggressive intentions", just as if there were no broader context of an aggressive, nuclear-armed Israel and an aggressive, nuclear-armed U.S. Navy within which the Iranian mullahs might, just might, be making their decisions....
Maybe all of us US citizens (and our political "representatives") need to take a deep breath and start thinking through some deep fundamentals. Questions like these:
Do we really want to bequeath to our kids a world in which nuclear weapons have continued to proliferate, and in which their possession still confers important benefits in international affairs?
Why do Americans or anyone else need nuclear weapons these days? (Last I heard, the Cold War ended circa 1991.... So what's the justification today?)
How on earth, in a world in which each person has been created equal, can we justify to the rest of the world a situation in which the world's people are artificially divided into those whose governments are "allowed" to have nuclear weapons (the US, UK, Russia, China, and France), and on the other side-- everyone else?
Why, in the light of Article 6, should the prospect of nuclear-weapons acquisition by Iran or any other country be treated by the international community any differently than the continued possession of nuclear weapons by the "Permanent" Five or the other three non-"recognized" nuclear powers (Israel, India, and Pakistan)?
And then, let's ask our White South Africans friends, whose government had developed its own n.w. capability back in apartheid days: Did they feel that having that capability met all their needs for the security of their community? Or actually, have the vast majority of them found their situation much improved since they decided that building decent, respectful relations with their non-White neighbors might be wiser than relying on repressing their neighbors and chasing the endless chimera of "military superiority" and arms-racing?
Nuclear weapons: what a dumb and totally dangerous idea. Dumb for Iranians. Dumb for Israelis. Dumb for Americans. Dumb for everyone.
So sure, let's talk about the topic. But let's make sure we have the whole conversation rather than just sitting around pointing fingers at one or another peripheral power.
Helen,
You ask "Why do Americans or anyone else need nuclear weapons these days? (Last I heard, the Cold War ended circa 1991.... So what's the justification today?)"
I agree that it's difficult to maintain that a country "needs" nuclear weapons. And you are right that the nuclear powers who have signed the NPT have not lived up to their treaty obligations.
It's apparent that the nuclear powers see their arsenals as an important source of power. They want to keep them for that reason. Likewise they don't want other states to acquire such weapons because it would diminish their own power. For example, attacking another nuclear power is a very tricky proposition. Can it be done? Who wants to try and find out?
This is ultimately the reason the US finds it so hard to accept an Iran with nuclear weapons. Its hegemony in the Middle East will be diminished, perhaps substantially so, while Iran will emerge as a regional power. They are also worried about the example this may set for other countries.
I don't believe that Iran can be dissuaded from eventually becoming a nuclear power. The reason is that no one that give them an adequate answer when they ask why it is acceptable for country X to have such weapons and not Iran, with X being any of the current eight or nine nuclear powers. The arguments given to them ultimately come down to those of force and for that reason they lack legitimacy and won't be accepted. And this is true regardless of who is in power in Iran.
I agree that nuclear armaments are unnecessary and especially dangerous in the current political climate. But I feel that the Bushies are beginning to make the same drumbeat about Iran's nuclear capabilities and its perception as a terrorist instigator, that they made about Iraq and its W.M.D.s a couple of years ago. Condi in England has implied that the U.S. will support any group that pushes against the mullahs. Will we see a new "front" in the middle east in a couple of years?
Nuclear weapons aren't doing anybody any good. I suppose the 5 major nuclear powers get a little more gravitas and allow themselves to feel Really Important. Feeling important is a basic human need and should not be minimized.
At least we know what the 8 (5 + 3) nuclear powers will do with their nuclear weapons; absolutely nothing. This is a good thing.
However, it wise to be very cautious about the idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of governments that openly and successfully support suicide-cult terrorism. The way Iran supports Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Further, both Khamenai and Rafsanjani have called for the violent destruction of a whole nation, Israel.
It is only prudent to worry that Iran will give a nuclear weapon to one of these groups to commit genocide or genocide/suicide. Is there anyone here who is interested in peace who is not worried about this?
Is there anyone here who believes that Iran needs nuclear weapons? For any reason?
Does anybody here really believe that Iran is developing nuclear technology to "Generate electricity"? I don't. Why should I?
"both Khamenai and Rafsanjani have called for the violent destruction of a whole nation, Israel" that maybe true but do you really think that Iran will bomb Israel as soon as they have a bomb? Of course not because if they do they will also blow away Jerusalem and all the Palestinians at the same time. There is another reason for Iran the build a nuclearbomb.
Iran needs a bomb because it feels threatend. America is almost a neighbour with troops in countries like Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and Iraq. The troops in Iraq are maybe rightnow not a big concern because of the unstable situation in Iraq but one day they will. Also Saudi-Arabie is an archenemy because of it anti-shi'i stance. And don't forget that its neighbour Pakistan has allready a nuclearbomb. It was Pakistan who helped the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Taliban are just as hardcore anti-shi'i as the whabi's from Saudi. And there are lott's of assualts on shi'i muslims in Pakistan.
So if you are seriously concerned about Iran getting a nuclearbomb you should also think about an alternative. Or in other words how are you going to lett Iran feel secure inorder that they don't feel the need to build a bomb?
"At least we know what the 8 (5 + 3) nuclear powers will do with their nuclear weapons; absolutely nothing. This is a good thing."
Don't forget that Pakistan and India have fought a proxy-war in Kashmir and that there where times that threatend eachother with using their bombs. Another thing that should concern you is how Iran got some information on how to build nuclearplants. It was with the help of Pakistan! Pakistan which is an American ally. So even if Pakistan doesn't use their own bomb they are giving the info to countries who you think will one day use it.
I believe that Iran does indeed want nuclear weapons because (1) it would give the 'gravitas’, i.e., power and influence, that comes with being a nuclear power, and (2) as a deterrent against being attacked. It has (probably correctly) interpreted US statements as direct threats against it. They see how carefully the US is acting towards North Korea and that Iraq was attacked precisely because it had no nuclear defense. Bush’s war has, in fact, encouraged proliferation, the opposite of its intended effect.
The reality is that these weapons are a source of power and influence. A nation that has them will be taken seriously and can not be easily bullied. Their purpose is not to go off and start a nuclear war (which would be suicidal), but to intimidate other nations that don’t have them, and to stand up to nations that do. This is certainly true of the US. In fact, the Pentagon wants to build the so-called ‘mini-nukes’. These weapons are meant to be more useable than its regular arsenal. Even if the US never actually uses them, just having them around is useful to scare others that they might be.
There are two major worries for the US if Iran get nuclear weapons. One is that other countries will follow suit and that the nonproliferation regime will collapse. This is probably their worst nightmare, and I think a truly legitimate concern. The second is that it will weaken US hegemony in the Middle East. Iran will be more powerful and US allies in the region may begin to distance themselves from it. The rise of Iran as a regional power could lead the collapse of US influence. This is the real concern for the US – not that Iran is planning to attack Israel. Those sorts of fears are overblown.
As for the idea that the five major nuclear powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China) would never use their weapons, I would agree that they are unlikely to do so. However, you can never be absolutely certain. In fact, the US, at least, is not willing to forswear the use of nuclear weapons. (They want to retained this ambiguity for the reasons I mentioned above.) Setting aside the first explosions, I’m aware that the US threatened to use them in Korea. Plans were developed in the early 1960s for a first strike against the Soviet arsenal. These plans were dropped because they couldn’t be certain that the strike would destroy 100% of the Soviet weapons. And the use of nuclear weapons was seriously contemplated in Viet Nam, but judged unprofitable. This is not a record that inspires absolute confidence.