It Isn’t Just About Israel and Iran
05 April 2009 8:22 am by Taylor Marsh
North Korea’s launch is the backdrop, but in the conversation on nuclear proliferation this isn’t just about Netanyahu’s bluster, and Ahmadinejad’s ambitions in the face of little proof of manifestations as yet. It’s also about Russian loose nukes, as well as the underground market that Pakistan let run unchecked so long, the tensions yo-yoing with India, as other nations like Saudi Arabia race to arm.
North Korea defied the United States, China and a series of United Nations resolutions by launching a rocket on Sunday that the country said was designed to propel a satellite into space, but that much of the world viewed as an effort to prove it is edging toward the capability to shoot a nuclear warhead on a longer-range missile.
[...] Manufacturing a nuclear warhead that is small enough, light enough and heat-resistant enough to be mounted atop a missile is far more complex than building a basic nuclear device — and intelligence officials and outside experts believe North Korea is still years from that accomplishment. Typically, it takes many years of experimentation for a nation to learn how to shrink an ungainly test device into a slim warhead.
Nonetheless, the series of tests in recent years — in 2006 and 1998 — is prompting fears of North Korean proliferation among Japanese, Chinese and Western leaders. North Korea’s missiles have ranked among its few profitable exports — Iran, Syria and Pakistan have all been among its major customers. If this long-range test ends up a success, it would presumably make the design far more attractive on the international black market. …
President Obama’s statement on the Taepo-dong 2 missile launch by the North Koreans:
North Korea’s development and proliferation of ballistic missile technology pose a threat to the northeast Asian region and to international peace and security. The launch today of a Taepo-dong 2 missile was a clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718, which expressly prohibits North Korea from conducting ballistic missile-related activities of any kind. With this provocative act, North Korea has ignored its international obligations, rejected unequivocal calls for restraint, and further isolated itself from the community of nations.
We will immediately consult with our allies in the region, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, and members of the U.N. Security Council to bring this matter before the Council. I urge North Korea to abide fully by the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council and to refrain from further provocative actions.
Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery is a high priority for my administration. The United States is fully committed to maintaining security and stability in northeast Asia and we will continue working for the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula through the Six-Party Talks. The Six-Party Talks provide the forum for achieving denuclearization, reducing tensions, and for resolving other issues of concern between North Korea, its four neighbors, and the United States. North Korea has a pathway to acceptance in the international community, but it will not find that acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and abides by its international obligations and commitments.
But as Robert Gates, whose defense budget is due tomorrow and will likely shake the earth, said recently in an interview on Fox, Six-Party Talks haven’t worked, and we’re not prepared to shoot any missile there down. It’s about inflicting damage that would mainly hit the North Korean people who are already in deep trouble: “Frankly, from my perspective, the opportunity for success is probably more in economic sanctions in both places than it is in diplomacy,” Gates said. “What gets them to the table is economic sanctions.”
We need Medvedev to do anything about nuclear proliferation, and we all await Undersecretary of State William Burns and what he has to say about Iran next week, because they’re next on any conversations on the topic, even though they’re years away, despite what Mr. Netanyahu believes.
Sorry folks but to me this falls into a big SO WHAT catagory. From what I’ve read the test shor was a failure to start with. Nest up who cares if they have WW2 level missles. Gee, look at all the good missiles of that sterling quality did for Iraq. Get REAL people. This IS North Horea we’re talking about. Rember, the place where their own people are literally STARVING. The hysteria would be amusing if it weren’t for the fact that if allowed to continue uncheck we’ll find ourselves in ANOTHER armed conflict with no defined objective or end game in sight.
It makes for a perfect opportunity to talk about exactly what Mr. Obama emphasized, which is nuclear proliferation. That is anything but a “so what” as far as I’m concerned, though it’s just a conversation at this point.
This, like Israel/Palestine conflict, is just another instance of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Robert Gates has argued passionately and persuasively that, as long as other countries have nuclear weapons, we need to modernize our aging nuclear arsenal:http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventDetail&id=1202&prog=zgp&proj=zted
But as long as the U.S. and their allies maintain their nuclear arsenal, other countries have every incentive to pursue their own nuclear program. Which is why, absent drastic self-imposed reductions in our nuclear capability, the effort to prevent countries like Korea and Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is doomed to fail. The critical issue is, if we go down this path, how to make sure other countries don’t cheat (or, conversely, that we could quickly restore our capability if we degraded it). Hence the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
http://www.unc.edu/~toatley/poli86/PD.pdf
http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/articles/PDE.html
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Prisonerdilemma.htm
The saga of Sybil Edmonds proves to us that the issue of nuclear proliferation, who’s feeding the proliferation, and what is being done to curtail the proliferation is not an issue that is presented honestly to the American people.
Yes, Bush and Obama have stood before international podiums and blustered about it, but the truth operates behind the scenes in a world of spooks, undisclosed alliances, and profit margins.
If you has not followed the Sybil Edmonds story, then you are missing a huge piece of the puzzle. The fact that the Obama Adminstration is not opening investigations into Edmonds’ story tells us that it is business as usual, that, at least behind the scenes where the truth hides, there is no “change” coming.
And, as far as curtailing nuclear proliferation, and gathering accurate intelligence about the goals and advancements of foreign governments, Dick Cheney and George Bush committed high crimes and treason by dismantling Valerie Plames’ network.
Talyor, Obama has already telegraphed what Burns’ position will be. Obama has repeated, often, the Israeli line on Iran, even using the EXACT same term, “illicit”, that is used consistently on the AIPAC website to describe Iran’s nuclear program. I wonder, what exactly would he have us believe is “illicit” about Iran’s compliance with its obligations under the NPR treaty? And how hasn’t Iran “cooperated” on the issue of its nuclear program?
By the way, Taylor, did you see that Uzi Arad got his visa? That should pretty well dispel any optimism that Obama will do anything other than toe the Israeli line like a good little indentured servant should. Seen him say anything about the Israeli crimes in Gaza? Seen him comment on Lieberman declaring the two state solution off the table? Seen him comment on the steadily expanding settelements?
Same-o, same-o.
Change, my ass.
http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-resumes-iran-threat-rhetoric.html
April 5, 2009
Obama resumes Iran threat rhetoric
Sun, 05 Apr 2009 09:57:18 GMT
President Barack Obama vows not to shelve the controversial US missile plans until an “Iranian missile threat” is eliminated.
Obama took a hard line against Iran’s missile program on Sunday, ruling out recent media reports that Washington may reconsider a Bush-era bid to deploy a controversial missile shield in Eastern Europe. “As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with the missile system,” Obama said in a speech in Prague.
He assured that he would move ahead with US missile plans unless Iran agrees to cooperate on the issue of its missiles and its nuclear program.
continues…
“As long as the threat from Iran persists”
What threat?
And, of course, its always enlightening to see how the AIPAC website presents events and statements…..
http://www.aipac.org/130.asp#23582
Obama Warns of Iranian Nuclear Ambitions
Obama warned of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
President Barack Obama on Friday warned world leaders of the dangers of allowing Iran to acquire or develop nuclear weapons, The New York Times reported. Speaking before a NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, the president asserted that “we cannot have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.” The administration has indicated that it will attempt to engage Iran’s leaders in an effort to dissuade them from pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. To date, top Iranian officials have dismissed U.S. overtures, saying dialogue could not begin until the United States removed its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, severed its ties with Israel and met a series of other preconditions. Meanwhile, Iran continues to enrich uranium-a key element of a nuclear bomb-in defiance of U.N. Security Council demands that Tehran halt its illicit atomic work.
POA
I think we’d all do better if you could ratchet down your level of “pissed offedness.”
djjl…..
Do you have anything useful to say to me?
WTF is a matter with you people??
Do you have anything to say about Sybil Edmonds? Obama’s exageration of the so-called “threat” posed by Iran? The damage that was done to our ability to gather accurate intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program by the outing of Valerie Plame? Pakistan granting Kohn his freedom? Israel’s part in escalating the “need” for neighboring countries to pursue nuclear weapons in order to seek a balance of military power? Turkey’s role in this, as alledged by Sybil Edmonds?
Gads, are you people really so God damned shallow? What the hell did I say above that has anything to do with “pissed offedness”?
Since you seem to enjoy hurling inaccurate and unfounded accusations – let’s try it again. Obviously you haven’t followed comments here very long our you wouldn’t made the insipid accusations in your post above.
Try following the written words posted here and you might be able to engage in a credible dialogue. You obviously take pride in being pissed off – but there is a point at which you apparently have arrived – where you are so pissed off as to lose the ability to think critically.
What “unfounded accusations”?
Gads what a bunch of jackasses.
Do you have anything to say about the relevent points I raised above about the issue of nuclear proliferation, or are you just going to run your mouth off with a bunch of stupidity?
My bet, you haven’t even a clue who Sibel Edmonds is.
Yeah, most here likely know who sybil Edmunds is………….if not a quick google would turn up tons of comments at various blogs.
Your obviously impressed with yourself. Have at it – you’ve said nothing that impresses me.
And, no, I have nothing useful to say to you. You obviously couldn’t – or more likely wouldn’t choose to comprehend.
The following article kinda skirts around how the Sibel Edmonds story ties in so tightly to the issue of nuclear proliferation, and Turkey’s part in this. If there are any inquisitive minds lurking here, (which I am beginning to doubt), a little investigation through google, etc, will reveal much.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml
Lost In Translation
FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Grants First Interview To Ed Bradley
Aug. 8, 2004 | by David Kohn
E-Mail Story
Print Story
Sphere
Share
Text Size: A A A
Sibel Edmonds was hired as a translator of Turkish and other Middle Eastern languages by the FBI after the Sept. 11 attack. (CBS)
Related
Interactive
Inside The FBI
See the bureau’s highs and lows in this interactive portrait of the crime-fighting agency.
Interactive
Sept. 11 And Since
Reflecting on the events of Sept. 11, 2001, the day that changed America.
(CBS) This is the story of hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign language documents that the FBI neglected to translate before and after the Sept. 11 attacks — documents that detailed what the FBI heard on wiretaps and learned during interrogations of suspected terrorists.
Sibel Edmonds, a translator who worked at the FBI’s language division, says the documents weren’t translated because the division was riddled with incompetence and corruption.
Edmonds was fired after reporting her concerns to FBI officials. She told her story behind closed doors to investigators in Congress and to the Justice Department. Most recently, she spoke with the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.
She first told Correspondent Ed Bradley her story a year after Sept. 11.
——————————————————————————–
Because she is fluent in Turkish and other Middle Eastern languages, Edmonds, a Turkish-American, was hired by the FBI soon after Sept. 11 and given top-secret security clearance to translate some of the reams of documents seized by FBI agents who have been rounding up suspected terrorists across the United States and abroad.
Edmonds says that to her amazement, from the day she started the job, she was told repeatedly by one of her supervisors that there was no urgency,- that she should take longer to translate documents so that the department would appear overworked and understaffed. That way, it would receive a larger budget for the next year.
“We were told by our supervisors that this was the great opportunity for asking for increased budget and asking for more translators,” says Edmonds. “And in order to do that, don’t do the work and let the documents pile up so we can show it and say that we need more translators and expand the department.”
continues…
Your problem, POA, is not what you wrote as relates to facts. The problem I have with you is your propensity to name call and insult.
You managed to piss me off with you haughty know it all attitude – and pissing me off is an awfully hard thing to do.
Good news, I hope he follows through with action:
Karzai To Review Rape Law
Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, has ordered a review of a new law that critics say effectively legalises the rape of women by their husbands.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/04/200944174829557404.html
hard at work:
Clinton works phones before UN meeting on North Korea
5 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is working to build international consensus on condemning North Korea’s missile launch. Her effort comes ahead of an emergency U.N. Security Council session Sunday afternoon.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5inCe1YObm3AWpF_Wt7AQcs1zO6lwD97CAVR80
I said: “But as long as the U.S. and their allies maintain their nuclear arsenal, other countries have every incentive to pursue their own nuclear program. Which is why, absent drastic self-imposed reductions in our nuclear capability, the effort to prevent countries like Korea and Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is doomed to fail.”
Right on cue, Obama calls for reduction in nuclear arms: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/05/world/main4919928.shtml
Whaddaya know? Obama listens to me
ogenec
Who’d a thunk it?
djjl, I’m proud of you. POA is someone who can really turn me off, just like AnninCA, they spew this stuff and think we should sit here and take the bs.
Some is good but unfortunately it’s laced with name calling as far as POA goes. So he defeats the purpose of even try to carry on a dialog with him. Ann just shoots and runs. LOL
But then again, POA voted for Nader so he/she said. And Ann voted for McCain. So I guess they enjoy coming here and throwing off the wall stuff at us. I’m not saying that they don’t have good points sometimes, but I don’t even read them anymore, I get too angry.
And by the way, this a.m. at breakfast with our right wing friends I got really angry. They were saying how terrible it was that Obama said that our nation was arrogant. I then reminded them of what Bush did and that our reputation was nil because of him. They knew I was upset.
“But then again, POA voted for Nader so he/she said”
I’m beginning to think you people are just plain crazy. I have NEVER said I voted for Nader.
And care to show me where I name called, or made “unfounded accusations”, while trying to discuss the issue of nuclear proliferation prior to this ginny Djjl getting her panties in a wad over ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?
You people are unbelievable. I can honestly say I have NEVER seen a larger collective of internet buffoons on any blog I’ve ever posted on. What a bunch of clowns.
djjl, LOL. Actually, now that I’ve had a chance to read his remarks, I’m even more impressed. The conventional argument has been that there are “good” nuclear countries and “bad” ones. And of course, we’re one of the good ones.
With the world watching, Obama addressed the elephant in the room — that we are the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon against others. Which, he argued, imposes on us the “moral responsibility to act.”
According to Politico, “Obama proposed doing so by reducing America’s arsenal, if not altogether eliminating it; hosting a summit on nuclear security; seeking ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and pursuing a new agreement aimed at stopping the production of fissile materials.”
This is what leadership by moral suasion, not brute force, looks like. It feels really good.
BTW, according to the Symington Amendment to the 1961 Foreign Appropriations Bill, the United States Government is banned from sending aid to any nation with nuclear weapons who has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Therefore, it is illegal for the Obama administration to send so much as a single penny to North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel. Further, the countless billions we have given Israel for a coupla decades now have been sent ILLEGALLY.
Perhaps thats one of the reasons that Obama dodged questioning about Israel’s nuclear arsenal, and why no prior president has been willing to discuss it.
That must be why he just reaffirmed our commitment to send Israel its usual stippend of a few billion dollars, eh? And how many billions have we sent to Pakistan these last eight years?
But hey, lets demonize Iran for actual COMPLYING with its obligations under the NPR treaty.
Makes a lot of sense, don’t it?
Is that how you “strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”, Ogenec?
Betsy says:
05 April 2009 at 6:10 pm
But then again, POA voted for Nader so he/she said:
_________
well, not Nader Betsy. POA seems to hate everyone:
Hillary Clinton:
_________
Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Apr 05 2008, 10:03PM – Link
If anyone is seriously thinking about voting for Hillary, they should listen to a recording of Hillary describing her reaction to the news that MLK had been asassinated.
I have NEVER heard such melodramatic bullshit in my life from a presidential candidate.
_________
John McCain and Barack Obama in the SAME post:
_________
Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Apr 05 2008, 10:44PM – Link
Or perhaps we are, with straight face, supposed to ignore the fact that a number of McCain’s campaign staff are Airbus lobbyists, right on the heels of Airbus beating Boeing out of a huge tanker contract. Or maybe this wonder boy, Obama, really did sit, catatonic, for twenty years in the same pew, never hearing a word good ‘ol Reverend Wright was screaming from his pulpit.
__________
President Obama 1 month into his presidency:
__________
Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Feb 21 2009, 7:24PM – Link
This optimism about Obama is inexplicable to me. When will he have shown you people his true nature? You haven’t seen enough already?
He’s a fraud, and he fed us a line of shit about “change”. How much snake oil are you willing to ingest before you wake up to reality?
_________
and even poor Raplh:
_________
Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Feb 24 2008, 11:04AM – Link
Jeez John, you value Nader’s “message”?
Well listen, Buster, you’ll get the message you’re sold Gawd damnit, without these tangental excursions into reality. Wise up and get back in line, will ya?
________
Maybe Ron Paul? who knows… (he does seem to fancy Al Gore)
all links:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/
“prior to this ginny Djjl getting her panties in a wad”
isn’t that a racial slur? someone help me out. (never mind the rudeness, crassness, lack of class…)
I live way to close to Bakersfield for my comfort level.
“isn’t that a racial slur? someone help me out”
A “ginny” is a female jackass. There, I just “helped you out”. Don’t say I never did anything for you.
Do you ever do any research before you open your ignorant yap, or are all your utterances punted?
Geo, ignore him. He’s rude and arrogant. That combination makes for a very undesirable person. IMO.
And by the way POA, it’s Jenny, not ginny. That’s why Geo couldn’t figure out what you meant. So maybe you need to tone it down. YOU don’t know it all, by far. See I used to raise donkeys and they are wonderful, intelligent animals.
And by the way, I doubt that you even voted.
the fact that “someone” called djjl a “female jackass” is so much more acceptable than a racial slur.
let’s see, no respect for woman, no manners, no sense of propriety…
Amazing.
This asshole Geo can spend time researching my comments at TWN, but can’t seem to spend twenty seconds informing himself about anything else.
Other than “secular” and Ogenec, its doesn’t appear that any of these big top actors have anything to say about nuclear proliferation, eh?
Lets see, this bozo djjl, on the heels of four of my posts that address nuclear proliferation, comes in blathering some crap about “pissed offedness”, despite the fact my posts were directed at no individual, and were simple posts about nuclear proliferation. With links, I might add. Do one of you simple minded buffoons care to show me what “unfounded accusations” were contained in those posts?
Then we have this Betsy creature chiming in with some fantasy about me claiming I voted for Ralph Nader. I suppose I’m supposed to ignore it when some poster here accuses me of statements I’ve never made? One time, I might overlook it, but this circus here seems to make a show of offering straw arguments and fabricating comments to be attributed to whomever has dared step off the “Obama is God” platform.
Then we have this poor pathetic mental midget Geo poppin’ in with “isn’t that a racial slur?”
Egads.
Do you ever do any research before you open your ignorant yap, or are all your utterances punted?
do you?:
3. ginny A Racial Slur Twords an Italain. Means Italain is low class , or cheap , poor , very low word towrds an italain.
Ginny: Italians. In reference to popular Italian garb Ginny T’s, now more commonly known as wife beater shirts.
http://tinyurl.com/cyzhje
POA:
let me take a stab:
you’re into Daryl Bradford Smith. What say you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOEGPjBgSeI
Repeat of a good laugh from yesterday.
Betsy…
You’re right, I do owe the donkey world a huge apology.
And thank you for the correction, yes it is “jenny”. I have no excuse for the gaff, except I was recently reading a piece about a Ginnie Freeman, that had to do with mules. Perhaps that can explain the gaff, but it doesn’t excuse it. And Geo the Clown is correct, after a short internet search of the term “ginnie”, I found it is in fact a racial slur against Italians.
So I take it back. You aren’t a ginnie.
Well, I think this has been a real hoot this afternoon. My guess based on the comments from POA – POA is a HE, immature (regardless of age), and not as smart or informed as POA would like to think.
ass
1 (ās) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. ass·es (ās’ĭz)
1. Any of several hoofed mammals of the genus Equus, resembling and closely related to the horses but having a smaller build and longer ears, and including the domesticated donkey.
2. A vain, self-important, silly, or aggressively stupid person.
POA:
I looked your posting history to figure out where you’re coming from because you mask you underlying beliefs pretty well. I think I figured it out pretty much. A large percentage of your postings on the net have to do with Israel and come from a kind of anti-Zionist bent. But you’re also against the Muslim monarchies. What really sticks in your craw is BIG government and “those that bought and paid for them” (the ones who are REALLY in control)
The same “them” that put Bush in power put Obama in power. Obama may well be WORSE than Bush.
How am I doing?
I know what you’re against, now what are you FOR?
My mistake about Nader. But you know POA I doubt that you even voted. Yes, we are tired of your name calling in here. Usually name calling shows a lack of intelligent conversation.
You are extremely offensive POA. If you want people to carry on a dialog with you maybe you should tone it down some. But then again you seem to think you are above everyone and know more than any of us.
Very good djjl and Geo.
POA
It would make more sense if you actually read in an effort to comprehend what my “pissed offedness” referenced. You are a bit too full of yourself.
With that, I will revert to your earlier question, – I have nothing to say to you – you just show little in terms of critical thinking skills.
He’s against everything and everybody.
new thread…
Phew…………..
Unless you’re willing to bomb the crap out of and kill thousands of people or watch them starve by the thousands if not millions there isn’t jack sh*t you can do about other countries aquiring Nukes.
Israel is always ready to kill AAAArabs to insure they are the only ones with “the bomb” in the neighborhood. Except pakistan and India both have them. N. Korea? WHO CARES? Look at how well their Missile test went. Gee, think their Nukes will be up to the same high technicol standard? PUUUUUHLEAZE people. Can we have just a tenuous grasp on reality here? It’s starting to sound like Sadam and his Weapons of Mass DEEEEEstruction.
POA did a little snooping around and like all good conspiracy theorys there is a small kernnal of truth in your Mossad fantasy. But other then that small kernnal it’s right up there with all the other 9/11 conspiracy wackjob crap.
Everything to stop 9/11 was handed to the torturer in chief on a silver platter. They didn’t give them the flight numbrs and arrival times…so Bushco BLEW IT!! Just the first of the many, many fiascos and debecals that are the legacy of thos war criminals and scum. But it was most decidedly NOT a Mossad conspiracy. And frankly, even if it were AND Mossad had given the idiot in chief the information what makes you think the imbicil would have done anything right to stop it?
And Geo the Clown
Geo’s a sad clown
http://highlysubjective.com/images/post/sad-clown.jpg
new thread
djjl says:
05 April 2009 at 8:52 pm
Phew…………..
___
now I’m laughin’ again
POA, I’ll address the question you posed to me. I’ve argued above that the nuclear arms race is a classic example of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. It is in everybody’s best interest that no country have nuclear weapons. But, because of a combination of fear about what other countries are doing and a narrowly-defined self-interest, each country is compelled to pursue the goal of becoming a nuclear country.
You are absolutely right that what Iran is trying to do is not a violation of the NPT. But I think you are wrong if you contend that Iran wants to stop at civilian use. North Korea is a perfect example. Clinton reached a deal with them to confine their activities to those allowed by the NPT. But North Korea cheated. They now have nuclear weapons. And they are actively looking for ways to deploy via rocket, as this week’s tests demonstrated.
If you take the current world order as a given, it is not irrational to try to prevent Iran from acquiring even the civilian capabilities covered by the NPT. Better to shut them out altogether than to take the very real risk of Iran cheating. However, I don’t take the current world order as a given. I think it fails on both moral and political grounds. It fails on moral grounds because, as I noted above, the United States is the only country to use nuclear weapons against another. So the notion that we can be an effective gatekeeper of “good” nuclear use has always struck me as hypocritical.
It fails on political grounds because, even if you assume that we are in the right morally, our actions have in a perverse way escalated the arms race. When we assail certain countries as part of an “axis of evil,” and then proceed to invade one of them, it is a dead certainty that the others will push even harder to acquire nuclear deterrence. Same with other bellicose statements about such countries, such as were made during the primary campaign. Add to that the deal we did with India, which is not even a party to the NPT. That affects Pakistan, which in turn affects the other countries in that part of the world. And so the nuclear arms race picks up speed. Israel is also a very important factor here, although I would argue that it needs some kind of deterrent, given its peculiar circumstances.
In such a world, it has always seemed to me that the U.S. needed to show moral resolve by reducing its own stockpile. I am elated to no end that Obama wants to pursue that path. It is fraught with peril — again, game theory teaches us that some countries will try to cheat to gain leverage they don’t now have — but it is the only viable way. If we and allies like Israel reduce, and we pass the Comprehensive Test Ban, then we will have the moral and political capital to persuade Iran and North Korea to abandon their ambitions. Which, I am convinced, are about more than civilian use.
So when Obama talks about strengthening the NPT, I don’t think we should analyze it in isolation, but as part of a comprehensive regime that intends to preserve civilian use while avoiding the kind of cheating that will lead to a re-escalation of the arms race. My prayers are with him, because he is going to face intense opposition from entrenched interests. But I believe he is absolutely right.
Pardon the length of this post, but I felt the need to spell out my thinking. I’ve got to put the kids to bed, and catch up on some pre-Monday work. But I will check in later to see what you and others think of this.
“POA did a little snooping around and like all good conspiracy theorys there is a small kernnal of truth in your Mossad fantasy”
And what “mossad fantasy” would that be? Spell it out. What do you dispute, EXACTLY? What is this “fantasy” you speak of, EXACTLY?
“But I think you are wrong if you contend that Iran wants to stop at civilian use”
Have you seen me make that contention? What I DO contend is that so far, at least according to the IAEA, there is no evidence of a nuclear WEAPONS program. In light of what we now know about the run-up to the Iraq war, I think we need to observe great pessimism about what the United States and Israel assert about the “threat” posed by nations that are deemed as threatening. Show me the actual evidence that Iran is violating the terms of the NPR treaty, and I might change my tune.
In fact, on another thread, I made the argument that the logical course of action for Iran is to pursue a nuclear weapon, considering Israel’s possession of a nuclear arsenal, and the threatening tone that both Israel and the United States has taken towards Iran. Does that sound like I am making the contention you attribute to me?
Rereading your post, Ogenec, it seems you and I are in almost complete argreement, although I seem to have a great deal more pessimism about Obama’s will to match action to word.
And your idea that there is a possibility that Israel will “roll-back” is ludicrous. They won’t even admit they have a nuclear arsenal, much less agree to “roll it back”. And as long as Israel has nukes, her neighbors will strive to acquire them. Period.
I honestly believe that the far more constructive route to take diplomatically would be to openly press Israel to reveal the extent of its nuclear arms program, then press for them to join the NPR. It would be a refreshing bit of even-handedness, and would show Iran and the rest of the Muslim world that non-proliferation and disarmament is our true objective, rather than making sure that Israel maintains a massive degree of military superiority.
Yet, instead we demonize Iran, while lauding Israel. Its a dead end. Of course Iran wants nukes. They’d be stupid not to.
PissedOffAmerican says:
05 April 2009 at 10:03 pm
I honestly believe that the far more constructive route to take diplomatically would be to openly press Israel to reveal the extent of its nuclear arms program, then press for them to join the NPR. It would be a refreshing bit of even-handedness, and would show Iran and the rest of the Muslim world that non-proliferation and disarmament is our true objective, rather than making sure that Israel maintains a massive degree of military superiority.
_____________________________________________________
That part of your post I do agree with POA.
Oh and by the way, I do know who Sibel Edmonds is and what happened to her. You see my hubby is a member of the ACLU.
PissedOffAmerican says:
05 April 2009 at 10:03 pm
Rereading your post, Ogenec, it seems you and I are in almost complete argreement, although I seem to have a great deal more pessimism about Obama’s will to match action to word.
_________________________
I agree — I think that’s the critical difference between us. Let us see what transpires.
PissedOffAmerican says:
05 April 2009 at 8:31 pm
“Then we have this poor pathetic mental midget Geo”
“This asshole Geo”
_______
I’m beginning to get this vague feeling I’m your BFF.
NOT your BFF.