Evil Weaponry
Remember how evil nuclear weapons were supposed to be? Here is George Bush from November 2001:
This is an evil man that we're dealing with, and I wouldn't put it past him to develop evil weapons to try to harm civilization as we know it.
It would be hard to expect the President of the United States to deem the vast arsenal under his command as evil, but one does wonder whether these weapons are evil only when certain people have them, because it is more and more apparent that our friends, despite myriad flaws, are immune from real criticism.
Take Pakistan, an erstwhile democracy that is in its eighth year of military coup. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists now estimates its nuclear arsenal at 60 weapons and counting.
Like other nations that have developed
nuclear weapons, Pakistan does not seem content with a first generation nuclear weapon that uses [highly-enriched uranium]; it has been pursuing plutonium-based designs for at least a decade....
preparing to increase and enhance
its nuclear forces in the coming years, especially if it attempts to match India's
ambitious plans to deploy a nuclear triad of aircraft and land- and sea-based missiles. It is difficult to estimate precisely how many nuclear weapons Pakistan has produced and what types they are, and it is equally troublesome to guess what its future plans might be....
In addition to the nuclear-capable aircraft that it currently has, Pakistan is developing ballistic and cruise missiles that will be perfect for deploying nuclear weapons in new and clearly beneficial ways. What friends of democracy we have in the Pakistani military, and clearly what forces for good they are.
Labels: Bush, Musharraf, nuclear weapons, Pakistan
Getting Nuclear on the Subject
Max is completely right that saying bold things about Iran's nuclear ambitions is way, way too popular among those in Washington who are supposedly liberal.
I never agreed with the argument of Kenneth Waltz that more nuclear weapons states are better than fewer, but it is an intriguing argument that relies on the actual uselessness of current nuclear arsenals. Still, having more nuclear weapons states means more chances to test the uneasy framework of nuclear deterrence. I think that it would be great if Iran followed in the steps of South Africa (which developed nuclear weapons then gave them up) and Sweden (which worked in the 1960s on nuclear weapons and halted its program before building any).
The abject truth is that the United States and its allies have almost no moral standing to be lecturing states like Iran about nuclear weaponry.
First, the United States is still the only country in the entire world to have used a nuclear weapon on another country. Twice.
Second, the United States, despite the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has made only feeble steps toward the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Third, despite the frequent and fervent discussion by George Bush of nuclear weapons as evil and of the possession of nuclear weapons by Iraq or Iran as dire, other nuclear weapons have meant less to us. The United States has over 10,000 nuclear weapons in its stockpile, yet has no enemy with nuclear weapons to deter. The Bush administration has strengthened military links with India, a country that first exploded a nuclear device in 1974 and then detonated a series of nuclear weapons in 1998, just before Pakistan did the same. Throughout the 1980s, the United States ignored Pakistan's desire to build nuclear weapons, because Pakistan was a useful ally against the Soviet Union and its adventures in Afghanistan. And the United States cozied up to Pakistan in the last several years, even though Pakistan was instrumental in jump-starting nuclear programs in both North Korea and Libya. And for all of the talk about not wanting nuclear weapons in the Middle East, the Bush administration, like its recent predecessors, has refused even to acknowledge that the Middle East already features dozens of nuclear weapons, in the hands of Israel.
Fourth, the United States has placed itself in the bizarre position of invading a country that claimed nuclear capability, but certainly lacked it (Iraq) but not invading a country that claimed nuclear capability, but probably had it (North Korea). The leaders of Iran are not irrational. What does recent American behavior suggest is the better deterrent to invasion: merely a claim of nuclear weapons, or having the weapons themselves?
Labels: Iran, nuclear weapons, US foreign policy
