thanks!
Cite for this assertion please.
Still boils down to the same thing though doesn’t it? You’ve just extended it to ‘They’re nuclear and fucked up’. Which is where I was going with my crazy girlfriend analogy. What is the US going to do once Iran or North Korea manage to get their hands on nuclear weapons? Switch around to seeking ties with them instead of sanctions? And AFAIK, Iran has done less actual damage to US interests than Pakistan.
And this of course points to the larger issue of treating nations differently if they have nuclear weapons. It’s set up a terrible incentive structure. It’s why India was so keen to get the bomb in the first place. It’s also why Iran, North Korea and every crackpot regime wants nuclear weapons. The world needs a better way to deal with this.
Really Not All That Bright - Slight nitpick. Shiv Sena are right wing nutters who advocate cutting off all ties with Pakistan while they continue to sponsor terrorism (Goodness knows after Mumbai in 2008 a number of Indians agree with them) They may have advocated war with Pakistan, but I don’t remember it.
The BJP is right of center(also nutty on occasion), and I’m reasonably certain that they do not advocate war with Pakistan. As the right wing party, they obviously recommend taking a hard line when they’re in opposition, but have themselves pushed the peace process when in power.
No, it doesn’t.
No, and that’s why I posted a more complete explanation of the reasoning. If the logic was ‘we have to have good relations with nuclear states,’ then yes, the U.S. would seek ties with North Korea and Iran if they get nuclear weapons. Since that isn’t the logic, you can see it won’t happen.
Like what? This isn’t just why anybody wanted nuclear weapons, it’s why anybody wants weapons in the first place. Countries want the best weapons because they want to discourage an attack.
Way to miss the point of the analogy dude.
And as an Indian, I’d be delighted if we don’t have to deal with Pakistan either, but it is right next door, a state sponsor of terrorism against India and keeps insisting on throwing its army at us once every 20 years. Notice how that is just as irrelevant as Pakistan’s point of view in a discussion of what factors the US should base its relationship with Pakistan on?
Does it not boil down to ‘They’re nuclear and fucked up’? I submit it does. You’ve just dressed it up.
Your reasoning said, and I quote, -
How is this any less applicable to Iran with Nuclear weapons than it is to Pakistan? Except that Iran doesn’t have them yet?
I wish I knew a better way. That was just a criticism of this one. Do I need to replace it with something better to criticise? Ok, then at the very least, countries shouldn’t get any special dispensation for being nuclear. The UN Security council should be expanded to include non-nuclear countries. If the US wants to maintain ties with Pakistan, do it anyway. If it doesn’t, nuclear weapons shouldn’t be a bargaining chip for Pakistan, or a factor.
Yes, my mistake. The latter part of my post was meant to be about Shiv Sena only.
“They’re nuclear and fucked up” isn’t the same as “they’re nuclear,” and I don’t think I really have to explain why. The issue isn’t that Pakistan it’s fucked up, it’s how, and what the best way to deal with that would be. Would cutting ties with Pakistan improve its stability and help eliminate its ties to terrorism, for example? It’s hard to see how.
Iran’s government (awful as it is) is a lot more stable. In Pakistan, the military is often struggling with the civilian government.
I don’t think you can replace it with anything.
They don’t get special dispensation. What you are talking about is basically just a recognition of reality.
I think there’s a good argument for expanding the permanent membership of the security council, but I don’t think nuclear weapons have anything to do with it.
Why?
Let’s be clear that I’m not advocating cutting ties with Pakistan, just that most of the reasoning I hear is awful. That said, the US cutting ties with Pakistan may well improve its stability by increasing its ties to terrorism. Haven’t you heard Pakistanis bemoaning how before they joined the US WoT they never suffered any terrorist attacks? Of course they didn’t. All their terrorists were attacking India, and if the US cuts its ties with Pakistan, I think there’s a fairly good chance that state of affairs will return, except now they’ll possibly also be attacking Afghanistan. So I’m actually dead against the US cutting ties with Pakistan.
I don’t get where you’re going with this. So once Pakistan has a stable government that declares it is inimical to the US, instead of one that is unstable but actually IS inimical on the ground, then the US can break off ties with Pakistan?
Do you also think we shouldn’t aim to? Or try?
I don’t disagree with you here. Just know that from the outside, it sure seems like special treatment. And perception matters. Governments in N. Korea and Iran don’t have you to explain the nuances to them. It’s a very easy(and not entirely incorrect) interpretation to make that Pakistan supports terrorism against the US, but gets away with it because it is nuclear.
Maybe, but again, perception. Five countries with nuclear weapons, all in the UNSC. Coincidence? Many people will think not.
It sets up the wrong incentive structure? Work to reduce the power of the nuclear bargaining chip, and you do more for non-proliferation than all the treaties in the world.
I think that could happen, but it’s something the U.S. would try to avoid.
This is where I ask how again.
I don’t think this has anything to do with the topic at hand, it’s wrong, and it doesn’t matter what “many people” think. Those countries were able to develop nuclear weapons for the same reason they’re on the security council: they were major world powers at the time. They’re not on the security council because they have nuclear weapons. When the UN Charter was signed, only the U.S. and USSR had nuclear weapons. Other countries developed them later. And there are non-nuclear states on the UNSC. We’re talking about the five permanent members here.
The problem is that there really isn’t anything unique about nuclear weapons. Any powerful weapon is a bargaining chip and it works the exact same way.
Let’s restate - A lot of the reasoning I hear and read for the US not breaking ties with Pakistan is inevitably prefaced with ‘They’re nuclear’. Sure that’s not the whole of the argument, as you’ve mentioned, and I accept that. What I’m trying to say is that ‘nuclear’ shouldn’t be any part of the argument at all as it
a) bolsters the perception for Pakistan itself that they can get away with anything now that they’re nuclear and
b) Feeds into the idea that countries like Iran and North Korea already have that they need nuclear weapons to be able to behave however they want.
I get your POV. I really do. What is, is. I also agree that maintaining ties with Pakistan and trying to eliminate their ties to terrorism is the correct course of action for the US. I just find that to link it with nuclear weapons offends my sense of right and wrong, as well as reinforcing the perception that nuclear weapons are desirable for countries that want to operate outside of the established international norms.
I don’t think Pakistan is basing its actions on what anybody says about it, so I’m not concerned about how this talk affects its self-perception. Pakistan sits on a couple of different geopolitical fault lines - nuclear weapons, terrorism, its tense relationship with India - and that the government there is good at exploiting those things to get aid. No question there.
It’s more about deterring an invasion than ‘getting away with whatever they want.’ And yes, nuclear weapons are effective at that score - you can’t expect otherwise. Iran’s drive toward nuclear weapons picked up steam after the whole Axis of Evil thing and they evidently decided they needed the weapons to make sure nobody invaded. As long as they believe that’s the best way to prevent an invasion and to increase their regional power, they’ll want nukes. North Korea may view the whole thing as more of a bargaining chip for aid.
Unfortunately that’s probably true. Countries will do a combination of what they want and what they think they can get away with.