It an obvious real politik consideration that the US should be concerned about threats to it’s security, and as one result we penalize and sanction the heck out of anyone attempting to gain nuclear capability who we don’t trust to have nuclear weapons.
But, in an somewhat abstracted sense of nations having the sovereign right to arm themselves as they see fit, what is the precise moral and ethical rationale (as a purportedly ethical and moral actor) for the US to deny a sovereign state the ability to pursue it’s defense policy, and defend itself as it sees fit. Does the US accept the ethical notion of controlling nuclear capability in lectures from other nations or individuals, telling us that having nukes is dangerous and immoral, and that we should be the first to disarm? We would laugh at them.
It may be a real politick consideration, but it seems somewhat hypocritical for us to say “It’s OK for us and our pals to have nukes, but we’ll beat the snot out of you, because you’re not one of our pals, if you pursue acquiring these weapons.”
As a nation, how do we reconcile this "some are more equal than others’ posture re nuclear weapon capability and still pretend we believe in other nations right of self determination? Isn’t it really all about naked power despite any diplomatic Kabuki dance we might do about “controlling proliferation”?
The United States purports to be an ethical and moral actor, yes. But though the principles of nonintervention and respect for sovereignty are most assuredly ethical and moral goals, they’re not the only ones.
I’d assume you’d agree that peacekeeping is an ethical and moral action (though folks disagree as to whether nukes have kept peace, there’s a strong argument to be made that MAD worked during the Cold War.) More ethical and moral obligations include honoring defensive alliances, countering dangerous threats, nonproliferation, and other things.
If I might bring in an analogy. In elementary school (and throughout life) there’s a general moral obligation to treat everyone equally. If that were my only ethical obligation, I would be required to invite the class bully to my birthday party. But, because I have competing ethical obligations, I chose not to do so. I guess the US is operating on similar lines regarding nuclear proliferation.
The “precise moral and ethical” consideration is that we generally want to discourage totalitarian regimes from gaining regional power and extending their influence.
And what does “nations have a right to govern themselves” even mean? Does that mean a dictator has the right to opress his people and the rest of the world should do nothing? Should we allow a nation to build up it’s military to dominate the region because it is simply “governing itself”?
Do we not have an ethical obligation to pressure such nations to adopt more ethical policies.
Here’s the way I see it. By 1970, very nearly every country on earth had signed up to a an important and binding treaty, the NPT, under which countries without the bomb promised not to persue it, and were to be given help in peaceful uses of the atom; and countries with the bomb promised to provide that help and negotiate in good faith for eventual nuclear disarmament.
If a country signed up to that bargain, I consider it a binding responsibility to carry out those obligations. There is no excuse for being a liar when it comes to such important duties that were voluntarily undertaken.
That criticism goes both ways: those who agreed to never get the bomb should be held to their part of the bargain, those who had the bomb should be held to their part, and those who change their mind should be condemned by all.
Also, there is no right of nations to arm themselves as they see fit. There is the sovereignty of states, so countries can make decisions for themselves, but there is no widely-accepted principle under which Nation A cannot take exception to something decided by Nation B, so Nation B isn’t entitled to a free pass if it decides to arm itself with whatever immoral or nasty weapons it may seek. So, there’s a problem with the premise right there.
If we did in fact follow this practice then the US would have about 50+ invasions or occupations going on at any given time. Bit of an overstatement on your part, don’t you think?
Why? If nations can and should arm themselves as they see fit, why can’t other nations do as THEY see fit…i.e. oppose them? Why can’t a nation that see’s fit to use its military might (built up because it see’s fit of course) to invade another nation. The reason? Seems like a good idea to the invading nation of course.
The bottom line is the US encourages nations that are friendly to us to have strong militaries and nations opposed to us to NOT have strong militaries because its in our best interests. To a certain degree, we excersize some control or at least influence on our friends (well, maybe not those in Europe ) wrt the use or misuse of their militaries. We use the stick of course (though not in the fantasy way Triskadecamus states with very few but notable exceptions) on those nations who are unfriendly or hostile to the US AND who can exert regional influence.
No, its not hypocritical at all. Its only hypocritical if we think those nations we oppose getting nukes have every right to them. The US does NOT feel nations like Iran or North Korea should have those weapons because we don’t feel they can be trusted with them. Where is the hypocracy? In addition, the US and other nations felt that restricting nuclear weapons would lessen the chance that they would be used in the various regional conflicts that flare up from time to time. I’d say this is a logical conclusion. Thus far it seems to be born out as we haven’t had anyone use a nuclear weapon in a conflict since 1945. Thats a pretty good track record for a human weapon system that remains state of the art for killing and destruction.
If you are only looking at the survival of your country and allies, then no, it’s not hypocritical. It’s the arrangement that offeres the most safety for us. If you are trying to project the US as a world leader in equality, then yep, it sure is.
Personally, I’d feel the safest if I had guns and no one else did. My sense of fairness says I don’t have the right to impose that arrangement on others.
Outside of our own national interests and looking at the world from a, “people is people,” standpoint, the more nations that own nuclear weapons, the larger the risk of one ever being used again in combat.
I think that it’s moral and ethical to try to limit the number of nuclear nations regardless of the fact that we’re already in the club or not.
So that’s about 3% of our motivation.
The other 97% of our motivation in attempting to stop the proliferation of nuclear technology is our own interests.
I suppose part of it is that only a nutter would start a nuclear war, so for relatively sane nations they are useless. Conventional and proxy wars can carry on regardless.
I believe that it was Ehrlichman who formulated the MADman theory for Nixon that allowed him to intimidate the USSR in the 1970s - probably they thought that ‘victory’ in Vietnam would lead to further proxy conflicts - and I suppose in a way it did with Afghanistan.
There is a pretty good argument for not allowing small children to play with matches, but on the other hand since Pakistan tested its Swan Vestas it has been less hostile to India.
The real frightener is a total lunatic getting hold of the technology.
From a UK perspective, I would rather like to retire Trident, it is expensive and would only be used after I’m dead.
I reckon that the future is in covert warfare, limited plagues and the common cold.
It would be quite amusing to deliver a state of the art H-Bomb to Iran with full instructions on arming it.
I’m not at all sure we would be in a worse position if Iraq had had a nuclear capability, than we are now. If N. Korea is any indication, it would likely have stopped us from invading them. Other than the US, no country with nuclear capability has yet used them in combat.
Nukes are extremely expensive, both to develop and maintain. And of the nations who are considered among the nuclear fraternity, not all of them retain viable and reliable means to deliver nuclear weapons.
I view it as yet another facet of western (primarily US) hypocrisy, where we want to maintain whatever “advantages” we have over the rest of the world.
Instead of dictating that other nations should not be allowed to pursue nukes, I would like to see the US conduct itself in a manner such that those nations would see a benefit from acting consistent with our wishes, as well as trying to work towards creating a world environment such that nations did not consider nukes necessary or worth the cost.
This is exactly right. I studied international affairs for a bunch of years only to come away sickened at the hypocrisy of it all. To the posters who are answering with good and faithful realpolitik responses, I say fine if you think only you and your buds should have weapons and fine to whatever rationale you may have for pursuing your protectionist/predator aims, but SAY SO.
It’s the pervasive hypocrisy of international affairs that nauseates me. Suuure, the US invaded Iraq ‘to remove a dictator’ (Bogus Reason for Iraq Invasion #66573) but that was a blatant lie. As were all the other BRIIs. Nations pursue egregious policies, tell their citizens that what’s been done is all in aid of motherhood, apple pie, and happy puppies, and (here’s the bit which makes all my molecules clutch each other in horror) people believe it. They badly want to believe that their leaders are good and honourable men who have only goodness in their hearts. (pause to fan away rising queasiness). Observing the conduct of foreign affairs is too often like watching a Jim Jones persuade his happy little gang to have a helping of tasty beverage.
The most moral thing that the nations with Nuclear weapons can do is never use them and prevent more nations from developing them.
Ethically, by joining the nuclear club, you take on the responsibility to prevent nuclear weapons from ever falling into the hands of individuals without checks on their power.
As to the Op, we hardly kept nuclear weapons only for our friends. I cite the Cold War as proof this was not true. I know the US would have preferred to keep Atomic Bombs only for the US and maybe Britain, but it did not work out that way.
It is in the interest of all humans that only stable nations have weapons. Iran is currently holding a conference on the factual history of the Holocaust. Is this a nation that you feel comfortable with gaining nuclear weapons? Germany is officially protesting this conference louder than any other nation.
North Korea is rather scary. Scary enough that the Chinese appear unhappy with the fact that they have a nuclear weapon capability. What if some warlord in war torn Africa got hold of a small nuclear bomb? Would they use it? What if a fringe separatist group in Europe had a nuclear weapon? What is the Pentagon was heavily infiltrated by fundies that wanted to bring on judgment day?
Nuclear Weapons and the threat of Nuclear War is the most dangerous thing in the world. Thankfully, the governments of the World appear aware of this and do try to prevent nations from joining the nuclear club.
If we did in fact follow this practice then the US would have about 50+ invasions or occupations going on at any given time. Bit of an overstatement on your part, don’t you think?
) wrt the use or misuse of their militaries. We use the stick of course (though not in the fantasy way Triskadecamus states with very few but notable exceptions) on those nations who are unfriendly or hostile to the US AND who can exert regional influence.