I used to be big into nonproliferation. It’s one of the earliest political topics I remember getting all worked up about. Considering how easy Hitler came to power in a democratic, first world nation, it’s easy to argue that every existing nuke is a genocide waiting to happen.
But as I got older, and I realized that the entire concept of “total war” is obsolete, and despite increasing military action, wars and conflicts are much less deadly than they used to be, I rethought that stance. I’m now basically pro-nuke. If Hitler returned today and was magically restored to power in Germany and given a nuclear arsenal, I doubt even he would risk his country being wiped off the map by nuking Israel.
So let Iran have nukes. They aren’t going to use them. They’re just big sticks countries like to keep in the closet to help them talk more softly. Or more realistically, it lets them sit at the diplomatic “big boy table” and get more respect from the international community. In my opinion, this would help the cause of peace more than half-assed nonproliferation would. Basically, my stance is that nukes are far more a diplomatic tool than a military one. Keeping Iran from getting nukes isn’t about protecting Israel from a nuclear holocaust, it’s about making sure they stay in the international peanut gallery where their opinions can be safely ignored.
Well, it’s not like anyone put a gun to the heads of countries like Iran go get them to sign the treaty. Not all countries did after all, and those countries that didn’t were free to pursue nuclear weapons, though ‘free’ in the context of ‘well, we might not trade with you anymore if you do’. I get the feeling that you, the OP, and some folks who are posting in this thread have lost sight of the whole treaty aspect of this, and seem to be saying that it’s just super powers like the US arbitrarily dictating who is in the club and who isn’t, but it’s a bit more complicated that that.
Yeah. I think the hypocrisy comes out more in the way the parts of the treaty seem to be emphasized and other parts somewhat ignored.
For example, there seems to be a lot of attention given to Article II (where non-nuclear weapons states undertake not to receive or develop nuclear weapons) and to Article III (where non-nuclear weapons states undertake to conclude an agreement with the IAEA regarding safeguards to prevent diversion from peaceful nuclear activities to weapons programs), but not so much to Article IV (acknowledging the “inalienable right” of all parties to the treaty to research and produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes) and Article VI (where all parties, including nuclear weapons states, undertake 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.”
Just to clarify a bit where I think the hypocrisy lies:
The non-nuclear-weapons states have largely upheld their side of the “bargain”: I believe no non-nuclear-weapons state party to the treaty has ever developed nuclear weapons. (North Korea dropped out of the treaty first, which it was entitled to do.)
The commitment of the nuclear-weapons states to good faith negotiations which would eventually lead to disarmament is less clear.
To be clear once again: I’m not arguing whether there is or is not any hypocrisy going on. I’m saying that argument is irrelevant. If the United States and, say, Germany are both saying that nuclear weapons should not spread to more countries, one cannot fairly conclude that Germany is worth listening to and the United States is not. They are both saying exactly the same thing.
But your point about the nuclear powers having made a commitment to eventual nuclear disarmament, that’s a fair point. But I think it is also logically inconsistent to argue that the major powers have done wrong by not disarming quickly enough, and in the meantime more countries should be free to get nuclear weapons. If disarmament is important to you, you must recognize that proliferation is moving in the opposite direction of the desired end state.
Well put. And there has been movement by the nuclear nations toward disarmament, though I don’t really see the end game emerging. Non-proliferation may not be a perfect strategy, but it’s a damn sight better than proliferation.
As far as I can see, we don’t disagree about anything. I don’t see proliferation as desirable. I’m just saying that good faith negotiations towards disarmament are part of the “bargain” makes the prevention of proliferation non-hypocritical.
I don’t deny that some progress has been made. However, I wouldn’t go quite so far as to sum up the progress towards disarmament in the last 45 years as “alright”. I don’t even think that there has been a consistent good-faith commitment towards achieving that goal. Not that the behavior of every single non-nuclear weapons state party to the treaty has been perfect…
BTW, China is part of the NPT, but Israel, India, and Pakistan are not.
You’ll note that the same clause calls for a treaty to be negotiated on “general and complete disarmament.” As in, non-nuclear weapons.
And one cannot completely ignore that, as stated earlier, tens of thousands of strategic nuclear weapons have been decommissioned since the NPT entered into force. Picture. Some whole classes of delivery systems, such as IRBMs and land-based cruise missiles, have been eliminated, too.
(Didn’t see your previous post before hitting submit)
That would be the 2nd part of your first paragraph: “… a given country might find it in their interests to forgo nuclear weapons, as this might encourage potential rival countries to similarly forgo them.”
The basis for the world powers to be upset is it will encourage other small countries to build nukes, countries that might not be willing or able to rein in that genie when its let out of the bottle. A nuke isn’t just a weapon for County A to use on Country B, its fallout and extent of the damage impacts Countries C through Z. Yes, its hypocritical, but thems the breaks.
