Who Can Really Blame Iran for Wanting the Bomb?
When the Manhattan Project delivered an atomic monopoly to the United States, some of the politicians figured that enough secrecy could preserve the status quo. Most of the scientific community figured that once the theory was known, it was only a matter of time before other countries worked out the details. That's the way it turned out.
Some of us old timers can remember when people talked about nuclear disarmament. That's pretty much gone with the wind. For three decades the concept has been non-proliferation. It started with a pragmatic approach to the existing nuclear powers, but it was never sustainable in the long run.
We, the nuclear powers, decided that the only legitimate nuclear powers would be those who already had bombs in 1972. Everyone else was to play nicely and, in exchange for the peaceful benefits of atomic energy, would forego weapons.
The problem is that the peaceful benefits of atomic energy are a lot less promising than they were fifty years ago. The happy visions of electricity "too cheap to meter" never worked out. There are still good things being done, but they aren't the miracles we'd hoped for.
On the other hand, the advantages of having atomic bombs have become clearer. For India and Pakistan, it's been a draw, but for Israel, their unacknowledged possesion of nuclear weapons has meant that no Arab state is going to seriously threaten their existence.
And nobody has failed to notice that North Korea, a bunch of dangerous loonies if ever there were, has not been invaded and the United States is still proposing incentives. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein is on trial. North Korea really has a bomb. Saddam only wanted one. The message is clear. Get one and you're safe.
Although it's obvious that we don't really want Iran to have a bomb, the question must be asked, is this an intolerable outcome? In sixty years, nobody has exploded a nuclear device in anger. That's because, as far as we know, only states have them and for a state, with a capital city and an exposed population, a nuclear weapon is useless for offense. Whoever uses one first will probably be incinerated, unless they're the United States, which isn't much of a prospect.
The problem is non-state entities who could use bombs for terror. Is it any less tolerable for Iran to have a bomb than North Korea or Pakistan? Probably not. The NPT may have served its purpose and passed its useful life expectancy.
Some of us old timers can remember when people talked about nuclear disarmament. That's pretty much gone with the wind. For three decades the concept has been non-proliferation. It started with a pragmatic approach to the existing nuclear powers, but it was never sustainable in the long run.
We, the nuclear powers, decided that the only legitimate nuclear powers would be those who already had bombs in 1972. Everyone else was to play nicely and, in exchange for the peaceful benefits of atomic energy, would forego weapons.
The problem is that the peaceful benefits of atomic energy are a lot less promising than they were fifty years ago. The happy visions of electricity "too cheap to meter" never worked out. There are still good things being done, but they aren't the miracles we'd hoped for.
On the other hand, the advantages of having atomic bombs have become clearer. For India and Pakistan, it's been a draw, but for Israel, their unacknowledged possesion of nuclear weapons has meant that no Arab state is going to seriously threaten their existence.
And nobody has failed to notice that North Korea, a bunch of dangerous loonies if ever there were, has not been invaded and the United States is still proposing incentives. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein is on trial. North Korea really has a bomb. Saddam only wanted one. The message is clear. Get one and you're safe.
Although it's obvious that we don't really want Iran to have a bomb, the question must be asked, is this an intolerable outcome? In sixty years, nobody has exploded a nuclear device in anger. That's because, as far as we know, only states have them and for a state, with a capital city and an exposed population, a nuclear weapon is useless for offense. Whoever uses one first will probably be incinerated, unless they're the United States, which isn't much of a prospect.
The problem is non-state entities who could use bombs for terror. Is it any less tolerable for Iran to have a bomb than North Korea or Pakistan? Probably not. The NPT may have served its purpose and passed its useful life expectancy.
posted by Rob Spooner at 4:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home