|
|
April 15, 2003
Wolfstahl slams Bush over WMD Proliferation
From The Australian "The allegation is, we use weapons of mass destruction as an excuse when we have it out for other countries," said Jon Wolfsthal, deputy director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "We tend to look the other way when it suits our interest. That decision has come back to haunt us."Posted By Alan E Brain at April 15, 2003 12:21 AM | TrackBack Yeah? And? Posted by: americanstreet at April 15, 2003 12:29 AMAh. It's all about Israel. Never mind that they are one of the few countries that actually has a legitimate need for nuclear subs, with several neighbors essentially promising to nuke Israel as soon as they get nukes. Thus making subs necessary to keep MAD intact (much like the US and USSR) Posted by: Jeremy at April 15, 2003 12:33 AMI'm not in love with Israel, necessarily, but I can tell a sane man from a slobbering, suicidal-murderous delinquent. Notice how even the middle-aged Arabs jump up and down in the streets with fists clenched? These people have the vanity and resentment of Satan married to a collective level-of-being of a pile of goat refuse. Posted by: americanstreet at April 15, 2003 12:39 AMI think the intersting point is that we have now killed our own non proliferation regime. faulty as it is we know htere are dozens of countries capable of proliferating that hadn't. they can simply pre-empt pre-emption by building weapons now, ala n. korea. we know no one will back the IAEA now, so who will know until the announcment? Posted by: vet at April 15, 2003 12:51 AMWhen in doubt.....blame (or point hte finger at) Israel. Israel's nuclear program isn't anything new (started around the 1960s, after long, long debate by the Israeli gov't), and wasn't really "confirmed" till the traitor Mordechai Vanunu leaked out secrets (1980s). I believe that JFK even convinced Ben Gurion to have inspectors visit it once. Granted, Israel still doesn't comment on its exisitance officially, but it's all but public knowledge these days. Supposively Israel has only gone to high alert, once in '67 and in '73 (I think) OK, he has a point. But I notice he did not include France's "force de frappe" nukes and missiles. Or that the Saddam regime is the only one known to have actually used chemical weapons since the end of WWII (others may be suspected, but no proof and certainly not on the same scale). I understand those bastards at the Carnegie Endowment were seen testing chemical weapons in 2002. Posted by: jerry at April 15, 2003 01:02 AMIt never ceases to amaze me how some, like the author of this article, take stands that don't take into account various indirect but very important truths. Israel does not routinely torture it's victims. Neither does India, France, Taiwan. All nuclear capable. Others like Pakistan are perhaps more willing to use torture here and there. But to equate the danger of someone like Saddam having nuclear weapons with the limited danger posed by these others is to be completely ignorant of the difference between a madman possessing a gun and threatening to help other madmen intent on harming your family to obtain guns and a neighbor having a gun collection. Absurd! Carlos Posted by: Carlos at April 15, 2003 01:02 AMOops...I meant to say "torture it's citizens" not "torture it's victims". I was thinking of Saddam when I wrote that. I have a suspicion that there's a certain segmwnt of the Arab world, not sure how large, that believes if Israel could just be persuaded to get rid of their nuclear arms and/or be abandoned by the USA somehow, it would be fairly easy to sweep them all into the sea, which is the end goal of those particular folks. So, when I hear talk about going after Israel for their nukes, I always want to ask the speaker if they'd be willing to support full recognition and normalization of ties with Israel by all Arab nations as a precursor towards that. That would tend to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. Posted by: tagryn at April 15, 2003 01:10 AM"Israel does not routinely torture it's victims." No, but their courts have approved nasty interrogation methods that wouldn't meet the standards of the Geneva Convention. I'm not saying they should baby terrorists, but if you try to look at this question from the Arab perspective, it looks a little more complicated. Posted by: skeptical Steve at April 15, 2003 01:16 AMI am reminded of a line from Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind: "In this harsh world of ours, even a sparrow must live like a hawk, if he is to fly at all." Israel's possession of nuclear arms keeps its enemies at bay. Without them, this little country would be overwhelmed. As it is, it has to struggle with all its might for daily survival. Unfortunately, we seem to be in the same position. 9/11 was a great shock to me, since it conclusively demonstrated that, despite our best efforts (economic aid, international institutions, nonproliferation regimes, treaties, etc.) Madison's words still ring true: "The means of security can only be regulated by the means and danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules and no other." vet, we have abandoned the current non-proliferation regime because it doesn't work. It failed to prevent India and Pakistan from going nuclear. It failed to restrain North Korea. The circumstances in Iraq seem to indicate it was on the verge of failing there also. 9/11 showed despite our desire to be liked, we have no lack of enemies, some of which are only too willing to share weapons which could destroy us. It is immaterial how our enemies came to oppose us. In the present extremity, we have to act in order to preserve ourselves. Posted by: Samuel Tai at April 15, 2003 01:23 AMI didn't know Israel had nuke-armed subs. But I feel a little better knowing they do. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 15, 2003 01:28 AMActually India, Pakistan and Isreal are the only major countries that did NOT sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea has obviously withdrawn from it. The treaty was signed by 187 countries and is violated every year by multiple countries. Why people have faith in treaties like the NPT and the Kellogg-Briand Pact is a mystery to me. Posted by: Clobberhead at April 15, 2003 01:37 AMYa, but Israel doesn't suck. Posted by: SondraK at April 15, 2003 01:50 AMThis moral equivalency is sickening. No one is threatened by Israel's possession of the bomb. In fact, that deterrent has no doubt prevented a number of wars in the Middle East. No reasonable person cares if a free society has nuclear weapons. If Israel, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Belgium, or Luxembourg have atomic weapons it will make no difference to anyone save for an aggressor. In truth, free industrial nations can make nuclear weapons any damn time they want. Japan for example, derives so much energy from nuclear plants, and is so technologically advanced, that it is generally supposed that they could manufacture *thermonuclear* weapons, in quantity, in less than a week. They already have guidance system technology and rockets. Big deal. These imbecilic foundations need to come to terms with the fact that some governments are evil, and others are good. They have a gun control mentality. They draw no distinction between criminals and decent people. Posted by: Phil Hornsey at April 15, 2003 02:05 AMIn this case (of WMD), I'm perfectly willing to be a hypocrite. We (US) can have them. France, UK, Russia, China (barely), and Israel can have them. I daon't want Pakistan, Iran, or Syrai to have WMD. Why not? Because they will use them. Either directly or indirectly. The US only threatens to use WMD if WMD are used against us. They serve primarily as a deterrent to others. Saddam admitted he made a mistake in 1990 when he invaded Kuwait. His mistake was not to wait until he had nukes. He thought that if he could threaten the west with nikes, we wouldn't have thrown him out. We need to show the world that WMD are not something to be acquired or used lightly. If you want WMD, you better be prepared to run with the big boys. Thugs need not apply. Posted by: Byna at April 15, 2003 02:44 AMAnd we all know that Israel can't wait to give nukes to Al Qa'eda or Hamas, don't we? Don't we? Posted by: Joshua Scholar at April 15, 2003 02:53 AMI would be willing to wager that there will be a nuclear explosion in a city in the next 20 years. I hope not, but as time goes by, and the technology becomes more and more accessible, it seems likely to me that it will happen. steve, you're probably right. Untraceable suitcase bombs are just around the corner, if not already here. We should make deadly clear, through back channels, that if any of our cities are nuked by a suitcase bomb, we will assume all known hostile nuclear wannabes (Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan) will face swift and utter nuclear annihilation. We will continue our policy of no first strike, but the next time, there will be no quarter nor wasting time with deployments. The boomers will let fly, and the MRVs will rain down. The only way of preventing this will be the complete and public destruction of their nuclear arsenals. Posted by: Samuel Tai at April 15, 2003 03:30 AMAgreed that a city will probably be nuked in the next 20 years, tragically. However, don't worry _too_ much about the suitcase bombs. I've read up on them a bit. And although terrible, they are not capable of destroying an entire metropolis. They were designed by the Russians primarily to destroy key _buildings_, such as NATO command centers, and not entire urban areas. They still suck, but I slept a little easier after learning their limitations. Posted by: Graham at April 15, 2003 04:23 AMAnd of course, the suitcase bombs will be caught at airport security anyway. Posted by: jerry at April 15, 2003 04:31 AMThere is a difference between a nuclear armed Israel and say, a nuclear armed Iraq. Isreal is a state constantly threatened of destruction. But don't believe that this would mean Isrealis paying taxes to feed Arab politicains instead of Israeli politicians. Don't even believe that this would mean Israelis being forcibly shipped to Europe and USA. What the Palestinians were asking in 1967, what many Arab politicians ask now (when they speak in Arab) is extermination and Al Quaida types explicitly talk about extermination of all Jews in world not only of Israelis. The differnce between Israeli and Saddam's WMDs is that Isreali nukes have never been used and Israel has never threatened to use them for reaching its political goals. They are only weapons of last resort. If Sharon were half as bad as Saddam (and most other Arab politicians) he would have phoned to a few Arab states and told "Nice capital you have, it would be a real pity if it disappeared in an atomic mushroom. You see we lack funds to maintain our misssiles and fear some of them could fire spontaneously. It would be nice for you take the Palestinians in YOUR country, share half of your oil revenue with us. This would allow us to keep our missiles from auto-firing. Ah yes, while we are at it I would appreciate if as a token of friendship you sent a yearly tribute of ten thousand virgins: my ministers and myself really need to have some fun". But even blood-thirsty and ruthless Sharon (at least that is why the left says bout it) wouldn't descend at Saddam or Araft's levels. Posted by: JFM at April 15, 2003 05:36 AMHo hum! > "Israel does not routinely torture it's victims." NO instead it just assisnates them without a trial - but hey US has been trying this for years - they just can't quite get it right. > showed despite our desire to be liked, we have no lack of enemies, A somewhat selective desire - 'Hey Turkey if you let us send our ground troops through your country to murder your neighbours then we'll give you $6 Billion, oh Airspace rights - thats only worth $1Billion' >I'm not in love with Israel, necessarily, but I can tell a sane man from a slobbering, suicidal-murderous delinquent. And previous US presidents haven't been blood thristy bullies like GW Bush, when Bullies start to pick on Countries that are more of a match, then they'll need to pull out the big Guns. When Bully Bush picks on too many smaller kids in the playground - the other big kids are gonna have to slap him into line - an alliance of France, Germany, Russia, China is a pretty formidable force, the US will need more than the UK (yesterdays heros) and a handful of Aussies to rule the playground. Wonder how much it will cost to get Canada to allow a land based Northern Invasion of the US. Hang on, Are there any military left in mainland USA? Just my thoughts Thoughts? More like rants. Posted by: DSmith at April 15, 2003 07:27 AM"He thought that if he could threaten the west with nikes..." He MUST have been mad! Posted by: Joe at April 15, 2003 07:59 AMSingling out Israel is just wrong. In Israel you don’t get thrown in jail or worse if you criticize the government. Is Syria, Iran, China and Pakistan you do. Get the difference? We don’t single out Israel, Taiwan or India for the same reason we don’t single out France. Liberal democracies don’t just whimsically go around lobbing WMD because the very institution has checks and balances to ensure this does not happen. Furthermore, liberal democracies are much more stable in the long term and therefore less at risk of an unintended party coming in possession of the weapons during civil war or coup. Wolfsthal’s only point is that we turn a blind eye to Pakistan because they are a critical ally in the hunt for al Qaeda. This is a half-truth; while the US does not pressure Pakistan in the same manner it pressures Syria the latter has made absolutely no moves to help eliminate terrorism, and instead promote it. Posted by: greg at April 15, 2003 08:02 AMGreg, If we are not to penalize nations that develop nuclear weaposn there is NO regime for control. We can look forward to dozens and dozens of more states, and soon enough, non state actors with nuclear weapons. the problem is that the double standard is obvious and this is why we are leaving ourselves only the choice of war to deal with nuclear weapons. That means for certain, in any political game theory, that any state with the ability to develop nuclear weapons, and there are 50 to be sure, SHOULD develop nuclear weapons. Is Israel morally equal to North Korea? NO. BUT they followed the same set of risk/reward rules in logically developing nukes. Those rules apply equally to many other countries. There is now nothing at all standing in the way. Posted by: gnawing at April 15, 2003 10:10 AMgnawing: They never SIGNED any of the nonproliferation treaties. EVER. Read Avner Cohen's "Israel and the Bomb". Very educational. One of the things he mentions: America has known since DAY 1 that Israel has had nuclear weapons. They never LIKED it, but they knew. And we, despite their nukes, still have an alliance w/ em. Says a lot. Posted by: Penta at April 15, 2003 11:23 AMDon't kid yourselves about suit case sized nukes. One thing is clear, our double standards make it very unlikly we will be taken seriously on issues of non-proliferation. Posted by: abomb at April 15, 2003 12:44 PMSo wrong to have separate standards for tyrannies and free nations. So wrong to have double standards for the law-abiding and the criminal. So wrong to punish evil and reward good. Why anyone would think that was unfair. Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at April 15, 2003 03:06 PMGabriel you misread, he was talking about US double standards which are many. In terms of tyrannies we have supported and armed legion. We have supported aggressive and civil rights trampling states in the middle east, inlcuding those with WMD. That was the point. It is a deep double standard. Posted by: Joshua at April 15, 2003 10:12 PMDon't kid yourselves about suit case sized nukes. A nuke wieghing less than 100 lbs is 3 times as powerfull as "little boy" the first one dropped on JapanBut without a delivery system, it will still be a ground burst -- much, much less destructive than an air burst (more fallout, however). "Suitcase" nukes are high-tech, not something that the newbie is going to develop; the USSR had some, but I doubt that even China has them -- they lack the tech. Posted by: Troy at April 15, 2003 10:53 PM""Suitcase" nukes are high-tech, not something that the newbie is going to develop; the USSR had some, but I doubt that even China has them -- they lack the tech." Please...the USSR had the in the early 1960's...forty years ago. open source technology reaching every hovel on the globe is now way more advanced. People design them in undergraduate class projects. Posted by: norden at April 16, 2003 12:18 AM*snort* In the early '60s, the Soviets didn't even have a reliable trigger for their ICBM warheads. They were trying to reduce size and increase reliability (hence all the testing), but it took them a long time... and it wasn't easy. Alexander Lebed claimed (in 1997!) that the Soviets had built suitcase nukes, but that claim is by no means established as true. Undergrads might design semi-workable crude nukes, but not suitcase nukes -- not ones which would really work. Posted by: Troy at April 16, 2003 08:14 PMPost a comment
|