4/11/2006

Be Afraid, Be VERY Afraid...

Should we, as Time magazine suggests, be concerned with the 'imminent' melting of the polar ice caps?

Or, perhaps, should we concern ourselves with the slightly more urgent threat of Iran, as Mark Steyn suggests? (Please take the time to read his piece.)

Some excerpts:

The bad cop/worse cop routine the mullahs and their hothead President Ahmadinejad are playing in this period of alleged negotiation over Iran’s nuclear program is the best indication of how all negotiations with Iran will go once they’re ready to fly. This is the nuclear version of the NRA bumper sticker: “Guns Don’t Kill People. People Kill People.” Nukes don’t nuke nations. Nations nuke nations. When the Argentine junta seized British sovereign territory in the Falklands, the generals knew that the United Kingdom was a nuclear power, but they also knew that under no conceivable scenario would Her Majesty’s Government drop the big one on Buenos Aires. The Argie generals were able to assume decency on the part of the enemy, which is a useful thing to be able to do.

But in any contretemps with Iran the other party would be foolish to make a similar assumption. That will mean the contretemps will generally be resolved in Iran’s favor. In fact, if one were a Machiavellian mullah, the first thing one would do after acquiring nukes would be to hire some obvious loon like President Ahmaddamatree to front the program. He’s the equivalent of the yobbo in the English pub who says, “Oy, mate, you lookin’ at my bird?” You haven’t given her a glance, or him; you’re at the other end of the bar head down in the Daily Mirror, trying not to catch his eye. You don’t know whether he’s longing to nut you in the face or whether he just gets a kick out of terrifying you into thinking he wants to. But, either way, you just want to get out of the room in one piece. Kooks with nukes is one-way deterrence squared.

If Belgium becomes a nuclear power, the Dutch have no reason to believe it would be a factor in, say, negotiations over a joint highway project. But Iran’s nukes will be a factor in everything. If you think, for example, the European Union and others have been fairly craven over those Danish cartoons, imagine what they’d be like if a nuclear Tehran had demanded a formal apology, a suitable punishment for the newspaper, and blasphemy laws specifically outlawing representations of the Prophet. Iran with nukes will be a suicide bomber with a radioactive waist.

* * *

Back when nuclear weapons were an elite club of five relatively sane world powers, your average Western progressive was convinced the planet was about to go ka-boom any minute. The mushroom cloud was one of the most familiar images in the culture, a recurring feature of novels and album covers and movie posters. There were bestselling dystopian picture books for children, in which the handful of survivors spent their last days walking in a nuclear winter wonderland. Now a state openly committed to the annihilation of a neighboring nation has nukes, and we shrug: Can’t be helped. Just the way things are. One hears sophisticated arguments that perhaps the best thing is to let everyone get ’em, and then no one will use them. And if Iran’s head of state happens to threaten to wipe Israel off the map, we should understand that this is a rhetorical stylistic device that’s part of the Persian oral narrative tradition, and it would be a grossly Eurocentric misinterpretation to take it literally.


Save the Whales.

4 comments:

moorcat said...

I hate to disillusion you but you have some major misconceptions...

1) You seem to miss the "good old days" when "nuclear weapons were an elite club of five relatively sane world powers." You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Let me enlighten you. There was nothing "sane" about the nuclear standoffs of the '60s and '70s. As one that actually worked in the field on nuclear ballistic missle submarines, it wasn't too comfortable in the '80s either. We have been awful damn close to nuclear exchanges and I honestly believe that the nuclear disarmament talks happened because a few people actually realised just how close to brink we really were.

2) You are confusing Iran's nuclear POWER program with a nuclear WEAPONS program. Just in case you don't know, the two things are different. A nuclear power program for Iran is at least 3 - 5 years off (the news people keep saying 5 - 10, but I think thier estimate is wrong...) A nuclear WEAPONS program is actually quite a ways further off. It is much easier to set up a nuclear power program than it is to set up a nuclear weapons program. We are just panicking (it seems to be the vogue thing to do these days...)

3) You have some REAL misconceptions about the Argentine War. It actually came REALLY close to a nuclear exchange. There were actually quite a few scenarios that were planned that called for a nuclear responce (the plans had been laid out and the nukes were fired up) but luckily, the situation was averted (the Brits were able to control the situation so nukes weren't called for). I would suggest you actually do a little study on that nasty exchange before you comment on it again.

4)Iran isn't the only country in that area that is considering nuclear power - in fact, there are a number of countries that already have nuclear capability - Isreal, Pakistan, India to name a few. I seriously doubt that Iran (even if they did develop nuclear weapon capability and a delivery system for those weapons) would start lobbing nukes about the middle east. Once again, I think you are letting your fear get the better of you. Don't get me wrong, the Iranian government is no friend to the US (or Isreal) but they do know what the outcome would be if they started shooting. There are a lot of people that would shoot back and Iran would become a glass parking lot.

5) Nukes are a fact of modern political life. There are a lot of them and some of them are unaccounted for. I am a hell of lot more worried about some fanatic getting thier hands on a lost nuke and setting it off in Mile High Stadium than I am about Iran getting nuclear power capability.

The bottom line here, Geeguy, is that you should really do some real research before you go off the deep end about a subject. It just so happens you have chosen a subject I have a lot of background in this time, so I was the lucky one to respond to you. If you want to discuss why the US should invade another foriegn country, fine. Just don't try to justify it with fear mongering and unbelievably inaccurate information.

Moorcat

GeeGuy said...

You have attributed an awful lot to me, but I think your real argument is with Mark Steyn.

I freely admit that I am not an expert on Iran. I don't think I suggested that I am. I think perhaps your post indicates that you underestimate that country's threat to us, but I think that is a point for reasoned debate.

Speaking of points, though, the point of my article is that I think the 'Iran problem' is a much more serious problem in the short term than global warming, unlike our friends at Time magazine.

moorcat said...

Mark Steyn, you I am nor sure who wrote what in your post. The bottom line, though, is that you posted it to the this blog so you must have some connection to it.

As far as Iran being a bigger problem than global warming... We will see. Global Warming is something that could potentially effect us all and it may be that we have start doing something about it in the near future. Iran is at least 10 years away from any kind of nuclear weapon ability and that is assuming that they are lying about just wanting nuclear power capability. At this point, it is an even bet which will effect us first (if either really effects us...).

Moorcat

GeeGuy said...

The indented portion is the quote from the Steyn piece. Quotes of over 50 words are to be indented without quotation marks. It's a fairly standard convention in my business.

Again, I didn't say that Iran is a bigger problem than global warming. I said it is a more serious issue "in the short term." I think that's an important distinction.