03-25-2003, 12:52 PM
At the issue of "well, you have nukes, why can't everyone else?" That sort of nonsense is what I intended to address. We, like the Russians, are caught in our own Cold War trap, with no way out for the forseeable future absent more and better multilateral, versus bipolar, treaties.
Japan has reactors for power, I am pretty sure no bombs.
France, last I checked, finally stopped doing above ground tests, however, I may have missed a report.
In re India, it is significant that the lease of a nuclear submarine from the Soviets, a Charlie class cruise missile submarine, for a number of years made clear to that government that they, even with all of their bright scientists and engineers, had not the aibility or desire to build and sustain the infrastructire to maintain an operating fleet of nuclear submarines. Yet they apparently can see their way clear to put nuclear weapons together. This from the once leader of the Non-aligned bloc.
Having been raised in an environment, the Cold War, where the reduction of nuclear arsenals has been a matter of ongoing progress, (glacial in pace, some would complain) I have watched the goals of non proliferation fail while those who have "been in the arena" and realized what the stakes are aim at building trust. Hard to do when you have been pointing nukes at one another.
Non-proliferation's ongoing effort, all the treaties and international accords, has not prevented nations who wish to 'join the club' from pursuing that status, which once again shows that diplomatic measures don't solve everything.
The problem of increasing nuclear capability has been obvious for years.
a) Nation's powers are not balanced, and cannot be balanced, the more multipolar things get. This increases risks of actual use versus deterrence
B) the "rising nations" don't get it.
Your assertion that some argue "we need it or we cannot deter" certainly has some merit, see Israel, which is one reason why non proliferation has not worked. Your example is poorly chosen, in my opinion.
In re Pakistan and India: good question as to whether the recent Pakistani capability deterred the past 40 years of difficulty from flaring into something worse than it is. I am skeptical. I willl note that India and Pakistan had a war in about 1973, and Pakistan is still standing, albeit absent Bangla Desh, the independent basket state.
In re the French and Greenpeace: " I was trying to be nice to the French, as their "independent nuclear posture," per DeGaulle destabalized the East-West balance, it did not further stabalize it, and added uncertainty. However, I would trust them to act responsibly vis a vis nukes, particularly now that the Cold War is over.
Japan has reactors for power, I am pretty sure no bombs.
France, last I checked, finally stopped doing above ground tests, however, I may have missed a report.
In re India, it is significant that the lease of a nuclear submarine from the Soviets, a Charlie class cruise missile submarine, for a number of years made clear to that government that they, even with all of their bright scientists and engineers, had not the aibility or desire to build and sustain the infrastructire to maintain an operating fleet of nuclear submarines. Yet they apparently can see their way clear to put nuclear weapons together. This from the once leader of the Non-aligned bloc.
Having been raised in an environment, the Cold War, where the reduction of nuclear arsenals has been a matter of ongoing progress, (glacial in pace, some would complain) I have watched the goals of non proliferation fail while those who have "been in the arena" and realized what the stakes are aim at building trust. Hard to do when you have been pointing nukes at one another.
Non-proliferation's ongoing effort, all the treaties and international accords, has not prevented nations who wish to 'join the club' from pursuing that status, which once again shows that diplomatic measures don't solve everything.
The problem of increasing nuclear capability has been obvious for years.
a) Nation's powers are not balanced, and cannot be balanced, the more multipolar things get. This increases risks of actual use versus deterrence
B) the "rising nations" don't get it.
Your assertion that some argue "we need it or we cannot deter" certainly has some merit, see Israel, which is one reason why non proliferation has not worked. Your example is poorly chosen, in my opinion.
In re Pakistan and India: good question as to whether the recent Pakistani capability deterred the past 40 years of difficulty from flaring into something worse than it is. I am skeptical. I willl note that India and Pakistan had a war in about 1973, and Pakistan is still standing, albeit absent Bangla Desh, the independent basket state.
In re the French and Greenpeace: " I was trying to be nice to the French, as their "independent nuclear posture," per DeGaulle destabalized the East-West balance, it did not further stabalize it, and added uncertainty. However, I would trust them to act responsibly vis a vis nukes, particularly now that the Cold War is over.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete