Appeasement in the front end of the cycle (of history repeating itself again)

[GhostWriter16]

The whole point of preventing nuclear proliferation is so that no one who would ever have cause to use nukes against us has nukes. It's a cynical, unfortunate truth, but since they exist in the first place the "Pandora's Box" has been opened. If only one power, or a handful of cooperating powers with mutual interests, has nuclear weapons then there is never any concern that they will ever have to be used. Preventing other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons ensures that they can't use them against us, or against their neighbors.

Essentially so long as only the nations that actively benefit from the status quo (us) have nukes, it is far less likely anyone will ever end up actually using nukes. Hopefully.

Pakistan nuking us would be stupid though, because they know they'd be wiped off the map if they did it. Of course, if Jimmy Carter were still president this might not be the case but barring that I don't see why they would ever, EVER do such a thing, knowing they would be destroyed. And assuming Israel is also nuclear-armed, which is probable, I doubt they'd get nuked either.

I'm not a huge fan of Iranian/Pakistani nukes but I think starting another war to stop it is futile, will cost more lives for nothing, and will lead to even greater restrictions of our social and fiscal liberty. No thanks.

No more stupid wars. We should not have been in one since 1945

 

[Dachs]

The whole Bush presidency was an appeasement of Iran. And of al Qaida. And of the Taliban.

What.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Pakistan nuking us would be stupid though, because they know they'd be wiped off the map if they did it. Of course, if Jimmy Carter were still president this might not be the case but barring that I don't see why they would ever, EVER do such a thing, knowing they would be destroyed. And assuming Israel is also nuclear-armed, which is probable, I doubt they'd get nuked either.

I'm not a huge fan of Iranian/Pakistani nukes but I think starting another war to stop it is futile, will cost more lives for nothing, and will lead to even greater restrictions of our social and fiscal liberty. No thanks.

No more stupid wars. We should not have been in one since 1945

The concern is not Pakistan nuking us, but Pakistan nuking India. Or even India nuking Pakistan. Iran is only interested in acquiring nuclear weapons as an international bargaining chip, but even such a concession to Iranian regional/geopolitical power is bad for us. If you want to get really, really out there you could maybe be concerned about Iran nuking Israel and Israel nuking Iran which could somehow maybe by magic cause Pakistan to nuke Israel in which India would retaliate by nuking Pakistan.

And then Dear Leader would use North Korea's vast nuclear arsenal to lay waste to Seoul. But being serious, we aren't actually concerned about being nuked ourselves as much as we are concerned about other countries nuking each other, or using even the possibility of nuclear warfare as geopolitical blackmail.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is a good thing the US is doing so much to try to stop Israel from developing nuclear weapons. Just imagine what that would mean if they did so.

 

[Lord of Elves]

It is a good thing the US is doing so much to try to stop Israel from developing nuclear weapons. Just imagine what that would mean if they did so.

Who said Israel having nukes was a good thing, either?

 

[GhostWriter16]

The concern is not Pakistan nuking us, but Pakistan nuking India. Or even India nuking Pakistan. Iran is only interested in acquiring nuclear weapons as an international bargaining chip, but even such a concession to Iranian regional/geopolitical power is bad for us. If you want to get really, really out there you could maybe be concerned about Iran nuking Israel and Israel nuking Iran which could somehow maybe by magic cause Pakistan to nuke Israel in which India would retaliate by nuking Pakistan.

And then Dear Leader would use North Korea's vast nuclear arsenal to lay waste to Seoul. But being serious, we aren't actually concerned about being nuked ourselves as much as we are concerned about other countries nuking each other, or using even the possibility of nuclear warfare as geopolitical blackmail.

Honestly, their foreign policy is none of our business, anymore than anyone else has a right to interfere with ours. That we are the mightiest (I get that that might be debatable anyway) does not make us rightest.

Its only bad for us because we care way too much about what happens in the middle east. We should stay the heck out of their wars.

It is a good thing the US is doing so much to try to stop Israel from developing nuclear weapons. Just imagine what that would mean if they did so.

Who said Israel having nukes was a good thing, either?

Lord of Elves seems to think that ANYONE having nukes other than us is a bad thing. Probably true, but we have no right to do a thing about it.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Mass murder of innocents/mass murder of innocents by their own government/insert other awful things here, are bad things... but we have no right to try to stop them?

 

[Cutlass]

What.

What did he do that didn't benefit their cause more than ours?

 

[Borachio]

The whole point of preventing nuclear proliferation is so that no one who would ever have cause to use nukes against us has nukes. It's a cynical, unfortunate truth, but since they exist in the first place the "Pandora's Box" has been opened. If only one power, or a handful of cooperating powers with mutual interests, has nuclear weapons then there is never any concern that they will ever have to be used. Preventing other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons ensures that they can't use them against us, or against their neighbors.

Essentially so long as only the nations that actively benefit from the status quo (us) have nukes, it is far less likely anyone will ever end up actually using nukes. Hopefully.

I understand the logic. It's just that I don't think it's defensible, because it relies so heavily on the assumption that "We is good" and "They is bad". And if it is good for "Us" to have nuclear weapons, how is it necessarily not good for "Them" to have them?

If "you" seriously think someone shouldn't have nuclear weapons, why do "you" have them?

 

[Ajidica]

What did he do that didn't benefit their cause more than ours?

Besides the whole blowing up/shooting thing?
Ignoring Iran which has been a pariah state for so long only the most extreme sanctions have any real effect, both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are weaker than they were when Bush took office. Whether the chaos that Afghanistan fell into following the removal of the Taliban from office and how Bush went about pursuing those goals is the issue for debate.

 

[WindFish]

Lord of Elves seems to think that ANYONE having nukes other than us is a bad thing. Probably true, but we have no right to do a thing about it.

We have nukes too.

 

[Core Imposter]

If you study genocide and the means used to carry it out, you can see that nuclear weapons cannot deter it.

When Islamic societies get the bomb they will use it as a shield and step up their use of proxies. The implicit belief that retaliation or the threat therefore would stop such a nation short breaks down with the world of Islam due to three factors.

First, the openly accepted dictum that these governments cannot control its street level citizens. This has been reinforced throughout the Arab Spring and subsequent Fall. Under Obama the US admin has been explicit that the governments involved will not and can not be held accountable for the actions of "radical elements". This is manifest in the Stevens affair.

Second, the establishment and operation of semi-independent terror proxies under the guise of democratically elected governments has gone unchallenged by the Bush and Obama administrations. This sets a clear precedent of separation between such entities and their sponsors and will serve as a clear barrier to effective responses once the initial salvos of genocide commence (and this will likely manifest soon in the Eygptian coptic community if it is not ongoing on this date instant).

Third, the presence of Islamic nuclear weapons combined with the inherent instability of Islamic society will paralyze the West, multiply the tremendous soft power deficit that the West labors under relative to the emerging Islamic nations thus giving broad and fat operational initiative to the forces of genocide intent, time and space and the freedom to act within it undetered by what are seen as only theoretical consequences.

Israel's acts of self defense will serve, as they have in the past, only to render a false portrait of an aggressor before a weak willed and obsequious international community.

 

[CrazyScientist]

Now, in 2012, can we say for sure that our world would be a better place if Britain had gone to war with Germany over Czechoslovakia?

Suppose the following hypothetical. There was a minor war between the Germany and Britain over Czechoslovakia, where Germany was defeated quickly and as such the war never expanded to involve the whole world. Then a decade or two later, a still p.o.'d Germany, feeling that it has been repeatedly put upon, becomes the world's sole nuclear power and unleashes a storm of atomic weapons across Europe. Who knows that people in that universe's 2012 might not be looking back and saying "If only that idiot Chamberlain hadn't jumped the gun...."

I'm not saying this was necessarily a likely outcome, but we don't have any way of knowing what the outcome would have been. The point is, even hindsight is rarely 20:20 so it's hard to draw lessons about what we should be doing in the modern world based on what might have happened if different decisions had been made in the past. Especially when it involves something as chaotic and unpredictable as war.

 

[Borachio]

I agree 100%. This is the whole trouble with counterfactuals. Interesting - sometimes. Useful - never. IMHO.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If you study genocide and the means used to carry it out, you can see that nuclear weapons cannot deter it.

They certainly do deter nuclear genocide. See the cold war for proof.

 

[Core Imposter]

OK fair enough. I wasn't trying to claim that all cultures are equal or any such, but them having a nuke clearly hasn't hurt us all that much since they haven't used them.

I seriously question our rights to try to stop anyone from getting a nuke. We have enough to destroy the world multiple times over. What possibly scares us so much? If we had a powerful military, but no nukes, I'd understand it, but short of suicidal terrorists, I don't see why we would care to waste money and human lives stopping people from getting nukes considering we have enough to obliterate anyone stupid enough to use them against us (And more.)

The problem is that the likelyhood of nuclear material falling into the hands of radicals is increasing as the number of nuclear actors is increasing.

Suppose a nuclear device is detonated in a random US city. In the movies Jack Ryan and US experts quickly determine the responsible culprits. In real life it takes months or years to identify the actors....if it can be done at all.

The overreaction to the World Trade center bombings should give you an idea of the possible consequences.

The doctrine of do nothing is born of fear and always leads to catastrophe. This is the lesson of history.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I understand the logic. It's just that I don't think it's defensible, because it relies so heavily on the assumption that "We is good" and "They is bad". And if it is good for "Us" to have nuclear weapons, how is it necessarily not good for "Them" to have them?

If "you" seriously think someone shouldn't have nuclear weapons, why do "you" have them?

Well, "in a perfect world" no one would have nukes. But people do have nukes, and other people are trying very hard to acquire nukes, so that in any situation where the people who do have nukes agree to unilaterally disarm (good luck getting that to happen) any person thereafter who successfully acquired nukes would be able to force themselves on everyone else.

And if you want to be very er, righteous, then I'm not saying "forcing itself on everyone else" is a thing the United States didn't do after the Second World War or hasn't done since. This shouldn't be a demonstration of how if American geopolitical power disappeared, world peace would "erupt", however.

Why would anyone else in the world be any more benevolent than we have?

 

[Dachs]

Well, "in a perfect world" no one would have nukes.

Advocates of the so-called nuclear peace claim that the threat of nuclear war has reduced the incidence of wars among nuclear-capable countries.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I take it you don't buy into nuclear peace Dachs?

 

[WindFish]

Advocates of the so-called nuclear peace claim that the threat of nuclear war has reduced the incidence of wars among nuclear-capable countries.

I wouldn't probably be alive without nukes.