Victor Davis Hanson: Nuclear Poker

Jewish World Review ^ | 2/10/2005 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Tolik]

Despite the bleak preventative options, no one wants to permit Iran to go nuclear. Yet if strategists despair over the methods of stopping Iran's bomb, few have explicitly outlined why we should even try.

• First, a nuclear Iran would ignite a new arms race in the Middle East. The nuclear guild started amid the ashes of World War II, when the Soviet camp and the West first squared off. Since then new members like India, China and Pakistan expanded the dangers of Armageddon, but at least created a sort of regional deterrence against one other. India was checked by Pakistan and vice versa. China angulated with the Soviets, India and America. All four at times were not necessarily friendlier to any one of the quartet than another, but they matured and showed restraint in their escalating rivalries.

  But if Iran has nuclear weapons — the first Middle Eastern and Islamic dictatorship to obtain them — then a Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Syria might rush in to obtain nuclear capability and thus restore a regional balance of power.

[Tolik]

Jewish World Review is a MUST EXCERPT website

[Tolik]

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out

[tsomer]

This is why we're in Iraq.

[Bahbah]

There seems to be general agreement that a nuclear Iran cannot be allowed, but not much in the way of what to do about it other than the EU idea to buy them off, which doesn't show much promise of working.

[RottiBiz]

VDH bump!

Thanks for the ping, Tolik.

[Valin]

Second, nuclear proliferation is now spiraling out control and spreading to third-rate states that are far more numerous and often more reckless than traditional world powers. The Soviet Union and China were historic heavy weights, so were France and England. India has over a billion people. But once Pakistan and North Korea obtained nukes, a dangerous new era was ushered in: Any scary nation could claim a right to the bomb, despite its own global strategic insignificance, lack of conventional power and failed economy.


The problem is these damn things are not that hard to build.
This is just one more fallout of the end of the cold war.

IMO (freely given and worth just about that much) it's not a matter of IF but WHEN some 3rd world hellhole country gets and uses one. How does the world react at that point?

[Tolik]

Looks like its not THAT easy, but yes, its doable. I think its more realistic to expect a "dirty" bomb that will kill relatively low numbers, but will damage psyche and economy tremendously. I fear it still might happen. Our society is too open. Normally its a very good thing, but it leaves us vulnerable.

[GSlob]

Production of 5000 nukes within half a year by Germany (or anyone else), as mentioned in the article, would require getting some 20 metric tons of plutonium on short notice. Existing spent fuel rod processing facilities around the world are thought to be of significantly smaller capacity. After all, it took both United States and USSR DECADES to get that much (and more) plutonium. Thus it must be ascribed to poetic license on VDH's part.

[bitt]

always a good read.


thanks for the ping, Tolik!!

[MeekOneGOP]

[bitt]

EX-cellent....

stolen, locked and loaded.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks. :^D

[writer33]

Good stuff. Thanks for the ping, bitt.

[lainde]

bttt