Let's Choose Sides

(See here) an interesting article from Leon Hadar that appears on Lew Rockwell's website.

It is a pretty decent analysis of the Iranian nuclear weapons development issue.

What Leon neglects to address is what happens if we force the issue of nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea into AGAIN choosing up sides. Who is going to side with North Korea and Iran and who is going to side with America?

We can up the ante on nuclear non-proliferation to that point. We'll make it a new cold war. Of course the other side can always turn up the heat and cause the "cold war" to flash into flames, their choice.

Let's force China, Russia and India to make a choice. Which side are they on? What about the rest of the world? Which side will they choose?

If the world refuses to follow American leadership it is not like we are somehow exposed like the "Emperor Without Any Clothes". We can always retreat back into Fortress America and wait until the rest of the world comes begging us to, once again, save them from themselves.

Yes, nuclear non-proliferation and the Non-Proliferation Treaty is that important an issue. The entire world political establishment should be forced to "choose sides" on where they stand. If need be we start up a new cold war on the issue, and we can aim our nuclear arsenal at everyone who chooses wrong just in case we are attacked with nuclear weapons.

Let's choose sides. Who wants to side with America and who wants to side with Iran and North Korea?

If too much of the world chooses wrong, well there is always Fortress America. We can rollick in our mirth as we watch CNN and see just how evil the world becomes without American involvement.

America is the Great Satan? Just what kind of world would you have had without our involvement in the past? More important, what kind of world will you have without our involvement in the future?

Your choice. Let's choose sides.


Blogger Michael said...

Unfortunately, the US has absolutely no legitimacy on the subject of nuclear non-proliferation.

The NNPT had the following premises:
- the member nations with nuclear weapons would not further develop atomic weapon technology and progress on a time table for disarmament
- the member nations without nuclear weapons will not develop atomic weapon technology
- member nations with domestic nuclear capabilities (i.e., for power generation) will assist other nations to develop their nuclear industries.

The one nation that has levelled the most criticism at the NNPT (and who has unilaterally tossed it onto the scrap heap) is, of course, the United States.

As it stands, the NNPT is worthless as the only country that had any real nuclear power is actively developing new nuclear weapon technology. This, really, is very sad.

Being a nuclear power once again empowers a nation on the world stage. Saddam Hussein did not learn this lesson soon enough. If he had nukes, the US would almost certainly not have invaded. This is most evident in the bankrupt tin pot nation of North Korea. When it "calls" and rattles the nuclear sabre, China, Japan, Russia and the United States all come to talk and strike a bargain.

Michael Tam

1/05/2006 05:11:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

So you then think we should allow every tin pot dictator to have his own pocket nuclear arsenal then?

As for North Korea, I am in favor of strong action to disarm North Korea one way or another. If a deal can be struck through negotiations, great. If stronger action like economic sanctions or even a naval blockade becomes necessary, let's do it. We need to prove to the world that secretly developing nuclear weapons will not save you. Kim Jong's hand should be forced.

North Korea does not need nuclear weapons for national defense. The US and the rest of the Western World took no military action against North Korea in all the years since the Korean War. In fact being armed with nuclear weapons might actually harm North Korea's national security. If terrorists happen to sneak a nuclear device into an American city and detonate it, North Korea might be on the list for retaliation because there might be the ultimate source of the weapon.

1/09/2006 09:26:00 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

No, I think that we should have kept that thing that kept the vast majority of tin pot nations from having nuclear weapons, which was the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As I stated before, this treaty was unilaterally dismantled by the United States as it obligated them to no further any development in nuclear weapons.

Rather than "choosing sides", the United States needs to make a choice. Are they prepared to have few nations with nukes but where nuclear weapons technology must be kept on a standstill, or do they want a world where they have the most advanced nukes, but also increasing numbers of nations having "older" nukes?

I prefer a world where there are as few nukes as possible and for those to be kept by "responsible" governments.

If you think that the NNPT was about punishing smaller countries from getting nukes than you are wrong. It was about disarmament and the prevention of spread of nuclear weapons technology (the research of which must come from the existing nuclear powers).

The United States has demonstrated to the entire world that nuclear political power is real. Iraq didn't have a chance. North Korea, arguably a much larger threat with an equally dangerous and crazy despotic leader has been kept in the diplomatic loop for no other reason than the fact they are nuclear enabled. If you think that the US is going to even contemplate doing anything militarily aggressive to North Korea (e.g., blockage), you are sorely mistaken. China (and Japan) will never allow the possibility that Kim Il Jong will even potentially think about using one of his nukes in their backyard.

Michael Tam

1/09/2006 07:11:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home