The Syria Syndrome II
Sometimes I wonder what others think when they read this.
Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month, according to informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem.
The attack was launched with American approval on September 6 after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related, the well-placed sources say.
They confirmed that samples taken from Syria for testing had been identified as North Korean. This raised fears that Syria might have joined North Korea and Iran in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
Do they think that Israel is just a big bully that is the root of the problem? Or do they think for all of the attacks and wars waged on them over the decades that seeking to limit those who wish them harm is justified?
Comments
In my eyes, under prevailing law at the time the Brits could do what they wanted with it. And if they gave it to the UN, then the Arabs and liberals can suck the proverbial it.
Well to be honest I do see a philosophical and moral problem with it in that some powers that be have their nuclear arsenals so why is it ok for the powerful to prevent the weak from gaining them? So philosophically and morally it is a problem. States should have self-determination and sovereignty right?
But you have to be realistic about it. While I consider most of the West's worries about terrorism a sad, irrelevant joke, once nuclear weapons become part of the equation the joke ceases being funny.
If anything, the War on Terror is meaningless without some serious measures taken on Nuclear ordnance - namely a world wide dismantling of all nuclear weapons, and an international ban on creating them. This process would have to be carefully watched and measured so that nothing disappears in the shuffle.
The weak are not entitled to anything, not in the realm of international relations. If anything, the weak are entitled to be taken advantage of on a massive scale. It's just how the world works. In the war of 1812 Britain burned our White House. Why? Cause America was too weak to prevent it. Now, we support Israel and attempt to prevent acquisition of nuclear material by those we deem unsuitable for the responsibility. Why? Cause we can. Read your Thucydides.
So here's the question! Does it take nukes to get liberals to actually fight our enemies?
with regards to a response to my comment, I don't know where you are coming from as the responsibility/irresponsibility argument doesn't differentiate from what I have said. The keyword "realistic" was one I thought you particularly would have noticed.
Then you go on with a specious question "Does it take nukes to get liberals to fight our enemies?". First of all one's political philosophy is irrelevant to the question of fighting. I think a large part of the problem with this "war" on terror is that it is much more about politics than recognizing what the actual danger is and addressing that danger in an appropriate way. Secondly, about this matter of "fighting" enemies, I think you are deluding yourself if you think you are fighting enemies. This is just talk and has no bearing on defending the country. Congress and the president aren't fighting anyone - they are discussing policy, or at least they should be. One advantage of their position (away from the battlefield) is that their distance should give them some perspective, at least it does when someone is actually considering the problem rather than battles over political power and philosophy.
Now with regards to policy. Yes, I think the leading argument for war in iraq was weapons of mass destruction - regardless of anyone's political philosophy. The threat of nuclear ordnance getting into the hands of a terrorist is very real, and very dangerous. Fighting a war is certainly no means to prevent this however. Hell, the chaos of war in Iraq opened opportunities for independent military groups to get their hands on our weapons there - which has happened already. Fortunately none of them have been major arms so far.
Yes, this action in Syria is the kind of action that I support. But its like using your hand to keep a fire from spreading. The source of the problem needs to be addressed.
What I want to make clear though, is that even if dismantling all nuclear weapons was an option, it wouldn't be taken by any country that is a "player" in the game of international relations. It's just not how things work.
The strong do what they can (prevent spread of nuclear material/weapons, maintain nuclear arsenals) and the weak do what they must (thumb nose at UN, work to develop nuclear program to break into "the club").
I used to think that political leaning wasn't that important to a fight, but the past few years have convinced me that liberals embrace a philosophy that leads to sucidial pacifism and naive peace-mongering. Their policy decisions are colored by populist notions that ignore reality.
Be careful with statements like this. They are likely to box you in. If we were always restricted by the box of how we think things work or what we thought was possible in negotiations, NOTHING would ever get accomplished. It is something I have learned in bargaining in other countries. Others (especially Africans) expect the American to be stuck in a particular box during negotiations because we don't like to negotiate. Perhaps it is cultural. I dunno. But trust me on this everyone has a price. The trick is finding your opponent's price before they find yours and manipulating things in your favor.
The same goes for negotiating arms reductions. It is in every major power's interest to reduce their nuclear ordnance because the ordnance is as much a threat to them as it is to their "enemies". If this was not true, I believe terrorism would not be a hot topic. The key is to find a means to negotiate disarmament. It will take creativity. It will take international standards and a third party such as the UN. But it is definitely possible.
You have convinced yourself as have many "conservatives" of this. Part of the problem is confusion over what a "liberal" is versus a "conservative" in the American political spectrum. I don't believe this generalized "liberal" truly exists. And I have wondered what happened to traditional conservatives for a long time. I have not seen fiscal responsibility amongst the right during my lifetime, and that is a disturbing thought. The Democrats are not much different than the Republicans in my view. If you wish to discuss democrats in congress go ahead. But this concept of what a generalized liberal thinks is not doing you any favors.
I am likely about as liberal as it gets for what it is worth. But in a traditional sense. And nothing that you have said about liberals has ever applied to me. So be careful with the "liberal v conservative" framing of your thinking.
But I think you should reconsider how willing any country would be to give up an advantage like nuclear weaponry. And how unwilling some countries would be to sacrifice their sovereignty to a power like the UN. You've got countries that have voluntarily given up their arsenals, sure. They aren't exactly movers and shakers. South Africa comes to mind.
Scio,
I know nuclear disarmament is not an easy deal. I didn't say it was. I just said that I think it is possible, and that I think it is necessary as means to deal with the source of the kind of problem that Israel was dealing with in Syria here.
Sacrificing sovereignty to the UN was never called for nor is it necessarily part of negotiations. The UN is a convenient third party to act as an intermediary in these kinds of negotiations.
In anycase, if arms reduction is impossible what then is the solution? Civilization can not exist forever in fear and doubt. Confidence is the thing great civilizations are made of (there was a great TV series on this in the 60's written by a brit who was into art history. Sir Kenneth Clark I think), and the gnawing uncertainty of being blasted by a terrorist nuclear device has seriously undermined US confidence since 9/11. I don't think we can live like this indefinitely so we need a solution. We could probably regain our confidence superficially until someone finally manages to detonate one of those devices in a city somewhere. Then what?
I think as long as nuclear arms are available the war on terror is irrelevant. We'd have to kill every human on the face of the earth for it to be otherwise. And I'm not looking for that kind of solution. Quite the opposite in fact.
Most posts always turn into a thread that really boils down to philosophical differences.
That is why I blog... :)