The Nuclear Paradox

[coberst]

The Nuclear Problem

Most of the major nations are trying to convince Iran that it is not a good idea for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. I judge this effort to be reasonable and it is very important for humanity that they succeed.

Apparently Iran is determined to develop a nuclear weapon. I judge this decision to be reasonable and it is very important for Iran that they succeed.

Both efforts seem to me to be perfectly rational and justifiable.

I suspect that our future will see many more of such actions all with the same rational characteristics.

Can humanity survive this logic?

[Vermonter]

I think that Iran's intentions are more malignant than you think. They may try and use nuclear weapons to attack US installations, or even Israel. If they want to use nuclear energy for power needs, I'm all for it. If they want to make WMD's, then that creates a dangerous situation for everyone around Iran.

[antoniseb]

I'd like to urge caution in this thread. It would be very easy to go in directions that violate forum rules about politics, or writing on-topic things that will be offensive to large groups of people.
Can humanity survive this logic?
I hope so, but have no realistic way to prove it.

[Swift]

Apparently Iran is determined to develop a nuclear weapon. I judge this decision to be reasonable and it is very important for Iran that they succeed.

I do not understand the logic behind this part of your statement at all. I do not see why this is either reasonable or important, unless you feel that it is either reasonable or important for Iran to have the ability to threaten its neighbors with nuclear weapons.

It also is abstractly conceivable to me that a decision may be logical but immoral. I suspect that is the situation here.

I suspect that this is a very dangerous topic for violating the rules of this forum, though antoniseb seems ok with it at the moment.

[Gruesome]

Ditto.

[farmerjumperdon]

It is a dilemma. Staying within the rules, trying to dissect the policiy and behavior with logic, I'd ask why one soveriegn state has the right to engage in an activity while acting as though they have the right to prevent some other soveriegn state from engaging in the same activity?

I anticipate that people with a bias towards allowing the USA to keep nukes while forbidding others to do so rests on the arguement that we would not use them. Two things about that strike me as strange:

1 - Why have them if the promise is never to use them.

2 - It's a strange arguement to make on behalf of the only state that has ever used them against another state. I mean, the logic goes something like: It was OK to use when only we had it, but now it's not OK.

I wish nobody had them, but the logic that one nation and it's allies get to decide who has them, and the tensions that behavior generates is just as troubling.

[Swift]

It is a dilemma. Staying within the rules, trying to dissect the policiy and behavior with logic, I'd ask why one soveriegn state has the right to engage in an activity while acting as though they have the right to prevent some other soveriegn state from engaging in the same activity?

I anticipate that people with a bias towards allowing the USA to keep nukes while forbidding others to do so rests on the arguement that we would not use them. Two things about that strike me as strange:

1 - Why have them if the promise is never to use them.

2 - It's a strange arguement to make on behalf of the only state that has ever used them against another state. I mean, the logic goes something like: It was OK to use when only we had it, but now it's not OK.

I wish nobody had them, but the logic that one nation and it's allies get to decide who has them, and the tensions that behavior generates is just as troubling.
I understand all that you are saying, though for much of the history of nuclear weapons, the phrase "one nation and it's allies" would not have been a good description of the US, China, and Russia.

I think the argument is (whether you agree or not) is that this is a club that we want as few members as possible. Those who were grandfathered in when the club started, get to keep their nukes. I do agree that I would like to see no one have them.

While the MAD doctrine (the threat of using them without using them) was madness, it did seem to work for the period of the cold war. But things are changing. One change is the rise of non-sovereign groups (such as terrorist groups). I guess the feeling is with a sovereign nation, if they use nukes, you have territory that you can nuke them back. What do you with a group that has no set home territory?

The other problem is that there are probably nations that would more likely give their weapons to such non-sovereign groups - I suspect that is part of the major fear with Iran. While I am uncertain as to whether Iran would use a nuclear weapon, I have no doubt that there are groups who would, given the chance.

Yes, the US is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons during war. If I was Truman, I would have probably made the same decision. Hind-sight is 20-20, but he did not have that benefit. No matter what I think of the current or recent administrations, I think the probability of the US using nukes is very low.

[R.A.F.]

...I think the probability of the US using nukes is very low.

I agree, but I would add unless some "aggressor" uses them first.

Then, IMO, all "bets" are off.

[farmerjumperdon]

The problem with the concept of the club and grandfathered mambers is that people turned away will simply, and understandably, just start their own club. If the existing club decides to take action to keep another club from forming, aren't we right back to the old style of imperialism/colonialism. (I know, not exactly; but if we take economic action, or forbid the thought, military action, it's getting very close).

I might be coming around to the opinion that the only solution to this madness is an international ruling body with real teeth. And yes, I know, it'll happen when a certain very warm place freezes over).

[Swift]

The problem with the concept of the club and grandfathered mambers is that people turned away will simply, and understandably, just start their own club. If the existing club decides to take action to keep another club from forming, aren't we right back to the old style of imperialism/colonialism. (I know, not exactly; but if we take economic action, or forbid the thought, military action, it's getting very close).

I might be coming around to the opinion that the only solution to this madness is an international ruling body with real teeth. And yes, I know, it'll happen when a certain very warm place freezes over).
Sure, and that is exactly what happened with India, Pakistan, Israel, and South Africa (though I believe they have given up their nukes). It is an imperfect system. The agency that is charge of all this is, I believe, the International Atomic Energy Comission. They have as much teeth as the UN and the member states of the UN and the Security Council. Again, an imperfect system. I fear that among Iran, North Korea, or some other state, we will have a test of this system in the not too distant future.

Personally, I agree with you that I would like to see the elimination of nuclear weapons and the policing to some signficant international agency. Knowing humans, I do not expect that this will happened until a nuke is used (we tend to close barn doors only after the horses have fled) and it would not surprise me to see that happen in my lifetime (I'm 47).

[peteshimmon]

Study the 1980s carefully! Who was the agressor?
Who lost many many young men? Who sold the
WMD materials? Sometimes I wonder if I am
imaging all that happened! I have a memory
which seems inconvenient in News Media. If an
energy shortage is forthcoming at least it
might damp down arms trading! And concentrate
efforts in constructive directions.

[Demigrog]

It is a dilemma. Staying within the rules, trying to dissect the policiy and behavior with logic, I'd ask why one soveriegn state has the right to engage in an activity while acting as though they have the right to prevent some other soveriegn state from engaging in the same activity?

The fundamental difference is that the countries that already have extensive nukes cannot get rid of them (good old MAD), whereas countries that are actively seeking nukes generally are doing so because they are at odds with the international community and want an ultimate guarantee that they cannot be invaded. The whole idea of a “sovereign” nation is a bit moot when the “sovereign” is literally one man or a small group. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a dictator is merely a license for bad behavior, because they can never be removed from power.

Consider Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait; if Iraq had nuclear weapons, how would Hussein have been stopped from continuing on into Saudi Arabia? He was willing to fire SCUDs at Israel, a complete bystander to the war—suppose they had been nuclear? Would Israel or the US retaliate with nukes? Is it not better to avoid that horrifying scenario by limiting proliferation in the first place?

Iran is run by a man who has publicly denied the Holocaust happened—do we want someone who apparently does not live in reality to control nuclear weapons?

We’re already in a horrible situation with North Korea; a dictator starving his people to keep them under control while spending billions on a nuclear program to ensure that outside forces cannot remove him either. At best we can contain him and hope that when he eventually dies that someone more reasonable replaces him. That is the situation we tried to avoid by invading Iraq; of course we may have created a bigger problem, but I’ll stay away from that debate. :)

Making matters worse, both Iran and North Korea seem willing to sell their technology to other rogue states.

Worst of all, the US has established a precedent of negotiating with these nations, granting economic aid and other concessions for a promise—on paper—to abandon nuclear programs. It didn’t work in North Korea, and it won’t work in Iran—the blackmail will just continue to get more expensive.


I anticipate that people with a bias towards allowing the USA to keep nukes while forbidding others to do so rests on the arguement that we would not use them. Two things about that strike me as strange:
1 - Why have them if the promise is never to use them.

To make sure the promise is kept. It is also insurance against a country developing WMDs in secret and using them.


2 - It's a strange arguement to make on behalf of the only state that has ever used them against another state. I mean, the logic goes something like: It was OK to use when only we had it, but now it's not OK.

Well, obviously, since nobody had ever used nukes not many people had yet considered the ethics. The context and technology of WWII was a lot different than today, and IMO the ethical question was a lot muddier than it is today. Further, we learned from our mistakes; we very well could have used nukes against China in the Korean war; MacArthur certainly wanted to. Fortunately Truman was wise enough not to allow it (though mostly out of fear of bringing the Soviet Union into the war).


I wish nobody had them, but the logic that one nation and it's allies get to decide who has them, and the tensions that behavior generates is just as troubling.
It is not just the allies of the US; what countries want Iran and North Korea to have nukes? Certainly not their neighbors; do you think China is pleased to have North Korea destabilizing the entire region and possibly dragging them into a war? I wonder if North Korea wanted nukes as much to prevent China from meddling as to keep the US from invading.

[coberst]

I contend that Wal-Mart is ‘the logic of capitalism’. I mean that if one follows the principles of capitalism the result would be Wal-Mart. To me this means that in a capitalistic society Wal-Mart is acting logically.

When I say that most nations in the world are trying to stop Iran from making a bomb and that this is a rational action I mean that they are following the logic of their principles. Likewise Iran is following the logic of the principles of a sovereign nation.

So, when both entities are doing what they are doing we have a situation that if we follow the logic of the matter we will in short order have a world wherein almost all nations will have the bomb or we have a war between the two entities, the group and the one, ad infinitum.

The logic of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was all we could depend upon during the cold war. It appears to me that today we still only have the logic of MAD. When the world is filled with nations with the bomb will not the logic of human action, as we perceive that logic to be from past history, dictate that the bomb will be used?

It seems to me that the nations together must find a way to create a goal that all or most nations can accept.

The means to reach a goal cannot be determined before the goal is determined. The end drives the means. What goal can all nations agree upon? Is the goal a nuclear free future? Perhaps the means is some sort of police body capable of forcing obedience to a goal. But again the ultimate goal suitable to many or most nations seems to be necessary.

I would say that sovereignty is self determination. A political entity, a person or a nation, seeks self determination—sovereignty. Individuals give to the state certain aspects of their sovereignty for the sake of security.

A state without some control of the sovereignty of its citizens cannot function. Perhaps the world could afford the luxury of a state of anarchy between nation states in the past when one or a few people did not have the ability to destroy all humanity. Today a few willful people can destroy humanity.

Perhaps today’s technology requires us to eliminate sovereign nation states. Perhaps the goal we must establish is the goal of world government wherein all citizens give up more of their sovereignty for the sake of security.

[Swift]

Coberst, I still question that Iran's actions are logical and that even if they are, that they are moral. As near as I can tell (and I'm having problems understanding your point), your argument is that Iran is sovereign, and all sovereign nations should or could have a nuclear weapon. This makes no sense to me.

I'm not saying that Iran is a criminal, but take this analogy. I am a criminal, I want to steal lots of money, and I don't want to get caught. I decide the best course of action to achieve this would be to rob kids in a rich neighborhood and kill them so they can not be a witness. That would be the logical course of action, but it would not be moral.

[antoniseb]

I am closing this thread now. No one needs to be warned. I sent a PM warning Vermonter, but I'm withdrawing that warning. My compliments to everyone who walked up to the line and didn't cross it. This is a very tricky debate to have, and the rules of our forum will not really let the debate be open.

I suggest finding a forum more geared to this kind of debate and continuing it there. If you do so, please private message a pointer to the debate to me, and I will add that to this message for others to follow.

edit: Thanks to Sarongsong and whoever else helped do this. Here's the link:
http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewtopic-topic-5362.html