Saturday, November 04, 2006


Whee -- UN, reap what you sow!

THE SPECTRE of a nuclear race in the Middle East was raised yesterday when six Arab states announced that they were embarking on programmes to master atomic technology.

The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa.
The UNSC's inaction on the farce that is Iran's nuclear enrichment program is allowing the rest of the Arab world to jump on the bandwagon. When will the appeasers learn you simply can't appease tyrants, terrorists and the like?


Matt said...

If middle-east countries being in possession of nuclear technology = a very bad thing, than what do you suppose we do about that? This is a huge conundrum.

We have the largest supply, thousands of active, ready to fire missiles equipped with nuclear warheads. So do 8 western countries, (including Isreal that is). How could you, as a leader in the middle-east, not want to have a similar role in the realm of power politics? There is no suitable realistic answer to keeping nuclear technology from spreading around the world when the people who are in possession of them are the very ones trying to keep others from having them. It's hypocritical, and there's absolutely no way that middle-eastern countries could take the G8 and the UN seriously on this issue. It's either disarmament everywhere, or world war 3, then 4, then 5. There is no diplomacy through blatant hypocrisy, it'll never work.

Matt said...

8 western countries, meaning developed, and industrial. Western isn't a correct characterization.

k2aggie07 said... what you're saying is you're against gun laws? Or having an army with automatic weapons and a citizenry with none? Did I read that right?

The UK must be a source of never-ending frustration for you. Their military has all kinds of things that go boom while their citizenry (and even their cops) languish away with nothing!

The point I'm trying to make is, when you have something that can kill millions of people (which you developed, built, and stockpiled out of fear and defense) you don't exactly want everyone else to have the same advantage.

No one cares if the people in the Arab world have nice little electricity-producing nuclear reactors. If that were the case, we wouldn't have offered Iran every conceivable peaceful nuclear technology in the package we offered.

They want nukes.

For a part of the world that has been particularly bloodthirsty over the past...I don't know...millennium...I don't think they rate them.

As for Israel -- when was the last time they used them? Or when they attacked without provocation?

Matt said...

---The point I'm trying to make is, when you have something that can kill millions of people (which you developed, built, and stockpiled out of fear and defense) you don't exactly want everyone else to have the same advantage.-----

You usually seem to have a really hard time seeing the point of view of other people. But right there, you did it without even realizing it. You proved my point in one paragraph. Thanks.

k2aggie07 said...

If your point is that nukes in the hands of Islamic regimes that have shown a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later is a bad thing, then yes...we're in agreement.

Matt said...

No... that's not what I was getting at and you know it. Read it a little more carefully. I do agree that wmds in the hands of many middle east countries would be a very frightening thing, I'm not insane. What I've been trying to say is that WE stockpiled wmd's out of fear of other countries. Do you not think that every country in the world who looks at US now isn't afraid??? Don't you think that other people would use the SAME rationale for stockpiling their OWN weapons? I don't need to go in depth, but in general, looking at the long term picture, there will ALWAYS be that urge to acquire nukes and eventually they will get them. But that is only if they feel that that is necessary to safeguard their own country. Just look at the paranoia and downright fear that EVERYONE in this country has towards islamic extremists.... now put yourself into the shoes of someone in the mideast, or anywhere else for that matter, and think about how scared out of their minds they must be of the US Military, the greatest military power this world has ever known. Remember, they don't have blind faith in the US Gov't like you do, they're not sure of our intentions.

All I'm saying is, "nuclear proliferation" will last for thousands of years if everyone who already have nukes decide to keep holding on to them while trying to keep their advantage over everyone else. It's just common sense.

k2aggie07 said...

Its Pandora's box. Once the nuclear can was opened, you really can't close it again. The technology is out there. We can't afford to disarm. To do so would be an action of inestimable foolishness, because it would leave us desperately vulnerable to anyone with a few million dollars.

I don't buy the argument that nukes are used for defense for one minute. We didn't build them to look at them. We built the originals because we were afraid the Nazis would first -- and they almost did. After their actions in Coventry and Czechoslovakia, it is likely they would have used them.

We used them to save American lives. We built them to prevent attacks by the USSR.

And we never used them ever, ever again. We could have obliterated Vietnam. We could have utterly destroyed Korea, Iraq, or anyone of our choosing. And we didn't. Just as we didn't retain Germany, Japan, the Philippines, or any of the rest of the territory we won in World War II. We are fighters, not conquerors. We have no interest in domination or empires.

No, no one in this world is building nukes because they're afraid of us. They're building them to use as a diplomatic bargaining chit, or worse, as weapons with which to right their perceived wrongs.