UN Plaza: Hope-Filled Edition (Mark Leon Goldberg & Daryl Kimball)

[Bloggingheads]

[Wonderment]

A good, albeit US-centric, overview of where we're at on the road to abolition.

It's always worth mentioning that the overwhelming majority of the world's peoples and nations are pro-abolition. All of North and South America, for example, is nuke-free, except for the USA. Africa is nuke-free.

Three of the four rogue nuclear states (India, Pakistan, Israel and N. Korea) are staunch US allies. US entanglements under our nuclear umbrella are immensely problematical for world peace.

I am very glad that Daryl got a chance to talk about the NPR at the end of the conversation. The Replacement Warhead program is a very, very bad idea, as Daryl noted.

The groups I've worked with on abolition have been focused on the NPR for 10 years, since Bush blew everyone's mind with the last terrifying iteration. Here's a little background.

If Obama is serious about abolition, it needs to show up as the dominant theme in all nuke-related discussions. So far it hasn't. The NPR provides a great opportunity to show the world how serious he is (or isn't).

From Center for American Progress website:

The 2009–2010 NPR will be the third formal review of U.S. nuclear strategy conducted since the end of the Cold War. The preceding reviews were conducted early in each of the Clinton and Bush administrations’ first terms. The Clinton administration’s review essentially ratified the Cold War status quo, despite an urgent need to recalibrate in light of the Soviet Union’s collapse and the need to work with Moscow to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons, materials, and technology. The National Security Council was largely disengaged from the process, as the White House was just emerging from a series of bitter disputes with the armed forces over such issues as Somalia and gays in the military. The administration was also battling both the military and an increasingly hostile Congress over defense spending priorities. ...

The second formal NPR took place in 2001 under vastly different political and policy circumstances. It was driven by presidential prerogatives, which guaranteed that senior officials would invest time and energy in the NPR process. The review yielded the administration’s preferred policy outcomes, but it also undermined America’s nonproliferation credentials.

The goals of the 2009–2010 NPR should be to recalibrate America’s nuclear deterrent in light of existing and emerging threats, strengthen America’s hand in negotiations on improvements to the global nuclear nonproliferation regime, and send a clear signal to the world that the United States is charting a new, multilateral course. Success in achieving these goals hinges on development of a coherent, realistic strategy for conducting the review that ensures senior appointees devote sustained attention even as they confront other national security challenges. The

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

A good, albeit US-centric, overview of where we're at on the road to abolition.

It's always worth mentioning that the overwhelming majority of the world's peoples and nations are pro-abolition. All of North and South America, for example, is nuke-free, except for the USA. Africa is nuke-free.

Yes, although I would say if you can the US moving in the right direction, or moving faster in the right direction, that makes the whole world safer for a variety of reasons. Therefore, it is worth focusing on the US, even apart from the mostly-US audience at this site.

I am very glad that Daryl got a chance to talk about the NPR ...

What's that stand for again? Nuclear Posture Review?

[bjkeefe]

I wonder if the Republicans currently in the Senate would vote against a treaty as a bloc, no matter how good a treaty it was, just to deny Obama a victory.

Ah, well. Know hope. Thanks to Mark and Daryl for this diavlog.

A note on style: Good introduction, Mark. I had forgotten Daryl was on before, and I liked the way you gave this diavlog context in time.

[bjkeefe]

Why have the appeasement-obsessed Stalinist accommodationists at Bh.tv killed another Science Saturday diavlog? Are they really that afraid of Michael Boohoo?

;^)

[uncle ebeneezer]

Incredulous Design is so powerful that it not only destroyed Darwinism, it also destroyed Sci Sat!!

[Wonderment]

What's that stand for again? Nuclear Posture Review?

Yes, although I think Daryl (and a million other people) call(ed) it the Nuclear Policy Review.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Yes, although I think Daryl (and a million other people) call(ed) it the Nuclear Policy Review.

Thx.

[pampl]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

It's always worth mentioning that the overwhelming majority of the world's peoples and nations are pro-abolition. All of North and South America, for example, is nuke-free, except for the USA. Africa is nuke-free.

The US comprises 1/3rd of the entire population of North and South America so that's a pretty goofy distinction. That's sort of a moot point, though, because nuclear power status isn't really relevant to public opinion: the population of the US is pretty close to the international average, with 77% in favor of abolition compared to the global average of 76%, even though it does have (many) nukes; Azerbaijan and the Palestinian territories are the 3rd and 4th strongest opponents of abolition despite lacking nukes. Britain and France are more strongly abolitionist than average; Thailand and Turkey less pro-abolition than average.

[piscivorous]

Nuclear weapons have been in existence since 6 August 1945 or just over 59 years. How many people have been killed in war (conflict between to or more sovereign states) since the end of WWII as compared to the 59 years that proceeded the loosening of the atomic genie. I would be willing to bet that the total of pre-atomic weapons war casualties is higher than the post WWII war casualties by an order of magnitude. If this is the case how is the world less safe today. It may feel like it is more insecure, if that is possible, but it is physically much safer and more peaceful in the 59 years since 1945 than it was in the 59 years proceeding their introduction. But I guess perception is reality in the lefto sphere.

Edit added (conflict between to or more sovereign states)

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

Nuclear weapons have been in existence since 6 August 1945 or just over 59 years. How many people have been killed in war (conflict between to or more sovereign states) since the end of WWII as compared to the 59 years that proceeded the loosening of the atomic genie. I would be willing to bet that the total of pre-atomic weapons war casualties is higher than the post WWII war casualties by an order of magnitude. If this is the case how is the world less safe today. It may feel like it is more insecure, if that is possible, but it is physically much safer and more peaceful in the 59 years since 1945 than it was in the 59 years proceeding their introduction. But I guess perception is reality in the lefto sphere.

That last sentence was stupid. Why add something like that if you want a serious answer?

Maybe you're just looking for a bickerfest, it being Saturday night and all.

Delete it and I'll address the rest of your post. Otherwise, have fun.

[Wonderment]

the population of the US is pretty close to the international average, with 77% in favor of abolition compared to the global average of 76%

I rest my democratic case.

[piscivorous]

Yes as a deranged wingnut what else could I be looking for!

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

Yes as a deranged wingnut what else could I be looking for!

You said it.

[piscivorous]

Actually I have just seen it so often, in your comments here, that I have finally learned to parrot it.

[Wonderment]

I have finally learned to parrot it.

Leave parrots out of this.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

Actually I have just seen it so often, in your comments here, that I have finally learned to parrot it.

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours.

(cf.)

[pampl]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I rest my democratic case.

Oh yeah, I definitely don't dispute your conclusion, I just thought your argument didn't make sense.

[piscivorous]

That's excellent.

It's great that people realize that diplomacy is in the only available way to get Iran to not nuclear proliferate, but it's also dishonest to pretend they won't and that that won't start off a chain reaction of proliferation in the Middle East.

I like to think the world is slowly screwing its collective head on straight, but to pretend that diplomacy alone will prevent Iran from nuclear proliferating is ignorant at best or stupid at worse. They are going to build nuclear weapons and ain't nothing going to stop them from doing so.

North Korea giving up its nuclear arsenal or the capability to produce more, is also a ridiculous notion. There's no hope when it comes to North Korea. The regime will have to collapse before it's nuclear arsenal and production capabilities are no more. When that will happen, who knows.

[Wonderment]

[Iran is] are going to build nuclear weapons and ain't nothing going to stop them from doing so.

Again, this is a Western-status-que point of view: The Iranians are expected to do something peaceful while we do nothing peaceful. On the contrary, we threaten them and treat them as a pariah state. (Obama has taken some baby steps forward after decades of US hostility following the demise of the US-established brutal Shah dictatorship).

In other words, if the Iranians saw a significant renunciation of nukes by the US, Russia and particularly Israel (or at least a coming clean by Israel and a commitment to reduction), they would be more likely to change their policies than through war or sanctions.

North Korea giving up its nuclear arsenal or the capability to produce more, is also a ridiculous notion. There's no hope when it comes to North Korea. The regime will have to collapse before it's nuclear arsenal and production capabilities are no more. When that will happen, who knows.

Ditto.

You have to analyze WHY these states want nukes. If you simply assume they do because they have crazy anti-Semitic or megalomaniacal leaders, then of course, you will demonize and fear them.

If, on the other hand, you try to understand their own security concerns, you'll have a better and potentially more productive grasp of reality.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Again, this is a Western-status-que point of view: The Iranians are expected to do something peaceful while we do nothing peaceful. On the contrary, we threaten them and treat them as a pariah state. (Obama has taken some baby steps forward after decades of US hostility following the demise of the US-established brutal Shah dictatorship).

In other words, if the Iranians saw a significant renunciation of nukes by the US, Russia and particularly Israel (or at least a coming clean by Israel and a commitment to reduction), they would be more likely to change their policies than through war or sanctions.

Haha... Iran isn't a pariah state? Being a despotic government doesn't ipso facto make it a pariah state? What exactly has been going on in Iran recently? You expect people to respect the Iranian government after what it has done in public view? You're dreaming Wonderment.

Who cares about U.S. support of the Shah by the way? Iran just went from one despot to another. Despotism is despotism and it won't ever be respectable.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Ditto.

You have to analyze WHY these states want nukes. If you simply assume they do because they have crazy anti-Semitic or megalomaniacal leaders, then of course, you will demonize and fear them.

If, on the other hand, you try to understand their own security concerns, you'll have a better and potentially more productive grasp of reality.

I have analyzed why Iran wants nukes. They want nukes for reasons of power, as well as reason for fear. They fear being bullied by their neighbors, just as much as they want to project their own power in the region. When have I ever said anything about them being crazy anti-semitic or that having anything to do with them getting a bomb. They are crazy anti-semitic, but that has nothing to do with them wanting to have nuclear weapons. At least three of their neighbors have nukes and the U.S. presence in the region means more nukes. So a realist foreign policy on their part behooves them to acquire nuclear weapons.

Wonderment if anyone doesn't have a "productive grasp of reality" it's likely you. They are going to build nukes. They are going to build nukes. They are going to build nukes.

If they get nukes, the Gulf States will want nukes, the Gulf States will want nukes, the Gulf States will want nukes.

So proliferation is going to happen in the region and pretending that it isn't is ignorant and stupid.

[Wonderment]

A lot of calling people (me) stupid and ignorant, Lyle, without 1 single word about my thesis: American and Israeli (and other nuclear states) good-faith disarmament and disclosure would reduce nuclear tensions in the region.

As Daryl pointed out, the Nonproliferation treaty (which rogue states Israel, India, Pakistan and N. Korea refuse to sign) requires its signatory nations to disarm their nukes.

In this regard, the US and other nuke powers have been at least as intransigent as Iran. And the aforementioned rogue nuclear powers are worse than that.

The planet will not be safe from nuclear holocaust until all the nukes are gone. Even Henry Kissinger now understands that.

I didn't call you stupid or ignorant Wonderment. I called the belief that Iran is not going to build nuclear weapons stupid or ignorant. You are neither stupid or ignorant, but I think some of your ideas are profoundly wrong to the point of ignorance and stupidity --- the ideas (just as much as lot of people think my ideas are profoundly wrong to the point of ignorance and stupidity as well... oh no!). There's a difference Wonderment, which I know you know is true.

I also don't need to address your thesis because you thesis is not determinative. As I said, three of Iran's neighbors have nuclear weapons: Russia, China, and Pakistan. They aren't just concerned about Israeli and American power, they're concerned about their developing world neighbors who have nukes as well because they have a larger impact on regional affairs. Everything isn't always about Israel and America, other countries are bullies and warmongers too.

And I'm sorry to say but America drawing down and Israel drawing down won't ultimately affect whether or not Iran proliferates or not... because nobody is daft enough to give up the entirety of their nuclear arsenal. Iran simply is going to join the club, because the club isn't going anywhere. Iran also won't be the last country on the planet to acquire nuclear weapons. Others will as well in the future.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

A lot of calling people (me) stupid and ignorant, Lyle, without 1 single word about my thesis: American and Israeli (and other nuclear states) good-faith disarmament and disclosure would reduce nuclear tensions in the region.

As Daryl pointed out, the Nonproliferation treaty (which rogue states Israel, India, Pakistan and N. Korea refuse to sign) requires its signatory nations to disarm their nukes.

In this regard, the US and other nuke powers have been at least as intransigent as Iran. And the aforementioned rogue nuclear powers are worse than that.

The planet will not be safe from nuclear holocaust until all the nukes are gone. Even Henry Kissinger now understands that.

Wonderment, do we have an official policy of regime change for Iran, the way we did with Iraq? If we did it's no wonder they'd want nukes. If we don't we sure act like we do.

[gwlaw99]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Again, this is a Western-status-que point of view: The Iranians are expected to do something peaceful while we do nothing peaceful. On the contrary, we threaten them and treat them as a pariah state. (Obama has taken some baby steps forward after decades of US hostility following the demise of the US-established brutal Shah dictatorship). .

Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and even if you think they only meant "the regime," how do you think they plan to do that? With toys?

If you don't think Iran is a pariah state after shooting and beating their own citizens protesters in the streets and the subsequent show trials, you have completely lost your moral compass. Not to mention blowing up a synogogue full of civilians in Argentina.

In other words, if the Iranians saw a significant renunciation of nukes by the US, Russia and particularly Israel (or at least a coming clean by Israel and a commitment to reduction), they would be more likely to change their policies than through war or sanctions.

This argument is completely illogical. The Iranians aren't afraid of our/Israel's nuclear capability because they know we/they aren't going to nuke them. Even if you don't think Iran wants to nuke Israel, they want to be able to increase the projection of their power into the region without fear of reprisal . Is it any wonder Egypt and Saudi Arabia are so afraid fo Iranian nukes. Not because they fear being nuked, but because of the massive amounts of instability they will bring to the region such as supporting a Shia overthrow of the Iraqi government or a secession of the Saudi Shiite regions. They fear our conventional weapons stopping such future increased projection of their power in the region. So unless we completely disarm all of our conventional weapons capability, they aren't going to stop their nuclear weapons program.

You have to analyze WHY these states want nukes. If you simply assume they do because they have crazy anti-Semitic or megalomaniacal leaders, then of course, you will demonize and fear them.

If, on the other hand, you try to understand their own security concerns, you'll have a better and potentially more productive grasp of reality.

No one even mentioned attacking Iran until they started building Nukes. The only threats have been to attack their nuclear weapons program. After Iraq, the Iranians know they US would not invade Iran.

[Wonderment]

If you don't think Iran is a pariah state after shooting and beating their own citizens protesters in the streets and the subsequent show trials, you have completely lost your moral compass. Not to mention blowing up a synogogue full of civilians in Argentina.

There are lots of bad actors in the world -- lots of dictatorships and lots of state-sponsored terrorism.

Iran has committed many serious crimes against humanity, including the slaughter of innocent Jews in Argentina. But Israel has also committed grave crimes, human rights violations and atrocities, as have several other nations in the region. Isolating Iran as the Great Satan (or Axis of Exil) is stupid, self-serving and hypocritical.

Is it any wonder Egypt and Saudi Arabia are so afraid fo Iranian nukes. Not because they fear being nuked, but because of the massive amounts of instability they will bring to the region such as supporting a Shia overthrow of the Iraqi government or a secession of the Saudi Shiite regions.

Ha! Didn't the crazy US war on Iraq bring some instablity to the region? How about Israel's occupation of Palestine? You cannot play the "instability" card every time it suits your national interests and ignore it when it doesn't.

No one even mentioned attacking Iran until they started building Nukes. The only threats have been to attack their nuclear weapons program. After Iraq, the Iranians know they US would not invade Iran.

Ridiculous. It is obvious that an attack on ANYTHING within Iran runs the risk of world war, or at least a regional conflict of vast proportions; and it increases the risk of terrorism all over the world. If the Iranians really wanted to preempt or retaliate, they could unleash any number of terrorist attacks on the West today (dirty bombs, biological or chemical attacks, suicide bombings, etc.)

Iran with nukes is not a pleasant thought. But neither are the violent alternatives: maintaining the status quo, coercing Iran through sanctions, "regime change" or military attack.

[gwlaw99]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

There are lots of bad actors in the world -- lots of dictatorships and lots of state-sponsored terrorism.

Iran has committed many serious crimes against humanity, including the slaughter of innocent Jews in Argentina. But Israel has also committed grave crimes, human rights violations and atrocities, as have several other nations in the region. Isolating Iran as the Great Satan (or Axis of Exil) is stupid, self-serving and hypocritical

Your original post said we should not call Iran a pariah state. You seem to say they are, so we are in agreement. Other states do not have the potential to destabilize as many governments as Iran does. They are already destabilizing the Lebanese government with Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority with Hamas, and the Iraqi government. What could they do with nuclear weapons to protect them?

Ha! Didn't the crazy US war on Iraq bring some instablity to the region? How about Israel's occupation of Palestine? You cannot play the "instability" card every time it suits your national interests and ignore it when it doesn't.

Other than in Iraq it didn't seem to cause much instability to the wider at all. Which governments became more unstable?

Ridiculous. It is obvious that an attack on ANYTHING within Iran runs the risk of world war, or at least a regional conflict of vast proportions; and it increases the risk of terrorism all over the world. If the Iranians really wanted to preempt or retaliate, they could unleash any number of terrorist attacks on the West today (dirty bombs, biological or chemical attacks, suicide bombings, etc.) .

You do not see to understand what I was saying at all. I was responding to your statement which I completely disagree with.

In other words, if the Iranians saw a significant renunciation of nukes by the US, Russia and particularly Israel (or at least a coming clean by Israel and a commitment to reduction), they would be more likely to change their policies than through war or sanctions.

The US, Russia or Israel disarming its nuclear weapons would have absolutely zero effect on Iran stopping it's programs. Iran did not have anything to fear before it started its nuclear weapons program. No one was going to nuke it and the US war in Iraq cut off any chance the US would attack it with conventional weapons. The only reason it would want to build them, therefore, is to use them as an umbrella to destabilize other countries such as Saudi Arabia with its large Shiite population who lives in the oil centers of the country, Lebanon with Hezbollah, and Iraq with its large Shiite population. Do we really want Iran to control the Saudi and Iraqi oil fields? If they had nuclear weapons could we stop them?

Iran with nukes is not a pleasant thought. But neither are the violent alternatives: maintaining the status quo, coercing Iran through sanctions, "regime change" or military attack.

Well that is certainly a valid opinion, but it has nothing to do with whether the US disarming would have any affect. Would you say the same thing if 75 other countries decided to develop nuclear weapons knowing nothing would happen to them because of the precedent set by Iran?

[Wonderment]

The US, Russia or Israel disarming its nuclear weapons would have absolutely zero effect on Iran stopping it's programs.

You don't know that. You are simply making up a scary story and stating it as a fact.

A lot of people have put plenty of careful thought into phasing out nukes and reaching international zero. These include former Republican US secretaries of state and defense, among them the immensely pro-Israel Cold War architect and Nixonite Henry Kissinger.

There is a growing and already widespread consensus among experts that abolition is both necessary and possible.

The path is good faith disarmament. A key ingredient is Isareli coming clean about its own nukes and making serious downsizing gestures.

Same for Pakistan and India, who refuse to sign the NPT. North Korea is another big problem, although less linked to the hot Middle East region.

A non-nuclear Iran would require a very strict inspections regime. But of course they have every reason to say, "Why on Earth should we be treated like a nuclear leper, while Israel has no inspections, maintains a completely rogue nuclear weapons program, and will not sign the NPT? Furthermore, since Israel and the US are attached at the hip, isn't Israel's rogue program tantamount to permitting the US to have a back-up rogue system of its own?"

Additionally, if I were Russia, I would certainly count Israel's nukes as part of the US arsenal, just as we used to count Ukraine's nukes as part of Russia's/USSR.

[gwlaw99]

There is no logical reason the US or Israel would want to nuke Iran. Iran, therefore, has no reason to fear Israeli or US nukes, so why would disarmarment make Iran do anything? It defies logic to think that it would.

Israel and the US also have no reason to invade or bomb a non nuclear Iran so Iran building nukes creates the only reason for it to be attacked. So why would it do the only thing that would put it in danger of attack? I explained the reasons in my last post, so I won't repeat them.

So use your head and try to make some logical arguments so I can stop feeling like I am talking to a brick wall.

Hint. Arguing for something that will never happen, like the US and Israel destroying its nukes as a good will gesture to Iran, isn't a logical argument. Saying mythical experts agree with you isn't a logical argument. Saying Iran is building nukes because its feelings are hurt that everyone else gets to have them is not a logical argument.

[Wonderment]

There is no logical reason the US or Israel would want to nuke Iran.

Great! Since the US and Israel will never nuke anyone, they can mothball their nukes. Win/win.

Nuclear weapons are a global threat. All the nuclear players threaten humanity with a civilization-terminating war. Most of the world thinks the Big Players should set the example by reducing and ultimately eliminating their nukes. That is what President Obama believes.

I support him. Israel should get on board before it's too late.