Submitted by Chasli, Oct 4, 2007 10:10

This editorial opens up such a can of worms that it's hard to figure out where to start. The Sun states: "The fact is that it makes an enormous difference what kind of state possesses nuclear weapons." This logic -- that only our allies can have nuclear weapons strikes me as unbelievably dangerous. The editorial is very careful not to mention Pakistan, for instance. It is hard to make the case that Pakistan is any less nutty than Iran, but our government seems to have no problem that they have atomic weapons -- but they of course are our allies. And once we have submitted to the logic that only OUR allies can have the bomb, then it seems to me the Russians can say that THEIR allies can have one, and the Chinese can say that THEIR allies can have one too. And it never stops. Either one believes in non-proliferation or one doesn't.

By allowing Israel, India, and Pakistan to go nuclear, we have made it abundantly clear that we don't give a hoot about non-proliferation. By our actions, we have told Iran that they have every right to go nuclear.

The Sun asks: "Does anyone really believe that the dangers associated with allowing the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons carry the same weight as those associated with Israel nuclear weapons?" I do. For starters, if some country like Iran decided to attack Israel's nuclear facilities with conventional weapons(in the same way that Israel attacked the Iraq facilities), I would be very very scared that Israel would respond in a nuclear way. In this sense I find Israel with a bomb even scarier. Sure the Iranian leadership is nutty, but then Begin in his own way was nutty, and other custodians of multiple nuclear weapons like Mao and Stalin were certainly certifiably crazy. I have seen no indications that Iran is any more likely to use a nuclear weapon than any of these other crazies. The certainty that nuclear weapon use will lead to one's own self-destruction has proven to be a huge restraint in the post-war period. Who is Iran going to use a bomb on? Us? Israel? In both cases Iran would likely be bombed into the middle ages. I truly doubt that Iran is bent on self-destruction.

The Sun continues: "Israel's nuclear might, if indeed it exists, would be a strategic, stabilizing force that cancels out the Arab advantage in numbers of men and weapons." My understanding is that Israel's convential weapon arsenal is more than a match for the whole Arab world put together. And even if Israel were at a huge disadvantage to the Arabs, does the Sun really believe that it's OK in asymetric situations for the weaker party to get nuclear weapons to cancel out the stronger party's conventional superiority. If anything, an Iranian bomb might make Israel think twice before pulling stunts like its atttack on the Iraqi nuclear facility, its invasion of Lebanon, or their recent incursion into Syria. I think there is a stronger argument that an iranian bomb would be a stabilizing force in canceling out Israel's nuclear monopoly in the mid east and preventing Israel adventurism.

Anyway, my point is that I find the Sun's view that allowing our friends and allies to get nuclear weapons while denying them to our enemies very dangerous. After all, Iran 40 years ago was a big ally. To be effective, non-proliferation must be appled evenly to friend and foe.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.