The Nuclear Paradox

coberst · Post by **coberst** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:29 am

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?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:47 am

Yes, so long as those trying to convince Iran stop at 'convincing' without resorting to 'forcing.'

Humanity will survive even the forcing, but society might be irreparably damaged.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:09 am

Apparently it's OK for Israel to have them but not their neighbours.

Apparently it was OK to sell nuclear technology to iran when it is ruled by an unelected shah that curbed dissension to the extent that all that is left is extremism.

Apparently it's OK to supply Pakistan with the latest warplanes and help with their nuclear programme despite the fact it is a military dictatorship about to slip in to becoming the next fundamentalist islamic state ands will probably attack india.

Apparently It's OK to ignore the country that had connections to the attack on 911 and turn a blind eye to their banks supporting terrorism and invade one that had nothing to do with it.

Apparently it's OK to falsify intelligence reports to justify the above.

Apparently it's OK to lie to the people and portray dissenters as traitors.

Apparently It's OK to take actions that do more to encourage support for the fundamentalists than anything they could have hoped for.

Iran is so far away from having a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver them it is hardly an imminent threat.

Pakistan has them, has the means to deliver and is politically instable. We're worrying about the wrong country. I would give mushiraf (spelling?) a year to eighteen months before he is overthrown.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:20 am

The U.S. approach towards Iran re: nuclear development is illogical, but understandable. Isn't the U.S. saying in effect "we trust France, England, Russia, Pakistan, China et al, but not Iran"?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:42 am

Lon wrote: The U.S. approach towards Iran re: nuclear development is illogical, but understandable. Isn't the U.S. saying in effect "we trust France, England, Russia, Pakistan, China et al, but not Iran"?

i would agree with you thee, I would also argue it is doing more to destabalise the whole region and make warfare more likely than not.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:53 am

Were it not for the U.S. support of Israel, there is no doubt in my mind that the U.S. would react much differently toward Iran in this current situation.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:32 pm

Object away, I say! Just don't attack, invade, or otherwise violate their sovereignty.

coberst · Post by **coberst** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:50 am

I contend that Wal-Mart is Ã¢â‚¬Ëœthe logic of capitalismÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. 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 determinationÃ¢â‚¬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 todayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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.

moody1 · Post by **moody1** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:41 pm

I'm not hugely clued on about this subject; does America use the excuse that Iran is part of its axis of evil to condemn their development of a nuclear program?