[lit-ideas] Nuclear Hypocrisy and Iran
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas" <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:49:12 -0800
Irene's argument is a common one. Let's explore it. Consider the key word
"okay." What does she mean by it? We need to know because it is critical
to her whole argument. It assumes that there ought to be a leveling, a
sameness, an equality, but what is such an assumption based upon? And could
such a basis be considered valid or reasonable - or even possible?
If we look at the world, we do not see evidence that leveling, sameness or
equality prevails. We have seen modern attempts to enforce an artificial
equality or leveling, but they haven't been proved a permanent good and seem
to be in the process of being abandoned. Consider the matter of education.
Many Liberal educators wanted to abandon grades. Grades lowered the
self-esteem of students who couldn't do well and so experiments were
conducted in grade leveling. I haven't followed this experiment closely but
I believe it is being abandoned. Perhaps the fact that our students weren't
competing well against students from other countries contributed to its
demise. Affirmative action is another Liberal experiment intended to enable
women and minorities to "catch up" with WASM's (White Anglo-Saxon Males).
But this experiment is also being abandoned. Women and Minorities
appreciate a leveling in the sense of a "level playing field," but beyond
that they want to be judged on merit. They don't want it said that they
were granted favor beyond their abilities - at least the most talented and
outspoken are saying that. Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas are examples
of this.
While it is more a Leftist than a traditional Liberal desire, Communism, has
advocated a leveling of society: from each according to his abilities. To
each according to his needs. That was one of the great experiments of the
Soviet Union, and it failed in the sense that workers didn't work hard
enough under that system, and so the Soviet Union was not able to compete
economically, over a long period of time, with a system based largely upon
merit. That is, one in which the best and smartest workers get paid the
most. A society in which hard work is rewarded monetarily does better than
one in which it is not. The Soviet Union fell because of its ongoing
competition with the U.S. and not because of Al Quaeda's victory over them
in Afghanistan (a false claim, by the way, according to Lawrence Wright in
The Looming Tower).
Moving now into the relationships of nations, we know that neither at the
time of the League of Nations nor the formation of the United Nations, was
any desire for "leveling, sameness, or equality, entertained. Had someone
made such a suggestion it would have been considered preposterous. What
guarantees peace in the world, the founders of both institutions would have
agreed, was for the powerful nations of the world to enforce the peace.
Thus, the proposal that powerful nations give up some of their power to
weaker nations, would have been considered counterproductive.
And beyond that, in history we see that the times that are most peaceful are
times in which a powerful empire or nation guarantees that peace. The Pax
Romana is the classic example. Times in which nations are more or less
equal are times of frequent wars. Thus, given the evidence of history, it
would not be wise for the guarantor of the peace to give up power because of
some hypothetical belief in sameness, leveling, or equality. In fact, there
is no evidence that such a powerful nation would be willing to do that.
Given this concept, one would need to distinguish between wars between
equals and wars that might also be called "Police actions." Wars between
equals seem to be bloodier. World Wars One and Two were of that nature.
There was no overarching power that could exert its will on any of these
nations. After World War Two there were two superpowers in existence, and
since 1990 there has been but one. Would it be wise, or "okay" for this
superpower to give up any of its power in the interest of sameness,
leveling, or equality? It would seem quite an adventure for this superpower
to do that. No such power in history has ever done it. Not only does it
seem dangerous, but foolish. We know for example, that if we were to
abandon our power, large numbers of nations would feel it necessary to arm
themselves. If the U.S. abandoned its willingness to protect Japan, for
example, then Japan would arm itself so that it could protect itself.
By the way, if the U.S. declared that it was no longer willing to guarantee
the defense of Japan, then Japan, which has signed the non-proliferation
treaty would very likely renounce that treaty and develop nuclear power. If
the U.S. isn't willing to enforce non-proliferation, then who else can do
it?
Now since it makes no sense for a superpower to give up its power or move
toward a leveling or sameness or equality of power, why is the argument
claiming that the U.S. is being hypocritical for maintaining its power while
denying North Korea, or Iraq from having such power? The answer is in human
nature. The weak will take whatever advantage they can get. If they are
weak they will complain about the strength of the powerful. But once they
become strong, should that happen, such complaints are abandoned. John
Lewis Gaddis describes this process in Surprise, Security, and the American
Experience.
To return to Irene's argument, I don't believe it can be shown that it would
be "okay," for the U.S. to give up its power advantage over belligerent
nations such Iran. Quite the contrary, it would be the height of
foolishness.
Lawrence
> ------------Original Message------------
> From: Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tue, Mar-6-2007 9:08 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Nuclear Hypocrisy and Iran
>
> Public opinion can be a fine thing, but it doesn't answer the question
> of why it's okay for us to have nuclear weapons but not for others? I
> wonder if anyone polled Germany before WWII and asked the question of
> whether it's okay to invade other countries for one's own benefit? 91%
> approval rate you think? Likewise, public opinion was very much in
> favor of invading Iraq. Lots of people thought the earth was flat at one
> time too. Lots of people still think it's okay to hit children to
> "discipline" them. And on and on. If we were serious about reducing
> nuclear proliferation, we wouldn't be proliferating and spurring others to
> do the same; case in point, if Iraq had nuclear weapons, would we have
> invaded them? Obviously not. So, why is it okay for us to have and
> spend mightily on nuclear weapons but evil of Iran to?
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Mar 5, 2007 11:27 AM
> >To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Nuclear Hypocrisy and Iran
> >
> > >>Eric, why is it okay for us to have nuclear weapons and not Iran?
> >
> >Not wanting to debate the obvious -- all nuclear weapons proliferation
>
> >is bad -- I'd rather supply the opinion of others at the moment. -EY
> >
> >http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=826
> >America's Image Slips, But Allies Share U.S. Concerns Over Iran, Hama
> >June 2006
> >
> >Beyond the immediate issue of Iran's nuclear program, there is
> >widespread sentiment - especially in the West - that countries that do
>
> >not have nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing them.
> >Overwhelming majorities in Germany (91%), Japan (87%) and France (85%)
>
> >say non-nuclear countries should be prevented from developing nuclear
> >weapons. Roughly three-quarters in Great Britain (77%), the United
> >States (74%), and Russia (73%) also say that countries that do not
> have
> >nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing such weapons.
> >
> >Attitudes in Muslim countries on halting nuclear weapons proliferation
>
> >divide along about the same lines as opinions on Iran's nuclear
> program.
> >A narrow majority in Jordan (53%), 50% of Pakistanis, and 44% of
> >Egyptians say non-nuclear countries should not be stopped in their
> >attempts to develop nuclear weapons; comparable percentages in all
> three
> >countries say they favor Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
> >
> >Most Indonesians (61%) and Turks (58%) say countries that do not
> possess
> >nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing them. Majorities
> in
> >these countries also expressed opposition to Iran's acquisition of
> >nuclear weapons.
Other related posts:
