Russell Chapman wrote: > Robert Seeberger wrote: > >> We (the international community) can always resort to a MAD-like >> position to enforce anti-proliferation. (In fact that might be an >> inevitability) A formalization of the "Nuclear Club" would be a >> sign >> that such is indeed on the way. >> >> > But isn't that what the Security Council is? I mean, when it was set > up, it was the "Nuclear Club", and it used that MAD-like position to > control proliferation (though not as successfully as they might have > hoped).
I would describe it as "sub-formal". The Security Council is substatially mired down in other concerns that is less than optimally effective as it might be. IMO the terms should be clear to all: "You won't or else.....you shall not use such weapons or else.....you will not make threats concerning use of such weapons or else". The threat is much too dire for an understanding of anything less. My opinion may sound initially to be extreme, but the eventuality of nuclear proliferation is some number fewer cities and I would call that even more extreme. The flip side of this coin is another concern of mine, the question of sovreignty. I think it important that sovreignty be otherwise insured > Isn't that why Iran is so dead-set against being referred to > the Security Council for removing the seals? I think Iran is set on building influence and power. I hypothesize that Iran is one of those nations with an ancient and storied past and that many there feel their nation has an inherent right to be a "Playa" both regionally and on the world stage. It seems to me that such memes are often enough a part of a (non-economic) conservatism that sometimes involves a distinct nationalism/fascism but almost always plays well in the home park. I think too North Korea plays into this somewhat. They had nukes, were part of the Axis of Evil, and were not invaded. Iraq didn't and was. I don't think this was missed by everyone, and now it may be seen as desireable to possess nukes as a hedge against invasion by more powerful nations. It may be that the ease with which the US swatted Iraq down surprised much of the developing world (especially after the fiasco in Sudan and other similar events where the US was attacked) and the idea that the US was a "paper tiger" has been replaced with concerns about attracting undue US attention. (Lets call this TUSIBAETBWA the US is bad ass enough to be worried about) > > Of course, the fact that Iran removed the seals tells me all I need > to > know - they don't want to pursue their nuclear program within the > confines of UN monitoring, therefore they are up to no good... > I agree. I have no expertise in this area and am really just guessing about motives and movement. I'm wondering if Andrew or Ritu have any interesting comments on the subject. It is almost always quite instructive to hear from people distinctly outside the American pool of opinion. (Not that Russell is mistaken for an American<G>) xponent Axis Of Divergence Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
