| |
|
Guys and gals,
Thanks for your replies, I hope you find the discussion as interesting as I do! If I ramble a bit it's because it's quite late on a Friday night, I'm half cut, and there's a doco on the Yom Kippur war on! Hic!
It's interesting, amazing, frightening and humbling to realise how close we've been to annihilation, or more than one occasion, since nukes came on the scene.
I guess this is my objection to nukes. We, for the first time in human history, have a big red button that says "Self Destruct". For the first time in history we have doomsday device. Can we, for the first time in history, show enough restraint NOT use a weapon? I have great fear that the "superpowers" in particular now see plausible situations where the use of nuclear weapons might be, not only viable and legitimate, not met with overwhelming retaliatory force. History is littered with belligerents that believed they wielded that crushing, un-retaliable (is that a word?) force only to find that events unforeseen drastically changed the strategic landscape - fatally. Is anyone convinced that a nuclear first strike would be, if not met with similar massive force, so destabilising that others within the community feel so threatened as to launch their own nuclear strike. I don't totally disagree that in some circumstances nukes can make the world a more stable stable place. But we've released the energy that binds the very fabric of the universe a long time before gaining an understanding of the universe itself. We have attained the godlike ability to create little stars before attaining anywhere near godlike knowledge. That is probably the very pinnacle of danger. Nukes make the world far, far more dangerous.
With this in mind you're absolutely correct in saying that I am completely against more countries joining the "nuclear club". I just reckon that the more red buttons you have the more likely it is that someone will slip over and bang their funny bone on that button.
I touched on the concept of nuclear symetry in my last post. When the nuclear arms race first started there was two major players, the US and the Soviet Union. Before the concept of MAD existed nuclear warfare was a new enough concept that each protagonist knew they had weak spots. So they worked on ways to close those weak spots, work out ways of exploiting their opponents weak spots, and how to create new weak spots in their enemies. Each of the two superpowers knew they had enough weak spots to make a nuclear exchange unwinnable. It's all very well to win the exchange, but if your country is unliveable and unworkable your victory is a tad Pyrrhic. So each worked on amassing enough weaponry so that a nuclear first strike was an unviable option for their opponent. Absolutely M.A.D.! MAD, for all it's seeming..... madness... kept us somewhat safe. The two powers had reached a level of "nuclear symetry".
Nobody could win so they wouldn't release their weapons.
The UK, China, Israel and France had slightly different motivations. In the case of the Western European powers, they saw the need to deter the Soviet Union in their own right as they were aware of the possibility that the US might not have the will to protect them in the event of a Soviet invasion, and possible breakthrough, via the Fulda Gap. Sure the US would put up a "tactical" effort with their European forces, but would they be willing to go "strategic"? The possibility was very real that the US, being aware that their own destruction would be assured by coming to Europe's defence, may cut its own losses and concede Europe to the Soviet Union just as they'd done in the late forties and early fifties.
In the case of Israel, they'd been invaded enough times, thank you very much, to learn that their victories against their neighbours couldn't be assured in the long run, particularly in light of the Soviet Unions increasing interest in the region, manifesting itself in an increasing Soviet willingness to supply weapons, materials and expertise to Israel's enemies. To an extent, Israel were on their own. A nuclear deterrent made good sense. It's hard not to imagine that, despite the legendary effectiveness of Mossad, Israel could have gained access to nuclear weapons in totally complete secrecy without at least the West's knowledge, that they didn't receive a "nudge and a wink" at some point (although this WAS the agency that had managed to skedaddle with COMPLETE advanced Mirage fighter blueprints from the heart of Cold War Europe).
China's nuclear capability was developed with a mixture of these philosophies. "We've got interests, we've got nukes, you'd better listen!" The Chinese are famously far sighted and patient, culturally and politically and, (and this is just a semi-drunken opinion) being quite introverted, have never had much in the way of good friends in the modern world. Furthermore, they would also have been aware, through their involvement in the Korean war, that other nations held a nuclear axe over their neck. Unlike today, China was probably more interested in a regional deterrence capability while pursuing a (mostly) isolationist policy. But China had, and continues to have, a lot of territorial claims, internally (Tibet, border disputes with Russia and India) and externally (Taiwan, Spratly islands). I believe that China's capability was developed, at least initially, to both deter their neighbours and to use as a bargaining chip - to keep their Asian neighbours in line, and to make any defence attack on China or their interests sufficiently expensive that Taiwan's "friends" might not bother. Again, I think that, as a function of both their culture and their political system, the Chinese had a long term nuclear plan. Given their growing antipathy (during the late 50's, the 60's and 70's) towards the USSR and given the US was focusing their attention to the USSR, China was allowed to develop their capability with the blind eye firmly turned against them.
South Africa, Libya, Brazil and Argentina had undeclared programs at varying stages of completion that they subsequently admitted to and dismantled. There is plenty of evidence that South Africa's program was pursued in collaboration with Israel and that a lot of data was shared. It IS interesting to note that Brazil and Argentina retain enrichment capabilities as a result of these programs. It's also interesting to note that Brazil, Argentina and China pursued enrichment as a legitimate national right and protested that it was for "peaceful" purposes before themselves declaring weapons programs.
Which brings us to India and Pakistan. This is a classic case of mutual distrust leading to mutually assured destruction. Today India has the capability lead, but parity is close enough that both countries largely refrain from playing games of brinkmanship.
What is interesting about all of these cases is that, in my hazy opinion, an expansion in your nuclear weapons capability seems to lead to expansion in your theatre of interest. When you can play the nuclear trump you can play a more aggressive and risky hand knowing that you can always fall back on that trump if you get into dire difficulty. Which is great so long as you're not playing against someone else holding the same card.
India and Pakistan are new members of the club. A fantastic case against nuclear proliferation is embodied in Pakistan. Pakistan, knowingly, or unknowingly (there's a lot of speculation) allowed its secrets to get leak out through the networks of their top nuclear scientist, Abdul Kadir Khan. Guess who were the recipients of these secrets? Iran, Libya, Iraq, Iran and, it is said, Syria. Also interesting is that Russia was notoriously "loose" with their nukes. They were punching out so many warheads that they weren't accurately recording serial numbers of their warheads upon issue to their military units, particularly "tactical" artillery nukes. Bare in mind that these nukes were issued to line artillery units, often made up of conscripts, in their army with little more control - hardly a model of control! Imagine a frightened young officer, in command during wartime of an artillery unit, receiving reports of a breakthrough of his front lines by a battalion of enemy tanks. Yikes!What I'm trying to illustrate is that even a relatively "responsible" nuclear armed nation like the Soviet Union can't guarantee where all of there nukes are at any given moment, can't control them adequately at all times, and can't guarantee complete safety against unauthorised release.
Again, particularly with regard to China, these are all opinions based on my personal readings and an active interest in nuclear issues. Rather than any formal study that I've (not) undertaken these opinions are formed without a basis of study assessed by qualified mentors. I'd be keen to hear others ideas and opinions. My best excuse is that my formative years were lost to the military so I'm still playing catch-up....
What I'm trying to illustrate in a massively long winded, meandering and right brained kind of way is that I think what is important about nukes is their power lies much in the threat of their use as in the use itself. Saddam Hussein was aware of this. He confided in one of his American gaolers that he thought he'd done enough to hide that he didn't have WMD to give the impression that he did have WMD. He therefore thought that the US would not attack. It's probably not a stretch to think (in my mind anyway) that Saddam's launch of Scuds against Israel served as a message to Israel along the lines of "You are in reach, tell your mates to call the dogs off before they get to Baghdad" (aside from trying to lure Israel into war). There seems to be good evidence that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons although this seems to have been abandoned well before the US invaded. It has been posited, by the CIA (perhaps to cover their own arses) that the famous liar (or spectacularly mis-informed) Iraqi turncoat "Curveball" (has there ever been a more apt pseudonym?) may have been acting on orders of the Iraqi intelligence services to give the impression that Iraq had an available WMD capability.
What I'm trying to illustrate in this Bradmanesque turn at the conversational crease (it would be one of his slower innings) is that a nuclear arsenal can work in two ways. It can assure the destruction of your neighbour where you posses a complete or substantial, and thereby asymmetrical advantage, or, in a symmetrical strategic environment it can ensure the destruction of both of you, thereby having the same effect - deterring enemy aggression.
Which brings me via the Iliad, pausing only to fight War and Peace together the meaning of life (sorry, I AM drunk) to the assertion that Iran is fighting a futile practical battle in it's nuclear aspirations, but may be fighting a deft and shrewd political battle. Even if Iran IS allowed to reach a competitive level of nuclear parity with Israel (and this only has to be be a few crude warheads missile delivered delivered... inaccurately) it will never be able to gain a level of parity equal enough to guarantee deterrence of the US, NATO or the West in general. We need our oil! But that probably isn't really the point The point is political. The closer they get to a nuclear capability, the more closely the West will have to listen to their voice and the more likely they are to acquiesce to Iran's demands. As I've stated in other threads, oil is increasingly in tight supply and shed loads of what is available has to flow through the Straits of Hormuz - and very, very close to Iran. I reckon the reason why Russia and China refuses to take firm measures against Iran is that it is their respective best interests to see Iran dominate the region. This will change the balance of power that is largely, if not obviously, in favour of the US, to a position more favourable to the interests of the "Eastern Superpowers". Iran would be well positioned to take a leading role in the region and, if the ploy is effective enough, be seen as liberating US dominance of the region. Ask the people of Nigeria, Venezuela and Sudan, China is quite happy to buy oil without asking the tricky and pesky questions about human rights, equitable distribution of the financial spoils, environment or responsible international citizenship.
I'm sorry that I have been mildly verbose. If you have gotten this far thanks for your interest. Feel free to disagree or add as you see fit. If you decided to skip the rambling "impressionist" argument I've (probably poorly) attempted to make and go straight to the final paragraph, congratulations! You've saved three minutes of life you would have otherwise spent to read me state what will, to many, be the bleeding obvious interpreted simplistically. As I said in the body of the post, my interest is purely one of.... interest. My knowledge of the issue is gleaned from what is a pretty narrow and academically unsound band of sources (a couple of books; Resource Wars, House of War, Allah's Bomb and a couple of others, and various media and internet sources). This armchair geopolitcal analysis probably doesn't warrant such long windedness so please, one and all, as a new member of Barb and one who got off to a less than auspicious start, feel free to gently guide me in a more appropriate and suitable direction. This post probably sets some sort of record for length, simplicity and boringness. Along with an epic and pan-board argument I must be winning some sorts of dubious commemorative medals.
Cheers! And thanks in advance for your interest in keeping this (largely one sided) discussion alive - whether you agree or not you bunch of book burners (jest!).
 |
|
|
