[Rushy]

I want Iran to have nukes. Historically, a country that acquired nukes always became more stable and the region became more peaceful. Very recent examples include Israel, which threatened to nuke the entire region and subsequently survived an Egyptian beat-down, and then we have Ukraine, who gave up their nukes only to be invaded by Russia.

Nuclear weapons have only stopped wars, they have never started them.

Since this was obviously off-topic inside Yaakov's "Ask A Jew Anything he happens to want to answer at the time" thread, I thought I'd make a new thread, since Tausami had some very interesting thoughts about foreign relations. Let's pick up where we left off:

Are you saying that North Korea has become more stable since it developed nuclear technology? I thought we were just ignoring them as the outlier in the situation. Anyway, they haven't developed the missile technology to use them yet so they don't really count at all.

I'm not saying it is more stable, but it hasn't really degraded much. (not that I imagine it could)

I'm not sure how not-stupid [Iran is]. They knowingly stepped into a situation where the UN would impose extremely harsh restrictions on them. That doesn't sound like something an intelligent, self-aware country would do.

Now you're implying that Russia is not an intelligent, self-aware country. I'm really confused about how you imagine foreign countries.

[Lord Dave]

I think the India/Pakistan relationship shows the power of nukes to bring peace via MAD.

[garygreen]

Anyone interested in a really excellent defense of MAD and the security benefits of proliferation should read some Kenneth Waltz.  He's spent most of his career writing prolifically (get it?!?!) in support of nuclear proliferation.

There's also a really excellent paper titled An Assessment of the Merits of Selective Nuclear Proliferation (couldn't find a free pdf, but you can surely get a copy from your public library's electronic catalogue if you're interested in reading it) that models the probabilities of bilateral conflict between nuclear states. It's fantastic.

Ultimately I disagree with these authors, but they're really great reads nonetheless.

[Tau]

I think MAD definitely works, but it only works because there is a very real threat of actual mutual destruction. The Cold War showed that politicians are probably dumb enough to actually do it, too. I'm not sure the risk of nuclear annihilation is worth the benefit of decreased violence.

[Rushy]

I think MAD definitely works, but it only works because there is a very real threat of actual mutual destruction. The Cold War showed that politicians are probably dumb enough to actually do it, too. I'm not sure the risk of nuclear annihilation is worth the benefit of decreased violence.

If anything the Cold War is the ultimate proof that nuclear weapons stop wars. The Cold War would have most likely turned hot if it was just the US versus Russia and nuclear weapons hadn't been discovered yet. I'd also like to say that Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if it had nuclear weapons, or even if it had, I bet NATO would have more actively intervened to stop the invasion.

[Ghost of V]

If nukes stop wars then there is a much higher chance that we will find life outside of our solar system. Thanks for this, Rushy!!

[Rushy]

If nukes stop wars then there is a much higher chance that we will find life outside of our solar system. Thanks for this, Rushy!!

You still mad bout dat bro?

[Ghost of V]

If nukes stop wars then there is a much higher chance that we will find life outside of our solar system. Thanks for this, Rushy!!

You still mad bout dat bro?

Yep.

[Tau]

I think MAD definitely works, but it only works because there is a very real threat of actual mutual destruction. The Cold War showed that politicians are probably dumb enough to actually do it, too. I'm not sure the risk of nuclear annihilation is worth the benefit of decreased violence.

If anything the Cold War is the ultimate proof that nuclear weapons stop wars. The Cold War would have most likely turned hot if it was just the US versus Russia and nuclear weapons hadn't been discovered yet. I'd also like to say that Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if it had nuclear weapons, or even if it had, I bet NATO would have more actively intervened to stop the invasion.

Yeah, but there were so many cases where the cold war almost went hot, and if it had we probably wouldn't be hanging out on a forum right now. There's the famous case during the Cuban Missile Crisis where a Russian sub almost used their missiles, for example.

[Rushy]

Yeah, but there were so many cases where the cold war almost went hot, and if it had we probably wouldn't be hanging out on a forum right now. There's the famous case during the Cuban Missile Crisis where a Russian sub almost used their missiles, for example.

You know what they call an "almost war"? Not a war. Even the name Cold War only exists because calling it a full on war wouldn't describe the situation, since a war between Russia and the US never happened.

[garygreen]

I want Iran to have nukes. Historically, a country that acquired nukes always became more stable and the region became more peaceful. Very recent examples include Israel, which threatened to nuke the entire region and subsequently survived an Egyptian beat-down, and then we have Ukraine, who gave up their nukes only to be invaded by Russia.

I think this position is problematic for a few reasons.  For one thing I think it ignores the specifics of the situation around Iran today, and I just don't think there are enough similarities between the examples you mention and the status quo with respect to Iran.  The most obvious differences to me are the religious ideologies of the states in question and the high degree of multipolarity. 

I think the primary threat from Iranian nuclearization is less that Iran will first strike someone (Israel) and more that it all but requires their neighbors to follow suit.  Saudi Arabia's alliance with Pakistan (and material support for its nuclear program) can be viewed almost exclusively through that lens.  If Saudi Arabia and Iran both have nukes, then there's good reasons to believe that the proliferation will spread to neighbors like UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, etc.  I really don't want to see what the Mid East would be like if half of the region had nukes.

This is obviously super simplistic.  There's no real way to know where Iranian prolif would spread.  Several of those nations are NPT ratifiers, the UN and IAEA would get involved, and who the fuck knows how Russia and China would respond.  But that, to me, is the frightening bit.

Nuclear weapons have only stopped wars, they have never started them.

I disagree with you that history is good evidence in favor of 'proliferation=security.'  I don't at all dispute that your statement is empirically true to this point in time, but nuclear weapons just haven't been around for that long, and they've been concentrated in the hands of a few states, most of which have exceptionally similar ideologies.  I think it would be a mistake to draw sweeping conclusions from the very limited empirical data that exists.  It's like flipping a coin 50 times and getting 25 heads/25 tails.  The coin might appear to be fair, but we've haven't flipped enough times to know for sure.

This is ultimately where I disagree with Waltz et al.:  I think the logic holds between two states guided by rational (read: material) self-interest; but, such a restricted model doesn't say anything about multipolar conflicts or states guided by non-rational interests.  Personally, I think those scenarios are the rule and not the exception.  In my view, anything like an objective rationality doesn't exist anyway.  It's always axiomatic, and it's always cultural. 

And, if we're wrong, we're really, really fucked.  Conflicts and violence suck, but not as much as maybe going extinct from nuclear winter or whatever.

[Rushy]

I think this position is problematic for a few reasons.  For one thing I think it ignores the specifics of the situation around Iran today, and I just don't think there are enough similarities between the examples you mention and the status quo with respect to Iran.  The most obvious differences to me are the religious ideologies of the states in question and the high degree of multipolarity. 

Iran has historically acted the same way world powers do, that is, in their own self interest. I don't see how their religion or culture impacts that. If anything, I see Saudi Arabia's culture as more damaging to the world than Iran's, but we're allies with the Saudis.

I think the primary threat from Iranian nuclearization is less that Iran will first strike someone (Israel) and more that it all but requires their neighbors to follow suit.  Saudi Arabia's alliance with Pakistan (and material support for its nuclear program) can be viewed almost exclusively through that lens.  If Saudi Arabia and Iran both have nukes, then there's good reasons to believe that the proliferation will spread to neighbors like UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, etc.  I really don't want to see what the Mid East would be like if half of the region had nukes.

I doubt Iran would first strike someone because that would be suicide. As I argued with Tausami, Iran isn't a country full of idiots. They have some religious nuts, yes, but not the kind that offs themselves. They have enemies they want to destroy, but like all countries, they want to destroy their enemies without destroying themselves in the process.

This is obviously super simplistic.  There's no real way to know where Iranian prolif would spread.  Several of those nations are NPT ratifiers, the UN and IAEA would get involved, and who the fuck knows how Russia and China would respond.  But that, to me, is the frightening bit.

Pakistan's nukes haven't magically spread around the area. There's no reason to think Iran will toss them around like hot potatoes. Nukes are expensive.

I disagree with you that history is good evidence in favor of 'proliferation=security.'  I don't at all dispute that your statement is empirically true to this point in time, but nuclear weapons just haven't been around for that long, and they've been concentrated in the hands of a few states, most of which have exceptionally similar ideologies.  I think it would be a mistake to draw sweeping conclusions from the very limited empirical data that exists.  It's like flipping a coin 50 times and getting 25 heads/25 tails.  The coin might appear to be fair, but we've haven't flipped enough times to know for sure.

"You're right, but you're not right enough!" Lol, okay. I guess we'll just revisit the issue in a thousand years.

This is ultimately where I disagree with Waltz et al.:  I think the logic holds between two states guided by rational (read: material) self-interest; but, such a restricted model doesn't say anything about multipolar conflicts or states guided by non-rational interests.  Personally, I think those scenarios are the rule and not the exception.  In my view, anything like an objective rationality doesn't exist anyway.  It's always axiomatic, and it's always cultural. 

And, if we're wrong, we're really, really fucked.  Conflicts and violence suck, but not as much as maybe going extinct from nuclear winter or whatever.

When it comes to first-strike states being a bother to you, I would be more worried about Israel. They seem to be really intent on making sure they can fire off nukes in any direction and have their Iron Dome system fend off anyone who tries to fight back.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, Israel is not crazy enough to use them, for one simple reason. If they used them first, it would be too soon. If they used them second, it would be too late. And in either case, any country they used them against would ultimately be a Pyrrhic victory. Sure, you can destroy Tehran, but then the fall-out reaches Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Not a good idea, is it?

I think the Government of Iran, which is not led by the President of that country, who I think is actually pretty sane, but rather the Ayatollahs, who are anything BUT sane, is crazy enough to want to use a bomb. They are not quite as crazy as North Korea, but they are close. Granted, with Ahmadinejad gone, maybe not, because that is one level of crazy gone, but who knows. But arming the entire Middle East with nukes is probably a VERY bad idea.

[Tau]

I think the best solution would be to nuke Jerusalem directly. It'd end everyone's fighting about it.

Yeah, but there were so many cases where the cold war almost went hot, and if it had we probably wouldn't be hanging out on a forum right now. There's the famous case during the Cuban Missile Crisis where a Russian sub almost used their missiles, for example.

You know what they call an "almost war"? Not a war. Even the name Cold War only exists because calling it a full on war wouldn't describe the situation, since a war between Russia and the US never happened.

Okay, but in the case of nuclear weapons 'almost war' only has to become actual war once to destroy everything.

______

Besides, all of this discussion is irrelevant. As 17November proved years ago, nuclear weapons don't actually exist.

[Vindictus]

I'm skeptical of other nations in the middle east acquiring nukes that easily, whether they wanted them or not. Not only are most of them pretty hopeless nations right now (especially Syria), but the big boys wouldn't be happy with it.

[Rushy]

Okay, but in the case of nuclear weapons 'almost war' only has to become actual war once to destroy everything.

Assuming if one nuclear weapon were to be used every country on Earth starts nuking each other is nonsense.

[Rama Set]

My issue with nuclear proliferation is that I worry about a nuke going missing in to the hands of an irrational actor who does the all-time greatest suicide bombing. It seems to me that the more nations have nukes, the more likely this is to occur. Not to mention this could be a way for a state to indirectly nuke an enemy.

If you can assuage this view please do so.

[garygreen]

Iran has historically acted the same way world powers do, that is, in their own self interest. I don't see how their religion or culture impacts that.

I don't know if you mean self-preservation or national interests.  Sure, I think nations generally want to keep being nations.  Aside from that general desire, I think Israel and Ukraine are not similar to Iran.  And, I can definitely think of examples of nations that acted counter to what we would call 'rational self interest.'  WWI is replete with them.  The Willy-Nicky letters are an especially good example.  Without going into a whole thing, I think they demonstrate that nations and their leaders can behave counter to their own interests (and the interests of their citizens) because they believe that they have no other choices.  Nicolas says things like, " The indignation in Russia shared fully by me is enormous. I foresee that very soon I shall be overwhelmed by the pressure forced upon me and be forced to take extreme measures which will lead to war," and, "It is technically impossible to stop our military preparations which were obligatory owing to Austria's mobilisation."   I think a nuclear Iran would have plenty of opportunities for national interests to override self-preservation.

I think the primary threat from Iranian nuclearization is less that Iran will first strike someone (Israel) and more that it all but requires their neighbors to follow suit.  Saudi Arabia's alliance with Pakistan (and material support for its nuclear program) can be viewed almost exclusively through that lens.  If Saudi Arabia and Iran both have nukes, then there's good reasons to believe that the proliferation will spread to neighbors like UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, etc.  I really don't want to see what the Mid East would be like if half of the region had nukes.

I doubt Iran would first strike someone because that would be suicide. As I argued with Tausami, Iran isn't a country full of idiots. They have some religious nuts, yes, but not the kind that offs themselves. They have enemies they want to destroy, but like all countries, they want to destroy their enemies without destroying themselves in the process.

I agree.  I said I don't think Iran would first strike Israel.  I tried to articulate that the danger to me is the proliferation that happens in the region because of Iran.  This is what I'm getting at with Pakistan.  Saudia Arabia currently provides material support for Pakistan's nuclear program as a quid pro quo for nuclear arms if Iran gets the bomb.  If Iran gets the bomb, Pakistan hooks up Saudi Arabia.  Super clever way of achieving some measure of nuclear deterrence without everyone getting all in your shit for having a bomb yourself.  If Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia all have bombs, then there's probably enormous pressure on nations like Turkey and Syria to follow suit.  Syria already has a history of trying to get a bomb.

That, to me, is the nightmare scenario.  A tightly packed region of complex cultural, religious, and historical alliances and hatreds.  All with bombs?  No thanks.

I disagree with you that history is good evidence in favor of 'proliferation=security.'  I don't at all dispute that your statement is empirically true to this point in time, but nuclear weapons just haven't been around for that long, and they've been concentrated in the hands of a few states, most of which have exceptionally similar ideologies.  I think it would be a mistake to draw sweeping conclusions from the very limited empirical data that exists.  It's like flipping a coin 50 times and getting 25 heads/25 tails.  The coin might appear to be fair, but we've haven't flipped enough times to know for sure.

"You're right, but you're not right enough!" Lol, okay.

That's not at all what I'm saying.  I'm saying that it doesn't matter how well the data fit your hypothesis if there aren't enough data points to draw any conclusions at all.  Just as 50 coin flips cannot confirm the hypothesis that the coin is fair, I don't think that there have been enough conflicts involving nuclear nations to confirm the MAD hypotheses (I'd rather not test that hypothesis at all).  That the coin appears fair so far is irrelevant.  For example, your statement about nukes only ever stopping wars and not starting them was just as true at the end of 1945 as it is today.  By your logic we could have concluded in 1945 that history proves that nukes only end wars and don't start them! 

That said, I feel like your argument ultimately reduces to, "it hasn't failed yet, so it won't, ever."  That MAD has worked out reasonably well for the past 70 years isn't to me an especially convincing reason to believe that it certainly will for the next 70 years, or 100, or 500.  Past outcomes do not necessarily predict future results.

When it comes to first-strike states being a bother to you, I would be more worried about Israel. They seem to be really intent on making sure they can fire off nukes in any direction and have their Iron Dome system fend off anyone who tries to fight back.

I'm not worried about Iran first striking Israel.  Doesn't Israel just prove that there are easily conceivable scenarios in which MAD breaks down?  MAD depends on mutuality.  If Israel has nukes and a multi-layered missile defense shield, and if Iran suddenly gets nukes, isn't that a reasonable scenario for Israel first striking Iran with nukes?  That makes it sound like it would be pretty bad for Iran to get nukes.

[Lord Dave]

Well, Israel is not crazy enough to use them, for one simple reason. If they used them first, it would be too soon. If they used them second, it would be too late. And in either case, any country they used them against would ultimately be a Pyrrhic victory. Sure, you can destroy Tehran, but then the fall-out reaches Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Not a good idea, is it?

I think the Government of Iran, which is not led by the President of that country, who I think is actually pretty sane, but rather the Ayatollahs, who are anything BUT sane, is crazy enough to want to use a bomb. They are not quite as crazy as North Korea, but they are close. Granted, with Ahmadinejad gone, maybe not, because that is one level of crazy gone, but who knows. But arming the entire Middle East with nukes is probably a VERY bad idea.

Yeah but just think: You're dream of cleansing the Middle East of non-jews would come true.

[Rushy]

My issue with nuclear proliferation is that I worry about a nuke going missing in to the hands of an irrational actor who does the all-time greatest suicide bombing. It seems to me that the more nations have nukes, the more likely this is to occur. Not to mention this could be a way for a state to indirectly nuke an enemy.

If you can assuage this view please do so.

If you're trying to suicide bomb places a nuke would be one of the worse ways to do it. A cement truck full of conventional explosives can in most cases be more devastating than a nuclear bomb that could be carted around. In any case I think you underestimate how cumbersome it would be to transport a nuclear weapon.

I don't know if you mean self-preservation or national interests.  Sure, I think nations generally want to keep being nations.  Aside from that general desire, I think Israel and Ukraine are not similar to Iran.  And, I can definitely think of examples of nations that acted counter to what we would call 'rational self interest.'  WWI is replete with them.  The Willy-Nicky letters are an especially good example.  Without going into a whole thing, I think they demonstrate that nations and their leaders can behave counter to their own interests (and the interests of their citizens) because they believe that they have no other choices.  Nicolas says things like, " The indignation in Russia shared fully by me is enormous. I foresee that very soon I shall be overwhelmed by the pressure forced upon me and be forced to take extreme measures which will lead to war," and, "It is technically impossible to stop our military preparations which were obligatory owing to Austria's mobilisation."   I think a nuclear Iran would have plenty of opportunities for national interests to override self-preservation.

Then it'd probably be a good idea not to try to make war with a nation with nukes and force them into believing they are out of options. That's the whole point.

I agree.  I said I don't think Iran would first strike Israel.  I tried to articulate that the danger to me is the proliferation that happens in the region because of Iran.  This is what I'm getting at with Pakistan.  Saudia Arabia currently provides material support for Pakistan's nuclear program as a quid pro quo for nuclear arms if Iran gets the bomb.  If Iran gets the bomb, Pakistan hooks up Saudi Arabia.  Super clever way of achieving some measure of nuclear deterrence without everyone getting all in your shit for having a bomb yourself.  If Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia all have bombs, then there's probably enormous pressure on nations like Turkey and Syria to follow suit.  Syria already has a history of trying to get a bomb.

Syria is a non-issue, they'd never get a bomb, like ever. Ten different countries could be invading them before they'd even contemplate the idea of having one. Turkey probably should have bombs, though.

That's not at all what I'm saying.  I'm saying that it doesn't matter how well the data fit your hypothesis if there aren't enough data points to draw any conclusions at all.  Just as 50 coin flips cannot confirm the hypothesis that the coin is fair, I don't think that there have been enough conflicts involving nuclear nations to confirm the MAD hypotheses (I'd rather not test that hypothesis at all).  That the coin appears fair so far is irrelevant.  For example, your statement about nukes only ever stopping wars and not starting them was just as true at the end of 1945 as it is today.  By your logic we could have concluded in 1945 that history proves that nukes only end wars and don't start them! 

Simply stating that history is irrelevant is asinine and I won't argue with you if you continue to do so. You have already stated I was correct in this point, now is the time to move on.

I'm not worried about Iran first striking Israel.  Doesn't Israel just prove that there are easily conceivable scenarios in which MAD breaks down?  MAD depends on mutuality.  If Israel has nukes and a multi-layered missile defense shield, and if Iran suddenly gets nukes, isn't that a reasonable scenario for Israel first striking Iran with nukes?  That makes it sound like it would be pretty bad for Iran to get nukes.

I'm saying it is likely that Israel will first strike someone regardless of whether they have nukes or not. I'm betting that chance would be lessened merely on the notion that even one of Iran's retaliatory nukes would get through.