The Moral Superiority Of Nuclear Possession
One of the great ironies of the late 20th and early 21st centuries is the self-imposed sense of heightened morality that various nations have provided themselves to justify the possession of nuclear weapons.
I use the term ironic because we are, after all, talking about the possession of the worlds most destructive force, one that, if used, could change the face of the planet itself. Thus, who, that would claim any sort of moral superiority, would want anything to do with that sort of destructive power to begin with?
The reality of nuclear weapons is that they exist as deterrents, not offensive weapons (having only been used twice since their inception as such), and have thus been attainted or mass produced by a variety of nations for that purpose – primarily during the Cold War era. But that does not explain why, for example, Israel possesses nuclear weapons, nor why they refuse, to this day, to admit that they do.
This leads us back to the sense of entitlement that some possess with regards to the possession of nuclear weapons and the right they feel they have to then condemn others for attempting to attain the same sort of security that such an overwhelming deterrent provides.
Again, Israel provides the prefect example.
As stated prior to this, Israel continues to deny that they even have a nuclear arsenal, even though they jailed Mordechai Vanunu for leaking the truth about their ‘non-existent’ nuclear program to the international press. Vanunu, once a technician at the Negev Nuclear Research Center, was tried, in secret, for treason in 1988 and spent 18 years in prison (11 of those in solitary confinement) for his exposure of Israel’s program. After his release, Vanunu again spoke openly about Israel’s program, and was subsequently jailed for a further six months in 2006. His access to the press is now strictly monitored, if not forbidden in most cases, and he is also unable to leave the country.
Like India, North Korea, and Pakistan, Israel is not recognized as a nuclear weapons state under the auspices of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even though the head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, considers Israel to be a state possessing nuclear weapons. In a slip up during an interview in December of 2006, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, while referring to Iran’s desire to obtain a nuclear weapon and the now massively misinterpreted assertion that Iranian President Ahmadinejad claimed that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map…
“Can you see that is the same level when you are aspiring to have a nuclear weapon as America, France, Israel and Russia?” he asked.
Officials at the Prime Minister’s Office later attempted to minimize the damage and rejected the claim that Olmert violated the ambiguousness policy by admitting that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.
They clarified that OImert only referred to the fundamental issue and said that by no means whatsoever did he intend to talk about the existence of absence of nuclear weapons.” - Y Net News, 12.12.06
As some of you might recall, on the 6th of this month, the Syrian government claimed that Israeli military aircraft violated their airspace and dropped munitions within their boarders. The Israeli government’s response was to claim that it does not comment on military operations, and many throughout the world employed the term ‘allegedly’ in articles about the event. Interestingly, in today’s Haaretz, new information has come to light (relying an article in yesterday’s Washington Post) that attempts to clarify what occurred on the 6th…
“An American Mideast expert said the alleged Israel Air Force strike in northern Syria last week was directly connected to a shipment Syria received from North Korea three days earlier, the Washington Post reported Saturday.
The expert spoke on condition of anonymity in order to protect his sources, who the report said are comprised of “Israeli participants” in the strike. He said the shipment was labeled as cement, but Israel believed it carried nuclear equipment.
The U.S. daily said the expert believed the IAF strike targeted a facility the Syrians claim serves as an “agricultural research center,” but Israel believes is used to extract uranium from phosphates.
The Washington Post also reported that the secrecy of the mission, on which Israel refuses to release details, was extended to those who carried it out. He said that the pilots providing cover for the aircraft that attacked the facility were not given specifics of the mission, and the pilots who actually carried out the strike were only briefed after they were in the air.
While neither side has explained what exactly happened in the early hours of September 6, a number of Israeli and American officials have speculated that the alleged attack was designed to thwart the possible development of Syrian nuclear capabilities.”
The Post also reported yesterday…
“Syria has signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty but has not agreed to an additional protocol that would allow for enhanced inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. GlobalSecurity.org, which offers information on weapons of mass destruction, said that “although Syria has long been cited as posing a nuclear proliferation risk, the country seems to have been too strapped for cash to get far.”
This is interesting, and also reverts back to my referencing irony at the beginning of this entry. While Syria has signed the NPT, Israel has not. The reason being, of course, that they refuse to admit that they have a program at all, even though it’s believed that their missiles have intercontinental capabilities – which seems very strange being that those they deem threats are entirely regional. Second, while Israel’s actions are basically defended, it is conveniently pointed out that Syria has not agreed to the additional protocol that allows for enhanced inspections by the IAEA. This, too, is ironic, being that Israel’s program has never been scrutinized by the United Nations, nor have they ever agreed to allow it to be.
This is where an entirely warped sense of moral entitlement comes into play with regards to nuclear weapons. While the world’s foremost powers, and their allies, can justify the possession of nuclear arsenals, they also possess the right to condemn those that they feel would present a threat to their sense of global and regional security were they to obtain nuclear deterrents. Since 9/11, this has largely been done by claiming that nations, such as Iran and Syria, both of whom have been singled out as state sponsors of terrorism, could gift terrorist organizations a weapon, or that such technology could be absconded with. Further, that they would dare to fly in the face of the overwhelming realities of mutually assured destruction were they to use a nuclear weapon out right.
That said, what do such concerns indicate? That Iran and Syria are immoral? That they do not possess the graces that we claim paramount within our own selves? That they would willingly bring down upon themselves the roofs of their own houses and sacrifice the lives of tens of millions of their own people? That they would be ignorant enough to supply a nuclear weapon to those that might use it without regard, knowing full well that the response to such usage would ultimately be visited upon them ten fold?
When one looks at the massive imbalance of nuclear power in the world, it is easy to see why the acquisition of nuclear deterrents by various nations might be of concern. Because it would represent a challenge to the already overwhelming military superiority of those that claim to hold the moral high ground. This, of course, is why it’s entirely ironic – because morality and decency have nothing to do with assurances of military dominance.
It is here that the question has to be asked. Were the regime of Saddam Hussein to have possessed a nuclear deterrent, would the United States have invaded the country in 2003? Given the fact that it didn’t, and the Iraqi regime was removed from power, what government in the region who has since been threatened by the United States would not want to obtain a deterrent against a possible invasion?
It should be lost on no one that many of the foreign militants in Iraq that are members of Salafi Jihadi groups are Saudi nationals. And yet no threatening rhetoric has been directed at Saudi Arabia. This week, General Petraeus claimed that al-Qaeda in Iraq remains a significant threat, yet there was no mention of how many of those within its ranks are from foreign locales, such as Saudi Arabia. It should also not be overlooked that the Saudis are included in the recent $20 billion dollar US military aid package to a number of predominantly Sunni states over the next decade. Of course, to counter balance that, Israel was gifted $30 billion dollars in military aid over the next decade, an increase of 25%, most of which has to be used to purchase arms from US manufacturers. Were Iran or Syria customers, one wonders how different the position of the United States, and their allies in the region, might be.
Quite obviously, our morality could be set aside for the sake of placating others with gifts of military assistance so long as they adhered to our goals.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Paul Wolfowitz wrote in the Defense Planning Guidance, which would be buried after the New York Times published excerpts from it, though it would later re-emerge post 9/11 and be instituted as official US foreign policy…
“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
“There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.”
In truth, when it comes to nuclear weapons, morality has no place. As I type this, under the surface of the waters of Persian Gulf, it is probable that one of fourteen Ohio-class SSBNs is present. Within the confines of such a submarine sleeps a complement of 24 Trident II missiles, a total of 288 missiles equipped with 1152 nuclear warheads. In short, it alone has the nuclear capability to decimate a significant portion of the Iranian population.
Immorality, it seems, is a universal proposition.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Saturday, September 15th, 2007 at 1:12 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
September 15th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Nuclear weapons affect us all on a personal level, the over 1,000 atmospheric tests during the Cold War have introduced radioactive material into the environment increasing cancer rates worldwide. As someone who was born near the US-Canada border in eastern BC and has lived in eastern Washington State, I’ve been subjected to radioactive material released from the Hanford facility for much of my life.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/hanford/publications/history/release.html
Nuclear weapons have no place in a sane world and it is hypocritical for the nations with the largest stockpiles to condemn other nations for even appearing to try and acquire nuclear capability. Especially when you consider that politicians like Dick Cheney have not ruled out using nuclear weapons to lessen US loses in combat.
September 15th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
the british guys at the end of the world are the best! haha!
September 15th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
The US should sell Nuke Technology to every Country that wants it. What the heck, France , China and Russia do. Might as well get on the Band Wagon. It’d be fun to see what Nepal would do with it. Or Yeman. Or Syria. Or Argentina.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad has been wronged and this thread sets it right. Not only does he wish nothing but the best for Israel, he’ll be going there soon to plant trees.
Oh, and he stands by his statements that the Holocaust never happened.
September 15th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Taking the “my country right or wrong” approach means you’re probably going to be wrong half the time.
September 15th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Not to worry, Robert, the US is already heavily involved in arms trading, including nuclear technology. As the country in the world with by far the biggest military and biggest defence industry, they can certainly spare a few missiles here and there. Those of us who actually like life and like sticking around, on the other hand, are not particuarly thrilled about it, no matter who the dealer is.
Ahmedinejad is an idiot for sure, but he’s a harmless idiot as far as Israel is concerned.
A couple of things US warmongers probably don’t want people to hear: 1) Ahmadinejad never actually said he wants to wipe Israel off the map
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
2) Ahmadinejad has little real constitutional power in Iran. It’s the Supreme Leader Khameini who has the bulk of the power. 3) Khameini issued a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons.
September 15th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
bc_boy, I disagree. Normally there is only one right way and infinite wrong ways…unless our goal is our own self-destruction…
September 15th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Didn’t Khameini get replaced a short time ago? I’m pretty sure he did…and the new guy is a capitalist who owns a ton of stuff in Iran.
I realize Ahmadinejad has no real power and I stand with my prediction that there will be a secular people’s revolution in Iran. I don’t think Bush has any military designs on Iran.
I was involved in a little spat once and a young guy told me something I’ll never forget: “We love it that the Americans did this, but we resent the fact that you didn’t let us have our own revolution”. The real story is though: Those Medical Students were getting dangerously close to Graduation.
It’s all ok…..the big one is going to be the Revolution Brewinbg in China…..Too much way too soon for some while the peasents get nothing. And they see it happening. Soldiers are revolting in three cities. Shots fired………and you can’t blame this one on the US.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
[quote comment="26244"]bc_boy, I disagree. Normally there is only one right way and infinite wrong ways…unless our goal is our own self-destruction…[/quote]
You need to explain that a bit more, it sounds like fundamentalism to me.
[quote]It’s all ok…..the big one is going to be the Revolution Brewinbg in China…..Too much way too soon for some while the peasents get nothing. And they see it happening. Soldiers are revolting in three cities. Shots fired………and you can’t blame this one on the US.[/quote]
It’s US corporations like Walmart that have helped open China up for exploitation causing a lot of the problems there, so yes you can blame the US to a degree. At the same time these companies deliver shoddy and often unsafe products to market here while making incredible profits.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Didn’t you see that new non-nuclear bomb the Russians just developed? You see, previously, the Americans held the record for the largest non-nuclear bomb, but the Russians made one four times stronger! On impact it releases a fine cloud of combustible mist that ignites to incredibly high temperatures, but because it’s non-nuclear, it “does not damage the environment.” Don’t you just love a good arms race? I predict it’ll be an Olympic event by 2029.
“Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have.” - Jack Handey
September 16th, 2007 at 12:43 am
And the Russians are back flying bombers along our coast…… I can hear the Interceptors taking off from Weymoth Air. But we probably deserve it, what with our attitude.
Putin is getting to do in Russia what Chavez wants to do: abolish the Democratic voting system that got them elected. That should make the Human Rights Activists happy. Two more dictaters. OK……..How is this one George Bushs’ fault?
September 16th, 2007 at 12:47 am
WOW. I didn’t know Iran’s president was misquoted on the whole “wipe Israel off the face of the map” remark. Thank you for linking that article, fascinating.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:30 am
[quote comment="26257"]And the Russians are back flying bombers along our coast…… I can hear the Interceptors taking off from Weymoth Air. But we probably deserve it, what with our attitude.
Putin is getting to do in Russia what Chavez wants to do: abolish the Democratic voting system that got them elected. That should make the Human Rights Activists happy. Two more dictaters. OK……..How is this one George Bushs’ fault?[/quote]
And Bush is a strong supporter of democratic traditions?
If it wasn’t for his brother in Florida manipulating that states electoral system and his cousin who was running the Fox network(which was the first to declare him the winner in the 2000 election) and judges many of whom had ties to the Republican party, Bush never would have sat in the Oval Office. Something the 20,000 demonstrators at his inaugeration were trying to point out, they represented real democracy in America not Bush and were ignored with tragic consequences.
So much of what Bush and the Neo-cons* do is intended to distract domestic attention from the illegal activities they’re up to. Until we wake up one day and are told we no longer need a constitution or a democratic system anymore.
*Many who deserve to become old con(victs).
September 16th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
“o much of what Bush and the Neo-cons* do is intended to distract domestic attention from the illegal activities they’re up to. Until we wake up one day and are told we no longer need a constitution or a democratic system anymore”
So the fact that the Chinese government is shooting it’s own soldiers means nothing to you?
It’s George Bushs’ fault?
If you believe Florida was rigged, than you believe in rumours selectively. Your “truth” is someone elses “conspiricy”.
So you are predicting an American Revolution this year? There will not be an election in 2008? Will this be a bloodless coup or a messy civil war?
September 16th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
That’s not fair, Robert. Nobody said actions of other governments were necessarily George Bush’s fault. There are certainly other regimes out there, including the Chinese regime, that need to be condemned. I think what frustrates BC Boy and many others including me is that the US regime is doing things for which they need to be held to account, and they’re not.
Noam Chomsky calls it the principle of universality. You hold yourself and your own government to the same standard that you hold others to.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Governments? Sure……Thugs……no. Or else we’d be cutting heads off of terrorists on live tv.
Besides, quoting Noam Chomsky to me is like quoting Daffy Duck.
It ain’t the United States’ fault. It’s Internationalists. (On both sides) There are forces at work in this world that belong to no country, no nation, no religion and no political party. If you think George Bush is the most powerful man in the world, you haven’t been paying attention. These people wouldn’t mind seeing a few Billion! people wiped off the earth. The poor, the sick, the lazy etc……..Heard about Bird Flu, lately?……Aids in Africa? How could countries as rich as China, Russia, and Cuba let the North Koreans starve? Don’t ya think they could send some potatos for god’s sake?
…..It’s just easier to blame the US for everything…….
I understand the anger and frustration. Believe me, I went through it in the ’60’s, ’70’s, ’80’s.
Good luck in the future…..I hope you leave the world a better place. But listen to Everybody!!! The right as well as the left. As Thomas Pynchon always sez: ” If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”
September 16th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
[quote comment="26327"]That’s not fair, Robert. Nobody said actions of other governments were necessarily George Bush’s fault. There are certainly other regimes out there, including the Chinese regime, that need to be condemned. I think what frustrates BC Boy and many others including me is that the US regime is doing things for which they need to be held to account, and they’re not.
Noam Chomsky calls it the principle of universality. You hold yourself and your own government to the same standard that you hold others to.[/quote]
I couldn’t have said it better, thank you.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
What part of holding yourself to the same standard that you hold others do you disagree with? And, believe me, there are thugs in the Bush Administraton
And I don’t know what nationless religionless organization out there you think is more powerful than George Bush, but if you have inside information, I think the rest of us would really like to hear it. And yes, there certainly are forces such as the tsunami and AIDS, but we’re talking about powerful humans, not natural phenomenon.
You said, listen to the right as well as the left. That’s quite funny actually, because when I was much younger I was politically conservative. I came from a conservative family. Just because I’m disagreeing with you on these issues does not mean I discount everything people on the right say.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:36 am
while on the topic of nuclear weapons — the neocons in the US are widely believed to be in the final stages of planning war on Iran. israel, the christian right, the so called ‘defense industry’ — they are screaming into ears of the US government - take out Iran!
iran has seen what happens to other country’s nuclear facilities - which in the case of iran are perfectly legal. they have buried them deep underground where israel cannot bomb them.
given this, the neoCons are saying they are prepared to use ‘tactical’ nuclear devices to bomb iran. at one point, the US signed a treaty saying they would never use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country but bush has repudiated all that. do you wonder why nuclear proliferation is a problem?
one cannot even imagine the horror — people should go and review the footage of the nuclear aftermath of hiroshima and nagasaki for a glimpse.
it seems the biggest war crime in history is about to be committed in the middle east and the world is strangely silent - we are sleepwaking towards disaster.