3 ms·

> Why can the USA and Russia and the others have nuclear weapons but not Iran? There is no justification for that. Most non-proliferation activists, Obama incl

by davmre 11y ago

> Why can the USA and Russia and the others have nuclear weapons but not Iran? There is no justification for that. Most non-proliferation activists, Obama included, have the stated goal of a "world without nuclear weapons", in which the US and Russia also bring their stockpiles down to zero. Superpowers are already wealthy enough to win wars by conventional means, and they have the most to lose from rogue nuclear strikes, so they have strong incentives to work in this direction. That said the fact of the matter is that the US and Russia do have large nuclear stockpiles, and don't like each other very much, so coordinating simultaneous arms reductions is a tricky game-theoretic dance. Hopefully we'll get there, but it may take a long time. While that progresses, preventing new nuclear powers from springing up is an equally important part of the nonproliferation agenda. > If you don't want them to have nuclear weapons provide them incentives. That's exactly what the sanctions regime against Iran has been: a set of incentives engineered so that giving up nukes is in their best interest.

danbruc 11y ago
The USA and a few other countries have not yet signed or ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. If your goal is zero nuclear weapons there is not much harm doing so. At worst you would have to break or cancel the agreement one day and I can hardly imagine negative consequences if the situation in the world developed in a way that doing so is deemed necessary. Also unilaterally decreasing the nuclear stockpile from about 5000 right now to say 4000 or 2000 is not really dangerous. If you ever come into a situation where you need more than 2000 nuclear weapons I can't imagine that it makes any real difference whether you have one more or 3000 more. And this would really send a strong message to the other nuclear powers. Russia one, USA one, Russia one, USA one, ... is pretty silly in the current situation. Maybe if there is only a handful left. Sanctions is exactly what I did not mean. Yes, it provides incentives but absolutely in the wrong way. If you want something you offer something in return, you don't take the other party as a hostage.
- davmre 11y ago
  > The USA and a few other countries have not yet signed or ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. If your goal is zero nuclear weapons there is not much harm doing so. Zero nuclear weapons is Obama's goal; it's unfortunately not the formal policy of the US government. Treaty ratifications require Senate approval, which will not be forthcoming anytime soon. Yes, that's a valid criticism of the US political system. > If you want something you offer something in return, you don't take the other party as a hostage. What Iran is being offered in return is access to international markets. We -- in the broad sense of all six parties including Russia and China -- are offering to sell them new technology and equipment, invest in their businesses, buy their oil and other products, etc. That kind of commercial relationship is not something that any nation is obligated to offer to another (barring free trade agreements). Iran could keep bumbling along by itself, trading with whatever states are willing. But the incentive of commerce with major, wealthy powers seems to be a strong one.
  - danbruc 11y ago
    You are of course right when you say that no country is obliged to trade with other countries but I would still argue that trading with other countries is the normal status. Then putting an embargo on a country and only lifting it under conditions you dictate is a form of punishment to achieve your goals. The nice way to achieve your goals is to offer something in addition to the normal status. Essentially I see it as the same difference as between giving you money to buy your car and forcing you to hand me the key by pointing a gun at you. Or an even better analogy, I deny you access to gas stations - I own all of them - making the car useless for you. Here too I have no obligation to sell you gas but the normal status is that I sell it to everyone asking for some.
    - davmre 11y ago
      > Essentially I see it as the same difference as between giving you money to buy your car and forcing you to hand me the key by pointing a gun at you. I'd argue a more apt comparison would be saying "I'll buy your car, but only if you stop waving that gun around". In any case, the point of foreign policy isn't to be nice or fair; it's to create norms and incentives that lead to a stable and peaceful world. If the international community pays off Iran, above and beyond normalized participation in international commerce, to dismantle its nuclear program, then the incentive is clear for other nations to start such programs in hope of a payoff. Regardless of the fairness arguments (which cut both ways - it's not really "fair" to peaceful nations if Iran gets rewarded and they don't), that is a precedent you don't want to set.

by davmre 11y ago

danbruc 11y ago

The USA and a few other countries have not yet signed or ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. If your goal is zero nuclear weapons there is not much harm doing so. At worst you would have to break or cancel the agreement one day and I can hardly imagine negative consequences if the situation in the world developed in a way that doing so is deemed necessary. Also unilaterally decreasing the nuclear stockpile from about 5000 right now to say 4000 or 2000 is not really dangerous. If you ever come into a situation where you need more than 2000 nuclear weapons I can't imagine that it makes any real difference whether you have one more or 3000 more. And this would really send a strong message to the other nuclear powers. Russia one, USA one, Russia one, USA one, ... is pretty silly in the current situation. Maybe if there is only a handful left. Sanctions is exactly what I did not mean. Yes, it provides incentives but absolutely in the wrong way. If you want something you offer something in return, you don't take the other party as a hostage.

davmre 11y ago
> The USA and a few other countries have not yet signed or ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. If your goal is zero nuclear weapons there is not much harm doing so. Zero nuclear weapons is Obama's goal; it's unfortunately not the formal policy of the US government. Treaty ratifications require Senate approval, which will not be forthcoming anytime soon. Yes, that's a valid criticism of the US political system. > If you want something you offer something in return, you don't take the other party as a hostage. What Iran is being offered in return is access to international markets. We -- in the broad sense of all six parties including Russia and China -- are offering to sell them new technology and equipment, invest in their businesses, buy their oil and other products, etc. That kind of commercial relationship is not something that any nation is obligated to offer to another (barring free trade agreements). Iran could keep bumbling along by itself, trading with whatever states are willing. But the incentive of commerce with major, wealthy powers seems to be a strong one.
- danbruc 11y ago
  You are of course right when you say that no country is obliged to trade with other countries but I would still argue that trading with other countries is the normal status. Then putting an embargo on a country and only lifting it under conditions you dictate is a form of punishment to achieve your goals. The nice way to achieve your goals is to offer something in addition to the normal status. Essentially I see it as the same difference as between giving you money to buy your car and forcing you to hand me the key by pointing a gun at you. Or an even better analogy, I deny you access to gas stations - I own all of them - making the car useless for you. Here too I have no obligation to sell you gas but the normal status is that I sell it to everyone asking for some.
  - davmre 11y ago
    > Essentially I see it as the same difference as between giving you money to buy your car and forcing you to hand me the key by pointing a gun at you. I'd argue a more apt comparison would be saying "I'll buy your car, but only if you stop waving that gun around". In any case, the point of foreign policy isn't to be nice or fair; it's to create norms and incentives that lead to a stable and peaceful world. If the international community pays off Iran, above and beyond normalized participation in international commerce, to dismantle its nuclear program, then the incentive is clear for other nations to start such programs in hope of a payoff. Regardless of the fairness arguments (which cut both ways - it's not really "fair" to peaceful nations if Iran gets rewarded and they don't), that is a precedent you don't want to set.