First, some good news: American negotiators see hopeful signs that the Iranian government may be feeling pressure to reach a deal on its nuclear program that may prove acceptable to the international community--said "international community" presumably not including Iran. It's always struck me as somewhat ironic, not to say hyprocritical, not to say "wrong" that countries like the US, with its own huge nuclear arsenal, dictates to other nations whether they can or cannot possess such weapons themselves. Not that I'm in favor of Iranian nukes: I'd prefer that President Mahmanamana not have such weapons; I'd prefer even more that NOBODY had such weapons; and I'd prefer most of all that ONLY the United States had such weapons--well, and maybe England, 'cause they're adorable. But, y'know, what's good for the nuclear goose is good for the atomic gander and all.
Anyway, the good news: International sanctions seem to be having some effect on Iranian leaders. How do we know that Iran is feeling pressure? Among other things, "Americans believe that recent blustery statements from Iranian officials are
laying the groundwork for concessions by Tehran." Hey, if "blustery statements" are good, then "outright threats" must be even better! If we're lucky, maybe Iran will launch an "all-out military attack" on a neighboring country! Then, we'll really be in business.
Unless you live under a rock or are still using MySpace, you know that Facebook went public yesterday. Apparently even Zuckerberg couldn't figure out the privacy settings! (Yes, I stole that line; it was worth it.) People are disappointed (or maybe gloating) because the stock posted only a minor gain on its first day of trading. Some suspect that investors were turned off when Mark Zuckerberg showed up to ring the stock market's opening bell wearing his trademark hoodie. Where's George Zimmerman when you need him?!?
Sorry.
Representative Harold Rogers (R-KY) has some 'splainin' to do. He steered a government contract to supply "drip pans" for army helicopters to a company in his district, at the presumably outrageous cost of $17,000 per pan. In Rogers' defense, these are leakproof pans. He could have gotten leaky pans for only $16,500 per, but I for one think our troops are worth the extra expenses.
Eminent psychiatrist Dr. Robert L. Spitzer has come out (so to speak) against an earlier study he authored. In that 2003 study, he claimed that so-called "gay conversion therapy," which seeks to "cure" homosexuals of their gaiety, might offer benefits to those who truly wanted to change their sexual orientation. Now, Dr. Spitzer is no gay-basher: In the 1970s, he played a prominent role in convincing the psychiatric community to STOP classifying homosexuality as a mental illness. So his later study, which bucked the consensus view that "gay cures" were at best ineffective and at worst extremely harmful, was hailed by many conservatives as a vindication of their view that homosexuality was a reversible choice. In fairness to Dr. Spitzer, he most emphatically denied that there was anything wrong with homosexuality, and emphasized that his study only suggested that "gay cures" merited further investigation, but this didn't prevent the demagoguery of small minds. At any rate, Dr. Spitzer now acknowledges that his study suffered from methodological flaws and he has apologized to the gay community for the harm that he unwittingly caused. Good for him.
Now, if only someone would find a cure for narrow-minded bigotry and homophobia.
Alexis Tsipras may become the Prime Minister of Greece in the next few weeks. His left-wing party is likely to claim a majority in upcoming elections, a result of widespread anger at austerity measures demanded by the power-brokers in the European union. Tsipras seems to enjoy his newfound power and has unaplogetically tweaked the euro-zone leaders (read: Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany).
Annoying the Germans, huh? Surely, nothing bad could come of that.
Finally, I was deeply saddened to read of the passing of Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau. Then I remembered that I don't know who that is. Turns out, he was the pre-eminent twentieth-century interpreter of "art songs," a traditional genre that extends from classical works, such as Schubert's "Der Erlkonig," to modern-day masterpieces like Nicki Minaj's "Stupid Hoe." Truly, Fischer-Dieskau was a genius; only someone with a heart of stone could be unmoved by his rendition of "My Humps."
You're welcome, Nation.
Showing posts with label Nuclear Weapons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear Weapons. Show all posts
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Strategic Error
A few year's back, a survey revealed that cabbies held the most potentially fatal job. It should tell you something, then, that a number of Iranian nuclear scientists have recently applied for jobs driving cabs.
Well, maybe not, but I wouldn't be surprised.
On Wednesday, an Iranian scientist was killed when a bomb was attached magnetically to his car during rush hour. The killers, who were riding a motorcycle, got away. This was just the latest such assassination of people involved in Iran's nuclear program. Most international observers suspect that the United States and Israel have played a role in the attacks, and the slick, high-tech nature of the assaults certainly sounds like the kind of thing the CIA or, more likely, the Mossad would pull off. The Mossad don't play.
While the thought of a nuclear-armed Iran is slightly less appealing to an Israeli (or to most Americans) than the thought of eating a Madagascar cockroach, I find myself troubled by this particular strategy--if, indeed, Israel is behind it (more on that later). To disrupt Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons, certain tactics are legal and acceptable--economic sanctions, for example. Other strategies of questionable legality still fall under the heading of morally acceptable. Whoever launched the Stuxnet computer virus against Iranian systems (again, most people suspect Israel and/or the United States), violated international law; however, by avoiding violence and "collateral damage," this action meets certain ethical standards. Once you start assasinating people, however--especially when these people are ostensibly involved in peaceful activities (Iran claims to want nuclear power only for civilian purposes)--you have crossed a line.
I understand that Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran to be an existential threat, and that the Israeli government will take any steps they can to prevent such an eventuality. I could even see a case being made for assassinations--even though these obviously violate norms of international law. But there are "more or less" acceptable targets for such actions. Military targets, of course: Soldiers and officers have chosen to pursue a career that, by definition, entails a risk of death. Even politicians may be considered fair game, especially when they engage in apocalyptic rhetoric about wiping other countries off the map, for example; I certainly wouldn't shed any tears if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had an "unfortunate accident." Scientists, however, are not legitimate targets. They are civilians.
Beyond being unethical, targeting scientists would seem to be counterproductive. After all, if Iran feels that its nuclear scientists are being targeted by foreign agents, the government will simply take steps to make sure that these people are under protective custody at all times. Whereas political figures must make public appearances--and therefore put themselves at risk--scientists are under no such obligations. Indeed, the fact that scientists continue to die has caused some to speculate that the Iranian government itself is behind the recent assassinations, killing relatively minor figures in the nuclear industry in order to cast blame on its foreign enemies. That sounds a little far-fetched--Israel has certainly never been shy about violently eradicating perceived threats--but who knows?
Israel has a rough enough time in the court of international opinion. In many respects, this is a result of fanatical anti-Zionism or, indeed, anti-Semitism. But Israel does itself no favors by targeting civilians in other countries for assassination. If the Israelis are doing this, they need to stop.
Well, maybe not, but I wouldn't be surprised.
On Wednesday, an Iranian scientist was killed when a bomb was attached magnetically to his car during rush hour. The killers, who were riding a motorcycle, got away. This was just the latest such assassination of people involved in Iran's nuclear program. Most international observers suspect that the United States and Israel have played a role in the attacks, and the slick, high-tech nature of the assaults certainly sounds like the kind of thing the CIA or, more likely, the Mossad would pull off. The Mossad don't play.
While the thought of a nuclear-armed Iran is slightly less appealing to an Israeli (or to most Americans) than the thought of eating a Madagascar cockroach, I find myself troubled by this particular strategy--if, indeed, Israel is behind it (more on that later). To disrupt Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons, certain tactics are legal and acceptable--economic sanctions, for example. Other strategies of questionable legality still fall under the heading of morally acceptable. Whoever launched the Stuxnet computer virus against Iranian systems (again, most people suspect Israel and/or the United States), violated international law; however, by avoiding violence and "collateral damage," this action meets certain ethical standards. Once you start assasinating people, however--especially when these people are ostensibly involved in peaceful activities (Iran claims to want nuclear power only for civilian purposes)--you have crossed a line.
I understand that Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran to be an existential threat, and that the Israeli government will take any steps they can to prevent such an eventuality. I could even see a case being made for assassinations--even though these obviously violate norms of international law. But there are "more or less" acceptable targets for such actions. Military targets, of course: Soldiers and officers have chosen to pursue a career that, by definition, entails a risk of death. Even politicians may be considered fair game, especially when they engage in apocalyptic rhetoric about wiping other countries off the map, for example; I certainly wouldn't shed any tears if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had an "unfortunate accident." Scientists, however, are not legitimate targets. They are civilians.
Beyond being unethical, targeting scientists would seem to be counterproductive. After all, if Iran feels that its nuclear scientists are being targeted by foreign agents, the government will simply take steps to make sure that these people are under protective custody at all times. Whereas political figures must make public appearances--and therefore put themselves at risk--scientists are under no such obligations. Indeed, the fact that scientists continue to die has caused some to speculate that the Iranian government itself is behind the recent assassinations, killing relatively minor figures in the nuclear industry in order to cast blame on its foreign enemies. That sounds a little far-fetched--Israel has certainly never been shy about violently eradicating perceived threats--but who knows?
Israel has a rough enough time in the court of international opinion. In many respects, this is a result of fanatical anti-Zionism or, indeed, anti-Semitism. But Israel does itself no favors by targeting civilians in other countries for assassination. If the Israelis are doing this, they need to stop.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Of Geese and Ganders
Whatever the ultimate wisdom of possessing nuclear weapons, the idea that one country--specifically, a nuclear-armed country--can dictate whether another, non-nuclear-armed country may be allowed to develop such weaponry has always struck us as hypocritical at best. We are not naive; we realize that might makes right, and that a nuclear power will predictably claim certain prerogatives over less powerful states. Still, we wonder if this pre-emption is more trouble than it's worth.
Recently, the United States sought to assure Israel that Iran will not achieve "breakout" nuclear capabilities in the immediate future, and, further, that if Iran engaged in a "dash" for nuclear weapons, the US and/or Israel would have time to consider military options. The idea was to convince Israel to forego unilateral military strikes against Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.
We have no desire to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's finger on the nuclear trigger. But the more we think about it, we wonder why this thought scares everyone so much. Of course, Ahmadinejad's inflammatory, anti-Semitic, anti-American, Holocaust-denying rhetoric strikes most of the civilized world as somewhat, shall we say, unhinged. But since when is sanity a pre-requisite for nuclear club membership? Stalin was hardly a paragon of mental stability.
Israel worries that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat. Of course, Iran could say the same thing about a nuclear-armed Israel. Israel is a solid democracy with generally liberal values and has proven itself a trustworthy member of the international community--its questionable track-record when it comes to settlement-building notwithstanding, and the same cannot be said of the repressive Iranian regime. Again, though, there's a certain eye-of-the-beholder quality to this: Plenty of people both within and outside of the Middle East remain unconvinced of the Israeli government's fundamental beneficence.
Still, let's take the "existential threat" argument at face value; let's say that Ahmadinejad is sincere in his desire to wipe Israel off the map. Does this mean that the US--or even Israel--should launch a military attack, potentially setting off a conflagration that drags the entire region into war, just to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?
No.
Bear with us.
When Pakistan went nuclear in 1998, everyone wondered just how long would it be until this at-best-semi-democratic country launched a nuclear attack on its hated rival India? Could India, itself a nuclear power, resist the impulse to launch its own pre-emptive attack? After all, these countries had fought three wars already and were in a state of perpetual hostility. It was only a matter of time before mushroom clouds bloomed over the subcontinent.
Except. . .they didn't. Even when the two countries went to war in 1999, they managed to refrain from launching nuclear missiles at each other. What went right?
Mutually assured destruction. Balance of terror. Phrases hardly conducive to peaceful slumber. Yet they do contain a certain dark logic. These concepts kept a cold war cold for some 50 years. We may fear that Ahmadinejad--as opposed to Stalin, Krushchev, Brezhnev, or, more recently, Singh and Musharraf--is just crazy enough not to care about the vaporization of Iran that would follow immediately upon any nuclear attack on Israel, but we don't think this is likely for two reasons:
One, despite his presidential title, Ahmadinejad has limited authority in Iran; true power resides in the theocracy, and the Ayatollahs are actually a little more sensible about the issue of nuclear annihilation. More importantly, while nuclear weapons remain just an idea, Ahmadinejad can rant and rave to his petty heart's content; if Iran actually gets the weapons, though, he (and his bosses) will quickly realize that inflammatory rhetoric may be taken very seriously and result in unwanted martyrdom.
With great power will come great responsibility, whether the powerful want it or not.
Recently, the United States sought to assure Israel that Iran will not achieve "breakout" nuclear capabilities in the immediate future, and, further, that if Iran engaged in a "dash" for nuclear weapons, the US and/or Israel would have time to consider military options. The idea was to convince Israel to forego unilateral military strikes against Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.
We have no desire to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's finger on the nuclear trigger. But the more we think about it, we wonder why this thought scares everyone so much. Of course, Ahmadinejad's inflammatory, anti-Semitic, anti-American, Holocaust-denying rhetoric strikes most of the civilized world as somewhat, shall we say, unhinged. But since when is sanity a pre-requisite for nuclear club membership? Stalin was hardly a paragon of mental stability.
Israel worries that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat. Of course, Iran could say the same thing about a nuclear-armed Israel. Israel is a solid democracy with generally liberal values and has proven itself a trustworthy member of the international community--its questionable track-record when it comes to settlement-building notwithstanding, and the same cannot be said of the repressive Iranian regime. Again, though, there's a certain eye-of-the-beholder quality to this: Plenty of people both within and outside of the Middle East remain unconvinced of the Israeli government's fundamental beneficence.
Still, let's take the "existential threat" argument at face value; let's say that Ahmadinejad is sincere in his desire to wipe Israel off the map. Does this mean that the US--or even Israel--should launch a military attack, potentially setting off a conflagration that drags the entire region into war, just to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?
No.
Bear with us.
When Pakistan went nuclear in 1998, everyone wondered just how long would it be until this at-best-semi-democratic country launched a nuclear attack on its hated rival India? Could India, itself a nuclear power, resist the impulse to launch its own pre-emptive attack? After all, these countries had fought three wars already and were in a state of perpetual hostility. It was only a matter of time before mushroom clouds bloomed over the subcontinent.
Except. . .they didn't. Even when the two countries went to war in 1999, they managed to refrain from launching nuclear missiles at each other. What went right?
Mutually assured destruction. Balance of terror. Phrases hardly conducive to peaceful slumber. Yet they do contain a certain dark logic. These concepts kept a cold war cold for some 50 years. We may fear that Ahmadinejad--as opposed to Stalin, Krushchev, Brezhnev, or, more recently, Singh and Musharraf--is just crazy enough not to care about the vaporization of Iran that would follow immediately upon any nuclear attack on Israel, but we don't think this is likely for two reasons:
One, despite his presidential title, Ahmadinejad has limited authority in Iran; true power resides in the theocracy, and the Ayatollahs are actually a little more sensible about the issue of nuclear annihilation. More importantly, while nuclear weapons remain just an idea, Ahmadinejad can rant and rave to his petty heart's content; if Iran actually gets the weapons, though, he (and his bosses) will quickly realize that inflammatory rhetoric may be taken very seriously and result in unwanted martyrdom.
With great power will come great responsibility, whether the powerful want it or not.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Hypocrisy Shmycoprisy. . .Shmyposcrify. . .Shmypography. . . .Oh, You Get the Idea
Today's "Plinky" prompt is "Where is a good place to see wild animals?" What the hell kind of a question is that?!? "Uhh. . . My kitchen?" Maybe if you're Borealkraut. For us normal folks who live in the contiguous (i.e., "real") United States, however, the options are more limited. There's the zoo, Animal Planet, the Santa Monica Freeway. . . and that's about it.
What's next, Plinky? "What whole numbers can you find between 4 and 6?"
*********************************
But that's not what we're here to discuss today.
Earlier today, on Yahoo!'s "Top Searches," "Anne Frank" appeared right above "Ahmadinejad." We thought the juxtaposition striking, if not necessarily filled with symbolic meaning.
We've been thinking lately about Ahmadinejad and Iran, especially with all the hubbub over their possible attempts to build nuclear weapons.
Don't get us wrong: We certainly do not want to see Iran go nuclear, especially with a lunatic like Ahmadinejad in anything resembling a position of authority. At the same time, though, we can't help but find something eminently reasonable about the Iranian argument: Who are the United States, other declared nuclear powers, and the United Nations to "allow" us to pursue nuclear weapons?
Isn't there something inherently hypocritical about nuclear-armed nations declaring that no other countries should be allowed to go nuclear? In this case, to be sure, hypocrisy is preferable to the alternatives. But why is hypocrisy necessary? Why not simply say, "OK, you got us: We're NOT arguing that you shouldn't have nuclear weapons because they are dangerous or destructive or potentially world-ending. We're arguing that you shouldn't have nuclear weapons because we don't like or trust you to (not) use them responsibly."
Let's be honest, would anybody really get into a lather if Sweden or Canada decided to go nuclear? Of course not. We'd all think it was adorable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)