I am a bit confused about the current "crisis" over Iran.
I certainly have misgivings about any religious state having nuclear weaponry for the simple reason that a religiously motivated state is less susceptible to real world considerations than a secular one. It bothers me even that Bush and He who-Must-Be-Stabbed have their fingers on nuclear triggers instead than the more secular Clinton or Major.
The idea of a fundamentalist Muslim state having a significant nuclear capability cannot be countenanced. Leaders of most states would think twice about entering into any conflict which they know they would probably lose or which would kill enormous numbers of their citizens. Such calculations cannot be assumed to apply to a state dominated by a religion that believes in suicide bombings. If Islam can regard an individual suicide bombing by impressionable young men with their whole lives ahead of them, even by their own sons, as a glorious event, who can say they would not view the suicide of their nation in the same manner? If Iran, under the current regime anyway, looks like getting nuclear capability it needs to stopped by any means possible.
But what I cannot follow is why we are drawing a line in the sand when the sea is still 300 yards away. As I understand it, the degree of Uranium enrichment needed for commercial power generation, which the Iranians say is their only interest, is a few percent. The enrichment needed for a nuclear warhead is over 80%. So why exactly are we insisting on no enrichment at all? why not call their bluff (if it is a bluff) and say that the degree of enrichment needed for a reactor is fine but we will take immediate action if they go significantly beyond that such that the only intended application can be a bomb? This takes away all their moral high ground about interfering in the perfectly peaceful intentions of a sovereign state.
Are there some technical reasons why having a peaceful nuclear program can provide expertise that makes a nuclear bomb simpler to develop?
Or is this just the usual politician insanity that insists on making absurd stands when no valid reason yet exists?
I certainly have misgivings about any religious state having nuclear weaponry for the simple reason that a religiously motivated state is less susceptible to real world considerations than a secular one. It bothers me even that Bush and He who-Must-Be-Stabbed have their fingers on nuclear triggers instead than the more secular Clinton or Major.
The idea of a fundamentalist Muslim state having a significant nuclear capability cannot be countenanced. Leaders of most states would think twice about entering into any conflict which they know they would probably lose or which would kill enormous numbers of their citizens. Such calculations cannot be assumed to apply to a state dominated by a religion that believes in suicide bombings. If Islam can regard an individual suicide bombing by impressionable young men with their whole lives ahead of them, even by their own sons, as a glorious event, who can say they would not view the suicide of their nation in the same manner? If Iran, under the current regime anyway, looks like getting nuclear capability it needs to stopped by any means possible.
But what I cannot follow is why we are drawing a line in the sand when the sea is still 300 yards away. As I understand it, the degree of Uranium enrichment needed for commercial power generation, which the Iranians say is their only interest, is a few percent. The enrichment needed for a nuclear warhead is over 80%. So why exactly are we insisting on no enrichment at all? why not call their bluff (if it is a bluff) and say that the degree of enrichment needed for a reactor is fine but we will take immediate action if they go significantly beyond that such that the only intended application can be a bomb? This takes away all their moral high ground about interfering in the perfectly peaceful intentions of a sovereign state.
Are there some technical reasons why having a peaceful nuclear program can provide expertise that makes a nuclear bomb simpler to develop?
Or is this just the usual politician insanity that insists on making absurd stands when no valid reason yet exists?
Comment