It's the same reason I wonder why I can't have nuclear weapons. Everybody has a right to them, like a driver's license.

"Of course one could reply that Iran and North Korea are evil nations, full of monkey-men and maniacs hell-bent on reaping havoc throughout the civilised world. One would be an incredibly arrogant racist, but one could do so."

One could, but one could also give legitimate reasons that they are 'evil' without resorting to racism, as you have here. Insightful.

Yes, I know you are being sarcastic, but frankly these biased judgements have to be made. No, palestinians haven't invaded Paris, but terrorists have no intention of invading anyone. The issue here isn't how many nations North Korea of Iran have invaded, rather how probable it is that out of instability or boad intent they would put nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists.

Given that Iran has accepted terrorist attacks as a legitimate act of change, I don't see how they can be trusted.

The fact that people refuse to differentiate between the dangers of nations like Israel, and nations like Iran, is either partisan silliness or naive blindess. In the end, it is all smoke. You can pretend that North Korea or Iran are just as "moral" or dangerous as any other nation to you, but you aren't that ignorant of their acts and their history.

P.S. Only 2/3rds of the Axis of Evil are pursuing nukes. 1/3 is awaiting trial and the nation he abused just had a Democratic election.

It's the same reason I wonder why I can't have nuclear weapons. Everybody has a right to them, like a driver's license.

Don't be an idiot. The first right of the nation-state is the exclusive possession of legal force. You can't have it because you can't use it. Governments however are granted that right as part of the social contract. NK and Iran are no different in a purely legal sense - neither are still signatories to the non-proliferation treaties after all. It's a political matter, not a common-sense one.

Given that Iran has accepted terrorist attacks as a legitimate act of change, I don't see how they can be trusted.

An interesting concept. Surely that conflicts with current American thinking though? I believe the Northern Alliance was involved to some extent in the subjugation of Afghanistan; to claim they are no terrorists seems mildly absurd, does it not? So therefore the US can't be trusted either for much the same reason. Stupid semantics, sure, but that's the way the cookie crumbles, eh?

I consider Israel to be a much bigger threat to my friends than Iran is. Knowing a number of Iranians as I do I'd hate to see them lost to collateral damage when they go to the shops, or accidentally fried when the nearby powerplant goes Chernobyl in a mysterious accident. Neither country is a threat to me personally in any real way; Shi'ite terrorists largely stick to anti-US, anti-Israel attacks, and Israel to attacks on Palestinians. The Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia are a far greater threat to me and the world, but noone seems to be doing anything about them.

And North Korea is a joke. Few borders are better protected than those ringing North Korea. How exactly do you smuggle nukes past the world's most heavily defended borders? If that can happen, there's no point worrying about it because it could happen anywhere - there's similar security around US nuclear stockpiles, so if nukes can leave NK they can certainly leave the US compounds. Perhaps we currently can't maintain as good a record system of NK warheads, but subjugating the country won't make keeping track of them any easier - especially when militias start springing up.

You can pretend that North Korea or Iran are just as "moral" or dangerous as any other nation to you, but you aren't that ignorant of their acts and their history.

I don't for one minute pretend that any nation is moral or is lacking in danger. And certainly NK and Iran are hardly benevolent towards my interests. But I feel secure in myself, and see no good reason to attack them simply because they dislike me and could possibly lose their minds. That's something I can live with if it happens. I'm not suddenly going to start caring about European or American civilian casualties more than the deaths of close friends in Tehran now, am I?

By the way, I'm aware that Iraq recently had elections. Unfortunately my access to unbiased news sources is extremely limited where I am in Indonesia, so please forgive my ignorance of the various proofs of legitimacy offered by impartial observers. All I've seen in Kompas, Jawa Pos and elsewhere is the objections of Arab and various Asian observers; good to hear the global consensus was different.

Don't be an idiot. The first right of the nation-state is the exclusive possession of legal force. You can't have it because you can't use it. Governments however are granted that right as part of the social contract. NK and Iran are no different in a purely legal sense - neither are still signatories to the non-proliferation treaties after all. It's a political matter, not a common-sense one.

Where's this right that all nations have the right to nuclear weapons?

What do you mean, where's this right? The nation-state has ultimate control over all means of force within their sovereignty. This includes the right to defend their citizenry. It's not a UN right, sure, but the nation-state did not begin with the UN, so any current trend is merely that - a trend. The rights of the state and the citizen have been been established for far longer than any world orders.

I guess I was a little unclear though in my meaning. In traditional realist IR theory a state has the right to anything they have the strength to seize. Nuclear weapons are the right of any nation capable of developing them. I suppose you could believe that nation-states choose to be bound by some higher authority, but I'd credit you with more intelligence than that.

" I believe the Northern Alliance was involved to some extent in the subjugation of Afghanistan; to claim they are no terrorists seems mildly absurd, does it not? "

I think that if there was question of the tribal leaders you speak of arming themselves with nuclear weapons you'd get the same response, too...

"I consider Israel to be a much bigger threat to my friends than Iran is. "

And yet Israel doesn't function based on the idea that Iran has no right to exist. Israeli backed terrorists aren't plunking rockets down on Iranian settlements, and Isreal isn't funding people to stroll into Iran with bombs strapped on them to visit parties and ride buses. Just because attacks aren't overt and "openly declared" doesn't keep them from being attacks.

"How exactly do you smuggle nukes past the world's most heavily defended borders?"

Oh, come now. They are a closed society with no oversight. They aren't trucking this stuff in and out on camel.

North Korea also, if you check a map, is a sea-going nation. What are the odds that we search their container ships when we don't even search our own. We don't search what comes in and out on airplanes, either. You can do better than that.

And North Korea is a joke. Few borders are better protected than those ringing North Korea. How exactly do you smuggle nukes past the world's most heavily defended borders? If that can happen, there's no point worrying about it because it could happen anywhere - there's similar security around US nuclear stockpiles, so if nukes can leave NK they can certainly leave the US compounds. Perhaps we currently can't maintain as good a record system of NK warheads, but subjugating the country won't make keeping track of them any easier - especially when militias start springing up.

If I were you (and thankfully I'm not.) I'd wouldn't worry about them smuggling any nukes out. I'd worry more about them launching them.

Don't be an idiot. The first right of the nation-state is the exclusive possession of legal force. You can't have it because you can't use it. Governments however are granted that right as part of the social contract. NK and Iran are no different in a purely legal sense - neither are still signatories to the non-proliferation treaties after all. It's a political matter, not a common-sense one.

When a dictator decides they want nuclear weapons, how is that any different than one arguing that everyone should be able to have nuclear weapons?

The issue with North Korea and Iran aren't that its citizens are "evil" but rather that as dictators, they are not accountable for their actions and so it is really not much different than the crazy neighbor down the street wanting nukes. 

It's a pity that, in your arrogance, you weren't able to see his point.  This "social contract" nonsense you mention applies no more to some freak dictator of a third world nation than it does to "Bubba". 

Frankly, I don't think the US has to treat any dictatorship as a sovereign nation. There is no inherent rights given to a nation state. If the American people, expressed through their duly elected democratic government decide to replace the governments of Iran and North Korea then that is what will happen. Right now, there is no clear consensus on this. That's the nice thing about democracies, the leaders are ultimately responsible to the people -- something that the mullah's of Iran and the dictator of North Korea can't say. If Kim Jong-Il wakes up grumpy and suicidal one day, he can order for the destruction of South Korea or -- eventually -- Japan.  That is why many of us don't afford such countries as being in the same level of "sovereignty" as a country whose leaders are elected.

I guess I was a little unclear though in my meaning. In traditional realist IR theory a state has the right to anything they have the strength to seize. Nuclear weapons are the right of any nation capable of developing them. I suppose you could believe that nation-states choose to be bound by some higher authority, but I'd credit you with more intelligence than that.

So, this "inalienable right" that allows these countries to have nuclear weapons isn't anywhere official? I guess if it's on paper, no matter when it was written, it's valid, which means that nobody should criticize anything the US does, because I'm sure that its actions are covered by a "right" or a "burden."
By the way, what about those who have said that the people have the right to protect themselves against an oppressive government? Surely that means I should have the right to nuclear weaponry!

drmiler

The danger of any rogue state attacking the US is almost non existant. The second they launched a weapon the dictator would have lost. The danger is from a terrorist cell bringing them into our country and using them aginst our population. Who would we strike out aginst? Which of the many locations was responsible. In fact, rogue states would be reluctant to provide nuclear weapons to terrorist groups if there were any chance to trace the source back to the dictator. That is why even if Saddam had WMD he was of little danger to the United States. A terrorist stealing a nuclear weapon or purchasing nuclear material (for a dirty bomb) is the greatest danger we face. George W. admitted that in the State of the Union message!

The danger of any rogue state attacking the US is almost non existant. The second they launched a weapon the dictator would have lost. The danger is from a terrorist cell bringing them into our country and using them aginst our population.

Sorry COL but you have NO idea what's going on inside their head any more than I do! But I do like the fact that you said "almost" non existant. It's that "almost" that worries me.

The recent move by Iran to ally itself with Syria is just another event which shows that Iran is yet another bellicose and frightened dictatorship. Iran was trying to show the US that they are more than willing to fight, and their rhetoric makes that startlingly clear. They have been pumping terrorist cells into Iraq since the invasion, and, for all we know, they could be sheltering Bin Laden and many elements of Al-Qaeda.

Who is to say that in effort to push along their Jihad, the mullahs will not pass on nuclear weapons to terrorists? Iran is not afraid to do us harm, and they would rather cause collateral damage than destroy any military targets!

They claim the reactors are for peaceful purposes like fuel. Yeah, they only live in the most oil-rich region of the world! They definitely need more fuel.

drmiler

Better read some of the articles I have read from the Army War College and Imperial Hubris. No one can know what someone will do but to a dictator, their power and ability to control is uppermost in their mind. If a dictator attacks a major power, they would lose that which is most important to them. On the other hand, the moslem terrorists believe it is the will of God to give their lives for what they believe in. We saw some of that during WWII and is one reason Truman used the Atomic Bomb. The far greater danger is from the moslem terrorists and dictators that provide a place for them to operate in and train.

COL Gene, one question, if I may.

If Iran were to develop functioning nuclear weapons, and at some time in the future "claim" that rogue scientists or an few isolated terrorist sympathizers within the government had helped Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah acquire a nuclear weapon or the materials to develop them themelves, would you support nuclear action against Iran?

Now consider if their "claim" actually was true. Would you still support a nuclear attack against the Iranians?