The editor is overlooking an impending threat that terrorists like IS will get nukes. A way to avoid the proliferation of nukes is the total ban on them. It is the only way to be effective. Nobel Peace prize owner, president Obama should take the initiative.
2
Take nuclear weapons from the Russian arsenal and Turkey could walk in and set up a smoke shop in Moscow. Russia's long term declining demographics, national inferiority complex and paranoia mean there will be nukes, and more nukes. Fracking is ending their blip of a resurgence threw oil sales. let the physicists figure out a way to laser down nuclear missiles and Russia can go back to the Czardom it seems fated to be.
3
You know, under the Symington amendment, it is illegal for the United States to provide military or other kinds of economic aid to states which have nuclear weapons but have not signed the NPT.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/israeli-nuclear-arsenal-prohibit...
The US has known and we know that they have known
http://www.thenation.com/blog/202129/its-official-pentagon-finally-admit...
Who will the DOJ be prosecuting when they are done with this all important FIFA prosecution, one which came, curiously, just as FIFA was to vote on expelling Israel for its reprehensible treatment of Palestinian athletes?
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/israeli-nuclear-arsenal-prohibit...
The US has known and we know that they have known
http://www.thenation.com/blog/202129/its-official-pentagon-finally-admit...
Who will the DOJ be prosecuting when they are done with this all important FIFA prosecution, one which came, curiously, just as FIFA was to vote on expelling Israel for its reprehensible treatment of Palestinian athletes?
13
Few people in the United States seem to think any more about the threat of nuclear annihilation, but that threat persists and is very real. Yes, the threat on any particular day of nuclear Armageddon is very small, but over a long period of time, decades, that is not the case. Indeed, if these weapons are allowed to exist indefinitely, they are almost certain to be used at some point. And that could very well be the end of civilization.
As mentioned in this op-ed, both the US and Russia are embarking on extremely expensive upgrades of their nuclear arsenals. It is estimated the US will spend $1 Trillion over the next three decades upgrading its arsenal. What sort of message does this send to the states who have decided not to adopt nuclear weapons and expect that the nuclear powers will uphold their part of the bargain by eliminating their arsenals? Just think what this country could do with that $1 Trillion rather than spend it on bombs that we hope will only sit and collect dust.
The US could maintain a significant nuclear deterrent with only a few hundred nuclear weapons. Doing this unilaterally would put extreme pressure on Russia and other nuclear powers to significantly reduce their arsenals.
People in this country need to demand an end to the nuclear threat. People in Russia and other nuclear armed nations need to do the same. I hope that Pope Francis will address this issue when he addresses Congress in September. It is the most important issue.
As mentioned in this op-ed, both the US and Russia are embarking on extremely expensive upgrades of their nuclear arsenals. It is estimated the US will spend $1 Trillion over the next three decades upgrading its arsenal. What sort of message does this send to the states who have decided not to adopt nuclear weapons and expect that the nuclear powers will uphold their part of the bargain by eliminating their arsenals? Just think what this country could do with that $1 Trillion rather than spend it on bombs that we hope will only sit and collect dust.
The US could maintain a significant nuclear deterrent with only a few hundred nuclear weapons. Doing this unilaterally would put extreme pressure on Russia and other nuclear powers to significantly reduce their arsenals.
People in this country need to demand an end to the nuclear threat. People in Russia and other nuclear armed nations need to do the same. I hope that Pope Francis will address this issue when he addresses Congress in September. It is the most important issue.
6
The agreement, like Obama's Peace Prize, would have been meaningless as we are now seeing a nuclear arms race in the Persian Gulf, which will inevitably result in nukes being used.
5
The bright spot will be when speaking to one's own takes presedence. Please keep your eyes out for a documentary being wrapped next month after 2.5 years, that will help all come to their senses surrounding this vital subject. It's title "Good Thinking".
2
It's a pity these weapons were ever developed in the first place. But, what is done is done.
It is a real shame that any country sees a justification for keeping such doomsday weapons. Using these would surely guarantee nuclear obliteration for most countries of the world, then lingering death for most of the rest of the countries of the world, not to mention the "collateral" death of the word itself...
It is time to learn from the mistakes of the past: Obliterate the weapons, not the world!!!
It is a real shame that any country sees a justification for keeping such doomsday weapons. Using these would surely guarantee nuclear obliteration for most countries of the world, then lingering death for most of the rest of the countries of the world, not to mention the "collateral" death of the word itself...
It is time to learn from the mistakes of the past: Obliterate the weapons, not the world!!!
5
The Times editorial slides too easily over the reason for a failure of the 2015 NPT Review Conference to adopt a final statement. Obama administration last minute objections to the inclusion of a mandate for a 2016 conference on eliminating mass destruction (read, nuclear) weapons from the Middle East was not one of the reasons for the conference failure, it was the reason, the only reason. It needs to be understood that the proposal for such a 2016 conference leaned over backwards to accommodate Israel. Any action by this Middle East conference would have been by consensus, thus giving Israel a veto over all substantive matters. What it did not do was to give Israel a veto over the convening of the conference. The State Department sent an assistant secretary to Israel to gain its agreement. In the end they said no, and the president fell in line. It was once again Wag the Dog, with us as the dog. We pulled our support for the final NPT Conference statement, and Britain and Canada dutifully fell in line. In effect, we support a conference on eliminating nuclear weapons from the Middle East--so long as it never happens. It is our policy to protect Israel's nuclear weapons. In fact, it is essentially the totality of our so-called nonproliferation policy to protect Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. This may work for the president in a domestic political context, but it breeds worldwide cynicism about US intentions, for which there will be a price to be paid.
4
History has shown us that nuclear armed enemies can live side by side without resorting to MAD: India and Pakistan,
6
The stumbling block repeatedly appears to be Israel with its non existent facility at Dimona housing an arsenal numbering 200+ warheads. As a non signatory to the NPT it has never allowed inspection of its facilities whereas Iran has repeatedly allowed inspection. Iran expects fairness which isn't forthcoming from the West. For one country to hold so much sway in the region relays a message of danger for the future.
8
Why would any country that now has nuclear arms give them up? They acquired them in the first place because they thought they needed them. Has anything changed?
7
To blame the failure of this conference on Israel is pure nonsense. Israel would be making a disastrous strategic mistake by giving up its nuclear weapons. While terrorist groups may not be deterred from attacking Israel, actual countries most certainly are, which has been critical to Israel's survival.
To say the U.S. backed Israel as an 'Israel first' move as opposed to looking out for itself is risible. The U.S. understands the importance of Israel's nuclear arsenal as a deterrent in preventing major wars against Israel and further destabilizing the Middle East, which is surely in the best interest of the U.S. In spite of all the aggression against Israel since 1948, she has never used her nuclear arsenal.
Also, to solely blame Israel, while turning a blind eye to Putin's aggressive nuclear threats regarding the Ukraine, as well as India and Pakistan's resistance to nuclear disarmament, further points to a strong anti-Israel bias, which disappoints but does not surprise me.
To say the U.S. backed Israel as an 'Israel first' move as opposed to looking out for itself is risible. The U.S. understands the importance of Israel's nuclear arsenal as a deterrent in preventing major wars against Israel and further destabilizing the Middle East, which is surely in the best interest of the U.S. In spite of all the aggression against Israel since 1948, she has never used her nuclear arsenal.
Also, to solely blame Israel, while turning a blind eye to Putin's aggressive nuclear threats regarding the Ukraine, as well as India and Pakistan's resistance to nuclear disarmament, further points to a strong anti-Israel bias, which disappoints but does not surprise me.
11
If Obama took the bold move of unilaterally decommissioning all our moldering nuclear arsenal, the economic & security benefits would be without end. Our leverage to demand same would increase tenfold. No enemy would be emboldened given our lower reluctance to use conventional weapons, which are more than adequate as a deterrent.
6
If a country is not already committed to remaining non-nuclear, what would compel them to abandon nuclear weapons? Would they do so to please those who have? It takes a little more to give any country incentives to give up nuclear weapons, than the warm feelings from doing good things instead of potentially destructive things. Nuclear weapons make a smaller country without the means to challenge much larger ones with conventional military force to offer a compelling threat to any adversaries, which makes having them a powerful incentive. How can that kind of incentive be eliminated? Probably truly effective international organizations which can neutralize the might of even the largest of countries, and that is just not a possibility in the real world, for now.
1
In the present international environment, having the major powers eliminate their nuclear weapons is about as likely as having the world adopt Esperanto as a universal language and just about as nostalgic. The best one can hope for is containment to the existing nuclear club. Sadly, given Putin's unilateral actions in Ukraine and China's unilateral actions in the South China sea, the idea that we can count on international norms and treaties to assure peace has been shown to be, at best, naïve. We will continue to need nuclear deterrence and the weapons to make it credible for the foreseeable future.
13
You should always disarm yourself. Because that's the only way to be sure that you are not a threat to anyone around.
Then again, that's also the only way to be sure that someone will eventually attack you.
Then again, that's also the only way to be sure that someone will eventually attack you.
4
Unless Israel agrees to a nuclear free zone in that region of the world other countries will not be convinced by "moral" arguments on the issue. Hypocrisy rules. The editorial prevaricates for the usual reason - support for Israel right or wrong.
14
Well thank you, editorial board, for finally recognizing in print that Israel does have a nuclear arsenal--a first for the New York Times. Your next step, editorial board, should be to call for Israel to sign on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and submit to U.N. inspections of its nuclear program and arsenal, especially since it is known that Israel, the nuclear power in hiding, has hidden its hydrogen, neutron and atomic warheads for the past 30 years.
17
The NPT will fail because the big 5 have reneged on the promise - the deal was always that the big 5 GIVE UP the arsenals and share the technology necessary for energy production and in return, everyone else abstains from developing weapons.
The US, Russia, China, France and UK clearly have no intention of giving up their weapons. The NPT was doomed for the start. What a shame.
The US, Russia, China, France and UK clearly have no intention of giving up their weapons. The NPT was doomed for the start. What a shame.
6
It's pretty clear that Israel will never give up its nuclear weapons and sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The only real question is how long Israel's neighbors will accept Israel's regional nuclear weapons monopoly, while they continue to adhere to the NPT which they all have signed.
10
As a moderate Democrat, I'm not surprised that most popular comment in the Readers Picks comments on the New York Times singles out the Jewish state, and its' alleged Jewish money's control of America's Congress, as the biggest problem the world faces with respect to _______________ (insert issue here).
3
I'm not surprised that readers comments single out Israel. The view from London is that NYT readers are smart. Israel's hypocrisy on nukes (not to mention it's continued oppression of Palestinians) stinks to high heaven.
6
alleged?
Quite reputable Jewish periodicals have themselves estimated Jews contribute around half of private donations to both parties. Google it.
Of course, when a non-Jew says it, it is "anti-Semitic" - a term which means "discussing Jewish privilege or power."
Quite reputable Jewish periodicals have themselves estimated Jews contribute around half of private donations to both parties. Google it.
Of course, when a non-Jew says it, it is "anti-Semitic" - a term which means "discussing Jewish privilege or power."
3
Just as the Chinese supposedly allowed North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons so also did the US abetted the Israeli weapons programme. These two states are protected by two of the five UNSC and nuclear weapons state. No NPT agreement could make any realistic headway until the two states are willing and able to face up to the reality of their clients being nuclear "rogue states".
5
"The 2010 NPT review conference called for a meeting in 2012 on a regional weapons ban, infuriating Israel. "
Why, pray, was that infuriating Israel ?
A nuclear free region seems, by far, to be solution for the volatile Near East.
The US should support such an approach.
Why, pray, was that infuriating Israel ?
A nuclear free region seems, by far, to be solution for the volatile Near East.
The US should support such an approach.
9
The NPT was and is still a big joke. All non-nuclaer conoutries got conned by the nuclear powers in 1970
> If Israel even refuses to talk about its nuclear weapons, how is this a dispute "between Egypt and Israel" and a dispute between Israel and the rest of the signatories?
> If 45 years hence, none of the de facto powers have given up their arsenal, let alone reduce them, and in fact modernize and increase them as the US, China and Pakistan have done, then why should the rest of the world have to commit to anything?
> Why is Russia alone to blame and when it was W Bush (and his agreement with India) and the French who sell most of the nuclear technology to the rest of the world?
> If Israel even refuses to talk about its nuclear weapons, how is this a dispute "between Egypt and Israel" and a dispute between Israel and the rest of the signatories?
> If 45 years hence, none of the de facto powers have given up their arsenal, let alone reduce them, and in fact modernize and increase them as the US, China and Pakistan have done, then why should the rest of the world have to commit to anything?
> Why is Russia alone to blame and when it was W Bush (and his agreement with India) and the French who sell most of the nuclear technology to the rest of the world?
3
Perhaps if the US a) hadnt tried to surround Russia with military bases and b) forced Israel to come to the table things could have ended a little better ...
5
.
It is ridiculous for the editorial to celebrate the Iran/US nuclear deal as a "bright spot" when pm June1 David Singer of the NYTimes reported the administration perturbed by UN inspectors discovering that Iran's nuclear stockpile, far from frozen, as stipulated by the agreement, has recently increased by a fifth:
"Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations, partially undercutting the Obama administration’s contention that the Iranian program had been “frozen” during that period.
But Western officials and experts cannot quite figure out why." .” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/world/middleeast/irans-nuclear-stockpi...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
It is ridiculous for the editorial to celebrate the Iran/US nuclear deal as a "bright spot" when pm June1 David Singer of the NYTimes reported the administration perturbed by UN inspectors discovering that Iran's nuclear stockpile, far from frozen, as stipulated by the agreement, has recently increased by a fifth:
"Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations, partially undercutting the Obama administration’s contention that the Iranian program had been “frozen” during that period.
But Western officials and experts cannot quite figure out why." .” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/world/middleeast/irans-nuclear-stockpi...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
2
It is highly unrealistic editorial calling for disarmament.
US and Russia will never disarm and other nations
are simply too aware of the experience of Ukrain
and Libya. Editorial board should have considered
bad experience of these two countries after they
decided to give up nuclear weapons and the program.
US and Russia will never disarm and other nations
are simply too aware of the experience of Ukrain
and Libya. Editorial board should have considered
bad experience of these two countries after they
decided to give up nuclear weapons and the program.
5
When this was primarily as US vs USSR issue than it made much more sense to pursue nuclear reductions. With the club unfortunately getting much bigger and the players less stable the odds of deal which can be verified seems remote. Even China isn't a partner which can be trusted to enter into this process. While commonly thought to have 250 warheads a recent paper from a respected Georgetown professor suggests they may have 3000. If we can't be sure of these number within an order of magnitude can can we reduce our arsenal? Our main objective should be to ensure our nuclear deterrent is modern, safe and secure.
3
I strongly suggest you see the film "The Man Who Saved The World," out now.
I suspect real demand from the people of each nation is needed, as governments will be slow to act without their insistence.
https://www.facebook.com/themanwhosavedtheworld
Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov saved the world on September 26, 1983.
I suspect real demand from the people of each nation is needed, as governments will be slow to act without their insistence.
https://www.facebook.com/themanwhosavedtheworld
Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov saved the world on September 26, 1983.
1
Arm every country. Seriously. We are pro gun all day to any whack a doodle who has $$$. So, gassing people, gunning them down, chopping their heads off, raping and kidnapping women is less frightening than a nuclear bomb?
This is not a holy war. It is a power take for a limited amount of resources. The only role religion plays is in being an accessory. The dress is the outfit but let's jazz the necklace and shoes it up with some scripture.
Iran could have already obliterated Israel if it wanted to and vice versa. Same with china and Japan. I don't really think anyone is truly interested in all that. It's just a distraction as usual to not being able to figure out how to feed, house and employ a very young world. I could more easily be killed by a mass shooter or a pressure cooker bomb than a nuclear weapon.
Tell them to go right ahead. Look how much money we have spent researching, developing and storing these weapons. Dead is dead if it comes in the form of an IEd or a bomb or a drone. Please explain the difference between nuclear weapons and all the other weapons. So, it just takes longer?
This is not a holy war. It is a power take for a limited amount of resources. The only role religion plays is in being an accessory. The dress is the outfit but let's jazz the necklace and shoes it up with some scripture.
Iran could have already obliterated Israel if it wanted to and vice versa. Same with china and Japan. I don't really think anyone is truly interested in all that. It's just a distraction as usual to not being able to figure out how to feed, house and employ a very young world. I could more easily be killed by a mass shooter or a pressure cooker bomb than a nuclear weapon.
Tell them to go right ahead. Look how much money we have spent researching, developing and storing these weapons. Dead is dead if it comes in the form of an IEd or a bomb or a drone. Please explain the difference between nuclear weapons and all the other weapons. So, it just takes longer?
9
Well, I suppose you could start with the scale of destruction and the persistent contamination of the environment as well as the damage to the human gene pool. Just because we haven't yet achieved universal disarmament doesn't mean we haven't made progress in limiting mayhem. As Harvard's Steven Pinker points out in his book, "The Better Angels of Our Nature", in the middle ages, 25 to 33% of people died due to violence; today, even if you included major wars, far fewer die in conflict. Give it time; things are getting better.
Let's not forget that until 1994 Ukraine had the third largest nuclear arsenal; about 1700 warheads. It then agreed to become a non-nuclear country and voluntarily relinquished its entire arsenal under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Given the manner in which recent events have played out in Ukraine, why would any country holding nuclear weapons agree to give them up. North Korea, Israel and Iran understand that no one is going to defend your sovereignty, except maybe through sanctions. When was the last time sanctions achieved their primary objective?
24
U.S. and Russia relations continue to dictate a few things in the world. The latter has come to hold a strong leadership in its zone of influence, mainly because the U.S. and China failed to fill those shoes left by the former U.S.S.R. We tend to dislike Vladimir Putin and accuse him of stuff we do not agree with, but the man has been doing what the man has got to do. For him, it is not a new détente stance in a new Cold War with the U.S. It is a completely new world order out there, in which he is surrounded by nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, Iran, and Israel.
Would anyone be expected to willingly bury their hatchet with those names on the card holders at the NPT table?
But what about them? As Occidentals, we usually see those countries as radical and as a threat. But there are card holders on the table showing the names of countries that have actually pushed them around historically: The U.S., France, the UK, and other NATO members.
Every lost opportunity might very well be the last.
Would anyone be expected to willingly bury their hatchet with those names on the card holders at the NPT table?
But what about them? As Occidentals, we usually see those countries as radical and as a threat. But there are card holders on the table showing the names of countries that have actually pushed them around historically: The U.S., France, the UK, and other NATO members.
Every lost opportunity might very well be the last.
1
I am very disappointed with the Obama administration for again refusing to cave to the childish actions taken by Israel and an out of control Netanyahu regime. Netanyahu cannot both admonish Obama for concluding a deal to scale back Iran's nuclear weapons program and be opposed to a region wide nuclear ban.
It is astonishing that we as a nation continue to support the actions of a nation that is so clearly opposed to peace in the region while they simultaneously attempt to undermine the authority of our executive branch by sending their leader to advocate against it. It is time we stop coddling this petulant child and let it take on the responsibilities of an adult nation.
It is astonishing that we as a nation continue to support the actions of a nation that is so clearly opposed to peace in the region while they simultaneously attempt to undermine the authority of our executive branch by sending their leader to advocate against it. It is time we stop coddling this petulant child and let it take on the responsibilities of an adult nation.
7
Unfortunately, as long as Putin is in power there will be no arms reductions.
1
Thank God for Putin being in Power. Saint Putin might yet save the world from NATO hegemony.
1
Sooner or later somebody is going to screw up and probably by accident or maybe by sheer insanity is going to launch a missile. My bet is that Putin's boys will do it. Putin is playing chicken with the West and loves it. But one of these days it will go too far and either a nervous or panicked Russian or American will push the button. Anyone involved in developing and building nuclear weapons by definition is insane!
The US missed this "opportunity" because we are building, and upgrading, our own nuclear stores. So, at least not being hypocritical on that score, I guess.
2
The history of war is centuries old, with man continually developing methods of killing the most "enemies" as possible at one time. The nuclear genie isn't going back in the bottle--in the Middle East or anywhere else. Pretty difficult for the only nation to ever use this weapon to ask others to give it up.
8
Outrageous threats by Russia? Please explain. The US has the largest nuclear arsenal and has no intention of seriously changing that situation. China has upped the stakes by advancing their missile technology. Any nuclear confrontation with China could be very dangerous. Israel has a large nuclear arsenal and seems intent on stating their aggressive intent to keep Iran from either gaining a nuclear bomb or negotiating so they do not have one. Saudi Arabia has the same Blazing Saddles mentality about Iran. If one negotiates to lessen Iran's ability to get a bomb that is reason to build one because of Iran's pernicious magical ability to not have one and negotiate about never having one creating an existential threat.
2
If the world leaders and representatives at this conference had to read accounts by survivors of the horror that occurred after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, and had to look at videos made by the survivors before their death, they might not have such a detached and game like attitude toward one of the worlds most pressing issues.
Even though there is a lot of irony here, efforts towards reducing arsenals and stopping more countries from obtaining them has to proceed vigorously.
The technology is now 70 years old. There used to be bombs in the US arsenal that could be carried in a backpack. I have little doubt that if the 911 terrorists
had access to nuclear devices they would have used them.
The technology is now 70 years old. There used to be bombs in the US arsenal that could be carried in a backpack. I have little doubt that if the 911 terrorists
had access to nuclear devices they would have used them.
1
Future progress on disarming the world of civilisation-destroying toys that go "bang!" poses a steep, sharp challenge.
On 56 many fronts Russia is proving to be a darkly malevolent, entrenched, destabilizing thugocraag. Israel continues in its absurdly tendentious fiction of nuclear denial. Richly sponsored neo-con elements in American public life are ascendant. Then there's India, Pakistan and North Korea with no interest whatever in de-escalation.
And so a deeply flawed humanity persists on its course of self-immolation for no cause more noble than the lust for power and dominance. Animals and insects do better than this.
On 56 many fronts Russia is proving to be a darkly malevolent, entrenched, destabilizing thugocraag. Israel continues in its absurdly tendentious fiction of nuclear denial. Richly sponsored neo-con elements in American public life are ascendant. Then there's India, Pakistan and North Korea with no interest whatever in de-escalation.
And so a deeply flawed humanity persists on its course of self-immolation for no cause more noble than the lust for power and dominance. Animals and insects do better than this.
1
I can imagine a scenario in which some mad-man in some third-world country was so threatened by a neighbor (and so deranged) that he actually used one of his nukes against an enemy (real or imagined). Then, depending on the neighbor (and their level of insanity), there might be a nuclear exchange, devastating to both countries and the region.
How many weapons might be involved in such madness? 2? 3? half a dozen?
And yet several nations, in a convulsion of insanity, maintain stockpiles of scores.... or hundreds.... which can never be used.
When will we recognize that Eisenhower was right.... that the military-industrial complex will continue to take bread from the mouths of everyone to maintain their positions and wealth?
And America heads the list of insane nations, as we continually upgrade our decaying stockpile of hundreds of weapons.
Madness.
How many weapons might be involved in such madness? 2? 3? half a dozen?
And yet several nations, in a convulsion of insanity, maintain stockpiles of scores.... or hundreds.... which can never be used.
When will we recognize that Eisenhower was right.... that the military-industrial complex will continue to take bread from the mouths of everyone to maintain their positions and wealth?
And America heads the list of insane nations, as we continually upgrade our decaying stockpile of hundreds of weapons.
Madness.
2
And we're spending a trillion dollars to upgrade hundreds of weapons? of which we could only possibly use 1% in the worst of all possible scenarios?
And Obama approved this madness?
And Obama approved this madness?
2
One point re: both Russia/USA spending a great deal to modernize their nuclear arsenals - while this doesn't sound particularly nice, given a John Oliver bit from a couple months ago skewering how simplistic the tech behind much of the countries nuclear weaponry infrastructure is at this point it's probably a good thing that investment is being made. Although the lack of response to Obama's offer to cut the arsenal by a third is a step back either way.
Nuclear weapons are a character problem for our species, an excuse to perpetuate militarism, a way to undermine the UN. A nuclear war would certainly be the end of any options for restoring our atmosphere, and is environmentally unconscionable, if we need to approach this from yet another angle.
OK, maybe disarmament is not possible, and we are stuck in a world with nuclear weapons. I don't like this, but I do put some credence in the concept that their deterrent effect has been real. Do we have to make things worse with a "modernization" program (a term worthy of Dr. Strangelove) costing many billions that could be better spent in a thousand ways?
1
The challenge is nuclear non-proliferation; this to avoid nuclear holocaust from the intentional, accidental, or rogue use of nuclear weapons. International bodies and Human Rights groups need to keep close watch at all times on the intentions of countries that possess nuclear weapons. Do they threaten their neighbors, especially with land grabs, with nuclear weapons? Are they dictatorships, where they control their own people through the use of force? Dictatorships need outside enemies to justify their existence to their own people. Putting nuclear weapons in this mix is suicidal. In the current talks with Iran, the only reasonable outcome should be that they buy in to non-proliferation, not that the world is forcing them to give up nuclear weapons.
N. Korea, rather than be considered as a rogue state, should be considered a client state of the Chinese. They have nuclear weapons because the PLA and the Chinese government allows it. Why? Are they a stalking dog, or do they cherish the remnants of Maoist-Stalinist dictatorship? People inside and outside of Korea want to see a peaceful reunification. Why are the Chinese blocking this, and allowing nuclear weapons to be part of it?
Not just with the negotiations with Iran, all the Great Powers need to sign on to nuclear non-proliferation as a matter of principle.
N. Korea, rather than be considered as a rogue state, should be considered a client state of the Chinese. They have nuclear weapons because the PLA and the Chinese government allows it. Why? Are they a stalking dog, or do they cherish the remnants of Maoist-Stalinist dictatorship? People inside and outside of Korea want to see a peaceful reunification. Why are the Chinese blocking this, and allowing nuclear weapons to be part of it?
Not just with the negotiations with Iran, all the Great Powers need to sign on to nuclear non-proliferation as a matter of principle.
This editorial is farcical in its idealistic naivete.
Nuclear deterrence works.
Our nuclear arsenal needs to be upgraded to ensure it continues to do so.
Delivery capabilities must be modernized, and warhead counts increased. Even the most powerful potential adversary must continue to have no doubt that a nuclear attack against us would be an act of national suicide.
Nuclear disarmament undermines that certainty, as does advocating it.
Nuclear disarmament would make nuclear war more likely.
Nuclear deterrence works.
Our nuclear arsenal needs to be upgraded to ensure it continues to do so.
Delivery capabilities must be modernized, and warhead counts increased. Even the most powerful potential adversary must continue to have no doubt that a nuclear attack against us would be an act of national suicide.
Nuclear disarmament undermines that certainty, as does advocating it.
Nuclear disarmament would make nuclear war more likely.
1
Deal with Iran will not provide "new initiatives to rid the world of the most dangerous weapons, including in the Middle East." Israel will never accept to get rid of its nuclear weapons.
The NPT is based on the false premise "do as I say and not as I do," that is why it is an effort in futility.
The NPT is based on the false premise "do as I say and not as I do," that is why it is an effort in futility.
3
Rather than on nuclear weapons (NW), should emphasis on disarmament not be on 'Conventional Weapons'? -the varied forms of which destroy(ed) many hundreds of million lives since at least August 1945.
6 to 9th August 1945 saw NW's mercilessly used x2 on human beings. Then, only one national leader controlled it; and his personal safety was well in hand.
But post-1945 and with multiple-countries possession, a subtle but most effective/efficient deterrence against NW's use is irrevocably in place.
All leaders controlling NW's instinctively know that their very lives would be in imminent danger if they ever attempted a first use against others. The inevitable massive retaliation with NW's by the others and their indiscriminate destructive power ensures this.
(Verify the above facts in their non-use even during the notorious 1962 Cuban Missile crises; or the very many post-1945 wars; and severe 'empty nuclear war' threats/diplomatic nuclear disputes since 1945 -these, causing undue public anxieties.)
Nowadays, in only three most improbable scenarios could NW's be used: 1. A suicidal or mentally ill absolute leader in possession within a despotic regime; 2. Transfer to terrorist leaders with no fixed addresses; 3. Accidental use -the most unlikely because of effective controls.
However, 'Conventional Weapons' use in wars are so readily permitted! to destroy soldiers and populations well away from their (the leaders) presence. These are the weapons that need to be stopped!!
6 to 9th August 1945 saw NW's mercilessly used x2 on human beings. Then, only one national leader controlled it; and his personal safety was well in hand.
But post-1945 and with multiple-countries possession, a subtle but most effective/efficient deterrence against NW's use is irrevocably in place.
All leaders controlling NW's instinctively know that their very lives would be in imminent danger if they ever attempted a first use against others. The inevitable massive retaliation with NW's by the others and their indiscriminate destructive power ensures this.
(Verify the above facts in their non-use even during the notorious 1962 Cuban Missile crises; or the very many post-1945 wars; and severe 'empty nuclear war' threats/diplomatic nuclear disputes since 1945 -these, causing undue public anxieties.)
Nowadays, in only three most improbable scenarios could NW's be used: 1. A suicidal or mentally ill absolute leader in possession within a despotic regime; 2. Transfer to terrorist leaders with no fixed addresses; 3. Accidental use -the most unlikely because of effective controls.
However, 'Conventional Weapons' use in wars are so readily permitted! to destroy soldiers and populations well away from their (the leaders) presence. These are the weapons that need to be stopped!!
1
I fear that #3 is actually the most likely - and we've come shockingly close to the brink a number of times in spite of those safeguards. The fundamental problem is that the weapons are meant to be on a hair trigger - there simply is no time for safeguards. Now if it took a month to fire an ICBM, then #3 would be off the table. As it is now, your #3 is almost certainly the greatest immediate existential threat to humanity - aside from a giant meteor.
The failure of the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to fulfill its mission should be blamed on the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France, the countries recognized in the treaty as having nuclear weapons.
The military policies of these nuclear states often provoke non-nuclear ones to seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
Perhaps the larger part of the blame should fall on the US shoulders.
North Korea, the Middle East and Ukraine are examples.
North Korea’s reversal of its earlier agreement to abandon pursuing nuclear weapons has been attributed to US policy reversal, during the administration of George W. Bush, of an earlier one of reconciliation, during the Clinton administration, between the two Koreas. This US reversal is believed to have provoked North Korea into building nuclear weapons.
You write that “a dispute between Egypt and Israel, which was backed by the United States, over banning nuclear weapons in the Middle East” was one of the reasons the conference failed.
The fact that Russian officials ominously make “outrageous threats about using nuclear weapons in the confrontation with NATO over Ukraine,” denotes a type of tone-deafness, a dangerous insensitivity to Russia’s concern over expanding NATO to its borders.
The aims of the NPT will thus be easier to attain by addressing the conditions that drive the powerful to retain their nuclear weapons and the weak to seek them.
The military policies of these nuclear states often provoke non-nuclear ones to seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
Perhaps the larger part of the blame should fall on the US shoulders.
North Korea, the Middle East and Ukraine are examples.
North Korea’s reversal of its earlier agreement to abandon pursuing nuclear weapons has been attributed to US policy reversal, during the administration of George W. Bush, of an earlier one of reconciliation, during the Clinton administration, between the two Koreas. This US reversal is believed to have provoked North Korea into building nuclear weapons.
You write that “a dispute between Egypt and Israel, which was backed by the United States, over banning nuclear weapons in the Middle East” was one of the reasons the conference failed.
The fact that Russian officials ominously make “outrageous threats about using nuclear weapons in the confrontation with NATO over Ukraine,” denotes a type of tone-deafness, a dangerous insensitivity to Russia’s concern over expanding NATO to its borders.
The aims of the NPT will thus be easier to attain by addressing the conditions that drive the powerful to retain their nuclear weapons and the weak to seek them.
6
Nations possess nuclear weapons because they are afraid of other nations. Instead of coming together, we have been pushing apart. The number one cause of the repulsion has always been fanatic, extremist ideology epitomized by people such as Stalin, Hitler and Mao who pushed political ideology. The world still has that problem, but more ancient sectarian, religious, and ethnic tribal fanaticism is now the primary driving force. Political fanaticism has been fueled by the rise of right wing politics all over the globe and most of that is fear based, and caused by the rise of religious and sectarian ideology.
Until these global forces are brought under control, nuclear disarmament is not possible. Until we learn to tolerate and get along with each other, the most fearful will seek nuclear weapons to defend against their most feared. This must happen before any true opportunity to disarm is possible.
Until these global forces are brought under control, nuclear disarmament is not possible. Until we learn to tolerate and get along with each other, the most fearful will seek nuclear weapons to defend against their most feared. This must happen before any true opportunity to disarm is possible.
2
As long as nuclear power exists, it is not if, but when, comes the next Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima. And as long as nuclear weapons exist, it is not if, but when, comes the next Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Actually those tragically uncalled for bombings, those most terrible Crimes Against Humanity, would be way too small in comparison to our modern weapons; about 75 times the power of destruction of the Hiroshima bomb, about half the tonnage of all the bombs exploded in WWll.
A train carrying the equivalent of a 1 megaton thermonuclear bomb, 1,000,000 tons of TNT, would be 300 miles long, at 50 mph taking 6 hours to pass.
The total global arsenal of approximately 16,300 warheads contain multiple megaton bombs. Enough to obliterate all life on earth many times over. Some 2,000 are on continuous "high alert". High alert as in the 45 lb. "football" with the launch codes for nuclear attack that is always with the POTUS. And the leaders of the other 8 nuclear nations.
The end of the world on a moment's notice. And we have recently committed about another trillion to upgrade our stock.
How can anyone not know that these weapons, and nuclear power itself, must be abolished forever?
Actually those tragically uncalled for bombings, those most terrible Crimes Against Humanity, would be way too small in comparison to our modern weapons; about 75 times the power of destruction of the Hiroshima bomb, about half the tonnage of all the bombs exploded in WWll.
A train carrying the equivalent of a 1 megaton thermonuclear bomb, 1,000,000 tons of TNT, would be 300 miles long, at 50 mph taking 6 hours to pass.
The total global arsenal of approximately 16,300 warheads contain multiple megaton bombs. Enough to obliterate all life on earth many times over. Some 2,000 are on continuous "high alert". High alert as in the 45 lb. "football" with the launch codes for nuclear attack that is always with the POTUS. And the leaders of the other 8 nuclear nations.
The end of the world on a moment's notice. And we have recently committed about another trillion to upgrade our stock.
How can anyone not know that these weapons, and nuclear power itself, must be abolished forever?
3
When Reagan was president, we all were scared stiff that he'd use our nuclear weapons to start WWIII. Now Obama is president, and we are worried about ISIL. We were right the first time. Nuclear weapons could kill a billion people. An accident could start a nuclear war. ISIL is less dangerous than the flu.
We must join with Russia and China and the other nuclear-weapon states and ban the possession of these awful devices. We must get rid of them.
We must join with Russia and China and the other nuclear-weapon states and ban the possession of these awful devices. We must get rid of them.
2
The solution for nuclear disarmament has to come from the scientific community and not the politicians. It will someday.
For over seventy years, thanks to American nation building in Europe and Japan, along with nuclear weapons, the world managed avoid wars between major powers. The world is not ready to live without the bomb. It may even force us to cooperate if and when water, population and climate change problems take effect.
6
Nuclear weapons are tactically obsolete. They only serve now as icons of the military oligarchies and defense budgets that serve them. Having so invested in threat, threat becomes essential to the bomb holder. Otherwise, a dismantled nuclear program can feed an entire nation. Unfortunately, at this stage in the development of mankind, there are no medals for feeding people, no lobbyist job waiting just outside the security fence.
4
If that were the case, why haven't Russia, China, India, Pakistan, the U.K., France and the U.S. given up their nuclear arsenals? The necessity of a nuclear deterrent by all of the above is an objective reality. The concept of "Nuclear Zero" is an immature child's fantasy, which only exists in fairy tales!
1
It is the US that spends the 600 billion a year on its military and runs 13 aircraft carriers with bases all over the world. On wonders why countries want nuclear weapons when faced with such power? The Russians are being reasonable by hinting that an aggressive NATO on the Russian frontier, will be met with nuclear weapons. The US overspending on conventional weapons is the reason so many want the nukes. As to Israel, it is time to cut that rogue nation loose and allow BDS, the ICC, and European recognition of Palestine to force a change in behavior.
5
Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal in exchange for guarantees of its national independence and territorial integrity under the 1994 Budapest Security Memorandum, signed by Russia, the U.K. and the United States.
However, the current invaders of Ukraine are neither British, nor American. Israel, as a nation of intelligent people, is certainly going to take a lesson from the current Ukrainian experience. Meanwhile, the civilized world, including the European Union and the United States, has its own "BDS" program directed against Russia, just as Israel and Egypt have theirs directed against Hamas in Gaza. With the Ruble in collapse, having lost over 40% of its value and Russian held foreign assets in decline, this "BDS" program appears to be working!
However, the current invaders of Ukraine are neither British, nor American. Israel, as a nation of intelligent people, is certainly going to take a lesson from the current Ukrainian experience. Meanwhile, the civilized world, including the European Union and the United States, has its own "BDS" program directed against Russia, just as Israel and Egypt have theirs directed against Hamas in Gaza. With the Ruble in collapse, having lost over 40% of its value and Russian held foreign assets in decline, this "BDS" program appears to be working!
1
You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. For argument's sake, say the US and Russia and China, also France, the UK, even India and Pakistan all agree to turn their nukes into plowshares.
Would we really want North Korea to be Ruritania with nuclear weapons?
Reducing stockpiles is fine. A nuke-free world, or even zone, is a dream.
Would we really want North Korea to be Ruritania with nuclear weapons?
Reducing stockpiles is fine. A nuke-free world, or even zone, is a dream.
6
Nuclear weapon-free zones are not a dream. The entire Southern Hemisphere is nuclear weapon-free thanks to five separate treaties (see http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NWFZ.shtml). Central Asia and Mongolia are also nuclear weapon-free zones. Banning and verifiably eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide will be neither easy nor quick, but it can and must be done. Failure to to do so means living with the ever present (and probably increasing) catastrophic risk that nuclear weapons will be used somewhere in the world, whether by accident or design.
2
Should all nations except North Korea and Ruritania - although, of course, we would first have to constitute a sovereign Ruritania - give up Nuclear weapons? Why not?
1
Seems like it's high time for either a remake of and/or sequel to "Dr. Strangelove" ... perhaps with a twist on climate change tossed in as a bit of flavoring du jour.
13
Yes, and a new soundtrack as well. Tom Lehrer's "...and we will all go together when we go...." would be appropriate.
Maybe with a happier ending with "nuclear winter" offsetting global warming?!
1
The article failed to point out Bush Jr.'s nuke agreement with India and Obama's continuing support of said agreement. India do not have enough uranium refining capacity to support both its civilian power program and its bomb making program so an agreement was reached with the Bush Jr administration to have the U.S. supply India with low refined uranium for India's power plants thus allow India to concentrate all its effort to refine its own uranium to weapon grade.
3
Trouble with the argument is that most modern nuclear weapons , especially the miniaturized ones use Plutionum and not Uranium. India's nukes use Plutonium and not Uranium. India's power plants don't use enriched uranium, since they are heavy water moderated reactors (CANDU type) and use natural uranium! The uranium enrichment plants that India does have is probably for the propulsion units of it's nuclear submarines which are just about getting into service.
Nuclear weapons far from being a destabilizing force are in fact the opposite. During the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union would likely have traded blows had their not been the risk of a nuclear exchange.
A ominous background threat of a nuclear exchange raises the threshold of devastation to a level that is disproportionate to any potential gain. While states may duel with lessor forms of warfare the existence of deliverable nuclear weapons disciplines their ambitions.
The US and China are hegemonic competitors in the western Pacific. The Chinese see themselves as a rising power and the United States fears it is a declining power. That is a volatile mixture absent nuclear weapons.
The advanced nuclear arsenals that each power possesses force the more irresponsible elements in each country to contain their ambitions to a lower level of rivalry.
A ominous background threat of a nuclear exchange raises the threshold of devastation to a level that is disproportionate to any potential gain. While states may duel with lessor forms of warfare the existence of deliverable nuclear weapons disciplines their ambitions.
The US and China are hegemonic competitors in the western Pacific. The Chinese see themselves as a rising power and the United States fears it is a declining power. That is a volatile mixture absent nuclear weapons.
The advanced nuclear arsenals that each power possesses force the more irresponsible elements in each country to contain their ambitions to a lower level of rivalry.
6
Luke's assessment is completely correct but will no longer be relevant in the future. MAD worked because all sides know destruction of themselves is guaranteed if they launched and the opponent launched in response. The missile shield Obama is building in Europe and Asia in addition to ship and US based sites is giving decision makers in DC a false sense of invulnerability that any retaliation Russia and China made against an US launch will be mitigated or nullified by the multiple layers of missile shield.
1
The US, China, and Russia telling the rest of the world not to get nuclear weapons is like Barry Bonds, Mark McGurie and A-rod chairing a panel on the ban of steroids. If we want to ban an bring nukes down to zero we should be the first to do it not the last. But that will never happen and neither will disarmament. Ask the Ukraine how that deal to disarm they made with Russia is working out for them.
12
Nuclear weapons will not be eliminated from the arsenals of the world powers or the world powers wannabes. Just will not happen so long as the weapons are the ultimate deterrence against real or imagined enemies. We are talking human nature and survival, even if the latter is the political survival of the current generation of strongmen leaders.
A nuclear free Middle East is impossible given the deep rooted theocratic hatreds in the area. The more likely scenario is that a Sunni terrorist organization will obtain a nuclear device and detonate it against either a Shiite or Jewish target ... unless they are able to stage a 9/11 redux. There are too many variables and dependencies on Sunni theocracies to prevent such an event. Iran is most definately not the issue any more than is India or Pakistan, or N Korea for that matter. Or Israel.
The big nuclear issue on the table is Putin's oligarchs. In addition to the nuclear technology and its delivery options, Russia has a chip on its shoulder that rivals the Sunni terrorists paranoia over the western world's designs on the would be Caliphate. It's hard to say whether Putin's obstinacy is merely an echo of N Korea's blustering, or whether it signifies a Jihaddist type willingness to commit suicide by using nuclear weapons.
So long as nations encourage their people to hate other people, those nations will maintain the most lethal weaponry at their disposal. Always have, always will.
A nuclear free Middle East is impossible given the deep rooted theocratic hatreds in the area. The more likely scenario is that a Sunni terrorist organization will obtain a nuclear device and detonate it against either a Shiite or Jewish target ... unless they are able to stage a 9/11 redux. There are too many variables and dependencies on Sunni theocracies to prevent such an event. Iran is most definately not the issue any more than is India or Pakistan, or N Korea for that matter. Or Israel.
The big nuclear issue on the table is Putin's oligarchs. In addition to the nuclear technology and its delivery options, Russia has a chip on its shoulder that rivals the Sunni terrorists paranoia over the western world's designs on the would be Caliphate. It's hard to say whether Putin's obstinacy is merely an echo of N Korea's blustering, or whether it signifies a Jihaddist type willingness to commit suicide by using nuclear weapons.
So long as nations encourage their people to hate other people, those nations will maintain the most lethal weaponry at their disposal. Always have, always will.
8
My mother had a saying," Man Plans & God Laughs"No matter how we try man will never abide by laws that do not benefit their conceived positions.My Grammar School teacher taught us that world population growth is controlled, by famine, war, & decease.Nuclear devastation was not even a thought at that time, or she would have said , we should not worry about over population, as we are doomed to destroy mankind with a nuclear holocaust.It's times like this that I fall back on God & prayer.
3
On this issue, the NYT editorial board is living in fantasy land. There will never be a nuclear free Middle East - or in any other region in the world for that matter.
And to all those Israel haters out there: Israel is and had been since its founding, the only country in the Middle East facing an existential threat from its neighbors, and beyond. Also, ironically, among the countries in the ME that have a nuclear weapon, Israel is the least likely to use one. Given all the hatred that surrounds it, Israel would be commuting suicide if it tries to use such a weapon. And yet, the deterrent they serve, helps ensure israel's survival.
And to all those Israel haters out there: Israel is and had been since its founding, the only country in the Middle East facing an existential threat from its neighbors, and beyond. Also, ironically, among the countries in the ME that have a nuclear weapon, Israel is the least likely to use one. Given all the hatred that surrounds it, Israel would be commuting suicide if it tries to use such a weapon. And yet, the deterrent they serve, helps ensure israel's survival.
16
"And to all those Israel haters out there: Israel is and had been since its founding, the only country in the Middle East facing an existential threat from its neighbors, and beyond."
This is an odd statement considering that the US invaded Iraq and eliminated their government and military. At this point, Iraq as a country no longer exists. Perhaps you can explain to all the Iraqis whose loved ones were killed by the US the meaning of the term "existential threat." Also you appear not to have noticed the wars for control of Syria and Yemen with Iran on one side and the Sunni states on the other.
Criticizing Israel's duplicity regarding their nuclear weapons does not make one an "Israel hater." Regardless whether or not one thinks that Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is justified, even you admit more than they do - Israel has nuclear weapons but they deny it.
This is an odd statement considering that the US invaded Iraq and eliminated their government and military. At this point, Iraq as a country no longer exists. Perhaps you can explain to all the Iraqis whose loved ones were killed by the US the meaning of the term "existential threat." Also you appear not to have noticed the wars for control of Syria and Yemen with Iran on one side and the Sunni states on the other.
Criticizing Israel's duplicity regarding their nuclear weapons does not make one an "Israel hater." Regardless whether or not one thinks that Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is justified, even you admit more than they do - Israel has nuclear weapons but they deny it.
2
Explain to me why Israel has not and will not sign the NPT.
2
But, Steven, why doesn't Israel sign on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as all other responsible nuclear powers have done? The whole world knows that Israel has been hiding its nuclear arsenal of as many as 400 warheads for the past 30 years. Yet it continues to tout itself as a "democracy" and "peace keeper" but refuses to sign on to the NPT and submit to U.N. inspection of its long-hidden nuclear program and arsenal. I mean, after all, Steven, Iran is a signatory to the NPT and submits to U.N. inspections. Why not Israel?
2
The timeline is now pretty clear. The end point is a GOP dominated congress hellbent on wresting any kind of control Obama exerts over the Iranian nuclear issue and confronting Iran with ultimatums inevitably leading to yet another war ... all at the behest of the vast industrial military complex Eisenhower warned the nation against over sixty years ago. The starting point is the duplicitous Israel attack on an agreement with Iran to restrict its atomic energy program to peaceful objectives when Israel itself has a covert arsenal of at least 200 nuclear weapons, won’t sign the NPT and refuses to join the IAEA. Connect the dots.
37
Israel maintains a nuclear arsenal for the very same reasons that India, Pakistan, China, Russia, the United States, the U.K. and France does: as a deterrent to foreign aggression. Note that, unlike Iran, Israel has not threatened to "wipe any other nation off the map," or "erase it from the pages of history," depending on which Farsi translation is used. As a U.N. member nation-state, Israel is entitled to the same "inherent right to individual, or collective self-defense," as recognized under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, as are all other U.N. member nation states. As Nicolo Machiavelli, author of "The Prince," the seminal work on the exercise of political power, stated. it is preferable that a nation's leader be respected, but if he cannot be respected, it is better that he be feared. Israel continues to exist as, while Mr. Netanyahu is not respected by Israel's adversaries, he, with the capability of turning Iranian targets into the next Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is very much feared!
1
What is your problem, have you not seen members of United Nations disappear? Where is Czechoslovakia today? Where is USSR today? Where is Yugoslavia today?
There would be no need to fear Netanyahu, if all the Arab nations had nuclear arsenals. MAD can only work if both side have the capabilities. The Arabs should be as desperate about FREEDOM and liberation as the Zionists love the idea of occupying other peoples lands.
There would be no need to fear Netanyahu, if all the Arab nations had nuclear arsenals. MAD can only work if both side have the capabilities. The Arabs should be as desperate about FREEDOM and liberation as the Zionists love the idea of occupying other peoples lands.
1
We have for years been kept on the verge of war with a nation our own National Intelligence Estimate says does not have a nuclear program, in public reports since 2007. Some Israeli intelligence officials have agreed with that in public.
Yet our ships and planes surround Iran, we launch cyber attacks, somebody is doing assassinations in their capital, and the rumors of war are constant. The Israeli Defense Minister this month made reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the context of "steps" against Iran, which was taken as a threat to nuke Iran.
At the same we do nothing at all about the other nations that actually have nuclear weapons. None of them. Not just Israel, none.
Nuclear weapons are fabulously expensive. A complete triad of delivery systems even more so. How does a tiny nation like Israel have a complete triad of its own? We pay a large part of the Israeli defense budget including the F-15 nuclear strike force, and Germany pays for half of the submarines. That is way past not doing anything about it.
The holdings of other nations are semi-public. They are not small. Israel is said to have 400 weapons, which makes them third in the world behind the US and Russia, considerably more than China, Britain, or France which are all around 250. Of course 250 is quite enough to destroy much of the world and risk "nuclear winter" if ever used, even if nobody else used any in return. India and Pakistan are around 100, enough to end human life on the Subcontinent.
Yet our ships and planes surround Iran, we launch cyber attacks, somebody is doing assassinations in their capital, and the rumors of war are constant. The Israeli Defense Minister this month made reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the context of "steps" against Iran, which was taken as a threat to nuke Iran.
At the same we do nothing at all about the other nations that actually have nuclear weapons. None of them. Not just Israel, none.
Nuclear weapons are fabulously expensive. A complete triad of delivery systems even more so. How does a tiny nation like Israel have a complete triad of its own? We pay a large part of the Israeli defense budget including the F-15 nuclear strike force, and Germany pays for half of the submarines. That is way past not doing anything about it.
The holdings of other nations are semi-public. They are not small. Israel is said to have 400 weapons, which makes them third in the world behind the US and Russia, considerably more than China, Britain, or France which are all around 250. Of course 250 is quite enough to destroy much of the world and risk "nuclear winter" if ever used, even if nobody else used any in return. India and Pakistan are around 100, enough to end human life on the Subcontinent.
46
Sure. And Iranian centrifuges and reactors are just for medical purposes.
4
When one country wants to wipe out another with nuclear weapons as Iran wants to do against Israel and builds up a nuclear capability to do so, it is time to face the the truth about the rhetoric of disarmament. The facts are that our world is composed of many countries who want to be more powerful than their neighbors so they can diminish them or even overrun them. You will never change their basic thinking of disarmament! of these states'. This is the sole reason why preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb is so important. Israel has never advocated to use their forces or weapons except in self defense when their is no longer any choice.
1
With nuclear haves refusing to follow NPT norms, let alone agreeing to a saner goal of nuclear disarmament, what purpose would it serve if Iran is singled out for observing nuclear restraint, or Egypt and Israel are reprimanded for having scuttled the regional plan of nuclear free Middle East? Unless global nuclear apartheid regime comes to an end, like the political apartheid ended in post-colonial South Africa, the nuclear weapons would continue to be the means of nuclear blackmail and also the global currency of power. Moreover, given the emerging threat of numerous terrorist outfits around the world, specially South Asia and the Middle East, there is always a lurking fear of nuclear theft and the nukes falling in the hands of such non-state rogue elements, yet another very serious threat to the global security and peace. It's time the world nuclear powers behave more maturity and responsibly, while eschewing the dangerous path to the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).
15
Putin is totally untrustable, and Iran will soon have deliverable nuclear weapons, and North Korea already does.
Disarmament is a fool's mission in this current world.
Disarmament is a fool's mission in this current world.
6
Yes... so more would even be better.... love ur thinking.
It mystifies me how The Times can laud the prospective Iranian deal (if there even is a deal) as some victory for non-proliferation. Even were the pact as described to work perfectly and the Iranians not to seek to cheat on the deal (both of which assumptions might be mistaken), after ten years Iran would have the ability, formally legitimized and allowed it, to create a bomb. And Saudi Arabia has indicated that whatever is allowed Iran must apply to it as well. In which sentiment the Turks and Egyptians might join.
The deal does nothing more than (at best) delay Iran's acquisition by a few years and then blesses them doing so. It is not a victory for non-proliferation but a surrender, a resting point on a plateau before a number of nations acquires nukes, at which process we will grumble but about which will ultimately do nothing.
And the real kicker is that for agreeing to put off building a bomb until after Barack Obama leaves office (if they really wait that long), Iran will be getting access to a huge amount of money with which to make more mischief and blessing to do it all.
Now some here will say that is preferable to invasion, as if that is the only option. The thing is the only way to prevent Iran from nuclearizing is to use military force. We don't want to do so, fine. So they're going to get nukes whenever they want. But why do we have to reward them for doing so?
The deal does nothing more than (at best) delay Iran's acquisition by a few years and then blesses them doing so. It is not a victory for non-proliferation but a surrender, a resting point on a plateau before a number of nations acquires nukes, at which process we will grumble but about which will ultimately do nothing.
And the real kicker is that for agreeing to put off building a bomb until after Barack Obama leaves office (if they really wait that long), Iran will be getting access to a huge amount of money with which to make more mischief and blessing to do it all.
Now some here will say that is preferable to invasion, as if that is the only option. The thing is the only way to prevent Iran from nuclearizing is to use military force. We don't want to do so, fine. So they're going to get nukes whenever they want. But why do we have to reward them for doing so?
7
Iran isn't being awarded for not building the bomb. The windfall you are talking about is Iranian assets oversea that's being held illegally by the U.S. Sounds like you have a personal vendetta against Iran. They cannot have the bomb. They cannot be wealthy to afford a bomb. They cannot be technically advanced to be capable of building a bomb. What should Iran be then? Another failed state in Middle East to assure the superiority one nation in ME feel is legit?
3
Iran is a signatory of the NPT. It is not anyone's "personal vendetta" to expect them to comply with their international obligations. Sounds like someone else has an agenda.
1
US military experts have said the US needs as few as 300 nuclear weapons. President Obama has said 1,000 are adequate. Unilaterally reducing nuclear weapons and support systems is a great first step toward a saner world.
Often overlooked is the US military-industrial need to keep government spending flowing to an archaic triad system requiring vast expenditures in ships, planes and missiles. It is not 'just' the weapons but the support systems required to maintain and protect the unneeded systems. It is past time to cut this military spending
Often overlooked is the US military-industrial need to keep government spending flowing to an archaic triad system requiring vast expenditures in ships, planes and missiles. It is not 'just' the weapons but the support systems required to maintain and protect the unneeded systems. It is past time to cut this military spending
53
Other than saying Hi to one another, this conference is a waste of time. And articles like this are pipe dreams. Nuclear weapons are here to stay, And no one is giving them up. In fact if a country did give them up or doesn't have them to begin with; And has something valuable, like oil or minerals or air, the United States is sure to come calling.
12
President Obama has reversed direction on disarmament while in office, as he has with so many things he once promised.
Look at the NYTimes report by Broad and Sanger (9/21/2014) on U.S. plans to spend up to $1 trillion over the next three decades on modernizing nuclear weapons. Don't even let yourself begin to think what else could be done with that money.
Look at the NYTimes report by Broad and Sanger (9/21/2014) on U.S. plans to spend up to $1 trillion over the next three decades on modernizing nuclear weapons. Don't even let yourself begin to think what else could be done with that money.
5
I believe that a nuclear Iran will guarantee a free Palestinian state. And a nuclear Iran will bring peace to the middle east. Iran is the natural leader of the region and they will establish control and demand peace.
10
A nuclear Iran would more likely be yet another roadblock to a Palestinian state.
4
A nuclear Iran will bring peace to the Middle East?? What have you been smoking?
1
Neither Iran nor the United States can help arbitrate the land dispute Israel and the Palestinians. If peace is possible, only the two parties can strike a deal. Maybe Egypt and Jordan can help mediate because Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank was under Jordanian control 1948-1967.
The conference fell apart largely in rational recognition that its existence was a waste of time, as every country with the means to develop or acquire nuclear weapons appears to be exerting all efforts to do so, quite regardless of any innocent prior agreements not to.
It could be the most realistic thing a U.N. body ever did.
When the world's lunchroom monitor goes AWOL, the foodfights abound, and there's nothing like a nuke to trump someone else's flung potato salad. But it might not end badly, since if everyone's got a hardened warehouse of nukes, it becomes a dicey thing to be the first to lob one. We and the U.S.S.R. learned that decades ago, and it gave the U.S. time to put a man on the Moon while it gave the Soviets time to fail and fall apart. What it will do for Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a matter for the merest idle speculation.
Disarmament is so YESTERDAY. The last time it was seriously tried ended at Munich, and we all know how THAT bright idea turned out. Israel remembers this vividly.
But there always will be those who spit into the wind.
It could be the most realistic thing a U.N. body ever did.
When the world's lunchroom monitor goes AWOL, the foodfights abound, and there's nothing like a nuke to trump someone else's flung potato salad. But it might not end badly, since if everyone's got a hardened warehouse of nukes, it becomes a dicey thing to be the first to lob one. We and the U.S.S.R. learned that decades ago, and it gave the U.S. time to put a man on the Moon while it gave the Soviets time to fail and fall apart. What it will do for Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a matter for the merest idle speculation.
Disarmament is so YESTERDAY. The last time it was seriously tried ended at Munich, and we all know how THAT bright idea turned out. Israel remembers this vividly.
But there always will be those who spit into the wind.
7
@Richard Luettgen [for some reason my replies have not been showing up under the original comments]: You need to review your history. Disarmament has been tried many times since Munich, often quite successfully. Two major examples are the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, which, despite many troubles along the way, are generally considered success stories. Another is the landmine ban, which is still very much a work in progress but so far appears promising. Don't dismiss disarmament unless you actually understand its history and current state.
Let's face reality, Obama's legacy will include enabling Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
4
The implied alternative would be another foolish war and a nuclear Iran on an even faster schedule than this fears.
Obama's efforts minimize risk, but do not guarantee against all risk. There is no plan that would give such guarantee.
Obama's efforts minimize risk, but do not guarantee against all risk. There is no plan that would give such guarantee.
8
@ AI.R
Perhaps so, but it's a shared blame. The previous administration and their criminal and reckless policies that amounted to an oil grab for their cronies, created a palpable mood of no military engagement for the U.S. Had we not squandered our military might and used it when we really needed to, perhaps the current President would've been been inclined to flex that muscle. The country not just he, is in no mood for more American men dying in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter. It has given us diminished returns, a further mistrust of government, and a whole lot of heartache.
Perhaps so, but it's a shared blame. The previous administration and their criminal and reckless policies that amounted to an oil grab for their cronies, created a palpable mood of no military engagement for the U.S. Had we not squandered our military might and used it when we really needed to, perhaps the current President would've been been inclined to flex that muscle. The country not just he, is in no mood for more American men dying in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter. It has given us diminished returns, a further mistrust of government, and a whole lot of heartache.
2
It seems foolhardy to postpone serious efforts to remove nuclear weapons from the Middle East, but there is no reason to expect that progress will be made on this issue for decades to come. The US insists that Israel remain the only country there with nuclear weapons, and Israel is very much in favor of that scheme. Thus, any other country would be exceedingly foolish to forego such weapons, given Israel's expansion of the region it aspires to control, and its frequent bombings of Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere.
28
Is there nothing on Earth you can't blame on the Jews?!? Israel is expanding its control on the Middle East?!? Israel is taking land from Lebanon and Libya and Egypt and Jordan?!?! Can you link to facts to support your wild assertions?
When you state, "One reason for the failure [of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty talks] was a dispute between Egypt and Israel, which was backed by the United States, over banning nuclear weapons in the Middle East," you reveal the stunning inconsistency in the Obama Administration on this issue. On the one hand Mr. Obama has long stated his goal of reducing nuclear weapons and is in the midst of tense negotiations with Iran to do so. On the other hand, our tether to Israel keeps us from achieving an even broader goal of a non-nuclear Middle East which is raging in sectarian wars and, based on recent threats by Saudi Arabia, on the verge of a major nuclear arms race. If there ever was an Armageddon scenario, this clearly is it. This is a very sad day for global safety and another missed opportunity for Mr. Obama to earn his Nobel Peace Prize.
9
This administration should not try to negotiate anything, because they will only end up with a lopsided loss.
1
Iran favors a nuclear free Middle East... guess who doesn't.
42
Like lemmings who rush to the Sea
Mankind eschews Security,
Nuclear denial
Like Climate's in style,
We head for doom assuredly!
Mankind eschews Security,
Nuclear denial
Like Climate's in style,
We head for doom assuredly!
22
nuclear weapons will be with us forever
if we wish to oppose them, star by bombing Iran
if we do not, then we stop blathering
if we wish to oppose them, star by bombing Iran
if we do not, then we stop blathering
3
Iran don't have the bomb yet so how is bombing Iran compel countries already having the bomb to give it up? Thought so. Your train of thought ended right after bomb Iran
1
The U.S. is its own best example for why nuclear disarmament isn't an idea to be tossed aside.
Over Labor Day, 2007, 6 missiles with nuclear warheads attached were flown over the U.S. from North Dakota to Louisiana. The Air Force forgot to remove the warheads.
Over Labor Day, 2007, 6 missiles with nuclear warheads attached were flown over the U.S. from North Dakota to Louisiana. The Air Force forgot to remove the warheads.
45
The only way to curb Iran's nuclear program is to overthrow the ayatollahs and their regime. These talks and treaties are as worthless a John Kerry's broken leg.
4
Would you suggest the same for Israel's program? Of course we already overthrew Iran's democratically elected leadership once before. How did that work out?
1
If the US agrees, in an iron-clad agreement, to be the last nation to give up its arsenal after all the other nations have verifiably done so I think we can have a deal (Of course, this will have to be after the US threatens to use some of its arsenal to bring the rogue nations like North Korea, Pakistan, Israel and Iran to tow the line!)
4
You use a lot of words to obscure the real story here. The Obama regime blew up the conference because of its "Israel First" Mideast policy. A nuclear free region was agreed to by every nation except Israel--the only owner of nuclear weapons and the ability to hold them over its neighbors.
Shame on Obama for not putting his own nation's interest first.
Shame on Obama for not putting his own nation's interest first.
75
Our policy toward Israel is appropriate.
By having nuclear weapon Israel prevents wars by other states against her.
I would think that’s a good think.
We also have a proof positive that Israel does not use nuclear weapons even under duress.
I wish that could be said on any other country in the world.
By having nuclear weapon Israel prevents wars by other states against her.
I would think that’s a good think.
We also have a proof positive that Israel does not use nuclear weapons even under duress.
I wish that could be said on any other country in the world.
2
One cannot see nuclear arms separate from the rest of the world:
- as long as they know that without nuclear arms they would be high on America's regime change list the North Koreans will continue their program
- as long as the US keeps expanding its missile shield (under the false pretense of defending against Iran) China and Russia will see a need to expand and improve their arsenal in order to keep their deterrent capacity
And I am very curious when the NYT heard Russian officials make "outrageous threats about using nuclear weapons in the confrontation with NATO over Ukraine.". I must have missed that news.
- as long as they know that without nuclear arms they would be high on America's regime change list the North Koreans will continue their program
- as long as the US keeps expanding its missile shield (under the false pretense of defending against Iran) China and Russia will see a need to expand and improve their arsenal in order to keep their deterrent capacity
And I am very curious when the NYT heard Russian officials make "outrageous threats about using nuclear weapons in the confrontation with NATO over Ukraine.". I must have missed that news.
19
wimR, so Russia and China are expanding their nuclear weapons because of they fear a first strike by the US? Perhaps the US should withdrew its nuclear shield from Europe, so that China and Russia don't feel so threatened.A united Europe should be able to deal with Russia, since both France and England have nuclear weapons.
Why can't anyone just wake up and realize that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is one whopping failure??? I can just hear it now--isn't it great that Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but Israel will get the usual tongue lashing over not only refusing to sign this antiquated treaty but in having any nukes all. How come no one is freaking out over the fact that North Korean withdrew from NPT over a dozen years ago and has quite a nice nuclear arsenal now. For the record Iran agreed to NPT in 1970 when the Shah was on the Peacock Throne. That was long before the revolution of 1979 that ousted the Shah and replaced him with fundamentalist religious fanatics. No good will come of nukes in the hands of an Iran dominated by ayatollahs and mullahs who want nukes to re-establish the Persian Empire.
7
For the record, as well, this is the US-installed puppet Shah, put into place after a US-sponsored coup and overthrow of a democratically-elected leader. No wonder Iran wants nukes.
26
To date the Iranian government--unlike North Korea--has not withdrawn from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NNT), although there is strong support for that among Iranian conservatives. It is our good fortune that President Obama and many leaders in the UN realize that it is better to come to some agreement with Iran than to force them to withdraw or disregard the NNT. Compromising is not always a bad strategy.
2
That sounds Like a rehash of what was said in London after Chamberlain returned from Munich in 1938. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still just a pig wearing lipstick!
The fact the nearly lunatic regime in North Korea has nuclear weapons, and the hate filled theocratic autocracies in Iran and, now, Saudi Arabia are in the process of acquiring nuclear weapons, by any means necessary, while the Russians are rattling nuclear sabers, render all pie in the sky op-ed pieces based on woulda, coulda, and shoulda completely inconsequential to the developing reality.
17
So no mention of Israel's 200 warhead arsenal or the U.S. or the United kingdom's!!!
26
Sina,
Your point is? Perhaps it's bad behavior justifies even worse behavior?
Your point is? Perhaps it's bad behavior justifies even worse behavior?
1
The same Israel that has HUNDREDS of nukes and refuses to sign the NPT [but gets US aid anyway, in violation of US law, , has illegally occupied Palestine for decades while building settlements, which has committed numerous war crimes,. routinely ignores international law, but now seeks to rewrite it...
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/23/israel-seeks-international-law-rew...
...has continually moved the goal posts - every time agreement is near, with Iran, as with the Palestinians, the Israelis pull on America's strings and say "just one more thing..."
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/25/blocking-a-nuclear-free-mideast/
For over twenty years, Mr. Netanyahu has cried wolf on Iranian nukes while building more of his own. He lied about Iraq. He's lied about Syria. He is arming Al Qaeda in Syria.
But we are to believe that he honestly wants a deal?
Israel doesn't want peace - it wants all of Palestine, and it wants the US to do the heavy lifting for regime change in Iran. Likud and Shas care not one bit for the cost of non-Jewish blood it would take - they are absolute racists who would be described as such if they were European.
Israel wants to have its nukes and commit its war crimes too.