How Bad Would it Be

for Iran to get nukes? Well, it would be pretty bad for Israel, that's for sure. It would also be moderately bad for Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. It could also be pretty bad for the US and every other power that depends on Gulf oil - Europe, China, Japan, etc. Russia might not care too much - what could Iran do, attack them?

So what to do about it?

Sanctions - not likely to work and likely to cause trouble, like $125/bbl oil.

Bomb Iran? Likely to get us chased out of the Middle East. Think $200 oil. Also not likely to work in the long run.

I think that the only real hope is a comprehensive world treaty, with strict rules and strict enforcement.

One slightly crazy idea would be for the traditional great powers (US, China, Russia, France, Britain and maybe India) maintaining a near monopoly on nuclear weapons. Israel and Pakistan might be permitted to keep a few under strict supervision. All other countries would be guaranteed against attack by the great powers. Any country attempting to develop nuclear weapons and refusing inspection would be subject to the death penalty.

Comments

  1. Anonymous9:30 PM

    Yeah, we'd nuke 'em! :(

    IMHO the game was up when Israel (aka Our Colony in the Middle East)was allowed to get away with it. As I think I mentioned before, the ultimate conclusion to this will be a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran that for obvious geographic reasons Israel will lose, permanently.

    Alternatively, to extend your idea slightly, how about the US, China, Russia, France, Britain and maybe India being permitted to keep a few under strict supervision? Without the moral authority generated by some step along those lines, I see no way out.

    Now, a question: After Israel gets whacked, does the U.S. retaliate against whatever's left of Iran?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

The most pointed critique of social security and liberalism in general is the libertarian critique. The problem with libertarians, for a liberal, is that we have too much in common. We both believe in individual rights, tolerance of individual differences, and dislike government prescription of religion. The basic difference, it seems to me, is the different answers we give to Cain's (with thanks to the Captain - my original version had the corpse asking the question!) famous question: "Am I my brother's keeper?" That's not really my basic bitch against the libertarians though. My real complaint is the same as my complaint against most religion - its premise is a fraud. For those who can't stand to wait for the punchline, I believe that trying to implement libertarian principles leads to tyranny or social disintegration. Demonstrating that takes some historical (and pre-historical) context. For all but the last 15,000 or so of the 100,000 years the human spec...
Read more

Uneasy Lies The Head

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown ........... Shakespeare Henry IV, Part II. So it is with us and our slightly distant primate cousins , so it seems. A 9-year study of wild baboons in Kenya by Princeton University and the Institute of Primate Research may turn conventional assumptions of alphas males upside down. The study found that alpha males have high testosterone levels, which allows them to dominate other baboons, get access to more food, and attract better mates. This is expected. Surprisingly, though, the alpha males also have high levels of stress hormone glucocorticoid, which scientists measured from their feces samples. In fact, the stress of alpha baboons was on par with low-ranking baboons. The convention wisdom is that access to food and females provides life security and thus less stress for dominant males. Conversely, weak males who are constantly threatened by starvation and physical violence from stronger males are thought to be more stressed. The st...
Read more

We Call it Soccer

The US played its best, and maybe only good game of World Cup, but lost thanks to brilliant goalkeeping by the Swedish keeper and the bizarre method soccer uses to settle ties when three US stars could not put the ball on frame from the 12 yard spot.  At the end it came down to a blocked shot that spun in by maybe a couple of centimeters. Well, that's football - too much like life.   Which brings me to a modest proposal.  Replace the thirty minute overtimes with as many 7-player 15 minute periods as needed to settle it.  Scoring should be much easier with fewer players.
Read more