The “Iran Crisis” Is Over
Defence Secretary Des Browne yesterday told MPs that maintaining Trident (Britain’s not-so-independent nuclear deterrent) is “overwhelmingly sensible” to protect future generations from the threats we may or may not face. “Once you accept that that threat is there, you commit to a deterrent,” he said. The money quote:
“[Deterrence is] not an outmoded concept…As far as we’re concerned in this government, we are committed to maintaining a minimum deterrent and one credible to any potential aggressor.”
Well, I presume we can all rest easy about Iran, then. After all, if deterrence is “not an outmoded concept” for us, surely its not an outmoded concept for Iran, either? I’m sure Des Browne wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to deny Iran the same right to self-defence as we have, would he? Would he?
French President Jacques Chirac recently pointed out that the concept of deterrence applies for Iran as well, saying:
“Where will [Iran] drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.”
That is classic deterrence theory. And yet these remarks, widely called a “gaffe”, have sparked a major controversy and Chirac has been forced to retract them. Indeed, according to The Guardian, Chirac’s “mental sharpness” was “called into question” by the incident.
Hello? Why is no one calling into question Des Browne’s “mental sharpness”? Could it really be that the Western press and western politicians are so hypocritical that they can openly espouse a nuclear deterrent for Britain even as they impose sanctions on Iran for supposedly seeking the same thing?
Yes. Evidently, our leaders’ and opinion formers’ capacity for hypocrisy knows no bounds. On reflection, then, the “Iran crisis” (namely, our impending attack on it) is very far from being over indeed.
Filed under: Iran, Media, News and politics, Quote of the Day, UK, WMD | 24 Comments
Tags: Des Browne, Trident
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
Not this time.
Nice post
ARE YOU COMPLETELY FUCKING MENTAL?
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY ARGUEING THAT IRAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A NUCLEAR BOMB?
Ee Gads, you’re delusional.
There are only a FEW countries permitted to have nukes – Isreal ISN’T one of them.
A few countries HAVE Nukes – but wisely hold off using them because they would face the wrath of the ENTIRE world if they did – even golden child Isreal would never get away with using the first nuclear device in warfare since 1945.
Then there are other countries – fundementalist countries – who would REALISTICALLY use a nuke to destroy Isreal because they would be willing to face the consequences.
Iran is one of those.
If you are SERIOUSLY arguing that Iran is responsible enough to possess a nuclear deterrent, you are clearly an idiot. Nothing short of a complete, irrational, stupid liberal idiot.
On the other hand, you could just be using it as an example of so-called British hypocrisy with the trident project.
In which case I completely overreacted.
You’re still not that smart. You know what? It’s not apples and apples. Britain, like it or not, is one of the major players in world politics and has a domestic conscience (it’s politically correct electorate) that make it a very responsible nuclear power.
I know liberal minded people like you hate the idea, but Britain is one of the countries that ‘polices’ the world.
They can spend millions on nukes – but ideally would never use one of them.
Iran is a TOTALLY inaccurate and irrelevant comparison. It’s like saying: “Soldiers can drive tanks… Why can’t my slightly loopy mate Dave do the same thing?”
Iran WILL have a nuclear bomb. And if you’re not prepared to let Britain have a deterrant, it will get used.
You flounce around words like freedom and peace a lot. Would you be willing to sacrifice every man, woman and child in Isreal if you’re wrong – and Iran is not reponsible enough to NOT use it’s nuclear capacity.
Wow. People who drink the KoolAid don’t normally get so worked up.
The only reason Iran trying to get a nuclear bomb would be in any way suspect is that they have entirely voluntarily said they will not. Good for them. That makes them the good guys and the US, UK etc the bad guys as far as nuclear weapons go.
Iran can leave the NPT whenever it wants to and if it did and researched nuclear weapons (which it isn’t doing now) it would be well within it’s rights. Indeed in view of the war mongering by it’s nuclear armed neighbours Pakistan (a US ally) and US occupied Iraq as well as nearby Israel, some say Iran would be foolish not to. I guess they are just too peaceful for their own good.
As for the UK “policing” the world the UK is actually one of the most serious war mongering nations there is. It’s a criminal state, a “rogue” state that is often in the most serious breach of the UN _charter_ (not resolution). Iran hasn’t invaded anywhere since forever. The gulf couldn’t be much wider and Roland, your comments couldn’t be much less true.
afterechoes: Thanks.
Roland: I’m glad you took a few breaths and, on reflection, realised that your first reply was a complete overreaction. An apology may be in order, but at least it means I don’t have to bother replying to your first comment, which totally misunderstood the point of my post.
As to your assertion that Iran would have no hesitation in using a nuclear bomb on Israel, I would just ask that you read what the experts say. Read, for example, what Ray Takeyh (Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council of Foreign Relations) has to say on the matter:
Of course no one wants to see proliferation, whether by Iran or by the UK and the U.S. But you must understand that a world where some have nuclear weapons and some do not is simply unsustainable. That is why the achievement of global nuclear disarmament is so vital for the security (and, very likely, the survival) of the human species.
As to your second comment, see David’s reply.
David: One thing: I wouldn’t necessarily say that Iran is “too peaceful for [its] own good”. In the long term, the only way to avoid potentially catastrophic nuclear war is nuclear disarmament, and this will obviously not be achieved by increasing proliferation. However, I agree that most states don’t think about this bigger picture, particularly when they are surrounded by hostile nuclear powers.
Dammit, I forgot how to spell nuclear for about five minutes. I was spelling it phonetically. The way George Bush says it!
Seriously, though, nuclear disarmament is TOTAL fantasy. You can’t uninvent nuclear weapons and unless you can account for every single one and witness their destruction, they will always exist. Think how many thousands exist in Georgia, slowly being filtered out across Asia?
It’s madness – pure and simple – for the ‘big’ countries like America and Britain to consider disarmement while countries like Iran attempt to develop nuclear weapons.
And the idea that you can take Iran’s word that they’re NOT developing nukes is also laughable. Setting aside the fact that they’re a fundementalist regime dedicated to the eradication of Isreal, they’re a nation state sandwiched between Pakistan (avec nuke) and facing off against Isreal (avec nuke.) OF COURSE they want to develop a deterrant.
It’s basically like saying “let’s end gun crime by destroying ALL guns” and making the police and army give theirs up first. So then it’s only private citizens and criminals who have the guns – and the total freedome to use them.
The sad thing is that the world changed FOREVER when the power of the atom was harnessed – and it can’t go back to the way it was. Nuclear disarmement is an idealistic dream that can never become reality.
Again, Iran is not “dedicated” to destroying Israel. That’s pure propaganda. Read what the experts say. Iran acts rationally in the percieved self-interest of its ruling class (and they are primarily interested in staying in power).
As to nuclear weapons – there have been many in-depth reports on this. I recommend you read the Canberra commission (in the 1990s – I think it was 1995, but I’m not sure) and the WMD Commission, chaired by Hans Blix. They conclude that while it is not possible to uninvent nuclear weapons, it is possible to outlaw their use. They then give many concrete steps that would enable us to achieve that goal.
We don’t have to accept Iran’s word – we can accept the word of the IAEA. But in any event, the principle of “innocent ’till proven guilty” applies. What would seem very strange is to take Israel’s and the U.S.’ word as the unquestionable truth, considering the fact that both countries have been straining at the bit to attack Iran for years.
I admire your idealism, but it’s totally crazy.
Sure, make nuclear weapons ‘illegal.’ In this country, handguns are illegal. They’re still around and they still get used. But now, by criminals, instead of by target shooters.
Total nuclear disarmament CANNOT and WILL NEVER happen.
What the major players of the world CAN do is police to avoid countries developing nuclear weapons. Countries like Iran.
It seems to me that you’re calling for Britain to disarm itself, while similtaniously argueing that Iran has the right to a nuke.
Why not give ALL the middle eastern countries nukes?
Because I’m SURE – totally SURE – that they’ll never get used. Nope. Nobody in the middle east would do that.
Nor would anybody from the middle east fly planes into tower blocks.
Oh, wait…
No, I’m arguing that given the fact that the Britain remains committed to nuclear weapons and is not respecting the NPT or international law generally, and given the fact that Britain rejects the idea of making the Middle East a nuclear weapons free-zone (something supported by Iran for many years), it has no right to even talk about a supposed Iranian desire for some nukes of its own.
As I said, I am against proliferation. You once again propose that Britain and the other most powerful countries can “police” the world. In reality, Britain and the U.S. are among the leading international criminal states. Your argument seems to be that the powerful countries have the right to “police” the world in their interest simply because they are powerful. That’s an extremely undemocratic and dictatorial view to hold, and of course you only hold it because you happen to live in one of the powerful states that would do the “policing”. If you were living in one of the many countries that have been on the receiving end of one of the numerous campaigns of aggression and terror carried out by the states you propose should “police” the world, you would no doubt hold a different view.
Again, if you read the reports I suggested, you’ll see that they propose concrete and material steps that would make possible global nuclear disarmament. Simply repeating your original assertion that global disarmament is “impossible” is not an argument, and so I don’t see how I can really respond to it.
Roland your argument is based on a nationalist fantasy about the UK and US being the cosmic good guys that can do no wrong. You need to decide if that conceopt is or is not going to be the basis for your opinions and arguments here.
If it is the basis then your views are similar to those of a religious person saying “This must be true because it’s written in my Holy book”. In other words we’re just not going to be convinced by it and probably think of you as a little bit crazy.
If it is NOT the basis then you need to start getting some facts straight. You need to deal with the facts in the real world, not the facts as you would like them to be or what it says in your Holy book. If you want to argue your religious beliefs it must be via common ground.
At the moment you are sort of back and forth between the two.
This hand gun analogy for example makes no sense.
Hand guns are much easier to make and are made in vast quantities entirely legally. They are also entirely legally (contra what you said) bought and sold as well as used by many groups. There are vast quantities of them floating around without registration. None of that applies to nuclear weapons. In addition hand guns are small things and nuclear weapons would be luck to fit in the back of a truck. Hand guns remain viable indefinately whereas nuclear weapons require constant maintenance by extremely specialised professionals.
And the analogy doesn’t fit disarmament because you insist that disarmament means only the “good” side (and there isn’t a good side in international terms of course) would disarm. In your mind that means the UK but in reality only the “good” side needs to disarm because the “bad” side doesn’t have any arms in the first place. Incidentally that’s one reason why they aren’t considered “good”.
If we ever got to the point where nuclear arms could be manufactured and were as popular and as legal as hand guns are now and THEN tried to get rid of them all there’s no doubt that would be a lot more difficult. But at the moment every nuclear weapon is scrupulously watched and monitored. Your comment about them leaking over the border from Georgia is baseless. You don’t just lose a nuclear weapon. It’s never happened as far as I know. Accidentally launch is a more reasonable threat.
The only part about disarmament that would be problematic would be policing countries to make sure they don’t secretly renege on the deal. But you say that’s the part yuo beleive is workable,
But you fail to realise — because of your superman / cop religious beliefs about the UK — is that this monitoring is voluntary. North Korea quit that game because of threats by the US. And what did the “cop” do? Nothing. Some “cop” that is huh? The so-called “criminal” says he won’t open up and the “cop” just walks away. Your fantasy of using violence against countries is not working in the real world. In the real world the use of violence and threats like that is a CAUSE of escalation.
“Each nuclear weapon is scrupulously watched and monitored.”
That is PURE and UTTER fantasy.
There already around. They’re already proliforated. There are countless Soviet nuclear weapons unaccounted for.
Russian National Security Advisor Alexander Lebed admits that out of 250 suitcase bombs made – nukes as portable and as small as a briefcase – 100 of them are missing.
“I’m saying that more than a hundred weapons out of the supposed number of 250 are not under the control of the armed forces of Russia. I don’t know their location. I don’t know whether they have been destroyed or whether they are stored or whether they’ve been sold or stolen, I don’t know.”
Russia is and always has been a corrupt and disorganised regime. Lies have always been the order of their day. Litvenyenko’s assassination in London should be evidence enough that the ‘new’ Russia is more dangerous than the old Soviet bloc.
Your suggestion that ALL nuclear weapons in the world are accounted for is LAUGHABLE.
How many does Israel have? How many does North Korea have? We can make educated guesses… But we CANNOT know for sure.
Again, I say nuclear proliforation is a PIPE DREAM. Wake up and smell the plutonium.
Obviously I meant disarmament, not proliforation.
As for North Korea – if they won’t admit inspectors, despite sanctions… Any ideas? Short of invasion?
Vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee John Rockefeller: “Half of their nuclear materials, pieces and parts of it, are unaccounted for by the Russians.”
There is A LOT of information about this.
Considering Britain can’t keep tabs on sex offenders, imagine how difficult it is to be accountable for nuclear weapons now spread throughout half a dozen different countries.
Roland: the reason why we cannot at the moment effectively control and regulate the proliferation of nuclear weapons is because the necessary systems of control and regulation have not yet been established (things like a FissBan treaty, for example, which the U.S. has consistently opposed ever since it was first formulated). Obviously, without the necessary framework in place, control of nuclear proliferation is impossible. Hence the need to create that necessary framework, as opposed to systematically undermining and destroying it.
It’s too late, Jamie. The chance to effectively catalogue the world’s nuclear weapons has GONE. One moment the Kremlin’s denying the existence of suitcase bombs, then they’re telling us 100 are missing. You’re assuming ALL countries will cooperate in the way the USA, UK, France etc do. That’s not true. Countries claim they have nukes when they don’t – and hide them when they do. Nukes are being distributed from sites across the ex-soviet bloc. Nobody knows who has them all, how many there are – and whether they still work.
And all it takes is ONE in the wrong hands and hundreds of thousands of people will die.
Again, you are making assertions. That’s fine, but you must understand that it is only possible to have a debate based on evidence. I’ve given you two important, well-considered reports, drafted by many experts on the topic, that give concrete and material steps that, if followed, will allow us to achieve global nuclear disarmament. I really recommend you read them – they are very interesting, if nothing else.
I looked up the reference to suitcase nukes. Both the US and Russian governments deny the claim. It’s doubtful that you could even build a nuclear bomb that small. If you did then you certainly wouldn’t “lose track” of them. Besides as Dr Strangelove says, “What’s the point of a doomsday machine if you don’t tell anyone about it? Why would the Russians deny they had that technology and why would whoever has them no mention it? If Iran for example has such a device, wouldn’t they make it known in view of US aggression?
I think you’re looking at a myth.
Perhaps the Russians didn’t want to admit that they’d lost/sold 100 portable nuclear devices.
Maybe they don’t exist – it still doesn’t invalidate Rockefeller’s statement.
The Russians are missing nuclear weapons and materials.
Right, because as of yet there is no effective international system in place to control and regulate states’ nuclear arsenals…
Christ, it’s like beating my head against a brick wall.
Brilliant, Einstein. You set up the international system to control and regulate nuclear weapons and materials… But guess what?
It’s already too late! Some of those weapons have gone! Vanished! They’re in God knows who’s hands. All an international system could do is account for the weapons we already know about.
I’m not saying that isn’t a brilliant idea – but the fact is we’ve already lost track of nuclear materials and weapons. Nothing short of a time machine back to 1944 would allow us to accurately keep track of them all.
There are no missing nuclear weapons. There are missing nuclear components and materials – that’s not good, and people are (as far as I know) working on tracking them down. But it certainly doesn’t mean we should give up, and simply let the world degenerate into a nuclear free-for-all. There is still real hope for global disarmament – again, read the reports. If we don’t, I’m afraid it’s only a matter of time before a nuclear breaks out.
http://www.fas.org/irp/nic/icarussiansecurity.htm
It doesn’t list any weapons missing, but enough nuclear materials to make several bombs.
Yeh – but surprise, surprise, there haven’t been any nuclear bombs made, because it takes a lot of technical skill to make one. The fact that the collapse of the Soviet Union proved such a fertile ground for nuclear scavengers backs up my point that nuclear proliferation is extremely dangerous and needs to be regulated. Your point that because some material has gone missing in the past there’s no point trying to regulate fissile material in the future is just nonsense. Again, please read the two reports. This is important, because I think that if a FissBan treaty is not signed and enforced sooner or later (preferably sooner, of course), nuclear war is simply inevitable.