DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Can Democrats Be Trusted with Foreign Policy?

**lookanddiscover** · 09-30-2009, 08:48 PM

Bush was completely undermined by a leaked NIE which said Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons. It was obviously crap at the time, but the media and others pounced on it. That effectively killed any efforts Bush had with doing anything with Iran.

Perhaps the real problem is the long-standing bi-partisan delusion that we can decide whether other countries should have nuclear technology OR weapons.

Jonathan Tepperman, Newsweek's former deputy managing editor of foreign affairs and current assistant managing editor, recently wrote a piece for the magazine which basically dismissed the entire concept of disarmament for anyone. (See "Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb: http://www.newsweek.com/id/214248.)

Tepperman's essential argument was that having nukes makes their owners responsible. It puts the fear of death into their leaders. Proof: No two countries with nuclear weapons have ever gone to war against each other. The best-known example was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when Kennedy and Krushchev nearly went mano-a-mano with each other, then slowly backed away.

Meanwhile, there have been innumerable smaller wars between non-nuke states and between those with nukes and those without. When nuclear war is not an issue, leaders -- whether elected or dictators -- seem to feel they have less to lose. So, they go to war casually, even carelessly -- like Bush took us into Iraq.

Following this logic, perhaps the best strategy is to get out of Tehran's way. Recognize the right of the mullahs (who control Iranian foreign policy and, unlike Ahmadinejad, are not crazy) to have their bomb.

09-30-2009, 08:48 PM	#30
lookanddiscover Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	Bush was completely undermined by a leaked NIE which said Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons. It was obviously crap at the time, but the media and others pounced on it. That effectively killed any efforts Bush had with doing anything with Iran. Perhaps the real problem is the long-standing bi-partisan delusion that we can decide whether other countries should have nuclear technology OR weapons. Jonathan Tepperman, Newsweek's former deputy managing editor of foreign affairs and current assistant managing editor, recently wrote a piece for the magazine which basically dismissed the entire concept of disarmament for anyone. (See "Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb: http://www.newsweek.com/id/214248.) Tepperman's essential argument was that having nukes makes their owners responsible. It puts the fear of death into their leaders. Proof: No two countries with nuclear weapons have ever gone to war against each other. The best-known example was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when Kennedy and Krushchev nearly went mano-a-mano with each other, then slowly backed away. Meanwhile, there have been innumerable smaller wars between non-nuke states and between those with nukes and those without. When nuclear war is not an issue, leaders -- whether elected or dictators -- seem to feel they have less to lose. So, they go to war casually, even carelessly -- like Bush took us into Iraq. Following this logic, perhaps the best strategy is to get out of Tehran's way. Recognize the right of the mullahs (who control Iranian foreign policy and, unlike Ahmadinejad, are not crazy) to have their bomb.
	Quote