Needed: More Proliferation

If you were thinking to yourself, "you know what the world needs? more nuclear proliferation" then you've got to like this nuclear deal the Bush administration signed with India. If you think the USA really ought to clarify that the NPT is a dead letter, and that foreign countries shouldn't bother supporting our position on Iran since we pursue these things with no sense of principles or seriousness of purpose, the you ought to really love the deal.

You can read more here from Daryl Kimball and Joseph Cirincione, or just watch the video of Joe laying out the case above. One thing to note here is the rise of USINPAC as an influential actor in congress.

Comments

Nonproliferation is dead, and good riddance. It was a fundamentally hypocritical policy from the start, and only lasted as long as it did because of the Cold War status quo.

In many cases, nuclear proliferation would actually help keep the peace because of MAD considerations. For instance, if Taiwan had half a dozen or so nuclear subs, that would essentially preclude any Sinofascist invasion, unless they want to trade Beijing for Taipei.

Posted by Firebug | December 19, 2006 9:36 AM

MAD only works when both sides have sufficient arsenals to inflict unacceptable losses. Those arsenals must also be able to survive long enough to be used. Unless you want mid-ranking officers to have independent launch control, you also need a power structure capable of receiving accurate intelligence of the commencing of hostilities, and responding before being destroyed. The vast majority of the potential conflicts on Earth are not suitable to be deterred by MAD.

Instead, possession of nuclear arsenals heightens tensions in most cases. A nation that can be crippled by a first strike is tempted to launch a pre-emptive strike. Instead of deterring war, nuclear arsenals can excessively reward the side that strikes first, thereby making war more likely.

Posted by Njorl | December 19, 2006 11:02 AM

"if Taiwan had half a dozen or so nuclear subs, that would essentially preclude any Sinofascist invasion"

It's about 58 years too late to keep the Sinofascists out of Taiwan, although Chiang's government has been moderated over time into a presentable modern democracy. But your proposed fleet might well keep the communists out.

Posted by rea | December 19, 2006 11:11 AM

The sentiment is variously ascribed to John Stennis or Earl Long or some other Southern senator: "States Rights is Dead. The Feds have the bomb." Since the NPT is also dead, very soon some NRA champion will lobby for the right of citizens to have nukes. It's just a matter of time. Then, some bland faced lunatic with bad hair is going to get to Congress and speak on it very calmly and yet with passionate certainty. Haven't we heard of the 10th amendment? the 2nd amendment?

By signs such as this will you know that we are in End Times.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 19, 2006 11:33 AM

North Korea has half a dozen bombs, we guess, and will try to build more, and to acquire or develop delivery systems.
Iran is apparently fixed on acquiring nuclear weapons for a variety of motives.

On a list of "decisive factors" explaining North Korea's and Iran's behavior, how high does our deal with India rank?

Another question:
if India moves from possessing a dozen nuclear rockets to four dozen, will this increase in its forces make a nuclear exchange with Pakistan more likely? Why is this so?

Posted by Curious | December 19, 2006 12:44 PM

Firebug is more or less right. The NPT is hypocritical in the extreme. When Joseph Cirincione says that the India agreement sends the signal that "You don't have to pay attention to the rules everyone else does because we like you", he is reiterating what in fact has been the U.S. nonproliferation policy from the beginning. Look at Israel.

But it's not just about allowing some nations to get nukes and not others. Part of the NPT is the disarmament of their nuclear weapons by the nuclear nations. This of course, is never, ever going to happen. So the NPT is bullshit, and always has been. Not only that, but every nation knows it's a bullshit double standard. I don't think depending on a treaty the U.S. (and the rest of the nuclear nations) signed with no intention of keeping is a good way to pursue nonproliferation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Posted by Mitch Schindler | December 19, 2006 1:33 PM

What I wrote above does not mean I think the agreement with India is good policy. I don't know the details, and my m.o. on policy is that if Bush is for it, it's probably bad policy. But to Matt's larger point about the NPT being a dead letter, well, it is.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | December 19, 2006 1:35 PM

If only there was a Concert of Democracies. Then democracies like Norway and Australia and Britain and Ireland would totally combine their forces in their awesome new multilateral institution, and they'd be able to stop proliferation in Iran, which it's the UN's fault for failing to do, because the UN sucks and can't do anything.

See? Because if one multilateral institution is weakened by the intransigent unilateralism of its most powerful member, a *dfferent* multilateral institution would be totally different and not have that problem at all.

Posted by Scott E. | December 19, 2006 1:49 PM

India, Pakistan, and Israel were never parties to the NPT. North Korea withdrew.

This development doesn't amount to a ringing endorsement of nonproliferation, but it's not a death knell, either.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | December 19, 2006 4:26 PM

Where will this leave us when Hindu nationalism becomes militant and aggressive?

Posted by bob h | December 20, 2006 7:24 AM