Nuclear-Free

Martin Sherwin at the nuclear panel puts forward the provocative idea that Israel ought to call for the creation of a conference on "First Steps to a Nuclear-Free Middle East." The problems here are obvious, but I do think this points to an important point. Obviously, a nuclear Israel plus verifiably non-nuclear neighbors, is ideal from Israel's point of view. But a nuclear balance of terror where Israel has nukes, but so do Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey with programs under way in Egypt, Iraq, and Syria doesn't sound very good for Israel. They could probably count on deterrence to see them through there, but it would be a risky situation.

Alternatively, a world in which Iran and other Middle Eastern states are verifiably disarmed and Israel is disarmed as well would be pretty safe for Israel. They might or might not be threatened by katyushas and stuff, but we've seen that Israeli society and the Israeli economy can withstand that. And at the end of the day I do think we're either going to shift to a region (and at a slower pace, toward a world) where nobody has nuclear weapons or else to one where everyone of consequence has them.

Comments

I agree with you Matt. While I don't think this ideal world will ever come to be, it would be the safest situation.

I also believe this relates to America's aresenal. Of course I understand why we hold and create such weapons, were badasses, but as long as we maintain such a large arsenel, it doesn't seem very likely we will succeed in convincing others that they have no need for nukes.

Add on the fact that we have no problem attacking a country like Iraq, who we knew had no nuclear weapons at the time, yet tread much more carefully with countries such as China and North Korea.

If I was Iran, I would want the bomb as well.

Posted by Phillip Dukes | July 1, 2008 2:38 PM

Using nuclear weapons would be immoral. They cannot be used legitimately in self-defense because the effects of these weapons cannot be limited to an aggressor. Just as I have no right to throw grenades into a crowd at the mall if someone in the crowd is shooting at me, nations have no right to use nuclear weapons in self-defense.

States can only have rights that are delegated to them by the people who comprise the state. Since no individual has a right to self-defense that includes necessarily killing innocent bystanders, no individual can delegate such a right to the state of which they are a member.

Possessing nuclear weapons for "self-defense" is terrorism.

Posted by sewells | July 1, 2008 2:46 PM

Gee, these live conference blog posts are just awesome and we regular readers are just loving them, as demonstrated by the numerous buzzing comment threads.

Look, it's great you get to go to this conference. I hope you're enjoying it. But why do we have to suffer through your tedious summaries of other people's ideas and then endure your jejune remarks upon them?

Next year, they should just let you go, give you time to process and reflect, and then put together a few summary posts of the best things you saw. This near live-blogging is really terrible.

And I say all this an actual fan. This is not a good format for you or your readers.

Posted by Philly | July 1, 2008 2:48 PM

But a nuclear balance of terror where Israel has nukes, but so do Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey with programs under way in Egypt, Iraq, and Syria doesn't sound very good for Israel

Better than the alternative.

but we've seen that Israeli society and the Israeli economy can withstand that.

Israeli society can withstand the level of attacks that are going on now. That level is, I suspect, heavily influenced by the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal. Sane worries about an Iranian nuke seem to be centered on an increase in attacks motivated by an Iran that fears Israeli response less. If no one has nukes, it looks like Israel has the same (or a worse) problem as if Iran also has the bomb.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 1, 2008 2:53 PM

Israel uses its nukes to deter successful large-scale conventional attack, so a nuclear-free Middle East is not in Israel's best interests.

Posted by rea | July 1, 2008 2:56 PM

Israel uses its nukes to deter successful large-scale conventional attack, so a nuclear-free Middle East is not in Israel's best interests.

Israel has shown an ability to effectively resist large-scale conventional attacks. On the other hand a single nuke could potentially kill a quarter or more of Israel's population. MAD type situation with say, Iran is hardly "mutual". Also nukes are a ranged weapon while it would be nearly impossible for countries not bordering Israel to try to invade it.

Posted by MS | July 1, 2008 3:05 PM

Well, MS, people who don't think Israel built nukes to deter conventional attack have to explain why Israel has nukes now, when none of its enemies do. Israel right now has demonstrably less reason to fear nuclear attack than any other country in the region.

Posted by rea | July 1, 2008 3:26 PM

A message for Mr. Trevor et al. I'm sure the Israel bashers will now eschew Intel based computers (of course AMD also has facilities in Israel so I guess they will eschew all computers)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214726178424&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | July 1, 2008 3:28 PM

SLC,

I'm not sure I follow your point - you're saying that the Israel bashers should boycott Israel, but they've hardly said anything of the sort, nothing to warrant the comment you're making.

Moreover, what you're saying is hardly relevant to the thread - what exactly is your point?

Posted by Slim | July 1, 2008 3:38 PM

Alternatively, a world in which Iran and other Middle Eastern states are verifiably disarmed and Israel is disarmed as well would be pretty safe for Israel.

Not so long as the conventional wisdom both within Israel and the rest of the mid east is that the US nuclear arsenal will be available to "defend" Israel.

Posted by Davebo | July 1, 2008 4:09 PM

What i love about MY's fantasy-land is his amazing ability to make the "Facts" fit his viewpoint.

The notion of Iran and the Arab States being "verifiably disarmed" provides all you need to know about Matt.

The UN -- or whomever will do the verifying -- has such a sterling record in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza, Iran (where it missed the boat for 18 years), with Khan (where it didn't know he had the world's biggest nuclear bazaar open for 25 years), not to mention the bang-up job the UN did in Srebenecia and Rwanda.

Why on earth would Israel trust anyone to "verify" the disarmament of its enemies?

And to beat my critics to the punch, it is pie-in-the-sky Obama-ism to think Iran or the Arab states would actually let Israel do the verifying.

Geez, does Matt realize how much he is like an idiot retread of Jimmy Carter?

Posted by BigA | July 1, 2008 4:32 PM

Presently Israel has sixty nukes (technically none - the secret everyone knows) and its neighbors which it feels so threatened by have zero. So, to call a conference and say "lets agree to be nuclear free", it seems like the onus of that agreement would be entirely on Israel. Further, one half-assed constructed nuclear bomb developed by - oh lets say Iran - would probably have to be driven in by a truck and would be horrible to be sure but would hardly "kill a third of Israel's population". The retaliatory strike by Israel - using the model of the number of Israelies killed versus how many Palestinians they kill in response on average - would probably be several times worse. After all, in 2006 Israel killed over a thousand Lebanese - the vast majority civilians - because a couple of Israeli soldiers were captured by Hesbollah. Needless to say, I'm really sick of hearing about Israel's "security concerns."

Posted by Nathan | July 1, 2008 4:43 PM

Israel uses its nukes to deter successful large-scale conventional attack, so a nuclear-free Middle East is not in Israel's best interests.

It's worth noting that Israel's nuclear weapons haven't even been that great of a deterrent. By 1973, Israel had multiple nuclear devices but was still invaded by the Arabs.

I would say the main useful deterrent effect of Israeli nuclear weapons was deterring the use of things like Syria's massive stockpile of chemical weapons, though given this began in the '80s this was probably not the primary intended purpose.

Posted by DPT | July 1, 2008 4:43 PM

Nathan,

You're not only an A**, you're also pretty ignorant.

Where do i start?

1-Israel has well over 200 nuclear weapons.
2-Using "averages" of Palestinians killed vs Israelis killed has zero bearing on an Israeli retaliatory strike. Actually, assuming Israel calibrates Palis killed in response to it's deaths is sick. May be true vis a vis militants but not in general.
3 -- Hez fired thousands of rockets into Israel and put 1 million israelis into bomb shelters in Northern israel. & shut down the country. What other country on earth would stand for that?

4 --& finally, positing that Iran would send a nuke into Israel by truck -- assinine as that is (bc they have built missles that could do the trick -- yet stating that you're "sick" of hearing about Israel's security concerns makes me wonder where exactly you're coming from? to put this in simple terms you'll understand -- you first state that something terrible is feasible -- and then you state that you're tired of hearing that country X is concerned about this feasible tragedy. Incoherence.......

Posted by BA | July 1, 2008 4:53 PM

Presently Israel has sixty nukes

I thought estimates were considerably higher than that, and on the order of 120 to 200 nukes.

but would hardly "kill a third of Israel's population".

Yeah, that seemed insane. I don't know where to find estimates of the size of any potential Iranian bomb, though.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 1, 2008 4:54 PM

"2-Using "averages" of Palestinians killed vs Israelis killed has zero bearing on an Israeli retaliatory strike. Actually, assuming Israel calibrates Palis killed in response to it's deaths is sick. May be true vis a vis militants but not in general."

Funny, I though a human being was a human being. I was simply unaware that an Israeli human life is more valuable than a Lebanese. Further, all those rocket attacks happened after Israeli troops were dropping bombs on Lebanon. "What country would stand for that", as you put it.

Posted by Nathan | July 1, 2008 5:08 PM

nathan,

The chance of you actually being named nathan is about the chance of my middle name actually being "Hussein."

BA

ps -- since when is Hez a "nation"? and why did Hez stack all of those missles AFTER Israel withdrew? I'll leave aside the fact that coming over the border and killing/kidnapping soldiers is an act of war under intl law -- or does intl law not mean anything to you when it doesn't parrot your line?

Posted by BA | July 1, 2008 5:18 PM

I see all of SLC's Zionist freak friends have been recruited to post here today.

Here's the bottom line. Israel is the poster boy for "rogue nuclear proliferation". Israel has absolutely zero need for nukes, given its conventional military capability - which is sufficient to defeat virtually all of its neighbors even if they all were inclined to attack Israel at once. And that was true in 1967 and in 1970 and is even more true today.

And the US is giving Israel thirty billion dollars more worth of weapons over the next ten years.

Second, Iran has no nuclear weapons program and there is no evidence they ever did. So the entire discussion about whether Iran could nuke Israel is brain dead.

As for this BA fruitcake, Hizballah stocked up on missile because they knew Israel wanted to invade Lebanon and seize water and territory. And Israel obliged them.

They seized the two soldiers because technically Hizballah is still at war with Israel and wishes to release many Lebanese prisoners who were seized by Israel years ago and have never been released.

Israel ALLOWED those two soldiers to be seized by not having them on overwatch despite having been warned by intelligence that Hizballah was seeking to capture prisoners. This was done so Israel would have an excuse to launch its war against Lebanon - which Israel has admitted it was planning for six months or more before the incident occurred.

And during that war, the Israelis broke ever international war crime law in the books by bombing civilian infrastructure, dropping cluster bombs en mass in civilian areas, hiding its artillery and tank units in Israeli Arab civilian areas (while claiming Hizballah did the same with its rocket launchers, which has never been verified by the UN or anyone else), and numerous other war crimes.

And they still got their ass handed to them by Hizballah.

So BA can stuff his Zionist freak show bullshit up his ass.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 1, 2008 7:38 PM

MY: "And at the end of the day I do think we're either going to shift to a region (and at a slower pace, toward a world) where nobody has nuclear weapons or else to one where everyone of consequence has them."

I think worse than that will be the end-state where countries of less-vital international significance try to acquire nuclear programs through a Khan-type transaction as a way of establishing their consequence. Nations of consequence, so to speak, are also deterrable, in that they are more vitally linked into the world's multi-lateral organizations, and are more easily punished by temporarily and gradual expulsion from the world's economies via sanctions or travel restrictions. In the case of countries that are already perceived as being of less vital importance, there's much less available as far as deterrence goes: there's only so much more you can ignore a country you are already ignoring.

This is part of why the tactic of ignoring a figure like Chavez, a political leader with aspirations of multi-national influence in an area of the world that the U.S. is essentially ignoring whole-sale, is dangerous. There is a certain level of engagement that is required with a figure like Chavez simply in order to have the option available of punishing them by stopping this engagement.

Posted by msmackle | July 1, 2008 11:29 PM