Originally Posted by
Courtney Mil
HH & TJ,
............ I would suggest that our claim of deterrence and contributing to world peace is considerably more credible than Ahmadinejad trying to make the same claim. He is a man with a dubious human rights record, father of the second cultural revolution and who refuses to recognize Israel as a legitimate state. You can hardly argue that he has been honest and open, nor that he has given us the impression of a reliable world statesman. No less credible? I'm not so sure.
Of course you would, and Ahmadadinejad would make the same claim. As has been said elsewhere, we justify our possession of nuclear weapons on the argument that they act as a deterrent to others who possess nuclear weapons or otherwise from doing us harm.
If our weapons deter the likes of Russia, or as Mr Cameron said the other week at Faslane, North Korea, then why would Iran's future nuclear deterrent not give Israel or others likely to visit harm on Iran the same pause for thought. Is Iran (any state for that matter) not as entitled as we are to deter her enemies, real or imagined, in the same fashion as ours do for ours. Unlike the laws of physics it would appear that logic is not a conserved property.
I do not wish to see Iran or any other country acquire nuclear weapons, there are more than enough in the world. However, we will not convince Iran that there is a better road when we defiantly hold on to ours because we believe we are inherently entitled. Let’s reduced this down to the simple schoolyard analogue; big kid says to small kid "you can’t do that cause I said so", small kid says "go **** yourself". The world has outlived the old polar narratives, we need a different engagement.
Last edited by TomJoad; 11th Apr 2013 at 18:10.