Will anyone stop the Iranian nuke?

[GePap]

To put it in even simpler terms for you:

Non-proliferation fails once a state gets nukes. Any war after that is not going to cement a value that in that case already failed. Nothing can remove from that state the knowledge of making bombs if they ever so wish to make them again unless you kill them all.

[Kuciwalker]

My point, if you failed to grasp it, is that Geronimo is probably alone in such a belief, and as such, to assume the world will or should work based on that assumption is utterly non-realistic.

Liar. You didn't even see that was his assumption.

Non-proliferation fails once a state gets nukes. Any war after that is not going to cement a value that in that case already failed.

Just like jailing murders doesn't cement the idea that murder is wrong?

Punishment for violating a code of conduct reinforces that code of conduct, despite the fact that a violation occured. Duh.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
[

Liar. You didn't even see that was his assumption.

Just like jailing murders doesn't cement the idea that murder is wrong?

Punishment for violating a code of conduct reinforces that code of conduct, despite the fact that a violation occured. Duh.

Last time I looked, a STATE is not a person. Is that a distinction that has somehow evaded you?

There is an even more important problem you overlook, a problem based on that idea of legitimacy you called tangential before. You see, punishment only works to deter others long term if it is viewed as legitimate. Illegtimate punishment does not enforce some code of conduct, it simply is the continuation of despotism. While a strong enough despot might be able to carry this trick on forever, I see no great global despot.

The notion of non-proliferation must be seen as legitimate in order to justify a war in its defense, or at the very least, it must be seen as valuable enough to waste treasure to enforce it.

Obviously, as the examples of India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and South Africa show, the world disagree with Geronimo and does not view the concept of non-proliferation is sufficently important.

[Kuciwalker]

Last time I looked, a STATE is not a person. Is that a distinction that has somehow evaded you?

You can punish either.

There is an even more important problem you overlook, a problem based on that idea of legitimacy you called tangential before. You see, punishment only works to deter others long term if it is viewed as legitimate. Illegtimate punishment does not enforce some code of conduct, it simply is the continuation of despotism. While a strong enough despot might be able to carry this trick on forever, I see no great global despot.

A "global despot" smacking down a state that just went nuclear is not going to encourage other states to go nuclear. Nukes are completely worthless in small quantities except for their deterrent. And that deterrent value disappears if, like Geronimo suggests, we don't let it deter us. (Duh.)

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap







Last time I looked, a STATE is not a person. Is that a distinction that has somehow evaded you?

There is an even more important problem you overlook, a problem based on that idea of legitimacy you called tangential before. You see, punishment only works to deter others long term if it is viewed as legitimate. Illegtimate punishment does not enforce some code of conduct, it simply is the continuation of despotism. While a strong enough despot might be able to carry this trick on forever, I see no great global despot.

The notion of non-proliferation must be seen as legitimate in order to justify a war in its defense, or at the very least, it must be seen as valuable enough to waste treasure to enforce it.

Obviously, as the examples of India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and South Africa show, the world disagree with Geronimo and does not view the concept of non-proliferation is sufficently important.

look, I don't think non proliferation is important because "nukes are so terrible". I think non proliferation is important because the civilization ending apocolypse is so terrible.

Using nukes to destroy a new nuclear regime would be fine if it reduced the chances of new nuclear regimes cropping up because a world filled with nuclear regimes is surely one in which the civilization ending apocolypse can far more easily occur.

In any event if you are now invoking the argument that since nuclear proliferation has failed it must not be important you may need to explain further why this is the case.

I think war is terrible and peace is wonderful, and yet obviously, the 20th century examples of WWI, WWII, the korean war, the Chinese Civil war, the Vietnam war, the iran-iraq war, the russian civil war, etc, etc etc... show, the world disagrees with me and does not view the concept of inter state peace as sufficently important.

Shall we then stop paying lip service to peace?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

A "global despot" smacking down a state that just went nuclear is not going to encourage other states to go nuclear. Nukes are completely worthless in small quantities except for their deterrent.

Yes it will, because despotism is based solely on might. Hence, if you can gain enough might to crush the despot, you will not be punished. IN that respect, it would make MOST sense for everyone who is not nuclear to all simultaneously aim for nukes in order to make it impossible for the "despot" to win, and thus overthrowing the despot, unless of course that was not a "despot", whose rule is based solely on might, but a legitimate ruler whose rule was based on law.

IN todays world, non-proliferation is a secondary value. National soverignty and Self-determination are both seen as higher order values that trump non-proliferation.

The simple fact is that any state can leave the NPT and aim for nuclear weapons. Iran faces UNSC sanctions for only 2 reasons:
1. Global powers want to limit Iran and thus are willing to carry out a campaign against it.
2. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and thus voluntarily placed itself in the position of having to follow those rules.

Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed or joined the NPT, so there is no rule that would allow them to be punished for having nukes. The punishment would fall upon any state that did certain kinds of business with them, not against them.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes it will, because despotism is based solely on might. Hence, if you can gain enough might to crush the despot, you will not be punished.

Because a little country will of course be able to develop the military capacity to not only deter the despot (can't, we aren't letting ourselves be deterred) but crush it?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo
look, I don't think non proliferation is important because "nukes are so terrible". I think non proliferation is important because the civilization ending apocolypse is so terrible.

Using nukes to destroy a new nuclear regime would be fine if it reduced the chances of new nuclear regimes cropping up because a world filled with nuclear regimes is surely one in which the civilization ending apocolypse can far more easily occur.

Except that using nukes offensively is a worst act that getting nukes. And setting the precedent that nukes can be used offensively is the very precondition to apocalypse. After all, what you fear can only occur if people decide to use them as a means not of territorial and existential survival, but as a mean to impose beliefs or values upon others, including the value of non-proliferation.

In any event if you are now invoking the argument that since nuclear proliferation has failed it must not be important you may need to explain further why this is the case.

I think war is terrible and peace is wonderful, and yet obviously, the 20th century examples of WWI, WWII, the korean war, the Chinese Civil war, the Vietnam war, the iran-iraq war, the russian civil war, etc, etc etc... show, the world disagrees with me and does not view the concept of inter state peace as sufficently important.

Additional interstate wars do NOT solidify peace.

Shall we then stop paying lip service to peace?

Sorry, but war=war, peace= peace. War does not under any condition equal peace.

You can proclaim that certain values are higher than peace and war is valid to protect these certain values, but you can't claim that the negation of peace is the way to create peace.

[Kuciwalker]

It's very simple. If you only punish those who are seeking nukes, not those who manage to get them, it only encourages more nations to get them. If you punish those who actually get nukes, no country has any reason to get them. They are of no value.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Because a little country will of course be able to develop the military capacity to not only deter the despot (can't, we aren't letting ourselves be deterred) but crush it?

Maybe you missed the point about a group of small states joining together to collectively bring down the illegitimate power.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's very simple. If you only punish those who are seeking nukes, not those who manage to get them, it only encourages more nations to get them. If you punish those who actually get nukes, no country has any reason to get them. They are of no value.

QFT

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Maybe you missed the point about a group of small states joining together to collectively bring down the illegitimate power.

Because a coalition of every country in Africa and/or South America would be able to actually crush this despot?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


Maybe you missed the point about a group of small states joining together to collectively bring down the illegitimate power.

because of course little states are always willing to cooperate with their bitter regional rivals to bring down the most powerful global alliances so long as it means they and their bitter rivals get to have nukes like the big shots!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's very simple. If you only punish those who are seeking nukes, not those who manage to get them, it only encourages more nations to get them. If you punish those who actually get nukes, no country has any reason to get them. They are of no value.

Except that there are already states with them, meaning that there is always a reason for states without them to get them.

After all, what is the current non-proliferation regime but the five who got there first claiming that for some reason only they have the right to have nukes, and everyone else but them can't have them?

How do you defend the notion of punishing states who get nukes while allowing ANY state to maintain nukes? If the rule is just, if its right, then what right do the ones doing the punishment have?

[Kuciwalker]

Except that there are already states with them, meaning that there is always a reason for states without them to get them.

Non sequiter.