North Korea and Iran thumb their nose at the US

Good points made, Boss. When first i saw the title of this thread, i thought, hell, thumbed their collective noses? We have no business to tell them what to do. The Korean case is a little clearer, in that we are still technically at war, and have every reason to put pressure on them about a nuclear policy. In the final analysis, however, i agree with you that much of what we try to impose on members of the international community smacks of hypocricy. As for Iran, i would say that we have no place dictating to them, but any acquisition of nuclear arms on their part is a legitimate cause for alarm. They openly supported muslim fighters during Lebanon's tragic civil war, and have openly declared that they consider the US to be the "Great Satan." This is very dangerous ground for our foreign policy, however. One of our greatest security resources throughout our history has been the two oceans which separate us from the "old world." This continues to be significant, in that nations like Iraq and Iran could not yet conceivably deliver a nuclear device in any conventional manner--if this ever happens to us, it will more than likely be a terrorist act. But North Korea and China both have missile development programs, and routinely sell their wares on the international market without much discrimination. Brazil also produces missiles for tactical purposes. Any and all of these products could be used to develop a longer-range missile, but it is unlikely that the US will be "targetable" by middle eastern states at any time in the foreseeable future. So, what is our interest, and our justification for interferring in the internal military affairs of other nations? This is an area in which we need to tread very carefully.

Re: North Korea and Iran thumb their nose at the US


When was the last time the US developed any new nuclear weapon? The design of the warheads themselves hasn't changed in almost 40 years now. (Delivery systems have changed but the warheads haven't)

Is there no moral ground in demanding that other nations comply with the nuclear non-proliferation treaties they've signed on to? If not why bother having them?

North Korea is not a signatory--i don't know about Iraq.

Iraq was a signer state of the "1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty".

North Korea hasn't "signed" the NPT but they have deposited the instruments of accession with the Russian Federation on December 12th, 1985. Those records certify that they understand, comply with and will continue to comply with the terms of the treaty until such time as they actually sign it.

Iran signed the NPT on July 1, 1968 and reconfirmed their commitment to it in July 1980.

I just find it somewhat amuzing that the International community screamed when the US refused to ratify the Koyoto treaty to begin with yet they all roll over when another country flat out refuses to abide by a treaty they've already accepted and ratified. In the cases of Russia, China, Germany and France, they actually go beyond rolling over and proceed to actively violating the treaty. When the US speaks up we're the bad guys of course...

fishin'
I do not have a link for you but not so long ago their was a report that the US was working on new tactical nuclear weapons. Also that the Bush white house was mulling over the resumption of testing. I don''t remember all of the particulars [having a senior moment} but didn't we ignore or disregard a treaty regarding the star wars project.

Were in a no-win situation there, Boss. We're damned if we do interfer in international events, and damned if we ignore them. The world expects us to display a moral rectitude not on display anywhere else, and yet complains that we don't come out and solve all of their problems for them. This is not something i worry about; loonies with nukes, now, that's a different story . . .

I am curious. Who is this Boss noted in several replies?

Just as a matter of understanding: you are referring exactly to what?

That was the ABM treaty and that treaty was between the US and Russia. Only 2 countries and it had provisions for either nation to withdraw from it which is what we did. (whether or not it was wise to is a whole 'nother looooong story!). The only other nation that had a valid right to complain about that is Russia IMO. They were the only other signatory.

The NPT treaty IMO, is different in that some 180+ countries have signed it. That makes every one of them a party to it in both adhering to and enforcing it. Only 4 countries in the world are non-participants - Cuba, Pakistan, India and Israel..

Sentanta - Agreed! It is darn frustrating though.

I'll assume you are questioning the references to Russia, China, Germany and France. If not please correct me there.

These 4 nations have actively participated in design and construction of nuclear power plants in Iran and North Korea specifically. The Iranian nuclear power plants (2 of them) at Bushehr were designed with the assistance of Germany and Germany assisted in the initial construction. During the Iran/Iraq war the facilities was bombed twice and Germany pulled out. Immediately after the war France stepped in and took over facility construction and then later pulled out only to be replaced by Russia who is now actively assisting Iran in completeing the plant.

China has been the most active outside supporter of the North Korean nuclear program.

It is also important to look at which nations produce and sell balistic missiles. Having a nuke is not much of a threat unless you've got a reliable delivery system. This is what makes me worry most about China, North Korea and Brazil. All three of them produce and sell ballistic missiles. The two principle requirements for purchase are sending a living person with real cash.

Thanks, fishin'.

I just wonder how do some countries neglect their strategic interests pursuing the immediate profits, both financial and political. I mean behavior of Russia, China, Germany and France.
Russia is in serious existential conflict with militant Islam; the recent hostages situation in Moscow proved this once more. And from the other side she cooperates with the country that openly supports export of Islamic revolution, and enables it to acquire WMD. I wonder whether Moscow leaders realize that Iranian nukes may explode in their home city being smuggled there by some Islamic terror group?
China claims to be a dominant nation in its region. But if N. Korea develops military potential comparable to this of China itself, Chinese claims will become much more difficult for realization. N. Korea has a geopolitical agenda of her own, and it does not mandatory coincide with the Chinese one.
France and Germany are European countries, members of NATO. If Iranian extremists launch a non-conventional attack on any of the NATO countries, they may find themselves involved in war. despite this, their governments approve(d) participation in the Iranian nuclear program...
Well, negligence toward essential strategic interests in favor of immediate tactical successes is a common fault of majority of the civilized countries. Portable anti-aircraft "Stinger" missiles provided to the Muslim militants in Afghanistan in '80s by the U.S. administration now endanger civil flights of the USA and her allies. Not all of these missiles were fired toward the Soviet Army choppers... I do not think that the U.S. leaders of '80s did not know that militant Islam was and is equally hostile toward both Communism and Western democracy.

I believe the concerns of the U.S. government (and others) about the proliferation of both nuclear weapons and of ballistic missile technology are entirely reasonable. Moreover, the fact that the U.S. is amply armed with both in no way undermines the validity or even the reasonableness of the concern.

The long history of the world is one of more or less continuous struggle for dominance among tribes, confederations, nations, and empires. The several periods of peace in the various regions of the world all were associated with the stable (for a time) domination of these regions by some dominant power. Outside of that there was warfare and struggle among competing contenders for the next round or stage of dominance. In these periods there was often widespread death and destruction of those engaged in the struggles and of innocents as well. The dominant powers in different periods and regions have varied a great deal in their character - some were intrinsically brutal and oppressive to nearly all, others were less so, and a few a good deal better, except when they were seriously threatened.

Nothing in recent history convinces me that any of this has been changed. We have no more reached the "End of History" than had certain 19 th century European writers who then proclaimed that there was little left for man to discover, and that the world had reached an equilibrium.

Today the United States and Western Europe (if we can be considered as one) are the dominant power in the world. By historical standards we have, since WWII, used that power and that dominance reasonably well. The world has certainly seen worse!! We are not without rivals who would challenge us, and the world is not without small but unruly states which are capable of destabilizing an otherwise reasonably stable situation. In addition there are signs that America and Europe may be diverging much as did the eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire eighteen hundred years ago. In short there is no reason to believe that the relatively stable and peaceful arrangement of the world will endure forever.

With this in mind, it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for the dominant powers of today to do what they can to preclude their early demise and to eliminate the thread of small, unruly states which threaten to destabilize a relatively stable world. Chaos and destruction will return soon enough - we are justified in delaying it as long as we are able.