August 17, 2009

Member deleted

Between ideals and the multiple realities lie a few things. Certain areas immediately indicate the growth of the commerce of ideas, that sadly does very little for the industry of ideas. Nuclear arms indicate a familiar area over such contemplations. The markers used by Foreign Policy magazine for states do give enough room to begin delineating the risk-groups within states as the first step towards achieving disarmament goals, including the rationale for arms and armaments.
That just makes the business of ideas and interactions a serious one without ending up in the apparent celebration of pessimism and the recognition of failures of the "Self" (and its celebration) that many common attitudes and empty commerce of ideas suggest - within the realms of such discussions.
Can Ground Zero be possible? Somehow the Foreign Policy markers for states actually does make it seem possible to have a more coherent view and approach towards states and their arsenals or desires for them. That immediately suggests a solution and perhaps also speak of the necessity for arms. Of course, conventional weapons and non-nuclear weapons that are far more effective (third generation space-fantasy ones) can be turned devastating too.
But then between the realities that propel pessimism and the realities that propel the recognition of a single planet - the Foreign Policy magazine has come up with useful markers in at least delineating the real possibility of arms turning more dangerous. In particular hands they do. Before one can talk of the removal of arms for good, it makes more sense to look at those states in whose hands arms become more dangerous.
A good beginning here, indeed!

August 18, 2009

henelito a. sevilla, jr. Asian Center, University of the Philippines-Diliman

Is Nuclear free world possible? This is the main and prevailing issue in the discourses at the International politics arena today. Perhaps we may also ask question about , how it was possible to think and invent nuclear weapons before it became known to the world? Were we able to anticipate the current level of nuclear advancement?

IF yes, then we can also anticipate the possibility of having a nuclear free world. But until when and in what ways?

Knowingly, the complete eradication of nuclear proliferation activities requires political determination and coordinated actions, something that the world community is now trying to do. Although we need this coordination we also need to address prevalent problems that led many countries to decide to have nuclear weapons enrichment-which legally made the NPT in 1967 more in words than a treaty that has an enforcement mechanism to sanction violators such as India, Pakistan, Iran, North korea and of course Israel.

What makes this move effective aside from the above mentioned ones is also for the great power to do something to reduce injustices and inequality or even favoratism to regimes that supported their self-motivated cause. A very good example is the case of Pakistan and India and the US engagement on nuclear issue of these two countries. If political determination is coupled with equal and impartial treatment then why not to talk about a genuine possible nuclear free world.

Nuclear weapon as a deterrence mechanism by these newly nuclear countries against future attack is never and will never be substituted by any promise by any power to convince them from stopping or suspending their enrichment. Take the example of Iran, in the first place. Iran believes that having nuclear facilities can generate electricity in the future for its national power consumption since oil and gas are non-renewables.

But most of all , the ability of the Iranian nation to enrich nuclear power plan and its potential to transform this into a bomb is pecieved by its neigboring arab countries as a threat to their security and hence to the security of the whole persian gulf and the Middle East region. This is equal to the threat to world commerce and energy supply. Then we may say that i can encourage nuclear projects among the Arab countries and even the most conservative and radical Islamic groups.

Whether or not Iran uses nuclear weapon as deterrence to any future attack, for as long as Iran is against the US policy in the region, Iran will continue to be in the red alert list of the international community or US and Europe in particular. This system is something that Iran Islamic state cannot accept.

Furthermore, the idea of lacking trust and confidence on Iran ruling establishment is necessary for the United States to continue to engage in the region and therefore safeguarding its interest-control and free flow of energy to the western world.

The United States is not alone for this for if others will not cooperate then this project will bound to fail. Thus, the political and security issues of nuclear project became entangled with American business interests. Should we go back to conventional weapon usage in today's world , still crimes and violence would never be solve. It is the Patrons(superpowers) and the clients (user countries) that make this scenario worse and it is only them that can determine the possibility of aradicating and creating a nuclear free world.

Therefore, there is a need to continue negotiations, and encouraged everyone to learn from our histroy. For as long as man wants to make profit then the issue about war, and production of war's elements are always part of the greater business cycle.

Thus, I suggest that the leading powers should not play with the international community on nuclear issue instead they have to evaluate themselves whether they are willing to commit to the total eradication of nuclear weapons, otherwise, the item we are negotiating for is not posibble to acheive for our dream to have a global zero only exist in our imagination and not supported with a real or concrete action or implementation.

August 18, 2009

Member deleted

I am in agreement with Monsieur Henelito here. In his reading as well as his sentiments. It is not that solutions do not exist. It is the willingness to look in the correct places that comes across as wanting in many cases. For various reasons.

August 18, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1100)

Non-proliferation is probably one of the last remnants of the cold-war that are still kept alive today. The concept was forged to protect and preserve the nuclear equilibrium that favoured the West. In a bi-polar world of the cold war non-proliferation was also used as a check-and-balance tool that helped to focus on the main security issue (ie.the Soviet Union) rather than consume the efforts of security services on nuke-hungry aspirants. But the world has changed and proliferation has boomed, also as result of the cold-war hegemons' double standards and hypocrisy. While officially they sponsored the NPT regime, they secretly helped to develop nuclear technologies for their strategic satellites or warring proxies. As balances have shifted and the West is generally losing its hegemony, there is little reason to support non-proliferation as we know it. I do not think that the West can offer anything as reward for the nuclear-aspiring countries and it will have to accept that the days of nuclear exclusion are gone. But equally, the world needs tracing and control system for nuclear weapons - and a new treaty should be adopted to committ security communities worldwide to share information about nuclear materials, technologies and weapons to prohibit an uncontrolled use.

August 19, 2009

Clayton Macdonald, , Silver Contributor (35)

"In addition to commenting on the expert articles we want to encourage all our members to share their opinions with us on the following questions intrinsically linked to 'Global Zero':"
 
"Referring to classical deterrence theory: Is Global Zero an unattainable illusion, as we need nuclear weaponry to deter an emerging arms race in the Middle East and nuclear build up in East Asia (e.g. North Korea and Burma)?"

Global Zero is an unattainable illusion only insofar as coordinated, rational global governance is an equally unattainable illusion. If we persist in a non-global vision of Earth, then perhaps progress toward stability is truly a mirage. However, just as the 13 British Colonies in North America struggled to achieve a continental vision and finally succeeded, we, while constantly affirming the value to all mankind, must also struggle to achieve a global vision of realized, high quality governance. Those who deny its possibility are the ones who embrace walls and tribalism, those who rejoice in it, embrace the future.

This assumes, of course, that stability is the desired standard by which the success of human society is to be measured. If it is, then not only is Global Zero attainable, it must be made to be inevitable, or the inevitable (whether nuclear or not) will happen.

"Which threats emerge from nuclear proliferation in strategic regions such as the Middle East and South Asia?"

Assuming the question is, “who would the baddest actors be, given access to nukes?” then I would judge it to be the organizations in which the executives feel the highest level of “unjust” constraints on the glory of their egos and/or feel in the greatest danger of loosing their power base. The latter element in particular may include those executives who have talked the biggest about using their nukes and feel so boxed in by their circumstances that they feel they have no choice. There are also the people who cannot understand consequences, or discount them so deeply that using a nuke would seem like good, justifiable, strategic fun. Which particular governments or para-governments would that be? I think it is highly speculative to make forecasts – the tendency is to point your finger at your “enemy” whoever it may be. Resource and population pressures will be much more intense in 10 or 20 years – that goes without saying – but which self-serving egotist out there will find those pressures, or other justifications, to be sufficient reason to use nukes can remain only a guess. In the end, it is the human who has a nuke that will use it.

"Is deterrence theory meaningless in the age of international terrorism, state failing and the increasing power of non-state actors in asymmetrical warfare? What if any of Pakistan's 60-100 nuclear warheads fell into the hands of Salafi-Jihad terrorists? What if nuclear capable aircrafts, or submarines, are hijacked by rogue elements? What if nuclear facilities in Europe, Russia or the US are attacked by terrorists?"

Deterrence is never “meaningless.” The question should be, “what deterrence is the most effective?” The big club concept holds that if I have a bigger club than you do then you won't dare pick up a big club or, if you do, you won't dare use it. But that calculation is fouled by the perceptions of executives and inevitable irrationality: if I have a big club, then I'm an important member of the big club club; maybe the Other doesn't have enough strength to wield their big club; is the Other's big club really all that big; can't I get a sneak blow in before the Other knows what hit them; God will protect me; I hated the beatings my father gave me; one last roll of the dice; whoopee, we're all gonna die; I'm too important to die; etc.

The fact that the Cold War never descended into a full scale global hot war, including the use of nukes, is sometimes offered in support of deterrence. Yet we have only the one example. If we could find 60 or so parallel universes where, ceteris paribus, half had nukes and half had none, we could observe the frequency of all out war and begin to draw a correlation. Determining causation would, of course, require more research. What, for instance, is the probable outcome when one state has a monopoly on nukes? We can speculate about scenarios, but as it stands, deterrence remains only a perhaps plausible concept. However, I feel a high level of confidence in saying that, if no nukes exist, no nukes will be used. I feel almost zero confidence that the presence of nukes prevents all out war – the available evidence amounts to hearsay and anecdote.

As Earth approaches a human population of 9 gigapersons, it is reasonable to think that the probability, ceteris paribus, of rogue actors appearing increases. If there are both more nukes and more rogue actors, it does not require too great a leap to believe that the probability of a nuke falling into the hands of a rogue actor goes up. So if preventing such an occurrence is important to us, then, if nothing else, it would be easier to monitor fewer nukes than more, and easiest to monitor zero nukes than some.

"Regarding global proliferation development: What are your suggestions with regards to the upcoming review of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in early 2010?"

A strong declaration affirming that nuclear weapons, along with biological and chemical agents and land mines, are to be considered illegal and should be prohibited under all circumstance anywhere near the planet or pay the penalty of being despised by even your mother for all history. A strong commitment to aggressive reductions in stockpiles. The application of intense pressure on Israel to become open about its activity. Unified encouragement, and especially from the most populated and non-nuke holding countries, calling for India and Pakistan to become enthusiastic signatories.

Above all, the heads of government should sit down in a relaxed setting, take some Valium, breath deeply, and agree to stop playing king of the hill. Instead, they should agree to start going to counseling and to spend a couple of weeks together each year at wilderness team building camps. They should call on the economic princes to join them. They should all take advice from humanitarian ethicists. Oh well, I suppose they should also spend time watching the flying pigs over the frozen fields of hell. And where's my pony?

Does my segue into silliness indicate that I am a silly man? Perhaps. Perhaps I also need a shave and wear a fur coat.* In any case, I find it truly sad that our expectations for our puerile state executives are so low that instead of calling for higher standards and greater maturity we shrug our shoulders and take our places at the machine that produces products that no mature person could possibly want simply because everybody knows that is what we are supposed to do, and that is how it is today and that is how it will be, forever more.

*See: Tashlin, F. (1946). The Bear That Wasn't.

August 19, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

@Mr Clayton,

You make some interesting points here.

"Global Zero is an unattainable illusion only insofar as coordinated, rational global governance is an equally unattainable illusion."

I think this is true, and right now I'd say coordinated global government is vary far off, if it ever happens. That doesn't mean we cannot strive toward achieving greater stability, however.

"If we persist in a non-global vision of Earth, then perhaps progress toward stability is truly a mirage."

Depends upon what you mean by stability. I can't see it happening all at once, but in smaller steps perhaps. Take North Korea for an example. I doubt much will happen to change the balance of power there very soon, but apparently Lim Jong Il is ill. Not much is known about the succession, whether it will go to his son as in Syria, or perhaps some kind of junta. But some change is possible there within a few years. China may decide to take a more proactive policy there. So it isn't hopeless.

"However, just as the 13 British Colonies in North America struggled to achieve a continental vision and finally succeeded, we, while constantly affirming the value to all mankind, must also struggle to achieve a global vision of realized, high quality governance. Those who deny its possibility are the ones who embrace walls and tribalism, those who rejoice in it, embrace the future."

Hmmm. The 13 colonies shared a language, much of a national heritage, and mostly a culture. The globe is not nearly as integrated. So I find such rhetoric a little high-faluting.

But who knows? 40 years ago many would have dismissed out of hand the wild-eyed idea that the MAD standoff between the US and USSR could be de-tensioned and made less dangerous. Yet it happened and is now to the point where a 90% reduction in mutual nuclear arsenals is thinkable if not yet quite imminent.

"As Earth approaches a human population of 9 gigapersons, it is reasonable to think that the probability, ceteris paribus, of rogue actors appearing increases. If there are both more nukes and more rogue actors, it does not require too great a leap to believe that the probability of a nuke falling into the hands of a rogue actor goes up. So if preventing such an occurrence is important to us, then, if nothing else, it would be easier to monitor fewer nukes than more, and easiest to monitor zero nukes than some."

Let me point out a couple fairly obvious things here. Firstly, the prospect of a massive nuclear exchange between the US and Russia, while not impossible, is judged to be extremely unlikely. Most of the heat has been taken out of that relationship, minor spats to the contrary. So we should take a deep breath and take some satisfaction out of that.

Second, the threat mostly consists of the prospects of some 'rogue group' getting ahold of of a weapon and detonating it. That would be an enormous disaster but not a world-threatening one in itself. There is also some danger of nuclear exchanges between India and Pakistan and more remotely between Iran and Israel. Though despite the rhetoric I judge that the real intent of the Iranian nuclear programme is for leverage against nearer neighbors without nukes more than against Israel.

There is real danger of nuclear powers falling into some anarchy in the case of Pakistan and North Korea, which is a real concern.

August 19, 2009

Unregistered User

Authors write:
"Endeavors to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons have proved as unsuccessful..."

Iran claims that it does not intend to develop nuclear weapons. No-one has found any information that would falsify that Iranian statement. Not international inspectors, not CIA. Only "free media" are free to twist distort and manipulate about "Iranian nuclear program".

August 20, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1100)

This last comment from - pityfully - unregistered user, requires a debate itself. Are the "free media" falsifying the reality about Iran and its nuclear research? To me, they're mostly repeating the current political bottomline, sometimes quite inconsiderately. But we've been there before. Remember the "45 minutes" claim that frightened the Brits abou Iraq? It's quite ironic that president Ahmadinejad - who probably hated Saddam Hussein - has been put in his place (in the middle of the global dartboard) by the media and Western leaders. Why? The West seems to be in love with fighting an enemy and there simply needs to be one. It concentrates the attention of the media and political leaders, helps to unite societies and provides a vehicle for campaigning. Embodiments of evil have always been there in the Western civilisation. Bush stigmatised some countries with "axis of evil" tag. Let's imagine our media dominated world without figures like Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Osama bin Laden or Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Unthinkable. If they weren't there, they're ought to have been created.

August 20, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

Marek,

While I would agree that the Western press needs it's enemies, I'd say the body public has much less of a need. The press & elites are 'much ado about nothing'.

And Saddam, Kim, and perhaps even Osama aren't the biggest, most dangerous enemies (measured in column inches of coverage at least).

No, that fate is reserved for the US and Israel. As measured by coverage and European polls about the greatest threats to world peace.

Which is the reason I think the US should get out of the business. At least in Europe. can't have people feeling threate3ned, after all..... ;)

August 25, 2009

Stefanie Jennifer Tetenburg, King's College London, Silver Contributor (58)

I agree with Mr Swierczynski and I found an interesting article to read in relation to this:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/04/07/how-the-corporate-me...

Still, I think what needs to be taken into account with regards to the role of the media in 'creating enemies', is that whether these enemies are 'real' or have been constructed as such (either by politicians or by the media, which is a clear chicken and egg debate), the consequenes are real i.e. we tend to accept this new reality as the status quo and take it for granted (by acting thereupon) and reversing it is incredibly hard if not impossible.