its not that i dont think that doing everything through the UN or "something like it" is a bad idea. i think its an unrealistic idea because it has not worked very well to date. Just like terrorism right now. its no longer a 1960's idea of a crazy guy running into a cafe with a machine gun... its about detonating a dirty nuclear bomb in NY, releasing chemical weapons or biological weapons on millions. its not about killing 5 guys with a pistol in the subway. Its about those same people NOW having the capability to kill millions.
its a brave new world out there. i would hesitate to apply the logic of the middle of the last century to todays "Jihadis" with nuclear weapons.
I agree with you PD. i dont think that unilateralism is the *best* answer. I just dont see an organization like the UN Security Council protecting the USA either. I am just a little more cynical than you are. i think that unilateralism (though its not really unilateralist when 50 countries support you as with Iraq) is the best solution to protect the interests of the USA. I think its safe to say that China, Syria, Russia and France cant be relyed on to do so.
there is not a perfect answer. the problem that i see is the same problem that led up to 9/11. The threat was always known. The threat continued to grow. Then he began to attack US targets for almost 10 years. He trained terrorists for almost 10 years to kill Americans. We all knew about it. like everything else, we cannot agree to act BEFORE a 9/11 happens - we can only agree AFTER the tragedy.
But what will the next attack be? Will it be North Korea launching 400 nuclear ICBM's at the USA? probably not. i dont think North Korea is much of a threat or even has enough money for gas to become a threat. people who want to live never are. Iran? i dont know... people who want to die and are trying to go nuclear scare me. Do we argue and debate until a know radical fundamentalist government, who we know would destroy the US if it was within its power to do so aquires nuclear weapons? DO we allow a government who is a know sponsor of terrorist organizations aquire nuclear weapons? Do they still have their big banner in their central mosque saying "death to america"? are those people that should have nuclear weapons? can it be argued that it will not be a serious threat to the US and its allies? i dont think so.
How would the USA vs Soviet Union apply to Iran (Islam) vs The Western World? i dont see a comparison.
the only thing i feel 100% sure of ... is that once these people cross the line and go nuclear, the "problem" grows exponentially and can no longer be contained.
Whos interest will it serve to have Iran have Nuclear weapons and be able to bring that to the negotiating table with them? no one i can think of.
the USA and Soviet Union were not unstable, autocratic, religious dictatorships teaching people that to die while trying to destroy the USA is the only way to go. Can that argument apply to the Middle East? to Iran, to Pakistan? Pakistan could launch its arsenal anytime. Mushariff, though a seemingly nice guy, barely has control of the country and Pakistan is "jihad central"
would we have been better off making sure that Pakistan NEVER had nuclear weapons in the first place that trying to rely on "peace and optimism" in a fundamentalist society plagued by revolution after revolution and coup after coup?
i think so.
did the UN do its job and make sure they DID NOT AQUIRE nuclear weapons? no. The UN continually allows these known, potential threats come to fluition. thats a problem in my mind.
|