I just got a two-year old Beagle/Dachshund, Chester. He’s as smart as a dog could be – but he started barking ferociously at me the other day when I wouldn’t let him have a bite of my mint-chocolate CLIF Bar. All he is thinking is: You have food, I want food. You don’t need food. I need food. You can give me food. I want some. Give me some. Now. Now. Noooooow. (Now = howls).
Let’s take a second to deconstruct this. By obliging Chester and giving him some of my CLIF Bar, I could make him temporarily content, though that happiness would be short-lived and followed by certain death. I could (and did) say no to Chester. You’ll be happy to know he is alive and well.
Israel and Iran have now both threatened preemptive military strikes against one another. Iranian military officials are actually anticipating US involvement, even though Netanyahu fears the US won’t back them.
Let’s recap: Iran believes the US would attack them if they attacked Israel. Israel believes the US is spineless and would leave Israel hanging out to dry. The American people overwhelmingly support Israel to an anti-Islamic fault. Basically, eleventy-four plus tennis racquet equals Sweet & Low.
So – I pose a question: If both sides are prepared for preemptive war and they have both made it readily apparent to the international community that plans for a preemptive strike against one another exist, why would it be okay for Iran to develop nuclear weapons in the midst of what could escalate to World War III?
But hold on, Netanyahu just went before the UN General Assembly and said without saying that Iran progressing past 90% completion would force Israel into a preemptive tactical strike against Iran’s alleged nuclear facilities.
Nuclear weapons are more than just incredibly destructive. They have determinant properties. Non-nuclear nations don’t war with nuclear nations because they’d face certain destruction. Nuclear nations don’t war with each other for the same reason.
That doesn’t mean non-nuclear nations should develop nuclear weapons to be on the same level. It means: “Stop being an ignorant and irrational aggressor/radical pain in everyone’s tuchus and start feeding your people (which you could do) by getting the economic sanctions against your country lifted!”
Chester doesn’t know or understand why he should not have chocolate, even if he swears he’s using the chocolate just for energy. Chester is not a rational actor – as he would eat pounds of chocolate, despite the fact that it will kill him.
We can give Iran a bit more credit than my Beagle, based on the fact that they have been told OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER that seeking to eat this nuclear chocolate will be the death of them – and because Ahmadinejad has opposable thumbs. Iran needs to understand why it can’t have nuclear capabilities. Even if it is just for energy – however un-caloric.
Being oppressive to your people and hostile toward many other peoples does not earn one the right to a nuclear arsenal. Nuclear toys are reserved for superpowers that play nice with others.
So you respond: “But Josh, the US most certainly doesn’t play nice with others.”
True, the United States has been in numerous “police actions” and is currently waging two wars. But the US has not used nuclear weapons since 1945. The United States is a responsible and rational actor that has maintained a nuclear arsenal for over 60 years without blowing up any of the half-dozen entities we’ve been at war with. And we are still the only country to have actually used them.
I conclude with a plea the United States has been making since 1945:
We’ve used nukes. You do not want nukes. You do not need nukes. You cannot have nukes. Eat the chocolate and you will meet certain death.
