"Surely a lesson to us all"?
Wrong, on both counts.
Those weapons would now be in the hands of the Kiev Junta and of the even nastier, even crazier people who brought it to power but who could remove it just as easily, and at some point probably will.
Such elements are as undeterred by Russian nuclear weapons as their enemies in Luhansk and Donetsk would have been by Ukrainian ones.
Indeed, we ourselves are at any rate going through the motions of massing for war against Russia, which has an enormous nuclear arsenal by which we clearly feel altogether undeterred.
The combined capabilities of the United Kingdom, the United States and the French Republic are manifestly a matter of equal indifference to President Putin.
And so it goes on.
We invaded Iraq precisely because our leaders were at least pretending that she did have nukes. We regularly rattle our sabres at Iran on the same, equally false, basis.
Please note that the Iranian Bomb used to be "the reason why we have to keep Trident". At least the Russian nuclear weapons really do exist. But the new, and of course very old, argument is no stronger for that.
The world proclaims the utter nonsense of "nuclear deterrence". There is absolutely no such thing.
"undeterred by Russian nuclear weapons".
ReplyDeletePlainly not. Which is why Russia has never been invaded since it acquired the Bomb, and never will.
Not a single nuclear-armed country has ever been invaded. Contrast the neocons treatment of Iraq, invaded for allegedly attempting to procure them, with their treatment of North Korea which most certainly already has them (no "dodgy dossiers" needed).
Compare the treatment of Ukraine when it had nuclear weapons to what happened to it when it disarmed.
Iran knows that; the Far Left rightly say Iran only wishes to acquire nukes to deter US/Israeli attacks, and that that's the real reason the neocons want to prevent them getting one (Israel wishes to preserve its monopoly on nuclear arms in the locality, so it can maintain local Bully Boy status).
That,of course, means accepting that nuclear arms are indeed an essential deterrent.
No serious person believes that Iran "wishes to acquire nukes" at all. The rest of your funny little period piece needs to be read in the light of your inclusion of that golden nugget.
DeleteIraq was not "invaded for allegedly attempting to procure them", but very specifically on the grounds of already having them, and of being able to launch them "within 45 minutes".
That was not true. But it was the reason for the invasion: precisely that the nukes were already there. Some deterrence.
"we regularly rattle sabres at Iran on the same basis"
ReplyDeleteThat's the reverse of the truth-nobody says Iran already has nukes; we threaten Iran precisely to prevent her acquiring any, precisely because the US/Israel know they could no longer bully her if she had them.
As Noam Chomksy points out, any desire for nuclear weapons on the part of Iran is strictly part of its deterrence strategy; 30-year CIA veteran Bruce Riedel testified to Congress “If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons as a deterrent."
Lindsay has tripped up on his own argument; he rightly says our leaders falsely claimed Iraq was trying to get WMD (in the full knowledge this was false) as a pretext for invasion.
Contrast the violent invasion of Iraq with the neocon treatment of that other "Axis of Evil" country, North Korea, which most certainly does have nuclear weapons (no "dodgy dossiers" necessary).
Point proved.
No, they never said that Iraq was trying to get nukes.
DeleteThey claimed, and it is possible that some of them or people around them even believed, that Iraq already had nukes.
And for that very reason, they launched an invasion. Some deterrence.
Iran has no nuclear weapons programme. Ask Mossad or Shin Bet.
"The world proclaims the utter nonsense of nuclear deterrence". Except that it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteLindsay gets it badly mixed up;"we regularly rattle sabres at Iran on the same basis"
The truth is the reverse; nobody says Iran already has nukes. Iran is threatened to prevent her acquiring any, precisely because the US/Israel know they could no longer bully her if she had them. As Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomksy point out, any desire for nuclear weapons on the part of Iran is strictly part of its deterrence strategy; 30-year CIA veteran Bruce Riedel testified to Congress “If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons as a deterrent." Indeed.
Lindsay has tripped up on his own argument; he rightly says our leaders falsely claimed Iraq was trying to get WMD (in the full knowledge this was false) as a pretext for invasion.Well, precisely. It was a false claim. And nobody ever alleged Saddam already had nukes.
Yet contrast the violent invasion of Iraq with the US treatment of that other "Axis of Evil" state, North Korea, which most certainly does already have nuclear weapons (no "dodgy dossiers" necessary).
Point proved.
30-year CIA veteran Bruce Riedel testified to Congress “If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons as a deterrent." Indeed.
DeleteBut he isn't, and they don't. Ask anyone in Israel who knows anything about the subject. They'll tell you.
And nobody ever alleged Saddam already had nukes.
They most certainly did. Tony Blair told the House of Commons that those weapons could be deployed "within 45 minutes".
That was the basis for the war, false thought it was: precisely that Iraq already had them and was being invaded for that reason.
In other words, the theory of "nuclear deterrence" was blown out of the water when you were, what, barely into your teens? Or even younger than that?
Good Googling, Anonymous. But Mr. Lindsay has being following all this and so much more since you were in primary school, he has been following some things since before your were born.
ReplyDelete