The Bush administration is not looking to strengthen the NPT, but to destroy it

January 6, 2005 12:31 PM

U.S. Plans Tidal Wave of Nuclear Proliferation They want to tell all the non-nuclear states: “Y’all must stay non-nuclear, but we’ll have as many nukes as we want. We’ll make new nukes but keep the old. And if you don’t like it, just take a good look at Iraq, because you could be next.” The message coming from the Bush administration and the U.S. media is clear. It’s not about the danger of weapons of mass destruction. It’s about using the fear of that danger, along with our own growing nuclear arsenal, as a club to rule the schoolyard roost.
posted by Niahmas (40 comments total)

Crap post.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:35 PM on January 6, 2005

I get the feeling we're in for a long stretch of "tidal wave of [whatever I'm trying to make a point about]" analogies.
posted by Cyrano at 12:37 PM on January 6, 2005

Voted 1
posted by outsider at 12:39 PM on January 6, 2005

" Crap post.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:35 PM PST on January 6 "

Yep.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:39 PM on January 6, 2005

Somebody get the syrup.
posted by Ptrin at 12:47 PM on January 6, 2005

Yep.

ah the irony
posted by matteo at 12:48 PM on January 6, 2005

DR BushLove!
posted by Niahmas at 12:51 PM on January 6, 2005

A link to a froth-at-the-mouth editorial -- excuse me, "article" -- from Guerrilla News Network? Matt's not gonna like this.

Or, what everybody else said, but with a little explanation.
posted by languagehat at 12:53 PM on January 6, 2005

This is a crap post in many ways. First of all, we have known of the Bush administration's plans for US nuclear posture since 2002. Second, you use the "tidal wave" in such bad taste, as has been mentioned. Third it links to GNN, which is fine, but not if you want to start some serious discussion about American nuclear policy.
posted by effwerd at 12:54 PM on January 6, 2005

HAck the Vote!

Non-Homo Adults! Reserve Your Mandatory Front Row Seat in the War on Islam!
posted by Niahmas at 12:56 PM on January 6, 2005

Fourth, all of the nations in question are unstable, and the proposition of them having nukes should scare the hell out of you. Especially ones that grow suicide bombers.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:58 PM on January 6, 2005

OMG.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:59 PM on January 6, 2005

-1 GNN
posted by orange clock at 1:08 PM on January 6, 2005

all of the nations in question are unstable

And we've behaved like a stable nation, so we get to make the rules! Damnit!
posted by LouReedsSon at 1:11 PM on January 6, 2005

ooh this could be fun.. this happened to me about a week ago, although i think i got it a lot worse.

for now ill just sit back and watch.
posted by hpsell at 1:26 PM on January 6, 2005

Gnn.tv? Really?

Did you run out of things to do this afternoon?
posted by bshort at 1:30 PM on January 6, 2005

LET'S MOSH.
posted by The God Complex at 1:34 PM on January 6, 2005

Thanks for the post Niahmas. I hadn't known about this May meeting. The author makes several good points about proliferation and the administration's "Do as we say, not as we do" strategy. At some point 30 years from now a lot of people will die because of mistakes made in regards to nuclear proliferation now.

The author, Ira Chernus, is a really bright guy who writes some thought-provoking articles on war, peace, and religion.

Why don't all the rest of you loudmouths take it outside.
posted by euphorb at 2:05 PM on January 6, 2005

The very idea of nuclear weapons is insane. Let's think tactically, here. When will there ever be a justifiable time to use these weapons? Assuming you believe that killing innocent people is wrong, does anyone ever believe that there will be enough 'evil' people, in such close proximity to one another, and nowhere near 'innocent' people, that using such a weapon would be justifiable?

I know humans have a love for blowing things up, but seriously; it's blatantly obvious that these are strictly a deterrent. To actually use them will always, without fail, be horribly horribly wrong on so many levels.
posted by odinsdream at 2:48 PM on January 6, 2005

It’s about using the fear of that danger, along with our own growing nuclear arsenal, as a club to rule the schoolyard roost.
You left out a thing or two: It's also about arrogance, to the point of hubris.
posted by Doohickie at 2:57 PM on January 6, 2005

so what are we saying guys, that it isn't the position of the u s that they and a few other countries get nuclear weapons and the rest of the world doesn't? ... that our government is really trying to eliminate these weapons?

the basic premise of the article is right ... and some of you guys seem awfully complacent
posted by pyramid termite at 2:59 PM on January 6, 2005

No, it's really a crap post.

It's a single-link post.

It's a single-link post to an inflammatory editorial.

It's a single link post to an inflammatory editorial that quotes from the editorial in the post, just in case a flamewar wasn't going to start.

It's a single link post to an inflammatory editorial about a subject that's been posted here before, either on the front page or in comments, and that's several years old.

It's a single link post to an inflammatory editorial about a subject that's several years old, and that ignores recent history. This year, proposed funding for the nuclear bunker-buster and associated matters was zeroed-out in committee and never restored. They are, for now at least, dead programs.

It's a single-link post to an inflammatory editorial that gets its basic facts wrong. The heart of the NPT, created in the 1960's, the basic deal, is not that if non-nuclear countries stay that way, the nuclear powers will follow; nobody sane would ever have considered that even a remote possibility.

The heart of the NPT, the core deal, is that if you sign the treaty, and consent to monitoring to make sure you're not being naughty, you'll get some assistance with nuclear power programs through the IAEA, which is as far I know ongoing.

I'm not even sure what he means when he writes that the US kept the Senate from ratifying the comprehensive test-ban treaty; that doesn't even parse.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:14 PM on January 6, 2005

I'm thinking of posting this to the front page. The basic premise is right, isn't it? Or are you... complacent?
posted by languagehat at 3:15 PM on January 6, 2005

Remember kids: if you think the post sucks, that means that you disagree with its point of view.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:22 PM on January 6, 2005

I'm amazed at the amount of effort that ROU_Xenophobe put into detailing exactly why this is a crap post.
posted by jperkins at 3:38 PM on January 6, 2005

maybe we should just talk about the nuclear situation in meta-talk, seeing as you guys want to have a debate over meta stuff in the blue

if you really wanted to discuss the issue, you would
posted by pyramid termite at 4:25 PM on January 6, 2005

There's nothing to discuss. None of the nuclear powers are willing to give up their nukes, and they have good reason not to. Is it hypocritical to try to keep everyone else from getting them? Yes. Is it a good idea? Yes. Was this all hashed out a bazillion years ago? Yes.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:31 PM on January 6, 2005

Was this a crap post? I'm not real sure.
posted by damnitkage at 5:07 PM on January 6, 2005

is it solved? no ... there may be a time in the future where many will insist on a solution
posted by pyramid termite at 5:15 PM on January 6, 2005

I wonder...is "tidal wave" going to be the new "terrorism" now?
Will we see articles using flooding/wave metaphors to describe social and political problems?
I can see it coming...
posted by nightchrome at 5:16 PM on January 6, 2005

Not only will we see a veritable tsunami of tidal wave metaphors, but most commentators will continue to use those two terms as interchangeable synonyms. Yup, 2005 looks like it's going to be another bad year for pedants.

(I, also, this post did not like.)
posted by flashboy at 5:36 PM on January 6, 2005

if you really wanted to discuss the issue, you would

What's the issue? Congress zeroed out the funding. I'm sure we could come up with a whole host of other bad ideas the US isn't funding to talk about too.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:33 PM on January 6, 2005

posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:13 PM on January 6, 2005

goddamit, I can't find one of my socks. Anyone seen a blue sock?
posted by a3matrix at 8:23 PM on January 6, 2005

I'm amazed at the amount of effort that ROU_Xenophobe put into detailing exactly why this is a crap post.

I'm amazed that the post I skipped over cuz it was too freakin' long was by ROU_Xenophobe and Ethereal Bligh's post that followed it was a one-liner. (Maybe I need to go back and read ROU_Xenophobe's post....)
posted by Doohickie at 9:28 PM on January 6, 2005

"Assuming you believe that killing innocent people is wrong, does anyone ever believe that there will be enough 'evil' people, in such close proximity to one another, and nowhere near 'innocent' people, that using such a weapon would be justifiable?"

Actually, yeah. Not the big strategic boys mind you, but the little battlefield nukes? Sure. Of course the issue is not whether no innocents would be killed but rather whether the number of innocents (depending how you define the term) harmed / killed might be less than an alternative action.

To be fair the use of a nuke, no matter the size, has implications in the political realm outside the tactical... but from a tactical POV the smaller nukes can be used fairly effectively.
posted by soulhuntre at 5:47 AM on January 7, 2005

Fourth, all of the nations in question are unstable, and the proposition of them having nukes should scare the hell out of you. Especially ones that grow suicide bombers.

Interest point of view there Paris considering that a complete list of the 40 wasn't in the article and that Canada is undoubtly one of the 40. If we applied the cash we could have a functioning nuclear weapon in less than a decade. Prabably much less than a decade. After all it was a Canadian who stopped Los Alamos form going Boom. And it's not like we'd have to import any uranium. Or any machine tools. And we've got lots of out of the way space to set up a research facility.
posted by Mitheral at 7:40 AM on January 7, 2005

Soulhuntre,

The idea of using nuclear weapons OF ANY KIND is insane.

And that applies to "glassing Mecca" too.

The ONLY country in the world insane enough to have ever used nuclear weapons is ......

So, now, who should disarm?
posted by nofundy at 8:23 AM on January 7, 2005

When does a 10-year old think he's won an argument? When he can cry "hypocrisy!"
posted by fleacircus at 10:19 AM on January 7, 2005

I'm waiting for the US to launch the War Against Earthquakes.
posted by flabdablet at 4:59 PM on January 7, 2005