Thursday, February 26, 2015

Point / Counterpoint

The West, led by the United States, as well as Israel and most of the UN, are dead set against Iran developing nuclear weapons.  Of course we are.  Iran's leaders don't seem to think the way we in the West do.  They see sacrificing a few million of their own people in a counter-strike in order to wipe out Israel a fair trade.  Their idea of "national pride" is near suicidal.  The same goes for North Korea.

But what right do we have in telling them they can't pursue a nuclear program?  How can one sovereign nation, or group of nations, tell another sovereign nation what they can do internally?  As long as they don't use their nukes against others, shouldn't that be their right to have them?

It would be like the OPEC nations prohibiting the US from pursuing hydraulic fracturing to recover more domestic oil.  Of course it would be against their national interests for us to do so, but they don't have the right to prohibit us from doing it.

Seems to me we are just throwing international law out the window here.  That said, this is one area where I think Civil Disobedience is justified.


The US and Europe are also all bent out of shape over Russia's incursion into Ukraine and their annexation of the Crimean peninsula.  It just seems like a land grab, much like what Nazi Germany did when they took over Austria and Czechoslovakia prior to WWII.  That's how we see it at least.

But the Russian psyche is much different than ours.  They have a long memory and remember how they have been invaded repeatedly from the west.  That's why after WWII they set up all their Commie proxies....E Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungry, etc....between Western Europe (read: NATO) and themselves.  

If the West attacked again, they could devastate those proxy countries before they reached The Motherland.  At least that was their plan.  Now with many of their former Warsaw Pact allies (?) actually part of NATO, and right on their border at that, they are super antsy. 

When Russia saw the overt courtship going on between the West and Ukraine, they no doubt saw full-fledged European Union and NATO membership for Ukraine on the horizon.  Their already tightly wound paranoia snapped.  I think we were a bit too "bull-in-a-china-closet"-ish.  Now it's gonna be difficult if not impossible to get that genie back into the bottle. 

As I see it, here's our dilemma:  We need to punish and marginalize Russia for their actions without actually pushing them over the edge (letting the Russian Federation dissolve).  

Remember what happened the last time we took down evil (Iraq, Libya, and soon Syria)?  What we got was dramatically more dangerous than what we dismantled. Of course we (the West) could collectively take Russia down, but would that necessarily be a smart thing to do?



  1. It's always a little ironic when the US says countries like North Korea and Iran would be reckless with their nukes when the US is the only country to actually use nukes against another country. As for Russia, I think the problem is Putin fancies himself as a tsar instead of a president.

  2. I agree completely with Pat. Besides, Iran is going to get the bomb and there isn't anything we can do about it.

  3. Guys, the difference is in 1945 we used The atomic bomb to END a war. Our concern now is Iran or N Korea might use a bomb to START a war.