(3:06 PM) | Adam Kotsko:

Moral Calculus

1. I don't think any country, including the United States, should have nuclear weapons.
   
2. Thus, in the abstract, I don't think that Iran should have nuclear weapons.
   
3. Yet, given the facts of recent history, I can see how Iran's leaders would conclude that the only prudent course of action available to them would be to get nuclear weapons. Here's why:
   • The contrast of Iraq and North Korea indicates that the nuclear deterrent is a real one.
     
   • The rolling disaster of the Iraq War indicates that any country that is currently unable to deter the United States from invading it faces the prospect of massive death and destruction, together with the effective dissolution of even the most basic benefits of living in human society -- i.e., things like public utilities, general protection from being arbitrarily killed by one's fellow citizens, etc. At bottom, avoiding such a calamity is why people consent to have government in the first place.
     
   • Iran, having been named as a member of the "Axis of Evil," has plausible reason to believe that the United States would, if given the chance, invade.
     
   • Therefore, a combination of two strategies seems prudent:
     1. Obtain nuclear weapons as quickly and expeditiously as possible -- preferably while negotiating with the Europeans, because, I mean, what are the Europeans going to do?
        
     2. Make sure that in the meantime, the United States is as bogged down as possible in Iraq, by supporting the insurgency.

| permalink | Main Page