Kenneth Waltz on “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb”
July 08, 2012
ウォルツって明快で正直だから好きだな。
米中が核武装しているがゆえに一戦交えないのは米国の利益になるかしれんが、日本と中国、日本と朝鮮はわからんし・・・・。
米国は親分として、戦略的にも、道義的にも、信頼するに値する行動を日本に対してとっているともいえんしなあああ。
日本が立ちあがり、地域の平和に貢献するのに憲法改正も何も要らないーーースパッと時間かけずに核武装すりゃいいってわけだろうな。
July 08, 2012
a nuclear-armed Iran would significantly curtail Israel as well as the United States’ freedom of action in the region. How strong of an incentive is this for Israeli and U.S. policymakers to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms?
Clearly Israel has a very great interest in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. I do not think the same applies to the U.S. The American interest in the long run is that the region be stable and peaceful.
・・・・・
Left unsaid, however, was that the Sino-U.S. rapprochement occurred after China acquired a reliable nuclear deterrent (although not necessarily because of it). Could Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon make a U.S.-Iranian rapprochement more likely in the future?
I don’t know if it would be a genuine rapprochement. But I do think that as with other new nuclear countries that we originally feared, the United States will come to accept Iran as a nuclear weapons state, reflecting that well-established pattern. We oppose any state we dislike and distrust becoming a nuclear weapons state. Once it does, we have no choice but to live with it. So we may well have a much calmer relationship with Iran than we do now.
・・・・
It remains very possible, however, for nuclear states to engage in skirmishes, and those can of course be deadly. A historical example is the Soviet-China border disputes (1969), and a more recent one is the Mumbai attacks. But never have any of these skirmishes gotten so out of hand as to escalate to full-scale war.
・・・・・
Nuclear weapons are the only peacekeeping weapons that the world has ever known. It would be strange for me to advocate for their abolition, as they have made wars all but impossible. These propositions are further buttressed and explicated in the forthcoming 3rd edition of The Spread of Nuclear Weapons, by Scott Sagan and myself.
・・・・・
China can no more use its nuclear weapons to attack or intimidate than the United States can. The situation between the two major powers is inherently stable for that reason. Between the United States and China as between other great powers, there will be a rather extended period of adjustment as we work out a host of local issues (China and Japan, China and Southeast Asia, Chinese claims to island territories, etc.).
・・・・・
We need to complete the job of disengaging from Afghanistan. Why we are following the foolhardy, centuries-old example of getting bogged down in this country is beyond me. In Iraq, we were wrong to go in. So I certainly support Obama on his withdrawal. I’d like to see the same in Afghanistan as soon as possible.
The Obama Administration has also adopted a more systematic approach to terrorism. The Bush Administration understandably reacted strongly to a terrorist attack, but terrorism as a threat to American interests was greatly exaggerated in those years―we overacted to an absurd extent.
ウォルツって明快で正直だから好きだな。
米中が核武装しているがゆえに一戦交えないのは米国の利益になるかしれんが、日本と中国、日本と朝鮮はわからんし・・・・。
米国は親分として、戦略的にも、道義的にも、信頼するに値する行動を日本に対してとっているともいえんしなあああ。
日本が立ちあがり、地域の平和に貢献するのに憲法改正も何も要らないーーースパッと時間かけずに核武装すりゃいいってわけだろうな。
