An MS Now Host Did Not Just Say *That* About the Rape Allegation...
Graham Platner Is Refusing to Drop Out Unless He Can Do This...
Scott Jennings Just Gave an Update on Mitch McConnell's Condition
More Winning: Toyota Announces $3.6 Billion Investment As It Moves Tacoma Production From...
Border Agents Just Made a Massive Drug Bust in Texas
DHS Released More Information on the Haitian Illegal Alien Who Killed a PA...
Another Islamic Influencer Is Targeting Our Dogs
Another Business Flees the Failing State of Illinois, Thanks to Democrats in Springfield
The DSA Wants to Know What Has Capitalism Given Us. Here's the Answer.
The Trump Administration Just Responded to Iran's Attacks in the Strait of Hormuz.
President Trump Hasn't Changed His Mind About Greenland
Undercover: Dan Osborn Staffer Claims Nebraska Senate Candidate Recruited Graham Platner f...
Blue State Mulls Redistricting – But Voters Could Get The Last Laugh
This Illegal Alien Who Used THC-Laced Candy to Smuggle Children Was Just Sentenced
Two Supreme Court Justices Are Headed to Congress
OPINION

The Arms Race that Won't Happen

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
The Arms Race that Won't Happen
If you want to understand the intensifying showdown between the United States and Iran, consider the headline in The Washington Post on the threat of rapid nuclear proliferation: "Many Nations Ready to Break into Nuclear Club."
Advertisement

It highlights one of the dangers cited by those who favor military action against Iran. President Barack Obama says that if Iran gets the bomb, "other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons. So now you have the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world."

A plausible threat? It may sound that way. But it also sounded that way in 1981 -- when that Washington Post story ran.

Nuclear proliferation is always said to be on the verge of suddenly accelerating, and somehow it never does. In 1981, there were five declared nuclear powers -- the U.S., the Soviet Union, China, Britain and France -- as well as Israel, which was (and is) undeclared.

And today? The number of members added since then is not 15 but three: India, Pakistan and North Korea. Most of the other countries on the list of likely proliferators never came close -- including Argentina, Chile, Morocco and Tunisia. Iraq tried and failed. Libya made an effort and then chose to give up.

The peril was greatly overblown. It probably is again. But our leaders are not about to let mere history debunk the apocalyptic scenarios. They are committed to a policy based on fear rather than experience.

The United States keeps trying to force Iran to abandon its suspected efforts to build a nuclear arsenal, and so far it has been rebuffed. Both Obama and Mitt Romney have said they would use force rather than let Iran acquire nukes. Chances are good that whoever wins in November, we will be at war with Tehran sometime in the next four years.

Advertisement

But there is no reason to think Iran would ever use such weapons, and there is little reason to think it would spur other countries to get them. If all it takes to unleash regional proliferation is one fearsome state with nukes, the Middle East would have gone through it already -- since Israel has had them for decades.

Why would governments in the region respond differently to Iran? Many of them are allied with the U.S. -- which means Iran can't attack or threaten them without fear of overwhelming retaliation. Turkey, as a member of NATO, enjoys a formal defense guarantee from Washington. The U.S. might offer similar assurances to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other nervous neighbors.

One way or another, they would probably find they can manage fine. Iran is no scarier than Mao's China was in 1964, when it detonated its first atomic device. Writes Francis Gavin, a professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, "It was predicted that India, Indonesia and Japan might follow."

At the time, he noted in a 2009 article in International Security, "A U.S. government document identified 'at least 11 nations (India, Japan, Israel, Sweden, West Germany, Italy, Canada, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Rumania and Yugoslavia)' with the capacity to go nuclear, a number that would soon 'grow substantially' to include 'South Africa, the United Arab Republic, Spain, Brazil and Mexico.'" Mexico?

In recent decades, some countries have actually given up their nukes -- including Ukraine (which inherited them from the Soviet Union) and South Africa. Others, like Brazil and Sweden, have scrapped their weapons programs. After the Cold War, it was assumed the newly reunified Germany would want to assert its new status by joining the nuclear club. It has yet to exhibit a glimmer of interest.

Advertisement

A nuclear Iran would soon learn something previous nuclear powers already know: These weapons are not much use except to deter nuclear attack. What help have they been for the U.S. in Iraq or Afghanistan?

China invaded Vietnam in 1979 to force the enemy's withdrawal from Cambodia. The Vietnamese not only refused but sent the People's Liberation Army home with its tail between its legs. China regards Taiwan as part of its territory, but the island has remained functionally independent despite the threat of nuclear coercion.

If Iran does get nukes, its neighbors that have survived without them will find that nothing much has changed. Nuclear proliferation is the danger that lurks just over the horizon, and that's where it is likely to stay.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement