North Korea..

[Hootnow]

I'm sorry, I don't see what happened 250 years ago, or even 75 years ago as very relevant as a reasoning towards why Iran now can be trusted.

As for your quote, there's probably some truth there. I'd even accept that there's a false dichotomy being presented at least by some. Hopefully you agree that your quote seems to be at least somewhat written for humorous effect?

I happen to think that the secular democratic way of running a country is better than any other system so far tested out. Some of the absolute worst decisions made by (among others) The US were situations where they replaced democratically elected leaders with dictatorial types through military coups or similar because they didn't like who the people of some foreign nation had elected.

I do think there's an inherent conflict between secular democracies and theocracies/dictatorship though. Peaceful coexistence might be possible, with the threat of ultimate destruction if war breaks out, but I don't really see why we in the west should wish to peacefully coexist with tyrannical dictators.



Just how bad is it that North Korea has a deterrent like that against the USA? I think it's pretty fudging awful. They already have a deterrent with Seoul right next to the border, that allows them the freedom to do pretty much as they please within their own borders. I think, internally, quite possibly the worst state humankind has ever produced is allowed to exist because they have that deterrent. That's what's making that entire situation impossible, I would rather not have that other places too.

Iran seems to be moving in a very good direction, the last thing that should happen is to allow their leaders the same deterrent so that they too can hold their own people under the gun should they feel like it down the road.

Of course not. But I have heard people say that due to the mere fact that they're religious/Muslim/ especially shiite, they are not going to act in a rational manner in the international arena. The evidence is that this group of people is not more inherently illogical than other groups. This of course, as you say, doesn't predict what they'll do tomorrow though.

Again, completely agree (though I think I know some people whose views are dangerously close to being exactly that view)

I completely agree again. I think democracy is the best realistic method of governance. I think religion has no place in politics. But the West lives with these dictatorships because sometimes it goes along with our interests. As Dubaispur has already pointed out, the 53 Iranian coup is a prime example of this. The democrat took decisions that we weren't happy with. The dictator didn't.

I'm not sure that nukes are the reason for this though. They only developed nukes recently but the Americans haven't tried anything since 1950. I just don't think its worth the effort for them for the most part.

And sorry Braineclipse, will reply to the rest in a bit! Interesting discussion.

 

[braineclipse]

I'm not supporting them at all. Yeah they're awful. They're letting people die. They've been doing so for years. They probably are the most tyrancial and disgusting regime I've ever known in my life time.

But what good does getting them worked up do? If them having nuclear weapons is such a problem why the hell didn't people see this years ago? America go around policing the world yet they haven't even thought for a second about stepping into North Korea. Probably because they see the lack of resources and the oil companies decide it's not worth it what so ever.

Well, they did step into Korea, but it has been some years now I'd grand you that.

During the cold war I don't think realistically anything could be done. After that it's been a fairly locked situation, as previously mentioned (and repeated I suppose) the power North Korea holds by having Seoul an hour away from their border is considerable. That makes any intervention by outside forces a potential complete disaster with hundreds of thousands of dead South Korean civilians in a burned down city. As far as I can see that's the main reason nothing has been done.

Oil and resources might play a part, but as far as I can understand not a large one.

 

[DubaiSpur]

I do enjoy being put in my place by people much more knowledgeable than myself, so I'll keep going

When was the last time the west replaced a democratically elected leader with a tyrant? I already agree that this has been one of the more misguided policies around (slight understatement). It seems to me, possibly somewhat naively, that those days are behind us at this point. I might be wrong though.

I don't think the West needs nukes to spread democracy, but the nukes are going nowhere and we're keeping them. I see no realistic way to put the cat back in the bag again and I accept that.

I just think that dictators ALSO having nukes severely restricts the possibility for a change towards democracy within that country. It allows a tyrant to hold the world hostage as we're forced to sit by and allow them to commit atrocities within their borders. China and Russia obviously can't be disarmed, but part of the point is that neither can Pakistan, or North Korea. And probably neither could Iran if they did get the bomb.

During the Libyan revolution the talk was that Gadaffi's military force was so strong that a NATO intervention was needed to help the rebelling population succeed. What if Gadaffi had access to nuclear weapons? What if NATO couldn't quite trust to push Gadaffi up against the wall fearing that he could unleash said weapons either on the west, on neighboring countries or even on the people within his own country? (avoiding the "his own people" phrasing on purpose)

Would he just be allowed to crush that rebellion and go about his business? We know of course that crushing uprisings and jailing political dissidents isn't something we could dream of stopping in China. Such is life. We equally probably can't do anything in North Korea, that's (in my opinion) way more unfortunate. Do we want more dictatorships going the way of North Korea, with the freedom to do what they want within their own borders. Or do we want more dictatorships going the way of Libya, where at least some intervention is possible should the situation call for it?

I'm not quite sure what to say about the polls you mention, I'm not entirely sure they're relevant to the points I'm trying to make. I did know the main points of the history you brought up and yes I do think the leaders in the west that made those decisions have a lot to answer for.

I'm sure you do know your history. But you must surely also realize that history cuts two ways?

In answer to your first question, as far as I can recall, Salvador Allende was replaced by a U.S dictatorship in 1973, U.S backed contras waged a war against the democratically-elected government of Nicaragua from 1979 through to the early 1990's, and if you want a blurrier (if more recent) answer, Hamas was democratically elected in Gaza in 2006 only to be subjected to immediate sanctions and illegitimization campaigns by the EU, Israel and the United States.

Secondly, in response to your assertions on nukes impeding the West's ability to overthrow dictators, true. But that's where the double-sided blade of history comes into view. History has provided countless examples of Western countries overthrowing democratically-backed governments and replacing them with dictators. This would not have been possible if the democratic governments had nukes.

The West can overthrow dictators and install democracies. Equally, they can invade democracies and replace them with dictatorships. In some cases (Iraq, for example) they can replace on dictator with another (Al-Maliki). And in nearly all cases, Western intervention results in ethnic strife, civil conflict and thousands of dead innocents.

Rightly or wrongly, people don't want to be subject to the caprices of Western democracies. They don't want their democratically-elected government to be replaced by a dictatorship because they did something that affects Western interests, and equally they do not want their dictatorship to be replaced with another Western-backed one, with thousands of casualties and untold destruction added to the mix.

In short, you have to understand that our Western countries are as capable of installing dictators as they are capable of installing democracies, judging by our track record. And we cannot expect citizens of other countries to stay away from nukes because 'this time we promise we'll only use our nuclear-backed intervention to overthrow dictators, so you shouldn't worry'. They don't trust us. I don't blame them.

If Gaddafi had nuclear weapons, perhaps it would have fostered a genuinely united opposition movement against his regime,because his people would know that no help or overt military support would be forthcoming, and thus the only chance they would have against his state apparatus would be to band together and forget petty tribal and local differences.

Instead, Western intervention has directly led to the current situation: dozens of armed militias all refusing to co-operate to form a new Libyan government and all requesting Western backing for their particular claim to the seat of the government. Even when our intentions are (relatively) open, we still can do more harm than good.

 

[DubaiSpur]

And, as an addendum, perhaps nuclear weapons as a whole are losing their potency. With the continuing militarization of space by the U.S and China, we are seeing increasingly ambitious proposals for global missile defence networks and missile satellites that have nuke interception chances of 90+ percent. This is the SDI (Strategic Defence Initiative) was meant to be: a catch-all, nearly impenetrable shield against nuclear warfare. I'm confident that within the next three decades someone, somewhere will develop an interception network with 95+ percent chance of nuke interception, thus rendering the weapons almost useless from a strategic point of view, although they may still have tactical uses.

We may be seeing the beginning of the end of the viability of nuclear weapons as the be all and end all of strategic debate, although reality may take a long time to catch up to current thought.