Print Print this article Email Email this article Link Trackback

Sell Your Dominoes Someplace Else, We're All Stocked Up Here

Kingston Reif | Sep 02, 2010 | there are 1 comments 1

Friend of NoH Johan Bergenas hit the online pages of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday to make that case that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, while something we should seek to prevent, would not cause a cascade of proliferation in the Middle East.  He makes a persuasive case, because, well…Johan is a persuasive guy.  And did I mention that the piece has a great title: “The Nuclear Domino Myth”?  Nice.  

Come get some:

But there's one problem with this "nuclear domino" scenario: the historical record  widespread nuclear proliferation; 65 years later, only nine countries have developed nuclear weapons. Nearly 20 years elapsed between the emergence of the first nuclear state, the United States, in 1945, and the fifth, China, in 1964.
The next 40 years gave birth to only five additional nuclear countries: India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, and North Korea. South Africa voluntarily disarmed in the 1990s, as did Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. After Israel developed a nuclear weapons capability in the late 1960s, no regional nuclear chain reaction followed, even though the country is surrounded by rivals. Nor was there even a two-country nuclear arms race in the region.
[snip]
Predictions of catastrophic consequences resulting from a nuclear Iran are not only wrong but counterproductive. The assertion that the widespread proliferation is unavoidable could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The myth of a nuclear domino effect creates an excuse for other Middle Eastern countries -- expecting that their neighbors will be nuclear powers -- to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.
Nightmare scenarios are dangerous for yet another reason: the expected consequences of a nuclear Iran, real or imagined, will determine the policies pursued to prevent Tehran from developing the bomb. If the consequences are out of sync with reality, the methods applied will be disproportional to the threat. Seven years ago, the United States walked into Iraq based on worst-case-scenario predictions about its nuclear program that were far from beyond a reasonable doubt. Washington cannot afford to wage another war on false pretenses.
There is no question that the world would be better off if Iran did not obtain nuclear weapons, and the international community must use all appropriate measures to prevent Iran -- or any other country -- from doing so. But the case against a nuclear Iran is strong enough without a nuclear domino myth. By invoking worst-case scenarios, policymakers are only clouding nuanced thinking.

tags Nukes on a Blog, Iran (all tags)


Display:

Why Fearing the Worst is Wise

I left this comment over at Foreign Affairs too.

This article attempts to diffuse much of the urgency surrounding the fears of a nuclear armed Iran by saying that there is no guarantee it would result in the proliferation of similar technology in the rest of the Middle East.

While this could be accurate, it seems to be part and parcel of a pollyanaish view.

While the author is no doubt correct that previous dire predictions of nuclear proliferation have proven to be overwrought and did not pan out as anticipated, that does not mean it is destined to continue.

Given that access to technology, in particular since the conclusion of the Cold War, has become much easier- it seems more likely now than in the past that proliferation will take place at a faster pace than the historical norm.

Between the Khan network and ambiguous activities by North Korea, it seems presumptious to assert that just because proliferation has not happened in the past, or because it took 20 years from the first "bomb" to the "Chinese bomb" that this pattern will persist.

Additionally, the U.S. failure to prevent a nuclear armed Iran (which is pretty much a fair accomplie at this point) will, indeed make others in the rgion nervous. While it is possible that Arab nations will seek accomodation with Iran or will trust American security "guarantees", it only would seem prudent for them to look at their own counters and hedge their bets. Between the Persian/Arab divide and the Sunni/Shia divide, there is a lot of tension in the Middle East with Iran now firmly in the center.

The U.S. should re-examine its concepts of deterrence for this situation. It must be prepared to navigate the complexity of multipolar nuclear powers in multiple regions of the world.

If this view turns out in 20 years to have been overly pessimistic, what is the harm in having been prepared? If it turns out to be accurate, what is the harm in being caught flatfooted?

The concern over the "nuclear domino theory" should remain of paramount importance. Prudence dictates that the worst case scenario be envisaged and contingencies prepared for it.

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account by clicking right here. It's quick and free.

About This Blog

Search This Blog

Center Analysis

US weapons for future include key relics of the past
The Associated Press' Robert Burns wrote an article entitled "US weapons for future include key relics of the past" that features the Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation's Laicie Olson discussing the 2013 Defense Budget....

Pentagon Budget: Forced To Diet On Only $613 Billion
The Associated Press' Robert Burns wrote an article entitled "US weapons for future include key relics of the past" that features the Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation's Laicie Olson discussing the 2013 Defense Budget....

Are ambitious Life Extension Programs on Hold?
The B61 life extension program has come under increasing scrutiny. And for good reason writes Nickolas Roth in this new analysis....

Missile Defense Intercepts in Space: A problem not solved
A recent report by the Defense Science Board concludes that U.S. missile defenses are still unable to discriminate between an incoming missile and decoys or countermeasures designed to confound the system, writes Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (USA, ret.) in this n...

UNSCR 1540 & the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit: A View From Seoul
The Republic of Korea (ROK) has been and remains a staunch supporter of the global nonproliferation regime as it borders a grave security threat and proliferator of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). With the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit just months away,...