The only mediating body which might have restrained both sides is the UN, but Bush has undermined their influence
The UN has influence now? I could have sworn that they were known primarily for standing by and watching genocide happen, with a worried look on their face.
And I'm not even slightly happy about Iran having nukes. Not when its leader has stated that Israel should be destroyed.
The UN are worse at intervening inside a nation than mediating between nations. And now, thanks to the US, their weight in mediating is weakened too.
And their significance was not really because of what power they had, but that they were a barometer of world opinion. So ultimately I think it was world opinion, as a composite, which offered some insurance to non-nuclear nations that they wouldn't be bullied by any thug with a nuke.
And if that insurance hadn't been in place, every country would have had to put all its resources into developing bombs, or be wiped out.
Now that Bush has undermined that world consensus against pre-emptive attack, it's no surprise that every country is scrabbling to cover itself.
The checks and balances were there for a reason. they protected Israel as much as Iran. Now Bush has swept that aside for short term gain, and now he's reaping the results.
So ultimately I think it was world opinion, as a composite, which offered some insurance to non-nuclear nations that they wouldn't be bullied by any thug with a nuke.
I can't see how it did that at all. It doesn't seem to have stopped the US doing whatever it liked.
Now that Bush has undermined that world consensus against pre-emptive attack, it's no surprise that every country is scrabbling to cover itself.
Well, Israel, India and Pakistan all seem to have been doing so long before the world concensus fell apart, if there was one in the first place.
I'm not convinced there _were_ any checks and balances in place before. I certainly can't see much evidence of them.
The point I was making was that the UN hasn't been terribly good at stopping people developing nuclear weapons. The fact that three countries openly said they weren't going to forgo them doesn't really change that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
The UN has influence now? I could have sworn that they were known primarily for standing by and watching genocide happen, with a worried look on their face.
And I'm not even slightly happy about Iran having nukes. Not when its leader has stated that Israel should be destroyed.
no subject
And their significance was not really because of what power they had, but that they were a barometer of world opinion. So ultimately I think it was world opinion, as a composite, which offered some insurance to non-nuclear nations that they wouldn't be bullied by any thug with a nuke.
And if that insurance hadn't been in place, every country would have had to put all its resources into developing bombs, or be wiped out.
Now that Bush has undermined that world consensus against pre-emptive attack, it's no surprise that every country is scrabbling to cover itself.
The checks and balances were there for a reason. they protected Israel as much as Iran. Now Bush has swept that aside for short term gain, and now he's reaping the results.
no subject
I can't see how it did that at all. It doesn't seem to have stopped the US doing whatever it liked.
Now that Bush has undermined that world consensus against pre-emptive attack, it's no surprise that every country is scrabbling to cover itself.
Well, Israel, India and Pakistan all seem to have been doing so long before the world concensus fell apart, if there was one in the first place.
I'm not convinced there _were_ any checks and balances in place before. I certainly can't see much evidence of them.
no subject
are all non-signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Iran *is* a signatory.
no subject