Scott Ritter: Iran Does Not Need Nukes
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Scott Ritter: “If we don’t have arms control, we are all going to die in a nuclear holocaust . . . Nuclear weapons provide no security. Iran just proved that for all those assholes out there that say Iran just got to have a nuclear weapon because if they don’t they’re going to die. They just beat two nuclear armed powers and a stand up fight using conventional weapons. No, you don’t have to have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a hindrance, not an asset. And we need to get rid of them all.” Without nuclear arms control there is only MAD, “Mutually Assured Destruction”, which may provide deterrence in some cases, as it did for Russia against the US in the fifties, or China against the US after that, but it will not prevent nuclear war when dozens of countries acquire them in the absence of any other deterrent. Still, in spite of what Scott says, Prof Mearsheimer and Chas Freemon think Iran may be a third exception, given the determination of the US and Israel to destroy it. A real arms control and security agreement based on the indivisibility of security for the world as a whole is what humanity needs, that is for sure. But humanity has not yet evolved to that point, and Iran may feel they need it for deterrence at this point in history. The decision will be up to Mojtaba Khamenei, whose father was just murdered in a treacherous US and Israeli attack, one that would not have occurred if Iran already had nukes.
Read LaterAdd to FavouritesAdd to CollectionReport
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
