Thursday, July 26, 2007

previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)


Matthew Yglesias agrees with John Bolton

Matt Yglesias doesn't like the nuclear deal with India:

What's happening in this deal is that we're granting India concessions related to its nuclear program and India is giving us . . . essentially nothing in exchange....

Meanwhile, from a neoconnish perspective the fact that this undermines the nonproliferation regime is probably a good thing. They hate the idea that diplomatic agreements might actually work and undermine their efforts to start an endless series of wars.

Yeah... there are a few problems with this interpretation. The biggest, of course, is that the biggest neocon involved in the nonproliferation question opposed the India nuclear deal.

As for Matt's interpretation of the deal.... I've defended it before, but I'll ask the same question again -- under what set of magical circumstances was India ever going to agree to give up their nuclear weapons?

Not everything the Bush administration does is part of the neocon grand plan. Indeed, I think we can all agree that "neocon grand plan" is a really bad joke.

posted by Dan on 07.26.07 at 04:45 PM




Comments:

The dangerous thing about the deal with India is that it means that the US doesn't have the high ground. If you allow India nuclear weapons then how can you turn around and claim that Iran is not allowed the same privilege? While as you say India is unlikely to give up their weapons, when you make it easy for them it only undermines your stated goals with other (more odious) countries.

posted by: Be Young on 07.26.07 at 04:45 PM [permalink]



On the other hand, it may be that offering different levels of trust to non-odious states than to odious ones would motivate governments to aim for the former status. (I don't know that this would work, but it's not clear to me that treating states as interchangeable black boxes necessarily works all that well either, even in principle.)

posted by: Mike S. on 07.26.07 at 04:45 PM [permalink]



If you allow India nuclear weapons then how can you turn around and claim that Iran is not allowed the same privilege?

As opposed to "allowing" the UK, France, PRC, and Russia? Is there a particular fairness in the system of "anybody who developed them soon enough to allowed to have them and develop new ones, but not anyone else?" Is it even enforceable?

posted by: John Thacker on 07.26.07 at 04:45 PM [permalink]



Nope, it isn't fair. Taking this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with a world where almost everyone has nuclear weapons and things don't blow up only because of multi-way mutually assured destruction. Probably after a couple of accidents everyone will grow up a bit.

Of course I only point out problems, I don't have a solution. But certainly randomly invading countries is not a long-term viable approach.

posted by: Be Young on 07.26.07 at 04:45 PM [permalink]



"If you allow India..."
India is an independent nation.Who is there to "allow" sanction this thing or that thing?Nuclear deal is a two-way affair.You destroy your weapons....

posted by: Indian on 07.26.07 at 04:45 PM [permalink]



You want India to give up their nukes? Easy, get the Chinese to give up theirs, which they will gladly do once the Russians give up theirs, and they are just anxiously awaiting for the Americans to give up theirs first.

Iran is not getting nukes because India has them. Iran is trying to get them because they have several thousand American troops on their eastern border in Afghanistan, several thousand American troops to their west in Iraq, surrounded by several American naval bases - and off over the horizon the Israelis have several hundred warheads. Under these conditions, the Iranians would be suicidal to not even try for such weapons. If you want Iran to abandon it's pursuit of such weapons, address some of these concerns.

posted by: KXB on 07.26.07 at 04:45 PM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:




Comments:


Remember your info?





Politics, economics, globalization, academia, pop culture... all from a untenured tenured perspective

Main home page
Main blog page
About Me
Search My Blog
Favorite Blogs
Book Recommendations
Books of the Month (Summer 2008)






Reviews of DanielDrezner.com:

"Sharp but informal commentary on politics and foreign policy." -- The New Republic

"Dan Drezner is terrific.... Excellent blog." -- Andrew Sullivan

"Dan's stuff is always worth reading." -- Eugene Volokh

"One of the essential weblogs." -- Gawker.com

"Old battle horse of the blogosphere." -- Jewcy.com

"Soft porn." -- Amitai Etzioni

"Spawned grave atrocities and vast destruction." -- Glenn Greenwald

"Monday morning quarterback... conservative robot... the very foundation of troubles in this country." -- not-so-random readers


Contact me at:
ddrezner@gmail.com
(But click here to read my e-mail policy)









Search the Site


Try advanced site search









Favorite Blogs

TNR's Open University
Jacob Levy
Glenn Reynolds
Andrew Sullivan
Mickey Kaus
Virginia Postrel
The Volokh Conspiracy
Josh Marshall
Crooked Timber
OxBlog
Real Clear Politics
Kevin Drum
Across the Aisle
Economist's Free Exchange
TNR's The Plank
NRO's The Corner
TAP's Tapped
America Abroad
Duck of Minerva
Opinio Juris
Brad DeLong

Jeff Jarvis
Mystery Pollster
Mark Kleiman
Meryl Yourish
Megan McArdle
Marginal Revolution
Michael Munger
Chris Lawrence
Matthew Yglesias
Hit and Run
Cold Spring Shops
Stephen Green
Outside the Beltway
Pejman Yousefzadeh
Laura McKenna (11D)
Elected Swineherd
Phil Carter
Joe Gandelman
Winds of Change
Andrew Samwick
Greg Mankiw
Dani Rodrik
Roger L. Simon
Tom Maguire
Greg Djerejian
The American Scene
Post Global
Democracy Arsenal




Recent articles online

"Foreign Policy Goes Glam."
The National Interest, November/December 2007

"Rise of the Hipster Statesmen."
Newsweek International, November 1, 2007

"The New New World Order."
Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007

"Mind the Gap."
The National Interest, January/February 2007

"The Grandest Strategy Of Them All."
Washington Post, December 17, 2006

U.S. Trade Strategy: Free Versus Fair
Council on Foreign Relations Press, September 2006.

Complete online article archive




Blog Archives

June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002

Academia
Area studies
Book club
culture
economics
fence-sitting
from Blogger
globalization
homeland security
international relations
law
Mediasphere
My very important posts
New Republic
outsourcing
personal
politics
Sports
The blog paper
the blogosphere
thesis ideas
Trade and Development
U.S. foreign policy
website maintenance

See full archives listing




Recent Entries

Someone keep Fleet Street away from Bill Clinton
It rivals Buckley vs. Vidal, I tell you
So.... are the Clintons morons?
The New York Times didn't ask me, but then again, that's why I have this blog
Monica Crowley's jet black pot
Al Qaeda is losing
Speaking of karma....
The blog post that writes itself
What made me laugh today
Where should Hillary go?




Site Credits