The nuclear worry

porkbelly

And amazingly in light of this the United States is abandoning its missile defense program. Whether it's Pakistan, N. Korea, Iran or some other source at some point the missiles will be in the air at which point we can only huddle under our "Change" posters and hope for the best.

Austin Barrry

The math is easy and terrifying: Iran + Pakistan +Islam + Nuclear Bomb + Caliphate = Game over.

Henry Rogers

Anyone who thinks current western nuclear powers should disarm unilaterally is a trusting soul. Anyone who thinks that the US, under any president, would not react violently to a nuclear attack on their homeland is probably wrong, though whether the US would spring to avenge an attack on Israel is another question. The Israelis may possibly have been thinking along the same lines.

If, however, Islamists really want to ensure the total destruction of their hopes and dreams, they could always try an attack on the US. It might be a rather bad idea.

Oh, and it doesn't really look as if the Chinese or Russian governments would be likely to put up even with threats of such an attack on their countries either.

Heaven alone knows what Britain or France under their present political regimes would do in such circumstances. Let's hope there is still enough uncertainty to disuade nuclear suicide bombers.

On the whole I'm inclined to see China as the firmest bulwark against religious fanaticism, whatever worries people may have about the purely secular Taiwan question. My rather tentative guess is that since there isn't a great deal anyone except China can do to restrain North Korea it might be as well to leave that to them.

Is Austin right? One can only guess and my guess is probably not. But we need reminders like that.

mac

Porkbelly + Austin B:

Surely you underestimate the silky diplomatic skills of our intrepid Foreign Secretary in matters sub-continental and far eastern?

Oh, hang on, that'd be Victorian era Mr D. Miliband, lecturing lesser folk on how to behave properly?

Perhaps not, then.

Verity

David Cameron wouldn't have the bottle to do the right thing.

Susan Hill

I`ve been saying this for some time - but what do they all put up as number one priority ? Climate Change. I ask you.

Verity

Mac - Don't forget, one of Millipede's diplomatic skills is, on overseas visits, to address foreign heads of government and their cabinets by their familiar names. This makes them feel more comfortable - in their own government buildings - in his mighty presence and shows that Davie is an equal opportunity opportunist. That they never invited such familiarity was apparently missed by him. They should have been thrilled and grateful that he addressed them by the names that only their families and close friends use.

What an absolute jerk! Is the Foreign Office becoming a squat for unemployable favourites of the PM? Wasn't Margaret Beckett in it? Then they left the stable door open and she bolted? Or was she giddy-upped out?

Didn't the truly malign, malevolent, controlling, all-round nasty piece of work Jack Straw have his shoes under that desk at one time?

It will take generations for the Home Office to regain its former prestige ... and I'm sure that, having deliberately trashed it, the plan is that it will, having been rendered irrelevant, be subsumed by Brussels.

wrinkled weasel

I like Henry Rogers' round up because it rings true. It lacks subtlety though in terms of the resolution of a threatened limited strike.

Given that even the nutters do not want to unleash Armageddon, there still exists the possibility of a cat and mouse game, some brinkmanship or maybe the deployment of a missile to a country that cannot retaliate.

Then, there exists the possibility of reeling the superpowers into a confrontation they do not want, over an issue that does not greatly concern them.

David Lindsay

The Pakistani generals would no more allow the Taliban than any other politicians anywhere near the nuclear codes, and maintain a permanent unit to stage a coup whenever they deem it appropriate.

"Iran’s nuclear ambitions are the greatest potential threat"

To whom?

donald fraser

During the Cold War there was considerable “worry” that an accident might trigger World War III. In 1983 the German singer Nena captured the mood in her hit single "99 Red Balloons" which told the story of 99 balloons floating into the air. The danger of “nuclear transfer” is overplayed politically because the consequences of a WMD attack could not trigger the apocalyptic overreaction “99 Red Balloons” might have.

In Europe the problem of an “apocalyptic overreaction by military forces” still looms if NATO is drawn into a conflict with Russia. The danger is policy to increase NATO’s assistance with the “Af-Pak problem” might weaken Hilary Clinton’s resolve to improve and “reset” diplomatic relations with Russia. This lost opportunity could be more devastating in the long term. In the 1980s an arms race between SS-20 and Pershing II missiles threatened “limited nuclear war in Europe”. America should be wary of agreeing the EU’s political assimilation of Eastern Europe might expand into a military involvement with Georgia.

Stalin MacSporran

Not to worry. We just dust off Labour's 1980s policy of declaring the UK a "nuclear free zone". That will ensure no missiles get launched at us.

Alfred T Mahan

The basic premise of most people's arguments here so far is that it's Them against Us in the West. While it is entirely true that antagonisms exist between most of the Muslim world and the West, we shouldn't underestimate the danger of other disputes.

There are dozens to choose from - I would pick as the most serious the obvious India/Pakistan (both nuclear, tensions very high) and Iran/Israel (@Donald Lindsay above: the unstable fundamentalist regime in Iran cannot be relied on to exercise restraint and could do almost anything, in my opinion), but I would add as the third the current naval arms race in the Far East involving primarily China, India and Japan, which could easily threaten Taiwan.

The system of European alliances before WW1 couldn't prevent war after an incident which was minor in itself, and we delude ourselves now if we think that a direct attack on the West is the most serious threat we face. It isn't.

Ian C

I think your 18 months timescale is a bit on the long side, James.

One of the most interesting things coming onto the horizon is the morphing of the Obama foreign policy into Bush's.

As with our memories of Thatcher - TINA is going to become the main player once again. And Bush will be re-appraised somewhat faster than expected.

A.F

Religion and nukes are a far more unstable toxic mix than the old soviet v west confrontations.they cannot be compared.

Verity

Alfred T Mahan - you write: "While it is entirely true that antagonisms exist between most of the Muslim world and the West, we shouldn't underestimate the danger of other disputes."

Then you quote Pakistan/India. That, Mr Mahan, is about aggressive Islam. The current lack of stability is due only to Islamic regimes planning to carry out their diety's command to convert the entire world to Islam, by the sword if necessary.