Something that scares the shit out of even me

From the end of the World War II, the threat of nuclear arms has hung like a cloud over top of an uneasy world, the only thread of hope being the idea that none of the states actually possessing these weapons would actually risk the total annihilation not only of their own state, but of the entire globe, by using them. Unfortunately, as the number of states who have joined that club increased, the world has also been faced with certain, less - er... - rational players. Two specific players, however, have shown themselves to be decidedly less rational than others: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In light of recent progress of the Six-party Talks, we can look at the North Koreans in a somewhat new light, assignificant progress has been made in disarming them. While there are still potential challenges ahead, the future does, at least present a vestige of hope for peace on this front.

We then move to the other side of the nuclear coin - the Islamic Republic of Iran. For the past 20 years, amid protests that their only nuclear objectives are for civilian energy purposes, the Iranians have been moving slowly and inexorably towards the attainment of a nuclear bomb. Constant pressure from the international community has been met with abject refusal to comply with sanctions, or with deals that Iran is party to. For an extensive work on the subject, see "The Iran Threat: President Ahmedinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis", by Alireza Jafarzadeh. Today, in an article published in the Globe and Mail, we can see that the threat of a nuclear armed Iran has moved dramatically forward, with the production of 6,000 centrifuges for the production of enriched uranium, with the eventual goal of possessing 54,000 centrifuges.

So between the unquestionable pursuit of nuclear weapons, the decided antipathy to the United States and the rest of the western nations, and the well-known Iranian support of such terrorist organizations as Hezbollah amongst others, we are faced with three, all-important questions. First - would a nuclear armed Iran, as a state, use the threat or actual use of nuclear arms in conflict (de facto, or diplomatic) with another state? Second - would Iran, as a state sponsor of a number of terrorist organizations, give said organizations access to their nuclear arsenal? Third - if the answer to either of these questions is "yes", what should the west do to prevent this nightmare scenario from ever taking place?


In answer to the first question - we need to consider the actions of the Iranian government in the past. The easiest answer to this question comes with current threats of the Iranian government to "explode the Middle East" if the Americans, Israelis, or anyone else for that matter, decides to step in and remove the potential for a nuclear armed Iran through conventional means. While the use of armed force in self-defense is a legitimate response to an armed attack against your state - the threat of armed force against the national assets of not just the country that attacked yours, but also of your neighbours speaks to an uncommon willingness to protect a weapons program that is designed to do only one thing - wipe another country off the map. This willingness to harm even non-combatants in conflict speaks of nothing less than an unquestionably strong desire to attain such weapons - such a desire speaks only of a willingness to use them to achieve their own ends.

In answer to the second question, we need to consider the primary target of most of the Iranian-sponsored terrorists attacks, and the Iranian policy towards that state: namely, Israel. Ultimately, Iran's policy on Israel is that [Israel] does not have the right to exist, in any borders. The function of nuclear arms is singular - to wipe an offending state off the map. While there is no guarantee, obviously, that Iran would give it's sponsored terrorists nuclear technology, there is certainly no reason to believe that they wouldn't. In the case of such a threat as this, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and assume the answer to be "yes" until proven otherwise.

So we've answered the first two questions - now comes the hard part: what do we do about it. Unfortunately, Iran's threat to take down the Middle East oil supply to the United States and the west is very real, and must be taken seriously. So too, must the eventual threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Furthermore, we can see pretty clearly that diplomatic effots have failed. The only option left is military. So how does one engage military operations against a rogue state, holding economic catastrophe over the heads of those who must act, without levelling the nation and turning it to dust?

This last question, I will not give a direct answer to - I have no interest in posing the question of declaring war, or committing acts of war against a sovereign state in a public forum online. Suffice it to say that there is no doubt in my mind that Iran must be prevented from attaining nuclear weapons at all costs, and that the only method, at this time, that would be effective in that prevention is through the use of armed force. The west knows what it necessary, and the time to act is now.

A better idea

So somehow, we need to combat rising energy costs, encourage economic growth, and encourage our industries to go green (or at very least, green-ER), and we need to do all of this pretty much simultaneously. After lambasting Stephane Dion's proposed carbon tax as rather a bad idea for reasons pertaining to the first two, I promised an answer. It's time to deliver on that.

To begin, let's look at why bother going green in out industries. Bluntly, there are two reasons - the first is international pressure from a number of parties, including the European Union and, more recently, the United States to go green in our industries, particularily as pertains our exploitation of the oilsands.

The second reason has more to do with domestic quality of living - ultimately, whether you believe in global warming or not, and whether you're especially concerned about the question of global climate change or not (and opinions vary), anyone who's see the skyline around Hamilton, Toronto, and many of our other heavy industrial/commercial centres has seen the brown haze that slowly descends upon the respective cities. Ultimately, the quality of our air and water supplies, notably in heavily industrialized areas, is sinking badly. This in turn has a negative impact on our health - again, something to be avoided.

Thirdly, rising energy costs are taking their toll on all sectors of our economy and directly affecting our cost of living across the board. Reduction in our use of fossil fuels would help to reduce our overall costs at this point, presenting yet another benefit.
dro
How do we do this, and still keep a profit? First off, let's do something about taxes that was suggested by my friend Jason in reply to my last post. Let's give tax cuts to greener companies - perhaps even going so far as to give a tax credit to companies who show a proportional reduction in overall greenhouse gas output - as well as improving funding for research into green and non-fossil fuel based energy sources. Further, as I've said before, we need to put forward a dramatic shift in our national energy production platform from coal/oil/gas fired power plants towards a higher reliance on hydroelectric and nuclear power.

Ultimately, the international demand for fossil fuels will, eventually, reduce as the first world nations move towards a greener industrial future, and as emerging economies such as China, India, and Brazil will inevitably do the same. At that point, the market cost of oil will make it no longer profitable to work the oil sands - costing jobs, money, and potentially causing many of our skilled workers to leave the country for greener pastures. That said, that time is not upon us yet. As we move to eliminate our country's dependance on fossil fuels, we need to recognize that many of these emerging economies are both oil-dependant, and that their needs will continue to increase for quite some time. We need to work to meet those needs, and we need to do so for a number of reasons.

First and foremost is the simple economic question. We ramp up production of our oil and start selling it - irrelevant of where it goes - and we're going to make a profit. The companies that are building multi-billion dollar plants will continue to build, expand, and employ, and petro-dollars will roll in from around the globe - producing increased taxation revenue from abroad. Further, as I said, there will eventually come a time when world dependance on oil will end - at that point, the oil sands will go from being worth potentially billions of dollars, to being worth a fraction of that. Quite frankly, it would make more sense to pull as much of the stuff out of the ground and make as much money on it as we can while it is still profitable to do so. Thirdly is a question of foreign affairs. Right now, many players in OPEC are, at best ambivalent towards and at worst downright antagonistic to western interests. Short version to a long story is that petrodollars in Canada's pocket that are taken away from the pockets of some of these other nations are a decidedly beneficial thing from our Foreign Minister's office's perspective.

Anyhow, short version of this is that we move towards a greener Canada through a combination of R&D, tax incentives, and a shift in energy policy at the same time as engaging in aggressive exploitation of our oil reserves to use for export. Just because we're trying to go green doesn't mean that we have to force everyone else to, and certainly doesn't mean that we can't still try to force a profit off the fact that everyone else isn't going to just yet.