The New yorker has an article from Seymour Hersh (yeah, I know) called "Defending the Arsenal: In an unstable Pakistan, can nuclear warheads be kept safe?"
To me, the title falls into the "Duh, of course not" category, especially as you lengthen the time horizon. Some of the folks I talk to say the best hope for Pakistan is a losing civil war that takes a while, because then there might be time and space get key bomb materials/ components out. Now throw in all the Muslim states that have informed the IAEA they're starting nuclear energy programs, and the odds of a nuclear war in my lifetime closely approach 1.0.
I suppose this may come as news to some of the uneducated readers of the New Yorker, who know only what their college professors and the New York Times have deigned to tell them. If so, Hersh may have done a service.
Interesting to see one of the principals in Hari's "Renouncing Islamism" piece indirectly referenced in Hersh's article, though...
*Now throw in all the Muslim states that have informed the IAEA they're starting nuclear energy programs, and the odds of a nuclear war in my lifetime closely approach 1.0.
I suppose this may come as news to some of the uneducated readers of the New Yorker, who know only what their college professors and the New York Times have deigned to tell them. If so, Hersh may have done a service*
Interesting bit of snarkiness there at the end, Joe. I read the New Yorker, the NYT, and learned to start reading the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists from my (college professor) father. My understanding from the ol' "clock" is that the current risk of nuclear war is higher than it's been at any time since about 1984. . .
_I suppose this may come as news to some of the uneducated readers of the New Yorker, who know only what their college professors and the New York Times have deigned to tell them. _
As a very uneducated reader (very few college professors in my past) of the New Yorker and the NYT, I am having a lot of trouble figuring out what the this is that may come as news to me. That Pakistan has nuclear arms? That Pakistan is unstable? That it is dangerous that Pakistan has nuclear arms? That a civil war is the best way to de-arm Pakistan? That Joe Katzman's odds of witnessing a nuclear war have recently increased? (It would be helpful to know his age in order to assess the last claim.) What is the this exactly? Perhaps someone more educated than me can help me out.
The clock should be higher. This is not the same game.
Congrats on actually going out and reading the BAS. That puts you way, way past so many people who wait for publications like the Times to tell them what to think (or The Economist, for that matter), and don't look beyond that.
In answer to #2: Yes, Yes, Yes, depends on your definitions, Yes.
To which one might add that the pervasiveness of their faith's fundamentalist adherents, and their combination of extreme rigidity, carefully cultivated bigotry, and suicide-murder complex, means that any Muslim state with nuclear weapons becomes a long-term danger to the entire world.
We may wish it was not so. One day it may not be so. But right now, it is so - and Pakistan is Exhibit A.
Or, you could read the NY Times, and listen to college professors tell you all about the right of countries like Pakistan, Iran, et. al. to own nuclear weapons, and about Islam as a religion of peace, and the ability of diplomacy to resolve all ills. You could drink the kool aid. Many have, and do, and yes, it disgusts me.
But then, those who do, don't have to have to think about the state of the Islamic world and its peoples, the growing failure of non-proliferation, and the implications of having more and more "point of failure" nuclear states. Hersh's article at least opens reality a crack. He invites people who are snobby about their education, but know so very little beyond their own experience of life, to take a look through the keyhole. So, kudos to him.
One can always opt out of reality, but reality never returns the favour. Not even if one has the temerity to call oneself, against all evidence, "reality-based."
What I have been saying Joe, is that while many Muslim nations are not peaceful, being Muslim does not necessarily equal warlike either. And yes, since about every Muslim state is totalitarian, giving them having nukes is a bad idea (and this would be true of any totalitarian state in any religion... or atheist).
And honestly, as part of this "know-nothing elite" you mention, I don't know anyone who thinks Pakistan (or other totalitarian states) should have nuclear power. We just don't think we have a great way of stopping them either.
And if you want to try to nuke every Muslim country that tries to get the H-bomb... best of luck to you.
JK:
I've been following that clock since the late 60's; it's as "close to midnight" as it's been in a while, and the only occasions I can remember it being much closer were when the US/USSR relations got really rocky, and there was a non-zero chance of a nuclear "exchange"* between nations who, we now know, had various sorts of "launch on warning" mechanisms in place.
I've been reading Sy Hersh since his piece in "Ramparts" about the the DOD's nerve-gassing of sheep at Dugway. 1968? Sometimes he's alarmist; sometimes he's just WRONG, but the man knows some stuff.
I don't generally take all the information I consider on any subject from any one source. I don't know anyone who I consider to have an opinion worth much of anything who does.
Which professors have recently been telling you ". . . all about the right of countries like Pakistan, Iran, et. al. to own nuclear weapons, and about Islam as a religion of peace, and the ability of diplomacy to resolve all ills. . ."? Different ones than I talk to, apparently.
RFGS
*either with bombers, or, eventually, with guided MIRV's (not just someone detonating one, or two, or ten, "devices" with dubious delivery reliability)