I wonder if there's a statistical analysis out there, a probabilities take, a chaos theory viewpoint regarding how the 'micro' proliferation of nuclear arms impacts the likelihood of something very bad happening. I have no abilities concerning the 'numbers' logic of these disciplines and therefore can barely even offer a guess as to what they might indicate - but that feeble guess would tend to imagine the impact as not being particularly sanguine for the species.
I ask this question not only in reference to Iran, which I increasingly view as perched on the edge of a watershed moment in the dire history of proliferation now that China et al have made it clear they're not going to support any tough measures to stop a country that has stated officially that it wants to wipe another country off the face of the earth [doesn't matter if this statement was substantially rhetorical] from developing technology that would make such a thing possible - but also in reference to the ugly little dictatorship in Burma which apparently is getting or actively seeking help from the north Koreans viz developing nuke capabilities. [sidebar: what responsibility will China bear should a rogue nuke enabled by them be used in Israel, London, New York? China would like Burma as a dependent ally because of its geographical subtending of vital waterways - they'll look the other way should Burma make an effort to go nuclear, just like they have done with North Korea and will do with Iran - it's not much of a stretch to view China as the chief enabler of these current and potential rogue WMD programs - if ten years from now a loose nuke from Burma ends up leveling Manhattan, well, that's a whole lot of shit hitting a pretty god damn massive fan]
I've made the point before that caution in foreign policy is a difficult horse to ride - you think a reasonable approach gives you control but then suddenly things change and you realize too late that a more forceful hand would have served you well. I've been struck by those who sanctimoniously dismiss the idea of an Israeli strike on Iran as jingoistic nonsense - fear or ignorance or ideological blindness cause them to artificially favour one approach over another because of the illusion of a reasonable peace: an attack by Israel on Iran leaves no room for such illusory comforts.
Empires, great powers, somehow come to the point where they can no longer see or sense the ground giving way beneath them and are therefore incapable of doing what's necessary. Rome could have denied the Vandals control of Egypt and preserved the 'free' access to grain which underwrote much of their financial system - but apparently the threat went unnoticed or, if noticed, failed to stir the passions of those that mattered - and thus fell the Western empire. Of course, in many ways it was not that simple - then again, to trouble your dreams, in many ways it was.
