Log in
2012 May 21 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/07/01/nuclear-weapons-are-a-blessing/
0
0

Once again, individuals call for the destruction of nuclear weapons. The reasoning is quite simple: if every country that has them destroys them and outlaws them, it will be impossible for rogue regimes and terrorists to develop them or to buy them. This means that the world will become more safe.

Now, that may sound nice and all, but the reality of the matter is different. If nuclear weapons are destroyed – all nuclear weapons – America, and therefore the West as a whole, loses its advantage. Suddenly, China will become the major player in Asia. If the Chinese want to annex certain countries, like o say Taiwan, they can go ahead and do so, for no one will be able to stop them. If the communists want to attack Japan; no problem.

What matters in a world without nuclear weapons isn’t technology, but manpower. Numbers. China has enough of that.

And lets think about Israel for a moment. Lets say Israel destroys its nuclear weapons. Any idea what’ll happen to the Middle East? Right, Middle Eastern countries would quickly form an alliance, which will attack Israel ASAP. The result; Israel will be destroyed. The US can try to send troops, of course, to the region once the Middle Eastern countries have opened the attack, but that will be too little, and especially too late. If Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and so on, decide to attack Israel with everything they’ve got, the battle will – most likely – be a relatively short one.

As long as Israel does not have nuclear weapons that is.

Because Israel has nuclear weapons its enemies are using proxies to fight against it. At the moment those nuclear weapons are destroyed, those enemies will ditch their proxies and start attacking the Jewish nation-state openly.

A world without nuclear weapons sounds nice… but it’s not. It would lead to a more dangerous world than the one we currently live in.

  1. Posted by Dylan
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #59868 ›
    Dylan I think you have the right idea about a world without nuclear weapons but I am not convinced by elements of your argument. The point on Israel, for example, seems to me to be particularly weak. States in the Middle East have joined together and attacked Israel before and Israel did fend off the attack - indeed, gaining territory - using only conventional weapons. You suggest that if "Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and so on, decide to attack Israel with everything they?ve got, the battle will - most likely - be a relatively short one." Save for Iran, Egypt, Syria, Jordan (with Iraq) attacked Israel in 1967, the battle was short - six days, in fact - and Israel won. Even without nuclear weapons Israel has rpoved itself superior to the combined forces of its near neighbours. With the support of non-nuclear armed allies the result would seem to trend even further towards the side of Israel. Your points regarding potential moves by China in East Asia are also a little flawed, IMHO. While US nukes might be one consideration stopping China from moving on Taiwan and Japan they are not the only reason nor, I think, the major reason. The relatively weak naval capabilities of the Chinese compared to the US are the major reason why they do not seek this expansionist foreign policy strategy; the nuclear weapons that Washington maintains are an afterthought. It's one thing to know that you won't be nuked if you move, it's another entirely to be able to move at all which - in terms of invasion and occupation - the Chinese cannot. That said, I agree that the logic of the argument that the world will be safer sans nukes is flawed. These weapons cannot be un-invented and they do provide stability in the international system - the Cold War is proof of that.
  2. Posted by KevinH
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #59869 ›
    KevinH I think your right. In the short run, Nukes are a very good substitute for numbers. In the long run however, numbers still win. In the current geo-political environment, nukes are not a solution, they are a stalling tactic.
  3. Posted by Chuck Norton
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #59891 ›
    Chuck Norton Michael - your analysis is SPOT on. Well done.
  4. Michael Merritt You say losing nuclear weapons will allow our enemies to do whatever they want.  Yet, didn't we bring Iraq to its knees in a matter of days?  Seems to me that anyone who wants to try such a thing would have to deal with the wrath of the combined forces of the West. You mention Japan, which is interesting to mention, given the discussion.  Yet, whatever people say about their abilities to form one, they have no military.  And, we're not in WWII anymore; technology has advanced.  I doubt we'd be hopping islands on our way there like we did then.  China is different matter, though I'd argue that nuclear or not, they're a formidable force. Still, I would say that non-proliferation is in the best interests of everybody, and that everybody has to be held to the same standard for it to work.  No favorites. Yea, that'll happen...
  5. Posted by Kevin H
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #59914 ›
    Kevin H No MM, it doesn't automatically lets our enemies win, but it does increase the relative power of each individual person in war. We can't just bomb a country in to the ground if they do something heinous; now we would actually have to go and fight lengthy land wars. Also, Iraq is a great example of the power of individuals. We may have toppled the organized military in a few days, but we are still dealing with the people who don't want us there, and our technological advantage is proving to be not as important as we had hoped. Don't tell me you are one of those people that still believe the 'mission accomplished' nonsense.
  6. Posted by Rudi666
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #59931 ›
    Rudi666 What no one addresses is the fact that the nuclear powers that signed the NPT promised to work towards disarmament. From Wiki:
    The treaty was proposed by Ireland, and Finland was the first to sign. The signing parties decided by consensus to extend the treaty indefinitely and without conditions upon meeting in New York City on May 11, 1995. The NPT consists of a preamble and eleven articles. Although the concept of "pillars" appears nowhere in the NPT, the treaty is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as having three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.[1]
    For the US, Russia and Western European countries to ignore this pillar while demanding other nations to obey the NPT does smell a little fishy.
1