While in Prague, President Obama announced his plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons. He calls it America’s “moral duty” because we are the only country that has ever used one. But is it our moral duty? First of all, this plan seems extremely unrealistic. Even if the world were to be nuclear free, what is stopping a country from building more bombs? Today, North Korea launched a long range missile. This proves that countries can, and will quickly build nuclear missiles. Not having our own nuclear missiles would not provide us with any protection from countries that would develop them. Obama answered this question about our defense by stating that there will be "real and immediate consequences" for countries that violate this policy. America should not be the country who spearheads punishing countries for developing their military. This would set us up for too much controversy, which would cause us to make more enemies, thereby putting us a greater risk for attack. Second, this plan makes President Obama look soft. It is known that European countries that support the nuclear-free cause are viewed as soft and naïve. If President Obama were to implement this plan, countries would see him as soft and take advantage of this. This too, would put American citizens at risk.
Although his plan is unrealistic, it has good intentions. It can be the start of a weakening of tensions between countries that possess nuclear bombs, which is a more realistic goal. Obama’s first step is to renegotiate the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians. This is a good start to appeasing nuclear tension. However, in the same speech in Prague, Obama stated that he would like to implement a missile defense system in the countries of Poland and the Czech Republic. Planning this has caused grief between Russia and the US, which seems contradictory to his plan for peace. Instead of setting up this defense system that will anger countries, he should work on getting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ratified and signed by all of the 44 countries who have nuclear capabilities. This would effectively ban all nuclear explosions in all environments, for military or civilian purposes, and would hamper any countries hopes at testing their nuclear potential.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I am all for a nuclear-free world which would lead, as the article states, in the direction of world peace. Almost 64 years after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, presents the perfect opportunity to reflect upon the persistence of nuclear danger. The world’s nine powers continue to cling to more than 25,000 nuclear weapons, almost all of them more deadly than that first atomic bomb, which annihilated an estimated 140,000 Japanese men, women, and children. For a time, it seemed that nothing at all was learned from the bombing of Hiroshima. The United States and Soviet government competed with one another to build bigger and more destructive nuclear arsenals. They were soon joined by Britain, France, China, and Israel.
But then something extraordinary occurred. Millions of people rose up to resist this nuclear arms race – assailing nuclear testing, nuclear weapons buildups, and other preparations for nuclear war. As a result, government officials began to temper their nuclear ambitions. They agreed upon a broad range of arms control and disarmament treaties. Others decided against building nuclear weapons, turned their countries into nuclear-free zones, or abandoned nuclear weapons altogether.
Our current nuclear situation escalated once more when the Bush administration launched a war over what it claimed was the possession of nuclear weapons by Iraq. Although, in fact, Iraq did not possess any. The Bush administration seemed thoroughly comfortable with his own command of some 10,000 nuclear weapons and his proposals for more.
Now there is pressure to get back on track toward a nuclear-free world. This is, in my opinion, the best decision in our current world. Peace and disarmament organizations have long championed nuclear abolition, and continue to do so. But they now have been joined by important segments of the foreign and domestic policy establishments. I completely agree with pressing for a nuclear free world because it will be a very important step towards world peace. If we can learn anything from history is that it repeats itself, so something like Hiroshima is bound to happen again. So the faster we step towards a nuclear-free world, the faster we prevent something as catastrophic, or even worse, than Hiroshima and Nagasaki from happening.
I think the general concept of a nuclear free world is great and something we should strive to achieve. If we were to hypothetically remove all nuclear weapons in the world, it would seem likely that tensions would decrease between rival countries. But is it really possible to rid the world of all nuclear weapons? I’m sure there could be measures taken that require countries to get rid of all their nuclear weapons, but how can we be sure that all weapons are accounted for? There are most likely non-governmental organizations producing at least some forms of nuclear weapons. How would Obama’s plan account for such occurrences? There is no way to completely get rid of nuclear weapons throughout the world.
However, I do think that it is good that Obama is at least making the effort to get rid of nuclear weapons. Even a reduction of nuclear weapons has the capability of reducing tensions around the world. Also, proposing such a plan can send the right message to the world, which is in a time requiring collective action to fix the world economy. If tensions related to nuclear arms diminishes, maybe countries can start working more closely together, leading to a collective effort to help out the economies around the world.
First off, obviously President Obama needs to renegotiate the START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) since it expires on December 5th of this year. Both the United States and Russia have enough nuclear arms to destroy most of the land on planet Earth. This is an unnecessary amount of weapons. As a result, it would not hurt for us to both reduce our nuclear arsenals. Some of Russia’s nuclear arms are not well defended and could easily be overtaken by even a small band of armed terrorists. This would be disastrous. Reducing the number of nuclear arms in each country’s possession would increase the security at each site and lessen the risk of terrorists possessing already made nuclear missiles.
President Obama is insane to believe that countries would be willing to simply hand him their nuclear missiles and become nuclear free. North Korea is suspected to have nuclear missiles and definitely has atomic bombs in its arsenal. They are a very poor country with many problems. They depend on other nations to feed their own people. Their only source of power in the international system is the threat of nuclear arms. They would never give up their only bargaining chip. Even some of our allies such as Israel would never give up its nuclear arms since it is a large bargaining chip for them as well.
The theory of Nuclear Deterrence is very similar to the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). No country would ever fire a nuclear missile at another country because they know that a retaliation attack will come and they will end up destroying themselves also. This is the mutually assured destruction that will occur. In other words, nuclear weapons actually lead to world peace since it prevents any country from attacking the other country due to the possibility of a nuclear counter attack. The Cold War was indeed a “Cold” war and not a “Hot” war due to nuclear weapons. There was no attack or invasion made by either the US or the USSR, as they each knew that this may cause one side to launch a nuclear attack on the other. This would in turn cause a counter nuclear attack therefore annihilating both countries.
A large part of the Nuclear Deterrence theory has to do with second-strike capability. The United States has the largest second-strike capability in the world. In essence, this is the ability of a country to survive a nuclear attack and respond with an attack of its own. This involves strategically placing your nuclear arms in a diverse set of locations. The United States has missiles stored in numerous countries abroad, miles underground, in numerous states within the US, and on some submarines underwater. This helps ensure that we would be able to respond to a nuclear attack made by any country. Knowing this, another country is much less likely to attack us in the first place, since harsh repercussions will occur.
Obviously, the potential for a complete large-scale annihilation of millions of people by the simple push of a button was much less likely to occur before nuclear weapons were created. However, the truth of the matter is that nuclear weapons are out there, and will continue to be out there. For the time being they are actually saving lives, as large scale invasions are stopped by the fear of a nuclear retaliation. Obama should realize this and focus on matters that are more important.
Let’s be clear- nuclear weapons cannot be un-discovered. Obama may think it is America’s “moral duty” to rid the world of nuclear weapons, but the technology to make new nuclear weapons will always be out there thanks to America and the other countries that have developed them.
If North Korea was able to create nuclear weapons as an undeveloped nation, almost anyone could create them with, barring they commit enough money and time. This means a terrorist organization could potentially produce nuclear weapons. This would be catastrophic and would disprove the theory of nuclear deterrence. It would be very hard to respond to an attack made by a terrorist organization since they cannot be directly retaliated on. This nightmare would also inhibit any second-strike capability.
Another problem is that some world leaders are willing to essentially sacrifice their nation by initiating a nuclear attack without considering the consequences. President Bush argued that this was the case in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein would not hesitate to destroy the U.S. if given a chance with nuclear missiles. He would consider it a great success even if we retaliated and wiped Iraq off the map. When ideologies collide with a nuclear arsenal, there is hardly an opportunity
The only real solution to the nuclear weapon issue is a strong defense. An advanced missile defense system is a global necessity. This would eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons all together and could one day render them useless. We must break the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and do our best to create a missile defense system that will prevent nuclear attack. This is what Obama should be doing instead of trying to convince everyone that a nuclear free world would could someday be a reality.
From a military standpoint our nuclear weapons give us extreme tactical advantages over our opponents. Most of the nuclear missiles in our arsenal are not the bombs previously referenced that were used in WWII. The majority of nuclear weapons that the U.S. military employs in their contingency are tactical nuclear warheads. While they still are nukes nonetheless, they are a far cry away from the unsophisticated warheads used 60 years ago. These weapons are concentrated and can create "targeted blasts". This minimizes collateral damages and the nuclear fallout. These nuclear weapons are not the ones that liberals visualize when they forecast nuclear holocausts, these are tactical weapons.
It is true that the United States still has hundreds on nuclear warheads that are simply designed for total destruction. These weapons are only used in military planning that involves revenge and preemptive strikes by other nuclear forces. These contingency plans are in place only because they have to be, not because we plan to initiate them. The fact is that we live in an unstable global environment and we are threatened not only by other nations, but by extremist organizations that operate in the shadows of undeveloped nations. We need military strength to survive in such an environment, and strength is no longer measured in troop count, but in the amount of nuclear weapons a country has. Our arsenal is the single largest deterrent against nuclear aggression. Before nuclear weapons (WWI), strength was measured by tanks and battleships; no one wanted to impose limits on those. It is in the nature of warfare that weapons advance in sophistication and the advancement into the nuclear age is no different. Years from now our ability to make war will have grown to much more dangerous levels and nuclear warheads will seem primitive.
To want to decrease our arsenal of nuclear warheads is to want to decrease our ability to wage war. In such a global climate that is the last thing we need.
In response to Baldino_Stephen, a nuclear free world is a great thought, maybe even an ideal; however, it is just not plausible. Technology today had made it possible for a country or terror organization to produce bombs too quickly, and for them to rise up and control the world. This is an extreme example, but so is a nuclear free world. In order to keep history from repeating itself, the threat of nuclear deterrence must be real.
Alex, you raise a good point, back in the day, “no one wanted to impose limits on [tanks and battleships].” When a new weapon was created, like the machine gun or the missile, these were viewed as unstoppable weapons, and eventually became commonplace in the military. I am not suggesting that nuclear bombs should become the next machine guns, but it is a different way to look at the situation. Machine guns have killed more people since their creation than nuclear weapons have since they were introduced to the world. Does this mean that we should have stopped the use of these guns? The answer is “No.” Machine guns were a necessity needed by countries to fight more efficient battles, and to keep up with their opponent. If countries did not upgrade to these guns, they would have been overmatched and lost every fight. Machine guns were the product of ever changing military technology, as were nuclear weapons. So it is clear that nuclear weapons will remain present, due to the need for the defense strategy of nuclear deterrence, until the next great military breakthrough comes along.
Post a Comment