Nuclear Weapons: The World's Greatest Force For PEACE

PERPETUAL WAR BETWEEN GREAT NATIONS

Throughout history, warfare between great nations has been a relative constant.  In ancient times the Greek city-states were engaged in a near perpetual state of warfare.  Rome battled Carthage for decades on end until one enemy was completely destroyed.  During medieval times European monarchies fought wars so regularly that the summertime was thought of as “campaign season” and each nation would battle throughout the warm weather and replenish their forces during the winter.  This never-ending warfare between powerful nations carried into the Industrial Age.  The Napoleonic Wars of the 19^th century.  Two wars fought between the Japanese and Russians in the early 19^th century.  The culminating conflicts of WWI and WWII which wrought destruction and death on scales never before seen in the history of mankind.  But after WWII, something strange occurred.  Wars between great nations ceased.  The power rivalries in Europe were replaced by an economic Union of nations.  Japan and China found a cold, but stable, peace.  What is there to explain the non-occurrence of a massive war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union?  It wasn’t the spread of democracy or human rights.  It wasn’t the remembrance of massive damage that occurred in WWI and WWII.  If that held true, WWII would have never occurred after the destruction wrought in WWI.  It wasn’t slick negotiating and communications between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.  There is one thing that can account for this absence of war between great nations since WWII and that is the creation, and proliferation (amongst rational actors) of nuclear weapons.

TWO SUPERPOWERS: NO WAR

The U.S. and the Soviet Union did not go to war because each side knew if they attacked the other, they themselves would be destroyed in the ensuing nuclear conflict.  This is a simple concept known as mutually  assured destruction (MAD).  Sure, the U.S. and Soviet Union fought proxy wars with one another, (Vietnam, Korea) but neither ever dared to risk a nuclear battle.   Before the advent of nuclear war, such smaller conflicts would almost definitely have led to a greater conflict between the two great powers. 

Since WWII, no two nuclear armed countries have engaged each other in major conflict.  The current nuclear armed countries are: France, The U.S., Russia, Great Britain, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and probably Israel. No wars have occurred between these countries since WWII.  The most fascinating case study is between India and Pakistan.  After the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan in 1947 the two countries have been engaged in a heated rivalry and fought three wars between 1947 and 1971.  But during the 1970’s it is suspected that both sides gained nuclear weapons capabilities.  Since then, with terrorist attacks aside, the two countries have only engaged in one armed conflict, the Kargil Conflict in 1999 which was more like a minor scuffle than a war.   And even so, the presence of nuclear weapons on both sides most likely prevented the countries from escalating the Kargil Conflict even further.

THE NUCLEAR BLANKET

Pushing beyond two-country rivalries, these nuclear nations have even extended their nuclear umbrella to cover other nations.  The U.S. warmly embraces Japan in its nuclear blanket preventing any possibility of war between them and their historical rival, China.  The combined nuclear shield of the U.S., Great Britain and France guarantees the protection of all the European countries from intrusion by other nuclear powers.  Just as the U.S. extends its sphere, China and Russia’s blanket guarantees non-intervention in their zone of influence.  We didn’t see the U.S rushing to assist Georgia in their recent tit-for-tat with the Russians.  The world has essentially been divvied up by the nuclear powers and a significant portion of it is off-limits for war.  These days people are up in arms about the threat that China poses to the U.S.  You can sleep soundly at night.  There will never be war between the two countries.  Both countries would be completely wiped out.  It ain’t gonna happen.  We both have rational governments and countries full of people who value their continued existence.  All of this is thanks to the hugely destructive power of nuclear weapons and MAD. 

You see, in the past leaders could gamble with war.  And they did, especially when they thought they could win.  But now, the risk is too great.  And it doesn’t matter if you outnumber another nation two to one in terms of population, weapons or resources.  If they have nuclear backup, your'e screwed.  Nuclear weapons are the great equalizer.  Its why the little countries want them and the big countries don’t want anyone else getting them.

A HISTORY OF PEACE

Now, I’m not saying that nuclear weapons aren’t a scary thing, because they are, and in the hands of a non-rational actor they are the single greatest threat to the future of mankind.  But they have brought us peace for the last 60 years and have allowed us to develop economic and cultural ties that bind the world together.  Just remember, the next time you wish for a world without nuclear weapons, imagine the loss of human life that would have occurred if the U.S was forced to invade Japan.  Think of what a conventional war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union would have looked like.  Do you really think Europe, after all of its decades of infighting, would have been so peaceful and harmonious for the past half-century in a world without nuclear weapons.  So the next time you pine for the elimination of nuclear weapons, think hard about it, and be careful what you wish for….

Why Obama Will Win in 2012

It doesn’t matter what the talking heads are clucking about: Obama is going to win in 2012.

Here are a few indicators:

Not even the Republican Party itself thinks it can win.  This is evidenced, not by the quality of the candidates that are in the race, but by the quality of the candidates not in the race.  For example, Mitch Daniels opted out of the race. He was 2 time governor of Indiana with experience in the executive branch under Bush II.  He balanced the state’s budget, enacted stronger abortion regulations and instituted a school voucher system.  Another example: Chris Christie refused to run despite the GOP practically begging him to do so. He’s a wildly popular straight talking governor of liberal New Jersey.  His entry would surely push aside the current front-runner and give the party a shot to steal a Northeastern state.  The list goes on: Haley Barbour, Marco Rubio, John Thune, Mike Huckabee, Scott Brown, Sarah Palin.

Now I know that not all of these candidates are rock stars, but I'd be willing to bet that a field which included Daniels, Christie, Rubio and Thune would be a lot scarier to the Democrats than Romney, Cain and Perry. 

There’s a whole host of reasons one can use to explain why these people aren’t running, but I only buy one: its because they don’t think they can win.  All of them want to be president. You will see these names again and they will be on a presidential primary ticket, but it won’t be next year.  It will be in 2016, when Obama is out of office.

The next question is: why are they not confident in their chances?  Well, I don’t have the facts to back this up (thank you Herman Cain) but here goes:

1.      Obama is an incumbent.  Incumbency is the greatest  advantage that a candidate can have.  As president you can use the bully pulpit to garner all of the attention and campaign all the time. 

2.       Obama has Money.  This is essentially the same as the first.  Because incumbents represent the status quo, they garner the most donations.  They also have the forum (the Presidency) to attract the donors and the funds.  It’s a vicious circle.

3.       Obama is still very likeable.  No matter what people say about his policies and no matter how bad you may think his performance on the economy is, people still like him on a personal level.   He’s a family man, he’s funny and he has a pretty good reputation for being honest and trustworthy (as far as politicians go).  The polling backs this up and likeability is often very, very indicative of voting patterns.

4.       And despite the “lack of results” on the economic side of the coin, Obama has kicked ass on foreign policy:

·         Obama got Bin Laden.

·         Obama’s ending, literally ending, the war in Iraq.

·         Obama got Gaddafi

·         He’s kept the country safe from terrorist attacks

5.       Also, he’s supported some very popular legislation

·         Financial Reform

·         Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

He’s done some unpopular things too: mainly Healthcare Reform, but the entire universe does not revolve around one piece of legislation and the American people take a holistic approach to electing presidents.

The lesson of 2004. One last reason why the Republicans are basically opting out of this election, they remember 2004.  In 2004, Bush had lost much of the massive popularity he enjoyed early in his first term.  People were skeptical.  There was a lot of tough media coverage on him, and in better times, he may have lost.  But that’s the point exactly.  In 2004 we were mired in war and uncertainty, and during times of doubt, the American people thought it better not to change captains halfway across the ocean.  They decided to give Bush another chance.  Let him finish what he started.  This same principle applies now to Obama.  He came into office in a time of great turmoil and confusion.  The American people know that it took more than 4 years to come out of the Great Depression.  It took more than 4 years to win WWII and rebuild Europe.  It took more than 4 years to stare down the Soviet Union and end the Cold War.  Despite what people may think, the American people do not lack patience or fortitude.  We possess it in abundance.  The people will give Obama four more years to fix this mess.  They know that nothing short of superpowers could have done so sooner.  The G.O.P. knows this too, and that is why they will sit out this race, and hope that 2016 can bring them greater fortune.

Herman Who?

I see Cain as the third, or perhaps fourth, in a chain of candidates.  The chain began with Palin, but probably more accurately, with Trump, then Bachmann, now Cain.  This is the far right wing of the Republican Party, who just cannot stand Obama.  They want someone who will take it to him. And take it to him hard. They want someone with charisma (something that Romney lacks) and hard knocks.  The problem is, these people (and candidates) are out of touch with American society as a whole.  They stress these social issue that are not front and center right now and they talk about foreign policy like were living in the 18th century.  Its kind of strange and discomforting to watch.  The Republicans used to put up war veterans with decades of public service and gobs of foreign policy experience.  What happened to candidates like Bush I, Bob Dole, John McCain (i know, i know, but it was a democratic year).   With Reagan and Bush II, they were both two time governors with military experience. I dont fully understand this Palin/Trump/Bachmann/Cain affair.  Its a guttural reaction to the current state of affairs. Like I said before, I think the best candidates are out of the race, and Romney and Perry are the only serious contenders.