Total Pageviews

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

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 19th century.  Two wars fought between the Japanese and Russians in the early 19th 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….

10 comments:

  1. As you said, peace through nuclear weapons only exists when a nuclear country is lead by a rational leader. North Korea's leadership is not rational and they would absolutely sell nuclear weapons to terrorists. And if terrorists use that weapon to attack the American homeland (or the homeland of an ally), and we discovered the weapon came from the North Koreans, I just don't see how we would not retaliate with a nuclear bomb in return. Then, who knows?

    Peace through nuclear weapons completely hinges on rational and reasonable people running the show.

    I'm not sure what the answer is as far as containing North Korea's nuclear capabilities. But it must be contained one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What makes Iran so different from the all other countries with nukes? North Korea is crazy as fuck and they have nukes. Khazakstan, Ukraine, Pakistan, Russia, its not like those countries aren't totally corrupt and likely to sell bombs to anyone. The idea that Iran is somehow different because they are a bunch "craaazzzy suicidal muslims" is racist horse shit. Iran is not some person, Iran is a country full of millions of people. I highly doubt they are cool with vaporizing all of humanity or that they don't value existence. Amadinnejad may say some crazy stuff but he's not the dictator of the country, he doesn't even have as much political power as the US president does. Its pretty obvious that they want nuclear weapons for their own security. They saw what happened to Saddam and Israel is pretty open about the fact that they want to bomb them. Besides, its inevitable that Iran will have nuclear weapons sometime in the future, unless of course we go to war with them, and if you think invading Iraq was bad Iran would be 1000 times worse. Which brings us full circle to your original argument that nukes are a force for peace.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The last comment was a post by a reader. Here is my response: The way Ahmadinejad goes around talking, hes lucky they havent been hit yet. I take offense to your racist comment. It has nothing at all to do with race and you pretty much pulled that one out of the sky. During the Iran-Iraq war the Iranians used waves of child soldiers to slow the advance of Iraqi forces. Those other countries that you named dont have their entire governmental system set up around religion. You want to talk about racism? Listen to the stuff that comes out of Ahmadinejad's mouth. He may not be their dictator, but he is the organ and voice of their dictator: the Ayatollah. Do you want a priest in charge of your country? I think its a downright tragedy that North Korea has the bomb, it only means that they can continue to oppress, brainwash and murder their own people. Kind of like Iran did when Iranian civilians took to the streets in 2009 to protest their own government. Do you remember how they met those protests? I do. With gunfire into crowds of civilians. You need to get your priorities straight man. The U.S. isn't perfect, but if you think Iran isn't a bad apple, you have serious problems.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not saying that Iran isn't an asshole country, but they certainly won't be the first asshole country to have nuclear weapons. In fact, you could probably make the argument that every country with nuclear weapons is an asshole country. What I'm trying to say is that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, we will have to approach them with the same level of respect we do with other countries. The shit with Iran is pretty scary, but just think about this, either we reach an agreement and they don't build nukes, or we go to war which would certainly involve millions of causalties, totally destablize an already unstable part of the world, and maybe make a nuclear conflict inevitable. I can tell you now that there is no way that Iran would stop pursuing nukes unless we lifted our embargos on them, signed trade and peace agreements, acknowledged their sovereignty and yes, make some concessions. You said yourself that nukes are the great equalizer, Iran wants equality with other superpowers its size and the more we isolate them and treat them like a problem child the greater the more radical they will become. So the only way to bring about peace will be swallowing our pride and making some concessions to Iran, whether its halting Israeli expansion or removing US bases from the middle east. I'm no fan of Iran but we're just going to have to deal with it.
    Furthermore I think you have some misconceptions about the functioning of the government of Iran. The ayatolla does not have sole control of the country, he works with a Grand Council of sorts who along with the Elected Officials and the military run the country. Power is more decentralized there then we are led to believe, and believe it or not some of their leaders are rational. Furthermore the current Ayatolla issued a fatwa against the stockpiling of nuclear weapons and said that it is against Islam. And its not like these people take their religion and Fatwas lightly. And if they do ignore the fatwa and build nukes, then perhaps they aren't as fanatically religious as we like to think.
    As for the racism comment I didn't mean to suggest that you are a racist, but you have to admit that there is a considerable amount of anti muslim and anti middle eastern sentiment in this country. We have a congressman call Ahmadinnijad "that little man in the desert". Iran isn't even a desert country how can you say that isn't racism. There is so much anti middle eastern rhetoric in this country its ridiculous, just look at the Republican party and what they are saying, its disgusting.
    Finally, in terms of nuclear proliferation, I think that homo sapiens sealed their fate in the 20th century when they decided to build over 20,000 nuclear warheads, far more then we ever would need to kill off our species. And dozens upon dozens of them are completely unaccounted for today. It is inevitable that a nuclear attack will occur at some point in the future, whether it be 10 or 1000 years from now. The real test of humanity will not be if a device is detonated, but what the response would be after the first attack. The only way humanity will survive this dangerous stage of history would be if a country refused to retialate against a nuclear attack. In light of everything I think its ridiculous to continue pursuing a dick measuring contest to see who can blink first while using humanity as collateral. 9/11 did not make the US more rational, it certainly didn't make us reconsider the flaws in our foreign policy. Attacking Iran will not make them any more rational either. So we can either drop the pretenses and stop the bullshit tough guy talk and be the better man, or we can cling to our guns and escalate things further. What do think we should do about Iran?
    -Dan

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with much of what you said Dan. I am not for the anti-middle east fervor that exists in this country. But I am for freedom, and I am against the injection of religion into politics and law. I think that structuring a government around any religion is a bad idea. Sharia law and religious leaders running a country is just plain wrong to me. The system that exists in Iran is kind of scary to me. Now there are lots of bad countries, but the countries with nuclear weapons right now, have proven to be fairly responsible with them. Even Pakistan. But Pakistan is a whole other animal. The point Im trying to get at is, I think that we should do everything we can, minus a direct attack, to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Additionally, I think we should encourage democracy and freedom in that country and actively work to promote a change in government in that country.

    Democracy is spreading throughout the Middle East, but the regimes in Syria and Iran are holding on with an iron grip. If we can non-militarily promote overthrows of those governments, I believe we should.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you really want to see peace in the Middle East, I think that we need the majority of those countries to have legitimately elected, democratic governments. The U.S. and Europe are not gonna bully around democracies the way we do dictatorships. Democracies tend to cooperate more with each other and have rarely, if ever, gone to war with one another. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory)

    So Im not trying to single out Iran. Any non-democratic nation that doe snot afford its citizens a certain degree of individual liberty, should not be on our list of friends.

    Also, if anyone attacks Iran, we know it wont be the U.S., it will be Israel.

    What we need is cooperation from all 5 members of the Security Council, to prevent nuclear proliferation. Bringing Russia and China into the fold is a necessary step. Its in the interest of the entire world to work against proliferation. Once China and Russia realize this, I think well be much better off. Those countries also use oil.

    I think that China and Russia like to use Iran and North Korea to keep the U.S. preoccupied, so were not focusing our attention on them and the way they run their countries. Also, we are all rivals for the worlds resources and China and Russia are not as dependent on the Middle East as we are, so they don't mind promoting trouble over there, to stick it to us.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The problem for China and Russia, with this strategy, is that the world is rapidly industrializing and globalizing. If this recent recession proves anything, its that the global economy is so inextricably linked that trouble in one nation easily pours into the next. They are stuck in this Cold War, realpolitik, mentality. In the long run though it may hurt them. Stirring up trouble for the U.S. (and Europe) through these proxy countries is a huge risk. War with Iran or North Korea would be sure to destabilize the economic system for years to come. Its in their economic interest to help the Western Powers get these countries under control.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The first thing we should probably do is stop with the economic sanctions of countries like Iran. Its economic sabotage, basically punishing the people of a country for having a bad government. Plus sanctions seem to only draw people closer to their governments and haven't really worked at causing regimes to collapse or change their ways. One good thing about capitalism is that it seems to seduce people away from radicalism and liberalizes societies to a degree. The more we can get inside Iran the more likely we will be able to spread liberal ideas.
    That being said one of the compromises of the nuclear age is putting up with differences. China certainly isn't any kinder to its citizens then Iran is, and what they are doing in Tibet is just wrong. But I guess we just have to deal with it. We can let them know that we think its bullshit, but I don't think economic sanctions is helping the people of Iran or showing them how humanitarian we are. Pakistan is an interesting example and goes to show that while nukes may not stabilize a country internally, they certainly seem to stabilize a country's foreign policy. Despite its internal problems, Pakistan has been remarkably agreeable with its neighbors since getting the bomb.
    Right now the main problem with Iran is that we want Iran to abandon its entire nuclear program as a pre-condition for negotiations, and Iran denies that it even wants nukes so we are kind of at an impasse. I personally don't see the big deal with Iran having a civilian nuclear power program, lots of countries do that, and if we could go to the table with open negotiations and no preconditions we could play a bigger role in ensuring it stays for civilian purposes. Also Israel has just got to stop being so hostile to everyone, they are becoming a liability for the US and I don't see peace in the middle east anytime soon unless Israel and Iran can enter into a non-attack treaty with the US and UN guranteeing protection of one of them if the other attacks. Its especially worse when you have evangelicals in this country, the so called "Christian Zionists" who actually want to see a nuclear showdown between Iran and Israel. Although I don't see how you can be a zionist if you really want Israel to be destroyed. Instead of aiming our guns at the religious radicals in other countries we should probably be looking at the ones we have here...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Economic sanctions arguably, hurt the people, but they definitely hurt the regime. Im for damaging the regime. Diplomatically engaging with Iran would also legitimize the regime. They don't deserve to be legitimized. The Iranian people want freedom, their government is denying it to them. I dont think lifting sanctions on them or lightening our rhetoric would be productive. The way Ahmadinejad runs around talking about the Holocaust and the Jews, there is just simply no way we can deal with that regime and legitimize them. The people rose up in that country and the regime suppressed them with deadly force. I stand by the citizens of Iran. The U.S. stands with the people of Iran. The regime is despicable and deserves to be toppled. They can have a peaceful nuclear energy program when they decide to respect the rights of their citizens. They kicked inspectors out of their country. They are developing nuclear energy to use for power and to weaponize it. When they have a legitimately elected leadership which represents the people and respects human rights we can play ball. Until them, we should promote overthrow. And yesm the sanctions hurt the people, but the people need to look at why they are being sanctioned and recognize that its the fault of their government. And if the sanctions lead to economic strain, which leads to popular unrest, so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm also for political change in China and Russia and every other country in this world which disrespects natural human rights. Youre right, China is too powerful for us to really force internal change. Were stuck with it. But if we had the power, we should act on it. We have the power to force change in Iran, we should act on it. Like we did in Libya, and Egypt, we should promote the overthrow of dictatorships across the globe. Where we can act, and have an effect, without great risk to our country, we should. It is a moral imperative.

    ReplyDelete