The tensions in the Yellow Sea remind of both perils and virtues of possessing nuclear weapons. Since assuming office in 2009, the US President Barack Obama has been talking about the universal elimination of nuclear weapons; both vertically and horizontally. Republicans have been charging him of compromising American national security interests vis-a-vis Russia. They say that the START-3 treaty is asymmetric in the sense that it expects more from the US.
But Mr. Obama is not naive. When he talks about nuclear disarmament he is not saying that future weapons cannot be developed. The Pentagon is conceiving a non-nuclear weapon as powerful and destructive as nuclear weapons are. The effect of universal nuclear disarmament would not be symmetric and equal for all those who possess nuclear weapons.
Once the Russian Federation and China dispossess nuclear weapons they would lose dissuasive deterrence against the West. The same is not true for the US-led West. With nuclear weapons gone the predatory powers of Russia and China may go and so would be their protection to rouge states. Economic institutions would guide the world. Investments, integration of markets, export of inflation; both economic and non-economic, with the proposed homogeneity would guide the future evolution of the world. Moreover, the international agencies to supervise the non-proliferation efforts would lead to increased penetration by the West.
The world then would be more inclined towards the West and its diktat would more rule the world. The Russia and China would be subject to people-led changes and true Western-type democracies could be imagined there and in many other parts of the non-democratic world. This is a shrewd game but obviously Russia and China equally understand this. In real time it would never happen. Nor it should happen as the there is a real-time fear that balance among the various powers would go and seeing the unending dominance of the West, the economic activities and consumption may in fact decrease. The ideologies could take over from self-interests. Sure, these possibilities exist significantly in the possessed world as well.
There are great reasons for the world not to abandon nuclear weapons. The nuclear-weapon free world is not in the best interests of the US and other N5 members in view of increasing possibility of extraterrestrial super-intelligent species wandering about earth. It should be noted that all spaceships are military objects no matter how they are portrayed. All spaceships which can enter earth can destroy earth without affecting themselves and they understand the psychology of whole earth without revealing theirs.
Such spaceships may try to undo the hierarchies of the present global order or impose their own world order. Their acts depend on their numbers. Few among them, if there is more than one, can have enmity and that can get reflected on earth. In a fight among spaceships earth cannot imagine to get benefited. Obviously, the most powerful among the nations on earth should have ability to destroy part or full of earth, if their lives are in danger. This is particularly true for the US—if the US is at the risk of dying it would obviously like to destroy the rest of the world. But for that it needs to have nuclear weapons and if the US keeps them, all other members of the N5 would keep them as well.
Nuclear weapons are also required to stop the spaceship-led re-evolution on earth; life again starting after destruction and that spaceship controlling the earth. Therefore, the weapons should be as deadly as possible. They should be able to destroy all possible forms of life and also be able to destroy, minerals, precious metals, oil and other natural resources. It should be emphasized that a spaceship hostile to part or whole of earth can dictate the future evolution at its whim even if it does not try to destroy it. The Pentagon should never keep fictional wish to engage in a fight with spaceships but it should keep capability to destroy earth multiple-times.
The nuclear weapons are useful otherwise too, purely for earth reasons. They maintain the world predictable if there is no further proliferation. The equations among the nation-states are more or less known. If Chinese start fearing that US could attack it in order to bring about its desired changes then the whole China would become unstable and ultimately lesser consuming. The nuclear weapons have kept the US-Russia, US-China and Russia-China relations stable. The possession of nuclear weapons by just three Western nations; the US, the UK and France, when all can have, has maintained the stability of the West. The NATO is at the centerpiece of the stability of globe and France and Germany should not talk about parallelism.
The nuclear weapon possessions have also made uncontrolled full-fledged war between India and Pakistan lesser likely. It has also helped make Indo-China relations lesser predatory and more symbiotic.
The national missile defense (NMD), a brainchild of former President George Walker Bush, is multiplier of American interests and divider against opposition to American hegemony. It could be used as a tool to meet desirable political ends. Any possible threats to non-Russian Europe from Russia could be contained and even eliminated if the UK and France are protected by NMD. Similarly, Japan, South Korea and Singapore should come under US defense umbrella. But after so much power the US should act more fairly. While on economic governance Republicans are correct, they should dilute some of their hawkish attitudes on foreign policy issues.
The most popular citizen journalists' reports on merinews chosen automatically on the basis of views and comments
View more jobs