A-Bombs, H-Bombs, ICBMs, submarines in the ocean and bombers circling overhead: I'm lost. There doesn't seem to be a right answer to this problem. The weapons can no longer be 'uninvented,' so how should the world's leaders form their policy to prevent mass poisoning? Tim Black is nibbling around the politicians' toes in this piece from Spiked.
Mr Black argues that President Obama is advocating nuclear non-proliferation as a part of a neo-imperialist attempt to deny small and medium sized countries from obtaining H bombs. They are doing this because small (and brown) countries must not have these weapons because they are, in Obama's view, too immature to avoid their use.
And so it was proved that Obama is just another one of the American establishment. Of mixed race or not, he still exhibits the shocking mark of European/English speaking prejudice.
I don't buy it. Not that I'm much of an Obama fan. If I'd had the vote (I'm not a US citizen) I probably would have voted for him. I don't believe him to be the second coming, nor the harbinger of the rapture, I just thought he was better than the other guy (and his running mate).
Is Obama perpetuating a myth of foreigners' political incompetency? I don't think so.
The US spends untold millions of dollars every year planning for the possibility of a nuclear exchange. They pay mathematicians good salaries to do game theory exercises involving innumerable players and situations. They understand the consequences of launching.
Mr Black accuses Obama of hypocrisy in calling for non proliferation since the US is, after all, the only nation to actually use these weapons offensively. This is a crass and unfair assessment.
During the pacific campaign the nuclear game was not what it has become. The consequences of a 'hot war' were entirely different. There was only the possibility of three explosions, with no retaliation. The worst scenarios now on the table involve possibly tens of thousands of significantly more powerful warheads in multiple waves of attacks, quickly following one another. Harry Truman and his commanders were given the choice of inflicting a cruel death on tens of thousands. They took it, they bear their responsibility. Similar fates had been inflicted upon equally innocent people in London and Tokyo, Dresden and Hamburg, and many other German cities, where firestorms burned for days. The world had for many of its inhabitants been in a state close to apocalypse for almost six years. The politicians of the time were desperate for any end to the horror.
Today we have some relative approximation of peace for the vast majority of the world's rich, the ones with control over the vast majority of the bombs. The wars that the United States and Europe are engaged in will not conceivably use nuclear weapons.
Now for my view.
Nuclear proliferation involving the US and Soviet union was a response to both sides' perception of a risk of conventional military invasion of them or their allies. A Soviet invasion of western Europe could not be resisted for any length of time. Nuclear bombs were a reasonable alternative to trying to equal Soviet conventional strength. This became a self sustaining system as lack of communication and ideological rhetoric became the basis for further fears. The Soviets believed that the US and it's allies hated them enough to use it's new weapons without warning. Any situation involving Stalin, hundreds of thousands of heavily armed men, hysterical anti Communism in the US congress and European allied states etc, is more likely to have negative outcomes than positive ones.
So what preserved peace? The same mechanism that preserved peace in Europe for the best years of the 19th century; the impossibility of any one side contemplating a successful military campaign against its enemies.
Unfortunately, the zero-sum games involved in cold war high strategy become much more difficult and unpredictable when you add extra players with equal military capacity. The more nuclear 'red buttons', the more territorial flash points and religious/ideological/nationalist fundamentalists, the more scope for mistakes. The more chance of MacArthur type leaders who see 'the bomb' not as an unavoidable and unbreakable new rule of conventional war, but as a viable option for the escalation of conflicts already begun.
To admit that there are people, potential soldiers and politicians, who would be prepared to use the worst weapon against their worst enemies, is not racist or neo-imperialist. Israel is an example of this. Given a massed invasion from its neighbouring countries, they will defend themselves by every means necessary. The same for North Korea. While Iran and Syria lack nuclear weapons, neither country will pursue the elimination of Zionism, which has been advocated in both countries. Neither is prepared to contemplate a war it cannot win. This may change if believers in religious or nationalist fundamentalism take power. Given that the weapons can no longer be 'uninvented', all we can hope is that either these countries will deny themselves the option, or will be enlightened enough to forbear when they do have the technology. It's probably impossible to prevent a really determined country from making a bomb; it can only be discouraged with peaceful relations and regional security.
Personally, I think US policy should now follow some premises:
*Russia is no longer a threat to the security of NATO, by direct invasion or insurgency.
*Current stockpiles in both Russia and the US are expensive, morally wrong, and at risk from terrorists. They should be reduced steadily, with the elimination of ICBMs with MIRV (multiple independent reentry vehicles) being the priority.
*Some smaller nations will now inevitably seek and attain these weapons. Rhetoric against them should be sober and realistic about the risks that they now pose to themselves and others.
*US doctrine should only allow use of weapons as a RESPONSE to major NBC attack on itself or its close allies - NATO/South Korea/Japan. The threat of preemptive strike is self defeating because it encourages others to level the playing field with their own non conventional means.
*Tactical and strategic weapons should be strictly limited to submarine based launch. This precludes any hope of a successful 'decapitation' attack from a foe.
*Non proliferation should come a close second to the ultimate goal - that these weapons never be used again in war.
No comments:
Post a Comment