When it came to implementing a nuclear non-proliferation policy that works, Israel demonstrated one method in 1981 when they bombed the Iraqi nuclear program out of existence - just eradicate the opponent nuclear capacity before your enemy has a chance to develop a weapon. This Israeli approach is the beginning of new concept- not all nations are equal nor should all nations have nuclear weapons. Some nations just cannot be trusted with the bomb.
We can no longer keep the nuclear genie in the bottle. There are some nations in whose hands nuclear weapons may in fact be stabilizing. In the 19th century, Europe was dominated by a concert of leading powers, whose goal was to maintain the peace and European stability after the end of the Napoleonic wars. What is required today is a similar concert of democratic states ranging from Japan, India, Russia, United States and Europeans powers to ensure a new stability. In this new era of terror, stability is dependent upon this new concert of nations acting in harmony. Unfortunately The Gulf War II has shown that many nations don’t’ have the same interest in the restraining rogue nations from getting nuclear weapons. (France was instrumental in helping Iraq in getting started on their nuclear capacity and was the recipients of Saddam’s bribes. It appears that financial consideration is more important than worldwide security for some.)
The biggest problem with nuclear non-proliferation is the unrealistic approach that good intentions are enough to ensure enforcement. We already know that Israel has nuclear weapons, even though it is not a publicly acknowledged fact. Israel ‘s nuclear program is strictly designed to send a message to any potential enemy, that attempting a second Jewish holocaust could mean the elimination of a few millions Arabs. In the Middle East, Iran has been working for years on extending their own nuclear capacity. (Iraq, too, was pursuing nuclear weapons but between the Israeli air strike and two losing wars with the United States - Iraqi nuclear ambitions were eliminated.) Nuclear weapons and the missile technology that carries those weapons is a half-century old, so these weapons are easily within the reach of any country with the will and scientific know how. Americans needs to accept the fact that some nations will obtain nuclear weapons, regardless of international pressure.
One important aspect of stopping nuclear proliferation is stronger belief in our own culture. Often in the past, nuclear proliferation was treated as if each nation was morally or immorally equivalence. There is a difference between a nuclear bomb in the hand of a democratic nation such as India, Great Britain or France and the bomb in the hands of Iranian mullahs or a North Korean madman. Nuclear non-proliferation needs to concentrate upon those rogue nations that threaten the general peace.
Article comments
1 - RJ
But the Luddites on the Left don't think a missile defense is possible. They are much more secure in the knowledge that murderous dictators have signed a piece of paper promising to be good in the future...
2 - JR
Technophiles on the Left also don't think a missile defense is possible.
3 - Hal Pawluk
American missile defense systems do not work. The Pentagon has said our missile defense systems cannot possibly stop missiles.
And missiles are not the threat.
You people need to realize that the Cold War is over.
4 - RJ
Gee, didn't the Soviets have a missile defense in place to protect Moscow? And don't the Israelis have a defense of their own right now?
5 - Hal Pawluk
Tom, I got your email but the whole point of Blogcritics is to have a publick discussion.
If you care to post a message here, I'm sure you'll get some response.
6 - tom donelson
Thank you to those who responded,
A few points- If missiles were not a threat then why are the Iranians and North Koreans working on improving their technology? The answer, it allows their regime to survive and I might add, to possibly blackmail of local neighbors.
There are more than enough experts who say quite frankly that the technology can work including within the defense department. And we are talking missile technology that is half a century old. Many of these missiles that Iran and North Korean are less advance than much of what is contain in the US and Russian arsenal. So that idea that we could not find some defense against a half century technlogy is rather luddite and defeatist. I will add that India and Japan among other nations are interested in pursuing SDI technology. This is not a pipe dream.
In 1988, I ran a congressional campaign and on a discussion of SDI, my candidate told me that SDI willl prove useful against regional powers such as Iran. She proved to be a prophet. My piece was designed for changing world and the bottom line is that how do we deal with rogue states who are attempting to gain nuclear and biological campacity?
In the Iranian-Iraq war as well as the first Gulf War, missiles were used. So the question remains how do we stop countries like Iran from getting the bomb and develop the technology to deliver the payload? Sanctions? Negiotations? military actions? Would our regional allies be under a potential nuclear blackmail and would our ability to attack terrorist in those areas be untenable if these nations had nuclear arms? The point is that we are dealing with half-century technology that can be defended and if you are going to begin the process of ridding the world of nuclear weapons then one way is to make the weapons obsoleate to begin with. The woman, Ms. Mary Ellen Lobb, had it right 16 years ago. She understood that when the cold war ended, other threats would be upon us.
Finally, one point that is important. Without SDI as part of a our strategic planning, many nations such as South Korea, Taiwain and Japan may feel need to develop their own nuclear campacity to safeguard their national security if they feel that the United States will not help in their defense. As one Chinese General wrote in the mid 90's, will the United States sacrfice LA for Taiwain?
So I came up with ideas to deal with nuclear proliferation. So here is my challenge. Come up with a counter idea on how to stop Iran and other nations from getting the bomb, I would be interested.
Sincerely,
Tom Donelson