There are a few legitimate concerns about a nuclear tipped world, and they have been dealt with below. Possession of nuclear weapons by a nation does limit U.S. choices against that nation, but the concern is largely theoretical for any usage of nuclear weapons will result in a very strong response from US. The second concern is about the ability of nuclear weapons to annihilate civilization. This concern stems from our understanding of the severity of the nuclear threat from cold war days when a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union could have produced complete annihilation.
The scenario today is a bit different, and war between the U.S. and Russia, the only other power capable of delivering a similar nuclear response, is remote. Of course, conditions can change, but it still seems unlikely that we will reach such a scenario. Another facet that has garnered a lot of attention is the threat of terrorists using dirty nuclear bombs. There are two parts to the issue – one is state-sponsored terrorism which will be dealt in much the same way as response to conventional attack, and the second is threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons from stockpiles of nations. This second threat must be dealt with US trying to provide infrastructure and monetary assistance to countries to help them secure their stockpiles of nuclear material.
In all, we can take two things away from this discussion – the threat emanating from nuclear proliferation is greatly exaggerated, and that clichéd panic button responses of putting blanket sanctions against nations are unlikely to work.
Article comments
1 - Kyle
And here I thought N Korea wanted nukes because Kim Jong-Il was a paranoid megalomaniac. Nice article though.
2 - Mayank Austen Soofi
You are right. what's wrong with North Korea having an atomic weapon? Okay, Kim Jong-Il is a paranoid megalomaniac. But isn't Dubya the same? Okay, though the latter's country is partly more democratic but....really what's wrong? If India, Pakistan, Russia, England can have, why not North Korea? Is the world a more dangerous place now? Excuse me but USA remains the only country to actually kill people with a nuclear reaction.
The only solution, if we all desire a safe world, is to destory all the nuclear weapons of all the countries. Otherwise just learn to live with the bombs and their crazed owners. All or nothing at all.
3 - Felix
I dont think that North Korea only wants the Nukes for defense because if they were to use them against a country which does not have them the US and China would not nuke North Korea because of their Codes of Conduct... so it would still be a ground war!!!!
4 - Kyle
Mayank,
While I agree with you that destroying all the nuclear weapons, including those in the U.S. would be ideal, it will never happen. It's the 'put the toothpaste back in the tube' trick, it simply is not possible.
If the U.S. suddenly ponied up and said 'yep, we're destroying all our nukes, we hope everyone else does too', we'd be giving away any military superiority we think we have. We'd suddenly be at the military mercy of Russia and China, even India and Pakistan. It never should have gone this far but once nuclear weapons were produced, the only way to maintain good behavior by all was to have other countries with nukes. This happened not by design but by competition and fear.
All that being said, I absolutely believe that the international community has a responsibility to require every nation without nukes to refrain from aquiring them.
Just because history has provided this generation with the bomb doesn't mean we should throw our hands in the air and be ok with every maniac who gets his hands on the wheel having access to a weapon that can harm the entire globe. After all, radiation doesn't pay attention to borders.
5 - Kyle
Another thought. It shouldn't be merely the U.S. that enforces this non-proliferation. It should be the nations of the world that speak up and demand that N.Korea give up its nuclear aspirations. Everyone has a stake in this, not just the U.S.
6 - mike
The only way we can get ride of nuclear weapons in our world is removing the borders .. one world government a united world no more flags . if you like the idea pleas press your elected government officials to pass a law for world union and we all will live in peace and concentrate in space exploration
7 - Mayank Austen Soofi
Mike, don't tell me that you are so naive to actually believe that we won't have territorial disputes in Moon and Mars.
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Someone I know who was teaching in North Korea up to a year or two ago (he taught English at a school for the children of the élite there) learned from sources of his own that the basic reason the North Koreans want nukes is protection from the US and as a source of revenue. In our neighborhood (Syria and Iran) are about 1,000 North Korean missiles, the requisite missile launchers and North Korean tchs to do the firing. They are aimed a us, of course. As I've said elsewhere, if someone coughs up enough cash, the North Koreans will gladly provide nuclear tips or whatever to those missiles.
"Enough cash" means an awful lot of money, though, at least several hundred $ billions in gold or silver bullion, probably.
9 - Bliffle
It's a Camaro: every teenage boy, including Kim Song Il, wants one.
10 - Nancy
I thought I'd choke laughing when Bush declared that no other country would be "allowed" to go into space without his permission. Talk about megalomaniacs-! Kim is NOTHING compared to Dubya.
11 - steve
kim jong il has penis envy. he is trying to make up for a lack in that category. I really appreciated the philosophy of this article; namely the idea of allowing N. Korea to USE its weapon before we turn it into a parking lot.
12 - gonzo marx
it worries me that steve here knows the size of Kim Jong Il's dick...well, he woudl have to to come to the "penis envy" conclusion...
all that aside.. for Mayank in comment #2...
the difference is that the Nations you mention have not stated that they are willing to sell nuclear devices/tech to non-governmental agents who woudl actually use nuclear tech against innocent people...
theonly even close examples are from rogues in ex-soviet states and Pakistan...in both cases, at least their governments are attempting to stop said sales...
there is nothign to stop N Korea if they Kim Jong Il ecides to do so
big difference
Excelsior?
13 - Zedd
Gonzo please help me understand. We were able to prevent Russia from deploying but we wouldn't be able to deter N. Korea??
I just don't get how we get to tell anyone not to have weapons in their own country especially when we have more than everyone put together.
How does that work and why is it OK with everyone else (other countries)
Is it because we DID deploy the atomic bomb on Japan that we feel skiddish that others may follow suite because we are the leaders of the world?
I am lost on this one. I lack a sophistacated understanding of these matters. I guess I am looking at it in a school yard sort of way.
Please help me through this.
14 - gonzo marx
Zedd, you don't ask easy ones, do you?
a lot of it , when dealing with the soviets, had to do with the gunboat diplomacy of Mutually Assured Destruction, as well as both governments having a clear memory of how close the shitstorm came with the Cuban Missile Crises
lay that over the two Examples of what a nuke can really do, and the Knowledge that what they had now made Hiroshima and Nagasake look like wet firecrackers
as for the sticky one of who gets to have nukes, that is a really tough one
notice there was a lot of bluster when it came to India and Pakistan, but not much done about it.. the worry has always been Pakistan selling nukes or the tech... a well founded worry wiht what we know now
the Thinking is that the problem is MUCH worse in the case of N Korea.. not any knid of government except a very unstable dictator, national financial woes.. all add up to a genuine concern of selling weapons...not to mention the possibility of some kind of strike against S Korea or Japan
as to why... a bigger Question than the likes of me can Answer...
might have something to do with Nations trying to impose their Will on the world's Stage, to protect their Interests, and guard against possible threats whenever they can
hope that helps a bit
Excelsior?
15 - Zedd
Gonzo Thanks. That is what I suspected. The challenge that I am faced with is how it is decided what nations are allowed to have nukes. Is it the most wealthy and therefore the most influencial???
I can’t imagine that N.Korea would use nukes on populations at such close proximity to themselves. Also knowing that doings so, the US would be obliged to use nukes (not ground forces) to amend that action.
If the concern is that nukes may get into the wrong hands, that N.Korea or Iran will sell them to terrorist groups (that would be a huge bundle), there would have to be a criteria set by the UN to distinguish countries who are known to have sold weaponry to acknowledged terrorists, banning them from expanding their nuclear capability beyond a certain level. But I suppose there will have to be a comprehensive definition of what a terrorist is. Nelson Mandela and the ANC were considered terrorists at some point.....
However we the US will have to be more responsible about whom we support and understand that our international alliances will be more closely scrutinized. We won’t be able to do what we have done so freely in developing nations; supporting coup d’etas and various assassinations.
16 - michael hunter
Some people shouldn't have power when its to dangerous for the rest of us