J. Robert Oppenheimer, the “father” of the atomic bomb, famously said of his role in the Manhattan Project: “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” President Ronald Reagan hoped that they would become obsolete: “I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.” Colin Powell shared the same wish: “Today I can declare my hope and declare it from the bottom of my heart that we will eventually see the time when that number of nuclear weapons is down to zero and the world is a much better place.” Margaret Thatcher had a different idea: “A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.” The late British Prime Minister is correct. A world without nuclear weapons would be less safe. In fact, a world where more nations had nuclear weapons would most likely be a more peaceful world. What follows is an encomium for nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are good. Nuclear weapons have saved hundreds of thousands and perhaps even millions of lives. Nuclear weapons have prevented mass conflicts among superpowers in a manner superior to any diplomacy or treaty.
The United States, of course, developed its first atomic weapons during World War II. The Soviets successfully tested an atomic bomb a few years later in 1949. While countless individuals have screamed about the horrific nihilistic senselessness of mutual assured destruction, nuclear deterrence undoubtedly prevented the Cold War from erupting into World War III. Without the specter of unleashing the nuclear genie from its bottle, there is no doubt that a global war would have been ignited in Europe sometime during the 20th century. The Soviet Union would have no doubt eventually decided to invade West Berlin or perhaps even West Germany as a whole. Or perhaps like the events which brought about the Great War, some treaty obligation would have caused the United States and the Soviet Union to go to war over some insignificant little country. Without nuclear deterrence, a second Korean War would have been inevitable. Without nuclear deterrence, India and Pakistan would have ultimately fought a war which dwarfed all others in the history of the Indian subcontinent in death and destructiveness. In short, it is good that the United States, the Soviet Union, and China possess nuclear weapons.
In fact, it is good that a “rogue” nation like North Korea possesses nuclear capability. It would be even better if more nations had nuclear weapons. If Saddam Hussein did have nuclear weapons, the United States would not have invaded Iraq. Over 4,000 dead American military personnel would still be alive as would perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. If Iran had nuclear weapons, the Iran–Iraq War would never have been fought. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians and Iraqis would still be alive. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate insurance against being invaded and conquered. Even the belligerent United States has shown no taste for going to war against nuclear armed enemies such as North Korea. One of the main reasons that the United States dreads the idea of Iran ever acquiring nuclear weapons is that it will no longer be possible to invade Iran in some corporatist war for oil companies.
Here is where it becomes more complex. Despite the fact that nuclear weapons save lives, in most cases using them would be morally wrong and would likely constitute a war crime. President Harry S. Truman proved himself to be a sadistic monster and a war criminal by his use of the atomic bombs against Japan in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Article 23 of the Laws of War prohibits the use of “poisoned weapons.” While this was probably meant to merely ban mustard gas and other chemical weapons, in what way are any of these more poisonous than radioactive weapons? The same article also makes it forbidden to: “employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.” There is no doubt that using nuclear weapons would cause unnecessary suffering in almost all instances. This was certainly true when President Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan’s naval fleet was destroyed, and most of its cities lay in ruins. Its people were demoralized and the island was surrounded. The Japanese wished to surrender and all that they wished was to be allowed to “save face” by keeping their beloved Emperor. Oddly enough, Hirohito was ultimately allowed to remain the figurehead of Japan. At the end of the day, all that the atomic destruction did was serve as an ominous warning to the Soviets. It is unclear why simply demonstrating the deadly capability of the atomic bomb on some deserted atoll for the benefit of the Soviets would not have served equally well to deter them from invading Western Europe.
Many will object that some radical Muslim nation or other will use nuclear weapons against Israel, the United States, or some other American ally. However, notice that the United States has been the only nation to ever employ nuclear weapons in war. The use of a single WMD against the United States or any of its allies would inevitably lead to the destruction of the nation which used that WMD. Even the most zealous radical Muslim leaders tend to prefer life, luxury, and continued power to a martyr’s death. Notice that Osama bin Laden never strapped explosives to himself and blew himself up in a suicide attack. He ordered others to do that. The leadership of Muslim nations which possessed nuclear weapons would zealously prevent terrorists from acquiring such weapons because if terrorists used a nuclear device, it would inevitably be traced to the nation of origin and that nation would be destroyed. Iraq was destroyed for having imaginary WMDs and sharing these imaginary WMDs with imaginary Al Qaeda allies. Imagine what would happen if some nation shared real WMDs with real terrorists.
Nuclear weapons should have provided a large peace dividend for the American people. With the American nuclear arsenal, there is no way that the United States could ever be invaded. Therefore, there was never a reason to give so much money to the Military-Industrial Complex for weapons that will never need to be used. If American foreign policy were sane like the non-interventionist policy of the Founders, then there would be no reason to waste so much money on national defense. Even if the United States nevertheless decided to continue having an insane progressive/neoconservative interventionist foreign policy, if American allies all possessed nuclear weapons, then none of these nations would require being made into national security wards of the United States. These nations would be able to deter invasions on their own.
Of course, with greater proliferation comes the increased possibility of an accidental discharge leading to Armageddon. There have been notorious close calls. Unfortunately, there is always a downside to anything. However, the benefits of nuclear deterrence far outweigh the costs and potential harms. In the second half of the 20th century and early 21st century, nothing has preserved life and liberty as effectively as have nuclear weapons. Margaret Thatcher, as she so often was, was correct again.
No comments:
Post a Comment