It doesn't help our efforts in non-proliferation by developing new "more usable" nuclear weapons. Cooler heads have prevailed on capital hill for at least a moment (but don't get me started on how some Republicans wanted access to our individual tax returns).
By Walter Pincus (Link)
Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - "Congress has eliminated the financing of research supported by President Bush into a new generation of nuclear weapons, including investigations into low-yield atomic bombs and an earth-penetrating warhead that could destroy weapons bunkers deep underground."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Whew. I was affraid we'd one day be able to defend ourselves, Israel, and our other allies from the likes of Iran and North Korea. Thank God, I don't have to worry about that anymore.
as for your note on the nuclear weapons, I will give a brief response. I am not sure if you had much exposure to the nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR. You probably know the term MAD (mutual assured destruction). The fact that the US and the USSR knew that both nations would be absolutely destroyed was the greatest deterrent for either nation starting major aggressions against the other. The greatest destabilizing event in the 60 standoff the two nations had was when Regan pushed forward with the "star wars" initiative. This was theoretically merely a defensive tool to protect ourselves, right? The effect was destabilizing because if we can protect ourselves from a USSR attack, that gives us less reason NOT to attack them pre-emptively. Thus, the fact that we would be able to protect ourselves actually made the world less safe. It sounds silly, but true.
similarly, if we have a "less destructive" nuclear weapon that we theoretically would be "more likely" to use than a conventional nuclear weapon, it make the whole process less stable. Especially with a president like Bush who has a pre-emptive mentality and is seen as having an agenda other than a purely defensive one. If Iran or North Korea are able to develop a nuclear weapon that has the ability to reach the united states, and if they launched it, they would be ensuring their own destruction. While 10 or even 20 nuclear missiles would cause extreme damage to the US, it is nowhere near enough to destroy us. We have the satellites to know exactly where a missile would be launched from and we would have the ability to respond 10 fold. The real concern is a nuclear weapon being smuggled into the US, not launched from foreign soil. The money that Bush wanted for this program should instead be used to shore up the loose nukes floating around the former soviet union. Additionally, it is very difficult to negotiate a disarmament of Iran or North Korea when we are developing newer and better nukes. For example, say you don't get along with your neighbor and he has a hand gun. You might feel obligated to purchase a gun for your own protection. so, now you both have a gun. Things are more dangerous, but not yet out of control. Now say your neighbor insists you give up you gun, but at the same time is going out and buying a sniper rifle. How willing would you be to give up your gun? How legitimate would you feel your neighbors position is if he is demanding you disarm while he upgrades? You might be able to justify giving up your hand gun if he only has a hand gun because he can only use it at a close range and as long as you stay in your yard and he stays in his yard he won't get you (but with the sniper rifle, he can shoot you from his upstairs window while you are sitting in your living room). He can claim the sniper rifle is purely defensive, but by protecting himself, he has made you feel less safe, especially if you see him as being unstable. If he has the sniper rifle, you have to decide do you sit back and hope he doesn't shoot you? Do you sneak over and try to take him out first while he is sleeping. Basically, when talking about military deterrence, you not only have to think about what makes you feel safer, but what makes the other guy feel safer also.
Both the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 and WWI were precipitated by each side thinking the other side was getting too strong and a need to destroy the other before they got too strong and they lost their opportunity. This pattern goes as far back as the wars between Sparta and Athens (that is about as far back as I have studied at least). If you would like a very good book that gives you a better understanding of today's geopolitical atmosphere through an ancient conflict, read "the Peloponnesian War" by Donald Kagan. Don't worry, it is historical and not partisan.
So much for a short rebuttal....
Post a Comment