Zero is too much
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has adopted, hook, line and sinkers--the vision of a world free of nukes. It is a vision that has been promoted previously by four very senior statesmen, all of whom made their names during the Cold War. George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn. They have popularized the idea that the best way to protect the world from nuclear weapons is for the United States and Russia to lead--by first reducing their nuclear stockpiles, and eventually moving to zero. This move in turn is expected to inspire other nations to reduce their stockpiles or give up on their ambitions to acquire nuclear arms--and to pressure those so inclined, to desist.
One Obama official suggested that by going for zero we will occupy the moral high ground, take away "one of Iran's talking points" and "stop the Indians from whining." (Indians are among those who have frequently complained that they are asked to join the NPT and live with its restrictions while the US and Russia, France and Britain are not living up to their treaty obligations to eliminate their nuclear stockpiles.)
If one refuses to shut down one's critical mind, one soon notes that this approach is based on shiploads of wishful thinking and may well distract attention from urgent priorities. The precept that because the United States and Russia talk up a world without nukes (a world which is indeed very far over the horizon, given the grave dangers for a nation that disarms if the other successfully hides a few nuclear bombs) this will inspire other nations to give up their bombs or nuclear ambitions, has no legs. This is even more true for the notion that if the United States and Russia reduce their stockpiles to 1,500 warheads (below the current ceiling of 2,200)--or some other such number-- this too would somehow inspire other nations to pack in their nuclear ambitions.
Above all, one must fear that pursuing such pie in the sky schemes will distract attention from the most serious threat to our security, that of our allies, and to world peace, which is very widely agreed to be that terrorists will get their hands on a ready-made nuclear weapon. (Making new ones is much more of a challenge), The most likely place for terrorists to steal, bribe their way to, or otherwise commandeer nuclear weapons is Pakistan.
No one serious thinks that if the United States and Russia live up to their commitments under the NPT, this will lead Pakistan to give up its bombs, given that the main reason Pakistan has them is that they serve as a deterrent against the much larger Indian conventional forces, which Pakistan cannot match. Hence, even if not only the United States and Russia but also India gave up their nuclear bombs (an extremely unlikely event), Pakistan is most unlikely to follow. The same holds for Israel's stockpile and Iran's plans to build bombs. These and other such nations have strong reasons of their own to hold such arms. These reasons will not be modified by whatever the United States and Russia do or do not do regarding their own stockpiles. New evidence in support of this point: the morning President Obama announced his plans to move to zero, hoping to inspire others to relent, North Korea tested a long-range missile which could carry a nuclear warhead. A few days later, Iran announced that it is making good progress in its nuclear development efforts. Other nations barely yawned.
Moreover, in dealing with Russia, the greatest priority for the United States is to encourage Russia to further improve its controls over the fissile material from which nukes can be made and over the thousands of tactical nuclear arms it possesses. Reducing the Cold War instruments, the long-range missiles and strategic nuclear weapons--on which Henry A. Kissinger and his colleagues focus--are much less of an issue. They are already relatively well-controlled and, moreover, are not well-suited for terrorists equipped with speed boats, shipping containers, and trunks. It follows that dismantling these Cold War arms is much less urgent. Similarly, the United States is keen to gain Russia's cooperation in stopping Iran's nuclear militarization. Neither mission is affected by the number of nukes the two powers hold.
The fate of the curbs on the spread of nuclear arms in the near future is going to be decided in Iran. If it is allowed to gain a bomb, there will be no stopping Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations from going down the same road, and Japan and South Korea are likely soon to follow, to countervail North Korea. Nuclear terrorists are looking for bombs in Pakistan (and for fissile materials and small bombs in Russia). These burning matters are enough to occupy a president who has shown that he can work on half a dozen issues at the same time. Zero can wait.
Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University and author of Security First (Yale, 2007). For more, go here: http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/securityfirst.html. He can be reached at icps@gwu.edu
I think Etzioni makes a pretty flawed argument.
First of all, it has to be acknowledged we're a long war from zero nukes, so at this moment it's more of a rhetorical device than anything else. Should we ever approach zero I'm sure it will refocus the debate on specifics.
Regardless, there's another fallacy in Etzioni's premise, that zero nukes would equal zero deterrence capability. In reality a nuclear weapon could be quickly reconstituted.
Lastly, what Etzioni is really talking about is of course Israel, being an Israeli who fled the holocaust. In Israel's case I don't expect it to dismantle the 2nd strike capability any time soon without some equivilent insurance policy, nor does anyone serious.
It would be enormously helpful however for Israelis to be a little less panic stricken and reactionary, especially given their nuclear stockpile and enormous military supremacy and alliances, and make some effort towards nuclear deescalation that doesn't involve military strikes.
May 8, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
As kosmik points out, there is a lot of wiggle room in the idea of zero. Since the knowledge is clearly here to stay there is some kind of non-weapon state of nukes in mind, where components are known to exist but are not deployed.
But there is a deeper issue, that even acknowledging the likely continued existence of real weapons in our hands (and those of our allies) justifies their possession by others, mainly our supposed enemies. This is fact, and not easy to avoid.
For now, I think Obama's administration is not ready to alter the terms of dialog in a dramatic way, given how many problems we have on our plate.
May 8, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is very easy to avoid that "fact" as no country needs to justify its nukes at all. Further, the fewer nukes in the world the more valueable those that remain and the more attractive to acquire.
May 8, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, actually countries do need to justify them to the extent they want to avoid embargo and other instruments of public opinion.
And no, diminishing the total number of nukes in the world does not increase the value of those remaining. The value of a nuke is it's ability to do enough damage to the adversary to be a deterrence. Once that goal is accomplished, no more nukes are needed.
May 8, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be confusing public knowledge with possession. BTW, embargo appears to have zero utility in stopping any country from getting nukes.
May 11, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless, the point remains that justifying nukes to the global community, or not, does have consequences. So your initial assertion, that countries don't have to justify them, is wrong.
May 11, 2009 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, also less nukes would mean for less potential of accidents or losing them , and make them easier to track in the USSR for example. which greatly reduces the risk of them falling into the wrong hands.
Anti-proliferation also reduces the number of places from which a weapon may originate, with the threat of retaliation greatly increasing the incentive of the maker to avoid putting them in the hands of non-state actors.
wow, for such a short post you managed to get a large number of issues wrong.
May 8, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he's talking about Israel but heck why should any nation give up the opportunity to nuke tens of millions? Why would we want to do that? And we're so much safer this way. I always feel so much safer when we're involved in at least two wars so you can see what a great deal these nukes have been for us. The more the merrier I say! Why if we could just talk Iran and Egypt and Saudi Arabia and how about Somalia and Darfur into getting their own nukes then they would feel safer too!
Doesn't national security make you feel just so secure? Why if we lost the ability to threaten to kill hundreds of millions of civilians by pushing a few buttons, we might turn into terrorists too!
May 8, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
A+
May 8, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
F.
You're angst over nuclear weapons ignores that many countries actually fear being overrun by a WWII style blitzkrieg or genocide in a conventional war. That's why N Korea wants nukes, Iran want's nukes, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, France, etc.
The only rational reason to be against nukes is the argument that there are better means of assuring the peace than threat of nuclear anihilation, and that there is always a risk of accident or indiscriminate use.
But you have to be blind or ideologically blinkered to deny the deterrence factor of nuclear weapons, or why a small conventionally weak nation might want them if they see themselves facing an existential threat, from Israel to N Korea.
May 8, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's all sarcasm.
May 8, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I got that.
May 8, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the deterrence argument but it's inevitably going to break down. Small nations needs nukes to defend themselves. Big nations need nukes to defend themselves. The US is the worst example. We used nukes. We've invaded small nations without nukes. We've invaded larger nations with strategic resources but no nukes. Who is safe from us? Who doesn't face an existential threat?
Israel is as self-absorbed as any. It views itself as uniquely threatened and uniquely entitled not to be threatened. But look at the US. We couldn't handle having two dozen guys take down two office buildings and 4 planes without venting our paranoia and expediency on a nation that had not attacked us. If that's how we act as enlightened as we believe ourselves to be, how can we expect greater self-restraint and maturity from any other nation? Alas, there are many nations as proud of their own history as are Israel and the United States, as narcissistic about their own uniqueness, and as blind to the pain and suffering they cause. This ends badly enough with sticks and stones.
May 8, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We used nukes."
But we were the only country to have them at the time, so there was no deterrence to us using them. The point about deterrence stands.
"Who doesn't face an existential threat?"
Well Japan or S Korea for example don't necessarily need nukes becasue a strike by N Korea would face the same retaliation regardless. Israel can;t really make the same argument becasue thier neighbors have oil and it's unlikely we'd annihilate our oil supply to save Israel.
The rest is just kinda ranty without making any point.
May 11, 2009 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "moral highground" argument does have some merit, though. Why should we have an unfair global balance of power where the Cold War nuclear powers plus Israel, India and Pakistan get to keep their WMDs and the vast majority of the world's countries and citizens have to fear us for it?
If I were Iran, I'd want nukes too, especially what happened to Iraq when it didn't have WMDs.
Etzioni is also fanciful in the extreme -- terrorists are not going to hijack a nuclear weapon and use it to threaten or destroy the Earth. That scenario is not from realistic intelligence, it's from the first Austin Powers movie.
May 8, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This column is reckless, and consists of desperate flailing at straw men.
The precept that because the United States and Russia talk up a world without nukes (a world which is indeed very far over the horizon, given the grave dangers for a nation that disarms if the other successfully hides a few nuclear bombs) this will inspire other nations to give up their bombs or nuclear ambitions, has no legs. This is even more true for the notion that if the United States and Russia reduce their stockpiles to 1,500 warheads (below the current ceiling of 2,200)--or some other such number-- this too would somehow inspire other nations to pack in their nuclear ambitions.
Who is Professor Etzioni addressing? Nobody thinks a renewal and resuscitation of existing US and Russian nonproliferation pledges is going to “inspire” anybody to do anything. The point is to remove several diplomatic arrows from the quivers of proliferators and opponents of nonproliferation.
The global non-proliferation effort has been falling apart for years. One chief reason for that is that the US and other major nuclear powers don’t have a diplomatic leg to stand on so long as they are blatantly ignoring their treaty obligations. The Bush agenda was built on a wholly unrealistic faith in counterproliferation efforts, anchored in delusions of a fantastical level of permanent US hegemony – something that doesn’t exist and never did exist, not even in the 90’s.
Renewing the non-proliferation agenda makes it easier for leaders to stand up to militant nationalists in their own country. But more importantly, it also makes it easier for the US and other countries to mount and sustain credible diplomatic campaigns – possibly including sanctions - to roll back proliferation. If Professor Etzioni is so eager to combat Iranian nukes, why does he want to take a key diplomatic tool from Obama’s toolkit? Who is he protecting?
Above all, one must fear that pursuing such pie in the sky schemes will distract attention from the most serious threat to our security, that of our allies, and to world peace, which is very widely agreed to be that terrorists will get their hands on a ready-made nuclear weapon. (Making new ones is much more of a challenge), The most likely place for terrorists to steal, bribe their way to, or otherwise commandeer nuclear weapons is Pakistan.
This is, frankly, ludicrous. The Obama initiative won’t distract attention from anything. Quite the contrary: it will put nuclear non-proliferation and global nuclear threats front and center again in US policy, and once again rivet the country’s attention on an issue it has lazily and foolishly neglected since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
New evidence in support of this point: the morning President Obama announced his plans to move to zero, hoping to inspire others to relent, North Korea tested a long-range missile which could carry a nuclear warhead. A few days later, Iran announced that it is making good progress in its nuclear development efforts. Other nations barely yawned.
What a preposterous argument. Professor Etzioni has no understanding of the long-run purposes or logic of the nonproliferation agenda – or at least pretends he has no such understanding. No defender of this agenda would suggest that merely announcing it would suddenly make the crazy North Koreans give up their program. The point is to build a unified and powerful global non-proliferation coalition, determined to use international law, collective diplomacy and possibly more coercive means to address the problem of nuclear rogues, and then work on a build-down. If the US and Russia don’t lead the way by adhering to their own treaty obligations, such a coalition will never be able to sustain itself. It will fragment and dissolve into great power rivalries, and we will soon live in a world armed to the nuclear teeth.
Note that Professor Etzioni has been hawking his own peace plan for the Middle East:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/regional-peace--a-new-ide_b_196799.html
This is a version of the disturbing new linkage proposals that have been floated in recent weeks, including by Rahm Emmanuel . The idea, apparently, is that Israel should be allowed to hold the West Bank and its human inhabitants as some sort of hostage, and relinquish its grip on Palestine little by little, in exchange for Iran giving up its domestic nuclear program. As if the poor, freaking, dispossessed Palestinians have something to do with Iran! Maybe the US should just invade and occupy some little country in Eastern Europe, and then threaten to blow it up or annex it unless the Russians give us a new nuclear weapons treaty?!. Would the Obama administration ever really consider going along with this kind of plan, and establish hostage-taking and intimidation as a legitimate precedent in the pursuit of international peace and order?
Etzioni seems to be afraid that if the world decides nuclear arsenals are a threat per se, it will take its eye off the real problem, and the only problem he sees: crazy fucking Muslims in Pakistan and Iran! Before long, who knows? Gullible people might be seduced into thinking that Muslims shouldn’t be treated as subhuman beasts who must be forced to live by different rules than everyone else, instead of being called to participate in a common human agenda.
This column is not just wrong-headed. It’s reprehensible in its reckless disregard for the threat of nuclear weapons and in its effort to undermine the policy that is the very centerpiece of the Obama administration’s global agenda.
May 8, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post.
Right. And the reason Etzioni dislikes it is simply becasue it will also highlight Israel's nukes.
That is very short sighted and foolish though.
First, it's paranoid to think anyone will expect Israel to dismantle it's 2nd strike capability.
Second, Israel should welcome any honest anti-proliferation efforts, even if it must take some heat in the process, it will ultimately be better off.
Third, any efforts to promote peace, including Israel backing off some issues and making concessions, from a two state solution to anti-proliferation, Israel should welcome as it will ultimately benefit by them. Israel is cynical and paranoid to keep playing this high stakes game of chicken it can never win. Every day this conflict continues Israel increases the risk of disaster. What are they gaining? We all know how it will eventually end.
May 8, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
Israel might have some crazy Masada complex, and be determined to hole up in their fortress state clutching their nukes forever. Maybe the growing paranoia and fanaticism of Israeli society indicates they prefer suicide to the thwarting of their extremist aims.
But the rest of us want and need a safer world.
May 8, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the settlers definitely have a Masada complex, literally. I mean they're literally building fortresses on hills while citing Masada as their inspiration.
The larger moderate culture is just a bit cynical and paranoid, and using the settlers with the notion that "yeah they're militant kooks, but they're our militant kooks."
The whole thing is set to backfire though. It's incredibly foolish and moderates really need to reassert themselves and make progress with the two state solution. The whole situation is absurd, fighting old battles.
50 years after the peace Israel will be a high density high tech state trading with Arabs for agricultural goods and cheap labor. There will still be tensions, but nothing like now.
100 years after the peace they'll be regional allies dealing with the other regions of Europe, the Americas, Africa, and the Far East.
May 8, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The larger moderate culture is just a bit cynical and paranoid, and using the settlers with the notion that "yeah they're militant kooks, but they're our militant kooks."
I often wonder about this, Kozmik. Many Israelis seem on the surface to profess a jaded, skeptical secularism, and sometimes speak in suchlike dismissive terms about the settlers. But their political behavior suggests that these professions might be a pose, and their non-resistance to the colonization movement might be more deliberate than acknowledged, and not mere indolence and passivity. Perhaps many of these would-be secularists and sophisticated modernists are ardent Jewish nationalists at heart, and even crypto-religionists, believing more than they care to admit in all the old stories about chosenness, covenants, prophesy and providence.
Maybe they regard the settlers as the true sons of Abraham, acting on their people's behalf with the bold and assertive chutzpah and ruthless tribal solidarity they only wish they had the faith and courage to display themselves?
To me, that's one of the only ways to make sense of the weird ambivalence, double-think and incoherence that attends so many of the discussions of Israel by its Jewish supporters. I suspect massive amounts of dissembling and bad faith.
May 8, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same could be said of the US. We have long espoused one set of principals while exporting something vastly different. Does that make us all ardent imperialsists or just lazy?
May 11, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
For God's sake, Iran has repeatedly said it doesn't want the bomb, and there is no proof whatsoever that it is pursuing one, so why do we keep hearing about this scenario as if it's obvious to everyone?
Also the fearmongering on Pakistan is unhelpful. Regardless of what terrorists might want, Pakistan is not in danger of falling to the Taliban, and their bombs are secured and can't be activated without the right codes. Why are the Pakistanis inherently less to be trusted with them than the Russians, whose nation already fell apart without any nukes getting into the hands of terrorists?
Finally, you acknowledge that proliferation has inherent dangers, but you argue that for the U.S. and Russia to go first will have no benefit in getting other nations to reduce their stockpiles. Since we're screwed either way, what is your point?
May 8, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one likes us
I don't know why
We may not be perfect
But heaven knows we try
And all around
Even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
I love Randy Neuman
But the truth is if somebody has them one day somebody will use them. And I have no idea what can be done about that.
Blessed be the peace makers for they are the children of God
May 9, 2009 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
This has been an interesting exchange (kozmik, DanK and all).
I don't want to overstate this, but I think the other reason the US should pursue nonproliferation is for our own redemption. I think Bluebell put it best. It is a part of us beginning to think of ourselves as part of the world, not above it.
May 9, 2009 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Etzioni seems to have very well absorbed the Village-speak of our ruling conventional wisdom; for all his jabber of "communitarianism", Mr. Etzioni has been searching for a new idea (or new catchy label if an idea won't work) for the last two decades. I am sure if someone finds something new or interesting in Etzioni's writing they will deserve a significant prize. I was particularly struck by the intellectual shoddiness of this particular passage:
"No one serious thinks that if the United States and Russia live up to their commitments under the NPT, this will lead Pakistan to give up its bombs, given that the main reason Pakistan has them is that they serve as a deterrent against the much larger Indian conventional forces, which Pakistan cannot match."
There is the requisite "No one serious" which signals both the linchpin of the following argument and the very weakness of that linchpin. And Etzioni delivers. Of course as even a "communitarian" like Etzioni knows, Pakistan's nuclear weapons were developed not in response to India's larger armed force but to India's announced development of nuclear weapons. What Mr. Etzioni has done here is transposed the old (and have I said that Mr. Etzioni is an academic in search of an idea?)mutual assured destruction geopolitical strategy of the United States in the post World War II period facing the much larger and more potent Soviet forces in the European standoff to the Pakistan-India front. Nevermind the historical distortion he has to make, nevermind that a zero nuclear weapon strategy would produce a dynamic and real pressure for a mutual return to the pre-nuclear standoff in the Indian subcontinent. But of course, "no one serious" will disagree with Mr. Etzioni, academic in search of an idea, blowhard in search of an audience.
May 9, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . for all his jabber of "communitarianism", Mr. Etzioni has been searching for a new idea (or new catchy label if an idea won't work) for the last two decades.
Etzioni's ideas all seem to trace back to his experience in the Kibbutz (communitarianism) and the Haganah (security first). Maybe a new idea would come to him if he'd look ahead rather than behind?
May 9, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but this is just fantasy. Why not eliminate our police force, producing a dynamic and real pressure for peace in our cities?
May 9, 2009 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK you think it is fantasy; I think the existence of nuclear arsenals by the great powers and now by others is an irresistible argument for proliferation. And this is NOT fantasy; it is fact. We have the entire past 50 years to see how each new nuclear power either justifies its acquisition explicitly or implicitly by pointing to the monopoly held by the nuclear powers.
Now I think your analogy is entirely inappropriate. You say "Why not eliminate our police force, producing a dynamic and real pressure for peace in our cities?" as if that were a parallel situation. I will explain it slowly. The zero nuclear weapon approach does not mean eliminating all armed forces, so it is not "eliminate all weapons and peace will prevail". That is why your analogy is not appropriate...it sheds no light on the discussion or anything that has been said. On the contrary it is a red herring and a distraction. The only content in your retort is that my comment is fantastical...possibly...I hope not. But I think the moral argument against proliferation becomes immeasurably stronger if the great nuclear powers disarm or nuclear weapons. I think so much of our thinking has been corrupted by the bonehead "Realpolitik" of the Bush-Cheney (throw in Kissinger too) era, that we forget how potent a force, international pressure exerted through recognized international organizations such as an empowered United Nations can be...but that of course will not always line up with American "interests".
May 9, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're correct in dismantling the pooch's strawman, but I am less sure of the value of a nuclear-free world. I am quite sure of the value of a world free of nuclear war, but the two are not synonymous. It can't be trivial that the large nations have not fought any wars with each other since the arrival of atomic weapons.
The pre-nuclear standoff in Kashmir was one of active conflict and three wars, if I recall correctly. Since both countries have shown a tested nuclear weapon, there has been less overt conflict. The only historic example of nuclear use we have is our own, against a non-nuclear state, with whom we were engaged in a struggle to the death.
Is it likely that any state would try Japan's expansionist policies now? And we never attacked Russia, although we had way more reasons than GWB claimed about Saddam to do so. Was it bad that Russia had a deterrent of frightening proportions? Not really, from their point of view.
Police in the US carry a pistol, but most police officers will retire without ever having discharged it at a person. Even the UK has changed, I think, and has armed bobbies now.
My fanciful version of a deterrent world is every nation has one nuke. Nobody could start anything easily, but everybody else could unload on the miscreant if they did.
Surely we do not need 10,000 or so warheads. But we will always keep more than one. It is not going to happen, that we are 100% disarmed, while the knowledge of their manufacture and use exists, and while known weapons exist.
And don't forget the risk of inconvenient inbound comets. Asteroids are tracked, and we will be nudging them around to keep them from threatening us, but comets can surprise us, as did Hyakutake, which was only noticed on the way in, a few months before passing fairly nearby. Although an "Armageddon" assault would of course simply break up a comet, not deflect it substantially, I'd rather take the hit of a bunch of little blobs than a mile-wide dinosaur-killer.
May 9, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, a good book on the intractability of nuclear strategizing, and its essential failure, is "Wizards of Armageddon", Fred Kaplan. We still have no actual strategy for their use, but the hawks keep trying to find one, as in the recent "bunker-buster" discussion.
May 9, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It can't be trivial that the large nations have not fought any wars with each other since the arrival of atomic weapons."
But we've come awfully close. Do not forget the Cuban missile crisis where if I understand the situation correctly without pro-American blinders on, Kennedy was willing to engage in a nuclear war to prevent the Soviets from setting up in Cuba what we had set up in Turkey: nuclear weapons on the other nation's near-border. Again if I understand correctly it was only the wisdom of Khruschev to stand down from world wide destruction. (BTW, if my interpretation is incorrect feel free to so inform me...I am not an expert here). Second as Bluebell points out above, the unwillingness to engage in nuclear weapon use is much reduced if one combatant has nuclear weapons (e.g. the U.S.) and the other does not (e.g. Japan in WWII).
"My fanciful version of a deterrent world is every nation has one nuke. Nobody could start anything easily, but everybody else could unload on the miscreant if they did"
Actually the problem here for me is that the word "miscreant" does not do full justice to the horror in human terms that would occur if a nation did "start" something with nuclear weapons; it is terrifying to contemplate and I won't wallow in it. You may be right that the existence of nuclear arsenals are a deterrent to smaller conventional wars; all it takes is a single miscalculation to turn the "equally armed universal nuclear powers" strategy into a disaster... I know you are asware of this. I just state what we both know.
Finally, what about Iran? Your policy has about no chance of being adopted and substituted for the great power policy of not allowing a pro-war, dangerous, worse-than-Hitler regime (read Panama (Noriega), Iraq (Saddam), Iran (whomever), Syria, North Korea, Cuba. Are we more worried about rogue ( or even "serious, responsible" regimes (us, of course) with nuclear weapons or that without nuclear weapons we go to WWIII. I fall on the nuclear-free side but I understand your point. Do not forget that the other point of view makes war with Iran and the next would-be nuclear power on our shit-list more likely (not less).
I understand your worry about comets. These ususally have a time window that might allow a response.
May 9, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did say fanciful. I see no hope of putting the genie back in the bottle. I only note the strange concentrating-of-mind effect that seems to have protected us from many close calls. Kennedy backed away almost instantly from considering invading Cuba, while LeMay and others hounded him on it. ("One Minute to Midnight" by Michael Dobbs is full of new info on the crisis.) I remember it, being in middle school at the time, good old "duck and cover", while living at ground zero, D.C.
We had a NORAD training tape set off a full launch alert, with apparent incoming missiles. Another time, Boris Yeltsin was wakened, drunken, by a similar threat. There are quite a few other close calls. But there is also a famous training exercise, fictionalized in the movie "War Games", where the missile teams were told to launch, and many did not.
I think a nuclear Iran would make war with Israel less likely. But they are a long way from that capability. Even Korea has not shown the capability of mounting a low-weight weapon on a long-range missile. That's the really hard part, since it requires lots of engineering tests and actual shots. A simple uranium bomb is easy, but is too large to missile-launch, and requires way too much material. We gave up on those after Hiroshima. (Nagasaki was plutonium, the kind that needed testing, thus Trinity.)
A few months is not enough time to deflect a comet. We plan on years, in order to deflect known Earth-crossing asteroid Apophis (if it becomes necessary). The problem with comets is they are usually newcomers, without a known orbit, and they don't light up until near the sun.
May 9, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
400,000 new cops on American streets during Clinton's War on Crime didn't lower the crime rate in American cities. Increased prosperity was what did it. Which is why crime is beginning to go back up as prosperity wanes.
So, actually, getting rid of police would almost be better than the lack of law enforcement (yet no coorespondeing lack of law enforcers) we have now - unless you are a black kid selling a dime bag of weed.
May 11, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Non-nuclear signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons, and the big powers in return agreed to negotiate disarmament in good faith.
Forty years on, it's clear only the first group held to its part of the bargain.
Etzioni insists the U.S. and Russian should not "live up to their NPT commitments" because that would just be a distraction and wouldn't prompt Pakistan to dismantle its nuclear arsenal.
No one suggested it would. But it would breathe some credibility into the NPT, and help restore the idea that Americans respect the international obligations they take on.
(Remember, at the start of the Iraq War, when the U.S. floated the idea of using "tactical" bunker-buster nukes -- in direct violation of the NPT.)
Perhaps Etzioni fears that a reinvigorated NPT would increase pressure on Israel to join it. Incidentally, if I were leading Iran, that would be my minimum price for dropping my own nuclear ambitions.
May 10, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink