Nukes, revisited

Anonymous, in response to my post on Nuclear Weapons: Keeping the World Safe for 60 Years, said these things:

>>I would like to know, how exactly would using nuclear weapons on a country to keep them from going to war work? 
Very effectively


>>If Iran invaded Pakistan, and Pakistan used its nukes to attack Iran, the fallout would kill every last man, woman, and child in the Middle East. 
Hmmmm, probably not.  Prevailing winds being what they are, odds are better that Pakistan would be impacted more than the rest of the Middle East.  Take a look at the data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Probably wouldn't kill every person.  Depends, though, on how many bombs Pakistan has and how bad their targeting is.


>>And, have nuclear weapons kept wars from happening? No. Maybe they kept the US and the USSR from going into all out war, but they found ways to fight each other regardless. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, to name a few. 


If you read my post, it was all about how nuclear deterrence only works when the actors are rational, as the US and USSR were during the Cold War.  The post was about the stupidity of unilateral nuclear disarmament and the abandonment of missile defense.  Mutually Assured Destruction wasn't used to discourage conventional war (as you point out in these proxy wars), it was designed to discourage nuclear war.


You also ignored the central point that the LACK OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS on our part would do nothing to reduce nuclear weapons on anyone else's part, especially those countries we trust least with them.  North Korea, Iran, Pakistan do not have nukes because WE do, they have them because they want to deter South Korea, Japan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, India. 


>>No country would use nuclear weapons on an invading country, that makes no sense. They would kill themselves in the process.


Oh, that depends.  Granted, WW3 would have been fought in Europe again, but, US strategy included the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield, even at risk to Western European allies and NATO troops.  Depends on how bad you're losing.


>>Nuclear war could only lead to one thing: the annihilation of the entire human race. 


Not necessarily true.  Certainly possible, in the all-out sense, but, not guaranteed.


>>Your idea of nuclear weapons as peace keepers, especially today, is completely foolish.


No, that was the reality of the Cold War.  Period.


However, you probably stopped reading the post because it was critical of Obama's naivete'.

Nuclear Weapons: Keeping the World Safe for 60 Years

Previously, I posted about the good aspects of Obama's foreign policy.  Further engagement and cooperation with India, and exhorting African nations to govern themselves responsibly are good things, and, largely, continuations of Bush era policies.

The decision to not pursue the current ground based ballistic defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic was the right technical position, if delivered pretty clumsily.

However, Obama is doing a lot, and I mean a lot, of really bad things in his foreign policy, and the American people need to recognize this and understand that what was warned in the 2008 campaign is coming to pass.  Obama clearly sees America not as a shining city on a hill, but as just another Western power with nothing exceptional to give to the world.

His recent performance at the UN was maddening and sickening to any American who believes that this country is something greater than just being one of many nations.  You need only read Obama's speech to fully understand his worldview.  He believes not in the greatness of this nation.  He puts us on equal footing with Libya, Iran, Sudan, and any other nation ruled by a tinpot despot.

He cares not that democratic, freedom-embracing (if not loving) nations do not fight wars of aggression against each other as he exhorts that no one system of government is better than any other (huh?  This guy has a college education?).  Instead, he suggests (cynically, I hope) that the world (but first the United States) rid itself of nuclear weapons, even as Iran and North Korea (you may recall, those tiny countries who pose no threat to the United States according to Obama) push full steam ahead for those weapons, and the systems to deliver them.  North Korea uses its weapons to blackmail the West today, and does anyone have any doubt that once Iran has nukes, they will use them to either hasten the political demise of Israel, or, failing that, Israel's physical destruction?

I urge you to read Jeremy Boering's column in Big Hollywood today on the history of nuclear weapons and why they have been an instrument of peace, not war.  The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that while they have been in the hands of rational actors (the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France, etc), and the threat of assured destruction was out there, no one has dared use them.  Would the irrational leaders of Iran or North Korea dare use them if they knew (as they must) that it meant the destruction of their country's?  Does Obama really believe that a Western de-nuking would really lead to anyone else doing it?  Is he that naive?  If so, he doesn't deserve the office he holds.

Finally, would the elimination of all nuclear weapons lead to an end to war?  Anyone who believes that, also believes in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, not to mention Santa Claus, leprechauns and other mythical figures.

It is only in the aftermath of WW2 and the advent of the nuclear age that world wars have been avoided.  We rightfully won the Cold War because of our nuclear deterrent force (of which I am proud to have been a member), and the resolve of one man who knew it protected us and would give our economy and freedom the opportunity to drive the Soviets into the ground.  Nuclear weapons have done more for freedom and peace than the absence of them ever could have.  Does anyone doubt that in a world free of nuclear weapons that certain countries would not be emboldened to expand their spheres of influence using violent means (i.e. war)?

Go ahead, explain this thought process to me, because I'd love to hear the convoluted arguments.


end...