|
|
|
Subject:
Nuclear Proliferation Variables: Non Issues or Viable Threats
Maverick
10/9/2006 8:28:51 AM
|
Nuclear Proliferation Variables: Nonissues or Viable Threats
by Terrance Jones
(Topic Phrases From Thinking About the Unthinkable in the 1980?s, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984, pp. 23-35; © Hudson Institute)
Nuclear war would result in the destruction of the created order
This issue is not as irrelevant as one would think, as widespread proliferation of nuclear technology and weaponry will ultimately reconfigure the current order of global alliances if this type of proliferation is allowed to go undeterred. The rise of Islamic fundamentalist nation states in the Middle East with nuclear capabilities pose the greatest threat to the current order of global alliances due to the world?s dependence on oil rich nations from the Middle East who have very clear and aggressive nuclear intentions. Iran is chief amongst these nations. Should this scenario come to fruition, there will be trepidation on the part of large and smaller nations with nuclear capabilities to support the west in their efforts to contain and or decisively remove any and all proliferation based threats from existence. These nations will jockey for position under the veneer of diplomacy while waiting to see if America?s coalition can be forced into concessions that will weaken their interests in divergent regions across the globe. This is the problem with inaction when faced with a very formidable threat from nation states with both conventional and terrorist nation state support. Theoretically, these factors validate the assertion that nuclear exchanges must remain a viable option in order to preserve global peace initiatives that would be thoroughly disrupted by any hesitation in regards to facing down aggressive fundamentalist regimes and the conventional nuclear powers who support them.
The threat of a nuclear war would mean "everybody Red, dead, or neutral."
These distinctions are in sync with the current era of proliferation and are indicative of the tough decisions that must be made concerning the same:
Neutral- Neutrality in the current age of proliferation will become the catalyst for even more aggressive proliferation threats that are geared towards helping nuclear nations obtain their expansionist goals within and outside of their regions of the world. These goals have the potential to bring nations to the brink and in some cases, into armed conflicts that are conventional and nuclear in nature. These conflicts will be significant in their regional and global effects on the world?s population and will play a major role in other nation states decision to opt for red or dead scenarios.
Red- This option must remain on the table, as preserving the peace abroad will not be achieved without sacrifice. Theoretically, this option has the greatest opportunity for success in regards to deterring and or decisively removing all proliferation based threats. However, this option will require a world class coalition that displays a full commitment to preserving peace all over the world. This commitment must be displayed through troops in addition to economic funding.
Dead- This option varies, as an irresponsible neutral stance can facilitate an everybody dead scenario while the red option has the ability to deter or severely streamline the occurrence of the dead option.
Nuclear weapons are intrinsically immoral.
Nuclear weapons are instruments of war that must remain a viable option for responsible members of the international community.
War is founded on a given nation?s attempts at obtaining the type of technology and weaponry that will give them regional and or global viability militarily. Nuclear weapons are part and parcel of that search and evolution of technology and warfare. To suggest that nations who have this weapon are morally deficient defies all sane inclinations of logic. In fact, a strong case can be made for the fact that nuclear weapons has done more to deter war than it has to encourage it. Imagine a world where each nation has an equal opportunity to defeat one another through conventional or asymmetrical conflicts. The decision to go to war would rest on the moral inclinations of leaders. This is not as appealing a prospect as a reliable and technologically lethal deterrent. Nuclear weapons have been successfully used as a viable deterrent for over five decades. While it is true that the current age of proliferation has brought us to an era more dangerous than any we have faced in decades, this is due to the natural progressions brought about by the art of war and not by any one facet of technology or war.
"War-fighting" measures are simultaneously too ineffective and too effective
Given the rapidly expanding threats of global terrorism, proxy war provocations and nuclear proliferation, it is imperative that America maintain a flexible and diverse war-fighting capability. This theory augments Americas? strategic interests in regards to ensuring that America can effectively deter or defeat one or more of their enemies.
"Deterrence only" is the least undesirable policy; any "war-fighting" policy is fatally flawed.
As more and more nations gain access to nuclear technology, deterrence becomes less viable and extremely dangerous to America, as burgeoning nuclear powers small and large will become more aggressive in their expansionist pursuits that will undoubtedly challenge Americas? regional interests abroad. Russia and Chinas? strategic interest with Iran could facilitate a catalysis effect for provocative actions in the Middle East. This type of threat will stretch the defenses of an American coalition that lacks diversity in troop numerical strength, therefore, taking on the appearance of an America vs. Islam movement in the Middle East. Such an occurrence would increase the pressure on Pakistan to participate in supplying funding and multi sect insurgents for anti-American operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and anywhere else where American intervention is being implemented. Russia will be free to implement their expansionist agenda in Europe while China would do the same in Southeast Asia. Under these circumstances, warfighting initiatives would be critical to preserving and protecting American interests in these regions of the world. Deterrence would be tantamount to conceding American interests in these regions.
If retention of nuclear weapons is unavoidable, then "simplistic stability" is preferable to "multistability."
Nuclear proliferation, proxy war provocations and the war on terrorism has made multistability a necessity for nations who wish to maintain peace and stability within their regions of the globe. Responsible nations must have the option of counterforce as a deterrent and immediate response. These types of options will need to be implemented from coalitions that are divergent and all encompassing in its ability to deal with conventional, asymmetrical and nuclear threats. Therefore, theoretically a formidable coalition must include at least several nations with a nuclear weapons capability. This is needed to offset the strategic partnerships of Iran and Russia that threatens multiple regions simultaneously because of the merging of a conventional power and a terrorist nation state with global ties to terrorism.
Nuclear war would be fought mainly to achieve positive gains.
Normally, there is an automatic and increasingly dangerous "arms race."
Never has this been more true than the current age of proliferation that has seen large scale nuclear technology sharing to conventional and terrorist nation states. This reality has become the catalyst for the ?dangerous arms race? noted by Dr. Kahn. As smaller nation states prepare to engage in nuclear proliferation, larger nuclear powers begin to engage in diplomatic acts of concession by forming strategic partnerships with rogue and even terrorist nation states in order t o ensure that they have some measure of influence on this arms race. Russia?s? relationship with Iran is the best example of these concessions that have made the world a more dangerous place to live.
Also, it is clear that nations like Russia and China intend to use rogue and terrorist nation states like North Korea and Iran to threaten America?s interests across the globe in order to enable China and Russia?s expansionist agenda to close the gap between themselves and America in regards to global viability economically, militarily and diplomatically.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
