Eliminating nuclear weapons is a costly distraction

President Barack is expending political capital on trying to eliminate nuclear weapons. I do not think his endeavour is unrealistic, as he understands his vision is a long-term one, but I do think there are far bigger threats to human security than nuclear weapons.

The problem with prioritising the elimination of nuclear weapons and their trade is that they are largely irrelevant. The reason Mutually-Assured Destruction, or MAD, existed was because, if one of the superpowers shot the other with nuclear missiles, the other would have enough time to retaliate. If one country retaliated, the other would follow up with most of its nuclear arsenal and millions would be killed on both sides. No one wanted to risk millions of lives from their own side, so they could not use their nukes. MAD still exists today. None of the nuclear powers is likely ever to use its weapons for fear of the consequences on its own soil. Nuclear weapons have such devastating impacts that they are simply not worth using.

The case of North Korea is particularly pertinent. While it seems like an irrational rogue state with a desire to explode large bombs everywhere, my guess is the North Korean government understands international politics. If North Korea actually killed people with a nuclear weapon, it would be bombarded and flattened. Kim Jong-il can ride the bomb to the moon if he likes, but he has no option to use it down here.

Moreover, because of MAD, and because most of the major powers and some minor powers have nuclear weapons, it is possible that the continued existence of such dangerous tools mean a more peaceful world. Nuclear weapons could be the reason there was never a direct conflict between the US and the USSR, or the US and China, or the USSR and China, or interstate violence in Europe during the Cold War. It has not eliminated war, of course, but it has led nuclear powers to some careful stepping when in conflict with each other.

(Of course nuclear weapons are not a perfect deterrent. It was believed that massive militaries among European powers before World War One would prevent war, and in fact it led to war. But nuclear weapons are far more destructive than any number of soldiers in trenches.)

While Barack may help to reduce nuclear arsenals, and even set the treads rolling to bulldoze them all, he may want to spend more time and money cleaning up the world’s most dangerous places. The real worry is not that governments have nuclear weapons, but that apocalyptic religious extremists could. They seem to be the only ones that would use them, and the ones who would be too difficult to retaliate against. Shoring up governmental controls over nuclear technology where it exists would help keep the bombs out of the hands of non-state extremists.

If Barack wants a more peaceful world, he should change his priorities. If we are going to eliminate any weapons, let us start smaller. Barack would be better off focusing on small arms and landmines than nuclear weapons. Guns wielded outside warzones cause 200,000 deaths a year, and millions are produced every year. Arms embargoes, the hobbling of commercial weapons makers, and addressing conflicts individually are all answers to reducing firearm death statistics. Landmines caused 7000 deaths and casualties between 2003 and 2005, most of which were in just four countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Cambodia and Colombia. The worldwide landmine ban and disarmament movement could be given a shot of adrenaline by a president eager to set a name for himself as a man of global peace.

There are other preventable problems that kill. Malaria kills over 1m people a year, AIDS 2m, TB 2m, diarrhea 2m, and so on. Nuclear weapons have a pretty clean record next to disease. So why not switch priorities? Bolster efforts to provide vaccines, water sanitation technology, mosquito nets, condoms and education and you will greatly reduce the instances of death by preventable disease, especially among children. We have all these options to help people that I believe are immensely more urgent than nuclear disarmament.

Destroying stockpiles of nuclear weapons may feel good, but it will probably not solve the real problems, and it might even create new ones.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Eliminating nuclear weapons is a costly distraction”

  1. jpop Says:

    One Man
    “One man” walked alone. “One man” survived. “One man” suffered. As the days became countless a young man roamed the baron landscape. Weather caused many problems for him. He suffered with every drop. The heat in his location felt as if the earth had been pulled to the hip of the sun. With every drop of rain and every step he felt a piece of skin melt off of his body. He walked through what was left of the cities, looking for food and a mate. He was determined. Sadness and loneliness withered his body even more. He would walk in circles loosing track of time, crying, frantic, bothered, distressed, and full of pain. He was disturbed and deranged. His animal instincts and his human mindset caused a conflict. When he saw dead remains of a human he debated whether or not to feast. His animal instincts won. As soon as his beastly influence had taken over he began to thrive. He was opportunistic. He shrugged off any regret of cannibalism and frothed at any whiff of burning flesh. There were a few survivors. A pack of wolves began to get fat and happy off the remains of carnage. The “one man” fit right in and joined the pack. He was happy. The pack moved as one, and fed as one. Now that humans were gone rats, roaches and other animals came out from hiding and took advantage of the loss of the “Great Predator”. As the pack approached the “One Man’s” former home, he became reminiscent of the past. He remembered the home cooked meals provided by the robots. He remembered the wonderful TV shows performed by the robots, and he remembered the unstable mind he had. He was happier now then he had ever been. Now that technology helped him no more he had a brotherhood, independence and a sense of importance. He began to realize that human life was taken for granted and the privilege given to them had been swiped away not from god but from themselves. Life was better for him and everything else that still roamed the human less planet. A new era was about to begin without human influence. A robot left unscathed from the nuclear proliferation said, “Hello, it’s a great day.” It turns out computers can be smarter then the human that programmed it.

  2. NATO cooperation with Russia is worth pursuing « The Menso Guide to War, Conflict and World Issues Says:

    […] the nuclear nonproliferation regime is one common interest of both NATO and Russia. Barack has taken action to show he is committed to nonproliferation, which will probably help his diplomatic efforts in […]

  3. The demonisation of Iran « The Menso Guide to War, Conflict and World Issues Says:

    […] Posts Why terrorism worksEliminating nuclear weapons is a costly distractionThe thinking that informs the Menso Guide to WarOne week of Israeli-Palestinian conflict […]

  4. Sanctions on Iran? Let’s be Daoist about it « The Menso Guide to War, Conflict and World Issues Says:

    […] it likely or even possible to use them. The proliferation of nuclear weapons has made them all but useless. Yet Barack has made disarmament a major part of his foreign […]

  5. War, part 6: Iran « The Rule of Freedom Says:

    […] posed by Tehran’s nuclear bomb and the necessity of preventing them from acquiring one.  Barack talked about eliminating them, presumably to shape the Iran agenda, but doing so would require extremely costly […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: