It has been the general opinion of the major powers since the advent of atomic military weapons that the spread of these weapons to smaller nations would result in atomic catastrophe. But it was mostly the threat of atomic war that prevented military action in the USA-Soviet confrontation in Cuba during the Kennedy administration. And lately the acquisition of nuclear capability by India and Pakistan seems to have prevented open conflict there. Also, the possession of atomic weapons by Israel seems to have been the basis for Egypt to have made peace with Israel. It is also probable that the nuclear potential of North Korea has halted any plans for conquest by the Bush administration in contrast to what happened in Iraq.. So nuclear capability seems to be more a force for preventing military conflict between nations than one for disaster. Undoubtedly terrorist possession of atomics would be a disaster since terrorists are much less responsible than nations. But this possibly, it seems to me, should be much more emphasized than inter-nation confrontation. Perhaps a distribution of atomic armaments to all responsible nations might be more effective in ensuring peace than empty threats and condemnations by international organizations. Very chancy, I admit, but perhaps humanity needs absolutes laid on the line to shake them into good sense as to alternatives.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
Unfortunately, there are not many truly 'responsible nations."
Considering the latest Bush initiatives towards Iran, there don't seem to be any.
A nuclear weapon can not just sit there, it must be maintained. The cost is very high. The nuclear material must be periodically replaced because it degrades. The added burden to a country to maintain such weapons puts an additional burden upon their economy. A military force must still be maintained, because confrontation will still exist. Look at Israel, they have nuclear weapons; per capita they have one of the largest military structures in the world. I don't believe introducing more nuclear weapons is going to help in any situation other than to discourage world domination by military means. Economic domination seems to be much more effective.
Our (US) nukes did not prevent Indochina, Vietnam, Hungary, Korea, Cuban communism, Algeria, Iran-Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Kuwait, or 9-11. Generally, nukes prevent only nuclear war, not conventional.
Do you think for a moment that Isreal would not be nuked by a muslim facist? Yes, there are plenty of muslim facists, they are call clerics, they are called strong arm politicians, they are call members of organized crime.
Just because a nation exists, does not mean that the government represents the people. Just because a religion is required by law, does not mean they are ethically responsible.
I would support the assasination of every major leader of a small country if they attempted to build or acquire a nuclear weapon.
A fuel-air bomb can be justified by a small nation, which has an equivalent impact as a tactical nuclear weapon. I would support a small country in developing fuel-air weapons to protect itself.