President Obama, in words and in deeds, is once again pushing forward with his agenda to rid the World of Nuclear weapons. Obama believes (1) that the U.S. has a “moral responsibility” to lead because we are the only nation that has used a nuclear weapon and (2) that if we do so, our example will make the world a safer place. The question is whether Obama is simply that naïve or is he just posturing?
A broad view of Obama’s policies should well leave many, including terrorists and provocative nations, to consider whether Obama is simply weak on defense. Indeed, Obama’s latest comments on nuclear weapons came just hours after the US Pakistani embassy, i.e. US territory, came under attack – not to mention the Christmas day bomber, the Ft. Hood Shooter, Iran’s continuing snubs, North Korean missile launches and more. As I wrote earlier this year, in my article, Obama’s World Peace Offensive Yields Few Peace Dividends, one has to question what tangible benefits Obama’s policies have provided to the cause of peace let alone our security.
This latest Obama peace offensive, the reduction in the amount and the use of nuclear weapons, quite possibly could be his ultimate demonstration of being weak on defense. That is so because the record demonstrates that nuclear weapons have been the ultimate guarantor of peace.
Consider that, in the 150 years before their use, Europe endured no less than 10 significant, border incursion wars including: World II, World War I, the Serbian-Ottoman War, the three Carlist Wars, the Franco-German War, the Austro-Prussia War, the German-Danish War, Garibaldi’s Expedition against Sicily, the Franco-Austrian War and the Crimean War – not to mention four civil wars or wars for independence. Since the advent of the nuclear bomb deployment, the number of wars, on the European Continent, has been reduced to just one civil war and Turkey’s fight with Cyprus.
I submit to you it was not merely coincidental. The reason is simple, as George Washington surmised long ago, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” Or, perhaps, you prefer Thomas Jefferson who told none other than James Monroe that “Whatever enables us to go to war, secures our peace.” Amidst the Nuclear Freeze Movement, Reagan updated that sentiment by advocating for “peace through strength.” With respect to Europe, amidst the strength of the nuclear umbrella, peaceful democratic nations emerged – and no one can seriously argue the same would have occurred without that umbrella.
Now it is true that Reagan spoke about a world without nuclear weapons. His deeds, however, including deployment of Pershing Missiles, left no doubt that nuclear weapons had a central place in deterring the Soviets and winning the Cold War. It is also true that George Shultz and Henry Kissinger have written of a world without nuclear weapons. According to them:
“[The US should undertake] intensive work with leaders of the countries in possession of nuclear weapons to turn the goal of a world without nuclear weapons into a joint enterprise. Such a joint enterprise, by involving changes in the disposition of the states possessing nuclear weapons, would lend additional weight to efforts already under way to avoid the emergence of a nuclear-armed North Korea and Iran.”
Their hope, expressed in 2007, that actions by the rational free world could deter the provocative nations of the world from obtaining nuclear weapons, quite frankly, is bad defense policy because it is not realistic. It is simply historical fact that, in every age, provocative nations, or barbarians or now terrorists, whether state sponsored or acting alone, have sought a greater advantage over the civilized. Such is the competition, however sadly, among states – and that competition only takes one outlier, or just one nation, or terrorist to defeat the good intentions of others.
In this age of nuclear weapons, the single bad actor could hold the rest of world hostage – literally if not figuratively. As Iran has proven, they can do almost without our knowledge. All of which points out the difficulty of defense policy. Any successful defense must plan not only for the obvious – but for the one terrible exception. The provocateur need only be exceptional. That is why a combined policy of nuclear weapons and shields (which Obama also has undercut) are simply necessary in this nuclear age. Unfortunately for us, Obama obviously is misunderstimating their success in keeping the world at peace.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.