Are Nuclear Weapons, Deterrents?
The Myth
Ever since the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the world has been both in awe and terror of the power of a nuclear weapon.
All the countries that have now got nuclear weapons claim that they need them purely as a deterrent.
These countries now try to stop others from acquiring nuclear capabilities, yet they continue to increase their nuclear arsenals. Why is this?
The United States alone has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the whole planet several times over and claims to be a leader in trying to stop other countries from having nuclear capabilities.
What they mean as deterrent is that they want nuclear weapons, so that they have the power to use them on any country that uses a nuclear weapon on them. The theory being that if a country believes it will be attacked by nuclear weapons if it uses nuclear weapons against a country, it will refrain from using them in the first place.
Facts
Here though, let’s look at some of the facts.
The United States is the only country, to date, that has used a nuclear weapon in anger.
The United States gave Israel the ability to have nuclear weapons, against a non proliferation agreement.
Israel already had a nuclear deterrent in so far as it was a good friend of the United States and all countries knew that to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon would provoke a nuclear response from the United States. That is a powerful deterrent.
Yet even though none of Israel’s neighbors had nuclear capabilities, the US gives them another “deterrent”. This action in itself created neighboring countries to want to acquire a nuclear deterrent of their own. After all, isn’t it Israel that has displayed its complete disregard for international sentiments? I say this because Israel has broken or ignored more UN resolutions, than any other country including Iran, Iraq, Syria or North Korea.
In South Korea, it is heavily rumored that the United States has placed tactical short range nuclear weapons. This has caused North Korea to want to acquire a nuclear deterrent of its own.
A nuclear deterrent is supposed to be a defense against a country that has nuclear weapons. If an enemy does not possess nuclear weapons, then a nuclear deterrent is not needed.
- Missing-36,000lbs of Plutonium
With so much nuclear material lost no wonder the world is at war with terror but whose fault is it?
Solution
So the argument will be Israel is surrounded by potentially aggressive neighbors, even if they do not have nuclear capabilities. South Korea is bordered by a far greater number of forces than it has itself, even with the US presence.
These arguments though, do not conform to the nuclear weapons as a deterrent theory.
What I would like to ask is this?
Why it is that negotiation with the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program is not linked to an Israeli decommissioning of their nuclear weapons?
Why it is that negotiation with the dismantling of the North Korean nuclear program is not linked to the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from South Korea?
When will the United States realize that the placement of a nuclear weapon in one country will always create the need for others to have deterrents of their own?
Where is the difference from the US putting nukes in Israel and South Korea and the Soviets putting nukes in Cuba?
The other argument of course is: if these countries have weapons grade nuclear materials, they may become available for terrorists use.
The United States itself alone has lost 36,000lbs of weapons grade nuclear material and that is just what they have admitted to. How much more would a potential terrorist need?
- Is the War, on Terrorists or Terror?
We are told that we are winning the war on terror. Is this true? What will define success and is it possible to have two winners? - Nuclear Weapons in Space
It is being suggested that we use nuclear weapons to divert asteroids. Could there be repercussions from taking nuclear weapons into space? - Cluster Bomb Horror
There is a global initiative to ban the use of cluster bombs. These bombs cause the death of hundreds of innocents annually, even after a conflict is over. Why is the US encouraging countries to vote against it?
