Why Obama Should Love Nukes
Categories: Nuclear Proliferation
Tags: Nuclear Proliferation
"Finally, the irony in the "Global Zero" debate is that nuclear weapons have largely resolved the issue of great power conflict. Since World War II, no "great powers" have engaged in a war amongst themselves, at least not directly (though I am well aware of proxy conflicts such as Korea, Vietnam, the Soviet-Afghan war in the 80s). Rather, conflict has been between regional powers or have been essentially civil wars (such as Iran-Iraq War, the multiple Congo conflicts, the various Yugoslav wars). I would argue the fear of raising tensions to the nuclear threshold created an admittedly imperfect stability. While that "stability" is not nearly as stable as many previous MAD advocates might argue, the fact that there was no "Dr. Strangelove" moment says something profound."
Here is a snippet from the article at Newsweek,
"A growing and compelling body of research suggests that nuclear weapons may not, in fact, make the world more dangerous, as Obama and most people assume. The bomb may actually make us safer. In this era of rogue states and transnational terrorists, that idea sounds so obviously wrongheaded that few politicians or policymakers are willing to entertain it. But that's a mistake. Knowing the truth about nukes would have a profound impact on government policy. Obama's idealistic campaign, so out of character for a pragmatic administration, may be unlikely to get far (past presidents have tried and failed). But it's not even clear he should make the effort. There are more important measures the U.S. government can and should take to make the real world safer, and these mustn't be ignored in the name of a dreamy ideal (a nuke-free planet) that's both unrealistic and possibly undesirable.
The argument that nuclear weapons can be agents of peace as well as destruction rests on two deceptively simple observations. First, nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945. Second, there's never been a nuclear, or even a nonnuclear, war between two states that possess them. Just stop for a second and think about that: it's hard to overstate how remarkable it is, especially given the singular viciousness of the 20th century. As Kenneth Waltz, the leading "nuclear optimist" and a professor emeritus of political science at UC Berkeley puts it, "We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It's striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial period, there has not been any war among nuclear states."
The two bolded sections dovetail nearly seamlessly. This is a good argument, one that is practically never made in mainstream discourse.
But that's also why North Korea and Iran want nukes . . . so nobody will mess with them, thus ensuring the stability they crave.
How do we convince them that not going nuclear is the better choice?
Reply to this