Nukes? Who Needs Nukes?

Recently, the owners of the two largest nuclear arsenals in the world, the U.S.A. and Russia agreed to reduce the number of nuclear warheads they possess. In a followup, President Obama announced that, in the future, the U.S. will not hold the threat of nuclear retaliation over the heads of non-nuclear nations, even if they attack us with biological or chemical weapons. Mr. Obama went on to explain that this is an effort to assure that U.S. nuclear weapons are strictly for deterrence and we have no inclination to wipe nations off the face of the planet with them. He further noted that rogue nations, specifically North Korea and Iran, who are trying to develop nuclear weapons despite international efforts to contain the spread of nuclear weapons are at risk of nuclear retaliation.

This has provoked a massive outcry from the right-wing, claiming that President Obama has just made the U.S. less safe, and has encouraged terrorist elements to attack us because they no longer have to fear getting their butts nuked. Wrap your heads around that claim, will you? Since when have terrorists worried about getting nuked? Since when has the U.S. nuked an entire group of people, say Afghanistan, because they have sheltered terrorists who attacked the U.S.? The claim is entirely ludicrous. And this is beside the fact that we have enough high-tech conventional weaponry to erase a nation from the face of the planet without engaging in nuclear war, if we are so inclined. Let's get real here.

What we need to do is to applaud a man who recognizes that more nuclear weapons on the planet make it a more dangerous place. Currently there are nuclear weapons in the U.S.A., Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and South Africa. There are ongoing efforts to develop nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems (long-range missiles) in both North Korea and Iran, both on the U.N. list of crazed fanatics. The larger number of nations possessing these weapons, the greater the likelihood that either A) some nation will try to wipe some other nation out and start a nuclear exchange that will result in humanity going the way of the dinosaurs, or B) some fanatic terrorist group will get hold of a nuclear weapon and start a nuclear exchange that will result in humanity going the way of the dinosaurs.

Did it ever occur to anyone on the right-wing fringes that the only country in the world that has had a nuclear weapon of any sort used on it refuses to develop nuclear weapons, and their national security has not been threatened even once in the last 65 years? Has it occurred to anyone that the country that originally spawned nuclear scientists has gotten along marvelously without nuclear weapons. (That's Germany boys and girls, not the U.S. or Russia.) Has it occurred to anyone that the country that invented smart bombs may not need nukes? Frankly nukes, as a weapon, are just ridiculous overkill. Who needs them when you have the technology to obliterate individuals with a drone and leave the bystanders to gawk? Who needs nukes when we have missiles and bombs that will level entire cities and satellite guided missiles and stealth bombers to deliver those explosive devices?

Maybe it's time we took note of the fact that nuclear weapons are obsolete. Ever since the Reagan administration the U.S. weapons labs have been working on anti-missile defenses. Reagan called it "Star Wars." When, during the first Persian Gulf War, the Iraqis shot Scud missiles at Israel, the U.S. provided the Israelis with anti-missile missiles. They weren't very accurate, at that time, but that was almost 20 years ago now. In the meantime the U.S. has continued work on these defenses and on laser defenses as well. How serious should we take these efforts? Why do you think the Russians have been so adamantly opposed to U.S. development of anti-missile defenses? They're worried that we will have the ability to hit them with a nuclear strike and shoot down their reply. That's why. It's in their best interest and ours to agree to a nuclear reduction treaty, and to pressure the rest of the world to stop the nuclear stupidity as well. Let's get real. Any serious nuclear exchange would result in the annihilation of every living creature on this planet, or at least on a couple of continents. If anyone survived such a catastrophe, it would be "Welcome to the stone age."

All in all, I am reminded of a discussion I once had with one of my brothers. This older brother is a veteran of the U.S. Navy and decidedly more conservative than I on a great many issues regarding the government and the military. At this point in time I forget exactly what it was that we were talking about, but I remember his reply distinctly. He told me, "Do you really think that the U.S. government would get rid of some deadly weapon if we didn't already have something that is even better and more deadly?" Think about that boys and girls. It's a scary proposition.