A “nuclear-free world” (part 2)

Now I would like to move on to what President Obama means by the phrase “nuclear-free world.” In a recent speech, he outlined his dream of a future in which no nation possesses nuclear weapons, making war obsolete. However, I am not so sure that this would be as idyllic of a future as Obama makes it seem. Also, I doubt that what Obama is suggesting is even possible.

First, I will address the issue of whether a world without nuclear weapons is desirable. Obviously it is in our benefit to prevent terrorists, belligerent nations, or unstable nations from building nuclear weapons, and preventing certain countries from having nuclear weapons would be a good idea. If fewer nations, or none at all, have atomic weapons, it is much more difficult for terrorists to obtain them. However, it would not be impossible for them to do so, as the knowledge required to make nuke still exists. It is certainly possible for a nation or group to build nuclear weapons without help from other countries, as North Korea proves. A nation that possesses nuclear weapons has enormous leverage over other nations, and in a non-nuclear world this means that any nation can simply build nukes and become a world power. Granted, Obama is also stressing missile defense systems, but these systems are far from perfect, and technologies to allow missiles to bypass these systems are being developed as fast as the systems themselves.

Also, remember that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to war. During the Cold War, neither side went to war because of the fear of MAD, or mutually assumed destruction. Today, the same scenario exists, which is the reason that no large-scale nuclear war has ever occurred. If nuclear weapons were taken away, there are fewer disincentives from waging conventional war on others. Take WWII, for example—Germany believed that it could win the war in Europe, so it invaded its neighbors mercilessly. However, if other nations had nuclear weapons, Germany probably would have never attacked, since a conventional attack would result in an un-winnable nuclear war. Indeed, the idea of a nuclear war with “acceptable” casualties ended long ago, in the early days of the Cold War. Since then, most people realize the futility of trying to launch a pre-emptive strike, nuclear or non-nuclear. However, if nuclear weapons were removed from the scenario, the result would change—nations could attack each other more easily, as there are no nukes to level the playing field.

Granted, the philosophy of MAD is not perfect. The policy makes many assumptions that are not necessarily true, and many contingencies—especially the dreaded “Dr. Strangelove” scenario—can occur. Overall, though, MAD and deterrence are the reason that no true nuclear was has ever occurred, and to take this away would probably not have a good effect on world affairs.

Additionally, the goal of a non-nuclear world is unattainable. Few nations are going to want to surrender their atomic weapons, especially belligerent ones such as Iran and North Korea. In fact, just a few days ago North Korea launched a rocket that was supposedly a test for long-range missiles, despite the fact that the US and UN demanded that the launch be aborted. Also, it is unlikely that any nation, no matter how well intentioned, will want to surrender their nuclear weapons while other nations still possess theirs. However, this may be the only solution, as a truly simultaneous disarmament is impossible.

Overall, Obama’s goal is noble, but extraordinarily impractical one to carry out. Instead of pushing for disarmament, Obama should be stressing diplomacy—it is still possible for nations to get along, even if both have the capacity to destroy the other.