For the first time in US nuclear history, the Secretary of State has revealed that the "exact" number of US deployed and reserve nuclear warheads is 5,113, with half that again in retired (yet-to-be dismantled) weapons. A 75% reduction since 1989, it seems.
Perhaps this is no big deal... I mean, 5k+ bombs are a lot of bombs and the number of bombs isn't as important as the ability to get the bombs where they are intended to go, which we are best at (hopefully).
On the other hand, what do we gain by showing our hand to the table in the hopes that China or Russia or Israel or Pakistan will do the same? While I doubt Pakistan or India have as many warheads as we do, do we gain from sharing that information? How do we maintain a position of strength to bargain from if our playbook is wide open for everyone to read? I have never subscribed to the theory that "more equals better", but I do maintain that the Latin phrase "quid pro quo" still means something today in modern foreign policy. We can be as open and sharing as we want, but I see no guaranty that our fellow "Nuclear Club" members will be as open or as forth coming in their facts and figures.
Secretary Clinton (and President Obama, seemingly) feels that we are "setting the standard" for open and honest debate in foreign affairs with this move, but I fear all we are doing is setting the bar for nations such as Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to reach for when it comes to deciding how many bombs THEY want to maintain in their arsenals. Does the Administration actually think China is enough of an "ally" to tailor their stockpile to meet or match ours? Do people actually think China wants to share its global influence with the likes of the US? Have we forgotten EVERYTHING that has transpired between 1945 and today? Have we forgotten who we were shooting at at Chosin Reservoir in 1950? Does anyone remember the 300,000 Chinese troops deployed to Vietnam between 1965 and 1970? Where or when has the "mission statement" of the People's Republic of China ever included limiting its ability to project force in order to defend itself and its allies to match American abilities to do the same?
Perhaps their hope is that by showing our 75% reduction, nations such as Iran or North Korea will say "Well... perhaps you are right and nukes aren't the way to go." They want a nuke so they can erase Israel from the map and replace it with a glowing carpet of black glass stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, and as long as ONE OTHER NATION maintains a stockpile of even ONE WARHEAD, they will claim this effort as a sovereign national right... just as they are doing right now. If no one had the bomb anymore, then they'd fight even harder to be the ONLY nuclear power... it is their stated goal as a nation and a society to spread the power and influence of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary ideology from pole to pole, with the Persian people as the holders of power and authority over all the other peoples of the earth. With that sort of goal as a foundational element of their national foreign policy... do we actually think we can have a "discussion" about limiting nuclear weapons production and deployment with Tehran? Please.
We want these nations to follow our lead in one area and one area only... how to excel at appeasement and conciliation to any other nation's demands and expectations. We are certainly taking the lead role in that part, aren't we?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Ouch ... agreed.
Post a Comment