Give nukes a chance?!?

When I saw this headline, I thought this guy must be a crazed coldwar leftover, since he seemed to be arguing in favor of nuclear weapons around the world. Certainly my own instincts run more toward getting rid of all nuclear weapons worldwide, so that we never need to fear that one crazed individual or innocent misstep could end with the distruction of our species.

However, once I started reading the article, I got more intrigued. The author doesn't exactly love nuclear arms -- although he's a lot more comfortable with them than most experts (and has a bit more faith in the rationality of leaders) -- but rather, he sees them as a natural response by the world to the prospect of a single superpower (namely, us). Such an arsenal for a smaller nation acts not only to protect them from us (think about our relative responses to Iraq versus North Korea) but also to keep the peace among themselves (think of the delicate dance along the Indian-Pakistani border).

Seen this way, the near-term proliferation threat is less to our homeland -- neither North Korea or Iran, for example, has the missile technology to deliver a warhead to the continental US -- than to our ability to project power and shape world affairs. The United States, in other words, worries as much about being deterred as being attacked.

''The truth is that countries that have nuclear weapons will be off-limits,'' says Mearsheimer, ''which is why [those countries] want them.''

I have to say that I don't find that idea all that bad, although I'd rather see deterrence through something like the U.N. instead of Mutually Assured Destruction crap. But it's clear that the former can't always be relied upon (either because of the UN's choices or because of our leaders' disregard). It's hard to blame other countries for wanting more than one leader's word to rely on, given that a new player may emerge a few years later and disregard the commitments of his predecessors. Sigh.

I found these arguments intriguing and compelling. However, they really concern only the strategic value of nuclear weapons, and in no way address the real dangers that accompany them. Other experts did chip in some worries:

More troubling is that historically, in every so-called nuclear ''conflict dyad'' -- US/USSR, USSR/China, India/Pakistan -- the first of the two to go nuclear came close to launching a preemptive attack to profit from its nuclear advantage. And the precarious hold on power of the government in a nuclear nation like Pakistan only adds to the volatile mix.

Indeed. Where exactly has all the fissile material from Russia gone? It's worth realizing that when we try to eliminate nuclear weapons, we will always run into the suspicion by others that we are merely trying to maintain our current advantage -- that provides a natural defiant motive. However, we can't afford to forget that these warheads have serious firepower inside, and that there are ever increasing ways that it could be put to real destructive use.

(via Follow Me Here)