North Korea has thus shown the world, for better or for worse, that any country can through patience and forbearance, and while remaining a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), acquire nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
One has to remember that the five bullies (UK, US, China, Russia, France) on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) were admitted to the Council with their obstructive veto power BECAUSE they have nuclear bombs pointing at each other. This is in essence a glorified law of the jungle where might makes right, in a vicious rejection of a genuinely civilized world that is supposedly driven by peace-seeking, human rights and equality before the laws.
Since the five nuclear bullies have monopolized all international decisions to favor their own selfish interests or hindered such decisions to scuttle justice around the world, other nations have sought and acquired nuclear bombs, without being signatories to the NPT, India, Pakistan, Israel and now North Korea.
One has to remember that the five bullies (UK, US, China, Russia, France) on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) were admitted to the Council with their obstructive veto power BECAUSE they have nuclear bombs pointing at each other. This is in essence a glorified law of the jungle where might makes right, in a vicious rejection of a genuinely civilized world that is supposedly driven by peace-seeking, human rights and equality before the laws.
Since the five nuclear bullies have monopolized all international decisions to favor their own selfish interests or hindered such decisions to scuttle justice around the world, other nations have sought and acquired nuclear bombs, without being signatories to the NPT, India, Pakistan, Israel and now North Korea.
Five countries are signatories to the NPT and are recognized as such because they tested nuclear devices before January 1, 1967:
United States: ~3,700 total warheads
Russia: ~4,400–5,459 total warheads
United Kingdom: ~225 total warheads
France: ~290 total warheads
China: ~600 total warheads
Four countries are non-signatories to the NPT:
India: ~180–190 total warheads
Pakistan: ~170 total warheads
Israel: ~90 total warheads (with an undeclared capability, as commanded by Yahweh)
North Korea: ~50–60 total warheads (withdrew from NPT in 2003)
There is something insidiously positive about having a nuclear bomb. As the period after August 1945, when the first and last atomic bomb was used by the Americans against Japan, demonstrates, no country with a nuclear bomb has been attacked by another nuclear country. Mutual nuclear deterrence has been effective in preventing nuclear wars, and that is for obvious reasons: Whether you have a thousand nuclear heads or just one, you'll certainly meet with disastrous consequences if you initiate such a nuclear confrontation.
Even as they engage in traditional non-nuclear warfare (e.g. the US in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran; or Russia in Afghanistan and Ukraine), nuclear countries have not relied on their nuclear weapons even when they lose or struggle to win such wars (e.g. the US in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq; or Russia in Afghanistan and Ukraine). While nuclear weapons have not prevented conventional wars against non-nuclear parties, they have prevented wars between nuclear countries themselves. Occasionally, there have been border skirmishes between two nuclear powers like India and Pakistan, but these minor clashes have been quickly circumvented from developing into open war, precisely because of the potential slide into using nuclear bombs.
Hence, one can conclude that North Korea, as reprehensible as its dictatorial government can be, is now safe from any attack, nuclear or otherwise, because it can retaliate with cataclysmic consequences on its attacker.
Given this history of nuclear weapons, it is becoming clear that acquiring a nuclear bomb is the surest way to protect yourself. That doesn't mean that a nuclear bomb in the hands of a madman could not be used in the future, including the fear by many that the deranged senile criminal leading the US these days could still resort to using nuclear weapons to subdue Iran, for example.
Assuming two scenarios for a solution to the nuclear issue:
- Either a global categorical ban on all nuclear weapons, including the denuclearization of the current five nuclear bullies and the other four nuclear outlaws. Ideal, but extremely difficult to monitor and verify, especially since it concerns colonial supremacists and bullies who long thrived and enriched themselves by terrifying and extorting poorer countries;
- Or a free-for-all unimpeded quest and acquisition of nuclear bombs by anyone in a capitalistic free market of offer and demand. Nuclear countries can sell their technologies to other clients. Potentially dangerous, but if everyone has a nuclear bomb then there will be a lessened likelihood of one country bullying another. Instead of a NPT, the UN should launch a Nuclear-For-All (NFA) program that encourages the spread and dissemination of nuclear weapons, which by all measures to date, would be a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons by anyone.
United States: ~3,700 total warheads
Russia: ~4,400–5,459 total warheads
United Kingdom: ~225 total warheads
France: ~290 total warheads
China: ~600 total warheads
Four countries are non-signatories to the NPT:
India: ~180–190 total warheads
Pakistan: ~170 total warheads
Israel: ~90 total warheads (with an undeclared capability, as commanded by Yahweh)
North Korea: ~50–60 total warheads (withdrew from NPT in 2003)
There is something insidiously positive about having a nuclear bomb. As the period after August 1945, when the first and last atomic bomb was used by the Americans against Japan, demonstrates, no country with a nuclear bomb has been attacked by another nuclear country. Mutual nuclear deterrence has been effective in preventing nuclear wars, and that is for obvious reasons: Whether you have a thousand nuclear heads or just one, you'll certainly meet with disastrous consequences if you initiate such a nuclear confrontation.
Even as they engage in traditional non-nuclear warfare (e.g. the US in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran; or Russia in Afghanistan and Ukraine), nuclear countries have not relied on their nuclear weapons even when they lose or struggle to win such wars (e.g. the US in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq; or Russia in Afghanistan and Ukraine). While nuclear weapons have not prevented conventional wars against non-nuclear parties, they have prevented wars between nuclear countries themselves. Occasionally, there have been border skirmishes between two nuclear powers like India and Pakistan, but these minor clashes have been quickly circumvented from developing into open war, precisely because of the potential slide into using nuclear bombs.
Hence, one can conclude that North Korea, as reprehensible as its dictatorial government can be, is now safe from any attack, nuclear or otherwise, because it can retaliate with cataclysmic consequences on its attacker.
Given this history of nuclear weapons, it is becoming clear that acquiring a nuclear bomb is the surest way to protect yourself. That doesn't mean that a nuclear bomb in the hands of a madman could not be used in the future, including the fear by many that the deranged senile criminal leading the US these days could still resort to using nuclear weapons to subdue Iran, for example.
Assuming two scenarios for a solution to the nuclear issue:
- Either a global categorical ban on all nuclear weapons, including the denuclearization of the current five nuclear bullies and the other four nuclear outlaws. Ideal, but extremely difficult to monitor and verify, especially since it concerns colonial supremacists and bullies who long thrived and enriched themselves by terrifying and extorting poorer countries;
- Or a free-for-all unimpeded quest and acquisition of nuclear bombs by anyone in a capitalistic free market of offer and demand. Nuclear countries can sell their technologies to other clients. Potentially dangerous, but if everyone has a nuclear bomb then there will be a lessened likelihood of one country bullying another. Instead of a NPT, the UN should launch a Nuclear-For-All (NFA) program that encourages the spread and dissemination of nuclear weapons, which by all measures to date, would be a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons by anyone.
Obviously, this either-or choice is intended to show the two extremes of a non-nuclear world versus a fully nuclear world, both of which may seem unreachable.
But the question remains: where does the world draw the line? What countries should be eligible to acquiring a nuclear bomb? And which countries should be banned from having one? Who decides? Should the nuclear bullies continue to dictate that they alone have the right to a nuclear bomb and use that threat to extort other countries and deny justice to so many?
For now, it is blatantly unfair, though naturally Darwinian, that bullies continue to impose their will simply because they have the most destructive lethal means ever devised by humans.
Why should Iran not be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb? After all, it has joined the NPT club, is seemingly playing by the rules, allowing IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors, while other countries broke the rules, never signed, or withdrew from, the NPT, developed their own nuclear capabilities (India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea), and are generally well accepted members of the international community.
But the question remains: where does the world draw the line? What countries should be eligible to acquiring a nuclear bomb? And which countries should be banned from having one? Who decides? Should the nuclear bullies continue to dictate that they alone have the right to a nuclear bomb and use that threat to extort other countries and deny justice to so many?
For now, it is blatantly unfair, though naturally Darwinian, that bullies continue to impose their will simply because they have the most destructive lethal means ever devised by humans.
Why should Iran not be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb? After all, it has joined the NPT club, is seemingly playing by the rules, allowing IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors, while other countries broke the rules, never signed, or withdrew from, the NPT, developed their own nuclear capabilities (India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea), and are generally well accepted members of the international community.
The argument that Iran has threatened Israel does not amount to a compelling reason to deny it the acquisition of nuclear capabilities. The fact that Israel does not make similar threats does not mean Israel won't ever use its nuclear weapons. And if indeed it won't ever use them, then why acquire them in the first place? Israel has, semi-officially, declared that its "nuclear option", a.k.a. the "Samson option", is a safeguard against its elimination, but what kind of stupid argument is this that promotes a murder-suicide scenario for a number of countries, if not for all countries?
No comments:
Post a Comment