HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Sept 8, 2003 I have never understood the illogic of self-professed ‘progressives’ when it comes to nuclear arms and deterrence, and a reasonable defense strategy. It is a hard thing to find a ‘progressive’ who does not oppose nuclear arms to some degree. I can understand to some degree the dislike. Yet, the concept of reasonable deterrence seems to escape the progressives. They seem to cling to a noble naiveté that if we, and our occasional allies (yes, ‘enlightened’ France and most European nations have more than a few of these Gotterdammerung devices), were to dispose of our missiles then there would be no reason for other nations to seek them at all. Problem gone away, ice cream and warm fuzzies for everyone. In a common argument floated about by those in the intelligentsia or on the Left it is said that the nuclear weaponry or desire of attaining said weaponry by nations is only a counter to those of the US, NATO, or the West. While it is true that we, entailing the three entities mentioned afore, had “The Bomb” first it is untrue to say that others built theirs as a response to ours. Unfortunately, the genie is already out of the bottle, and so the notion that we can return to some idealized past is flawed. The greatest reason for why this dogmatic position is errant is that nuclear arms are The Great Equalizer. They are the concept of asymmetrical warfare taken to their horrific, logical conclusion. Why build an army to protect you when with a few nuclear weapons you can intimidate your opponent or wipe him of the face of the Earth? Armed with nuclear weapons small, belligerent nations could render greater population and industrial output of larger nations irrelevant along with their proclivities toward democracy, women’s rights, and personal freedom; and force their will upon them. In the scenario of a small belligerent nation, say Iran or North Korea, having nuclear capability while larger contingents, the rest of the world, did not have any capability of any kind then the belligerent could force their wills upon the many. How? Our armies and navies would be useless. Armies of millions could be wiped out in seconds while leaving the belligerent intact to launch reprisals (with conventional or nuclear weaponry), hence the development and deployment of a nuclear deterrent to discourage, not eliminate, the possible use of the demonic weapons of destruction. Treatise would be ineffective because the belligerent could flout them without repercussion. What, your going to stop paying ‘tribute and homage’ when they can wipe you out at will because your armies are impotent in the face of their nuclear weapons? Another compelling reason to have built the grotesque things is that once it was known it could be done (not by building them but by physicists theorizing, and then testing the ability to split the atom) it is a natural conclusion to arrive at, that those willing to take by arms what is not theirs would want to harness the power of the atom for a weapon. This was a conclusion substantiated by the Nazi project to build ‘The Bomb’ during World War Two. How do stop someone who has a near penultimate weapon at that point? You may do so by hoping that he loves his life as much as you love yours and so stare back at him over open sights of your own design of the penultimate. This creates again a situation of armed deterrence, a Mexican standoff, a purely offensive and not defensive position, with all sides aiming at all other sides, not clinging to childish hopes of mythic, benevolent human nature as a shield from predation, and is the current mode. But how safe is such an assumption that men will be reasonable? I am sad to say that it is not a very safe assumption. Suicide bombers are the straw that breaks that camel’s back, but there is a legion of other examples that put that idea down for a dirt nap. One such example is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Another is the Intifada in Israel. Yet another would be the actions of the Chia Pet Factory escapee running his country into the ground for the second time in a little less than a decade, and threatening the world with nuclear winter if he does not get enough international aid. And, just to include the liberal/progressive perspective, George Bush’s decisions president. So, we now live in a world whereby we have created Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as the only means of averting nuclear holocaust, and it is based upon a false truth. For those who still swear by MAD or claim that an action that renders another nations nuclear arms futile is an act of destabilization, why all the commotion about nuclear proliferation? To the former, if MAD works then a condition of every nation in the world having a nuclear capability to kill everyone would bring about a state of maximum stability and peace then, no? To the latter, if a move that lessens the potential of world destruction is a destabilizing act then why push for the elimination of WMD since that makes the use of the dreaded things more likely? That brings us to the idea of reasonable defense. Is MAD a reasonable strategy? Unquestionably it is not. Eventually, and in my opinion it already has, it will come to pass that a sociopath will rise to control of a nuclear arsenal, and at that point we are all truly and surely in the worst way. What are we to do then? Follow history and do what arms races have always done from Paleolithic times on down to the modern era: render the miracle weapons obsolete. The Romans and their European offspring once used the ballista and gargonel. These weapons rendered defenses of the time, ramped earth and wooden stockades, useless. In such a case offensive, human intensive, infantry actions were the way to have ones political will observed. Then some ignoramus, by modern standards, came up with the idea of stone fortifications that left the ballista and gargonel as helpful in warfare as cold, wet spaghetti. Then, another ignoramus developed the catapult and the trebuchet. Castles and other stone fortifications no longer were decisive. Note, that during the time when one system far exceeded the other (stone forts being supreme or a weapon that turned all that it came against into Swiss cheese) that war, death, and defilement became an attractive means to settle disputes, as evidenced by almost all of human history. When one system did not hold a clear, decisive edge above another wars were infrequently and rarely means used to enforce political will, since the outcome was uncertain (observed by von Clauswitz in his writings). So we are compelled, if one believes in a reasoned defense to ensure world stability and security, to develop a defensive system that makes the supreme offensive power of nuclear weaponry a thing of antiquity. Having read a report published by the American Physicist Society I am convinced that a ground launched missile system is un-plausible due to the requirements of missile speed and size to attain that speed (read as requiring a whale sized and prohibitively expensive missile). Said report only reinforces my belief in alternate systems and basing types. The Navy has been working on energy-based weapons for use in the next generation of designs of warship (see Jane’s defense Weekly archives or Star Wars: Revisited on Useless-Knowledge.com). With the Cold War over the need for the Ohio class SSBN (that’s nuclear ballistic submarine to us non- military types) as an offensive weapon has ceased. The physicists claim only another ballistic missile is suitable to doing the job of catching up to another ballistic missile. Would not a lighter, warhead-less, guided version of the Trident missile fired from the ocean nearby to the launch of an enemy ICBM fit that bill (it is lighter because the warheads are gone, but the thrust is the same, ergo a faster missile, and a much shorter distance to travel to reach a given point of the enemy birds parabolic flight)? Prior to the 1970’s the US SAC had flights of B- 52 bombers giving us constant coverage of the world if nuclear war broke out. Could not the old ASAT that was developed in the late seventies and early eighties be reworked and fitted to the Grand Old Girls (B-52 bombers) since the way ASAT worked was to follow a ballistic track and then shower the area with shrapnel, thus killing the missile? Could not an air-to-air missile like the AIM-54 Phoenix be re-tooled (giving it greater range) and be fired from a strategic platform to intercept missiles prior to their going into the stratosphere? The hour is late and the madmen are at the door (Is there any question the Kim Il- Jong is an unstable ruler?). Will we continue to allow naiveté to rule our actions and our security, or will we be reasoned adults who do what is necessary to end the threat of nuclear catastrophe? ------------ Email Ryan Patrick Parsons: c6h5x@aol.com Comment on this column in the forum. ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
