Obama, Nukes, and the World

President Obama has seized upon North Korea's missile launch to talk about a new approach to nuclear disarmament. Most people agree with the swell commonplaces associated with Obama's vague rhetoric. Sure, we shouldn't blow up the planet. Yes, nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous.

But beyond that, the rules for nuclear armament are very hazy. Who can pursue nuclear weapons changes depending on time, place, and what the United States can gain from allowing (or forbidding) nuclear ambitions.

Certainly, reducing armaments is the pathway to abolishing nuclear weapons. However, the United States has placed itself in the position of favoring/allowing some countries' nuclear pursuits (United States, United Kingdom, France, Israel, India, China, Russia) ahead of other countries' sometimes-identical quests (Iran, North Korea, Syria). There was some good in Obama's Prague speech, but there were also bad pockets. Let's explore the minefield, shall we?

Good: reducing nukes

Few people adopt qualms for statements like this. It would be nice to live in a safer world where we're not consumed with the fear that some general somewhere has gone bat shit crazy and sold the nuclear armament codes to Al-Qaeda.

Bad: The complete lack of universality

The United States picks and chooses which countries can, and cannot, pursue nuclear technology. Whilst holding Kim Jong-Il's missiles just out of his reach, America gives an enthusiastic thumbs-up to Israel's possession of nuclear weapons in an extremely volatile region of the world.

Soon after North Korea's missile launch, President Obama gave a speech in Prague during which he declared, "Rules must be binding...Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." True, but what words? What are these rules, and why do sacred rules only apply to certain people?

Who can have missiles? Who can pursue nuclear technology, and why are 1,000-2,000 nukes on the U.S. and Russian sides any less dangerous than 5,000(PDF)?

Furthermore, "nuclear" describes a range of pursuits from missiles and bombs to energy. Iran claims it wants nuclear energy to power its state, while Israel and the United States claim their true interests lie in nuking Israel off the map. Such a move would be pretty dumb, considering Tehran would be obliterated instantly during the retaliation, but there it is - the strange double standard, combined with vague guidelines: Israel may have nukes, but Iran may not pursue nuclear power because we clairvoyantly believe Iran's true intentions are to nuke Israel. And yes, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch document all kinds of human rights violations on the part of Israel that should lead us to believe it too is a reactionary government incapable of living humanely with its neighbors, and therefore shouldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons, but nevermind. Step aside: confusing standards to uphold here.

North Korea's pursuit of a missile is another illustration of such a variance in priorities. While certainly crazy, Kim Jong-Il is hardly a looming threat to the west. His sputtering rocket is the equivalent of a five-year-old's tantrum. He got the attention he's been craving, but he's unlikely to blast Alaska to smithereens. Call this the flexing-for-attention strategy. Sarah Palin needn't stakeout the coastline with Todd, and her armed children, just yet.

Bad: Fear-mongering for the sake of geopolitical conquest

I recently interviewed activist and author of several books, Tariq Ali, about the volatility at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Obama's rationale behind expanding the covert drone operation within Pakistan is that we can't let the Taliban get a nuclear weapon. (Pakistan is one of those "nuclear no-no" countries that we curse having the bomb). Mr. Ali very patiently explained to me how absurd this notion is:

I think this is one of the stupidest, fear mongering things. It is true Pakistan is a nuclear state. It is also true that the Pakistani military is half a million strong, that these nuclear facilities are amongst the most heavily guarded facilities in the country, just like they are in the United States, in Israel, in India, in China, in Russia now. So the notion that any armed group of extremists could even get near these facilities is a joke.

But let's suppose they do. All the nuclear weapons require codes to be fired. These codes are now imbedded in all these weapons. There's a handful of top military people who know what these codes are. There are also rumors, by the way, that the United States defense intelligence agency has its own personnel in there. This has been denied, but it wouldn't totally surprise me if it were true.

So there is no problem on that front unless the Pakistani military splits. Were it to split, then all bets are off. And the only reason it would split is if the United States expanded the war into Pakistan, making it extremely difficult for lots of nationalist-minded military officers to go along with this. Because there is that current and they say, "Well, it is our country. Why is the United States using our military bases to bomb our own people?"

What I am saying to you is now news to the administration. There are intelligent people behind Obama, who know all this. And that is why its puzzling as to why they trying to destabilize the country.

Someone explain to Mr. Ali that the United State's policies don't have to make sense. The U.S. has nukes, so it gets to make the rules. You don't have to make sense when you can kill the world with your arsenal of deadly, deadly weapons. Of course, if the U.S. disarms, it may have to shield itself with logic and justice instead of contradictory ideologies, gross favoritism, and the ability to vaporize the world a hundred times over.

If Part 1 of Obama's Al-Qaeda-with-nukes fear-mongering is Al-Qaeda's ability to steal a nuke, part 2 is Al-Qaeda's ability to build a nuclear weapon, a claim impressively more absurd than the one made in part 1.

Building a nuclear weapon isn't like cooking up some meth in the back of a Chevy Chevette. It takes decades to enrich uranium (ask Iran). With a halfway competent intelligence community (something I would never accuse the U.S. of having, but rather something they should aspire to have,) we'd spot something suspicious in no time. Namely, dodgy, bearded dudes crouching in caves, their faces aglow in an eerie green light from their tubes of uranium.

While Obama's pursuit (meaning, something beyond pretty words) of nuclear disarmament would be noble, there are other problems with the U.S.'s nuclear philosophy that needs his attention. Double standards, favoritism, and fear-mongering are cancerous elements that rob the U.S. of respect and leverage in the nuclear debate.

Cross-posted from allisonkilkenny.com. Also available on Facebook and Twitter.

Comments

[VengeanceIsMine]

Un-inventing them would be nice, but we would have to invent time travel first. Mutually assured destruction does not work when you are dealing with lunatics (see North Korea & Iran). It worked with the Soviets (commies, not loonies). Lil' Kim doesn't give a damn about his people or probably his own life. If he nuked Alaska and we retaliated by frying his country, he'd probably be happy about going out like that. Only thing will help prevent this - missile defense system. Sounds familiar? - Reagan was right - again.

[RickyJ]

Allison, I agree with your main point that Obama's anti-WMD campaign won't get very far as long as we lack a uniform standard for who may have them. However, I don't follow Mr. Tariq Ali. He is right that there isn't much chance that Taliban and Al Qaeda forces can violently take a nuclear weapon from the Pakistan arsenal and then use it. However, there is danger that similar minded people can take over Pakistan and then have easy access to their nuclear weapons. I think we need to pay enough attention to prevent that but heavy handed behavior, on our part, might be self defeating. I do have sympathy for the possibility that if we didn't bother with the Muslim world, they would bother us. Is our being in the face of the Muslim world, the reason for their hostility and if just got out of their affairs, (like moving Israel elsewhere, for example) they would bother with nuclear weapons? Maybe.

[clarryr]

Is there a point to this article? Do you think President Obama will just say the pretty words and leave it at that? Or are you suggesting that he shouldn't say anything about disarming the world but just do it and present it as a fait accompli? Are you suggesting the problem incredibly complex and out of control so there's no use trying? Are you trying to say because America didn't have a global disarmament policy in the past it can't have one now? Or is this whole article window dressing for your objection to drones in Pakistan?

[gino618]

But the President wants to talk to Iran.... and they have no real intention of building a weapon, right?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/04/07/2009-04-07_iranian_nuke_plot_vaporized_in_the_city_-2.html

[MacQ]

If Mr. Obama met a thug in a dark alley, he'd probably holler "I'm throwing down my gun. Now you do the same."

[kimleehan]

Big differance between shooting someone in self-defence and shooting someone for just walking through a dark alley,

[KillTheMessenger]

Let me know when you find a way of disarming a thug in a dark alley with a nuke without blowing up the whole city... maybe you could hit them over the head with one of those suitcase bombs? That might work. But then, so would a baseball bat. It just happens to cost a hundred billion dollars less...

[MajorKong]

While I don't think we'll ever get rid of them altogether, I'd like to see us (and the Russians) reduce our arsenals well below current numbers. If for no other reason that these are very expensive systems to maintain.

[GoldenAgeMaster]

Luvial,

Not to pick a fight, but Obama is turning out to be much worse than Bush.

[mrgoodbar]

you wish

[Sparhawk]

But we knew that 5 months ago...

"There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian -- wheeling and dealing ..."

Clue, Obama - Austrian is not a language. Even Bush didn't make that mistake...

[DinkSinger]

Although he did say people in Latin America speak Latin.

[KillTheMessenger]

Gwwhhhaaaaahhhtrrooooollll.... excuse me, I have a bit of a cough this morning and need to clear my throat.

[Luvial]

Does anyone take Obama seriously anymore? The US is afraid of North Korea? North Korea is supposed to be afraid of UN sanctions? The US is for nuclear disarmament? Pakistan actually has nukes and the US is undermining its stability while Obama talks nonsense. Obama=Bush

[mrgoodbar]

WRONG! Obama=Reagan
http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/fulfilling-reagan%E2%80%99s-dream-nuclear-disarmament

[kimleehan]

Does anybody take the republican party seriously anymore.?

[freddiefreeloader]

I don't, Amagine how it would look if we invaded No. Korea and found no W.M.D.s. Obama would look as stupid as Bush if he ever did that,

[freddiefreeloader]

Obama + Bush + 2 invasions = 0 -W.M.D.s . Do you realy want that?