There's a category of political intellectuals who proudly proclaim themselves "realists," then proceed to defend and advance a deeply faith-based agenda that centers on the ongoing necessity to prepare for war, including nuclear war.
I don't advocate armaments, but the Ukrainian and global community's impotence to release Russia's grip highlights the practical value of nuclear energy and weapon-based deterrence. This lesson is not lost to foreign policy and military strategists around the world.
The Pentagon, on behalf of President Barack Obama, released a report to Congress outlining what it called the U.S. government's "Nuclear Employment Strategy." Although the report indicated some minor alterations in U.S. policy, it exhibited far more continuity than change.
The fact is that, today, there is no safety from war to be found in nuclear weaponry, any more than there was safety in the past produced by fighter planes, battleships, bombers, poison gas, and other devastating weapons.
We're under the gun: we need to make use of the nuclear taboo as a springboard to disarmament before its expiration date. But there exists another nuclear taboo against discussing the destruction caused by nuclear weapons.
No matter the short term benefits to security, when the West severs the ties that bind disarmament to nonproliferation, it further undermines the trust of the developing world and long-term prospects for international security.
Between India's elites failing to see expected returns, masses denied energy and sustainable development and U.S. plans thwarted by the Indian legislature, the India-U.S. nuclear deal has been a lose-lose-lose deal.