re: Our official non-proliferation PR is just a cover for trying to unilaterally disarm our enemies
What I suggest, as an alternative to the impossible goal of forcing unilateral disarmament on all our enemies, is very very simple: just follow a treaty we have already signed.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligates the non-nuclear nations not to acquire nuclear weapons. In return for that, the nuclear nations agree to gradually disarm, placing safeguards and limitations on their arsenals, and eventually eliminating them. That's what we agreed to.
What we've done, is the opposite. We have a doctrine of Preventive War, we have not ruled out a First Strike using nuclear weapons, and we are actively developing new, more "useable", nuclear weapons. The total number of weapons has been greatly decreased, but still amounts to vast overkill, with thousands of weapons.
This is part of a pattern. We act as if treaties only obligate others, not us. There is no reciprocity. We didn't make the Israelis follow any of their obligations under the Road Map, and then we complain that the Palestinians aren't, either. Our 1994 Agreement with N. Korea obligated us to do a list of things, which never happened. Then we complain that they aren't trustworthy.
Our aggressive policy of serial unilateral Regime Change, and our demonstrated superiority in conventional weapons, means every nation who feels threatened by the U.S. (that's a long list, just read the polls) can only feel safe, if they have nuclear weapons. Saddam disarmed, and we invaded anyway. So, clearly, just making yourself non-threatening doesn't avoid potential Regime Change by the Hegemon. Only strength, a credible deterrent, can do that. And only nukes achieve that.
The NonProliferation Treaty is a dead letter, today. Perhaps, at some point in the future, when everybody has nukes, or maybe after they are used again, we'll be ready to negotiate in good faith, and follow treaties we sign. |
