The latest campaign by the West and so-called "progressive" activists to try to reduce and eventually rid the world of nuclear weapons is nothing more than a naive and unrealistic goal.
Global nuclear disarmament also seems as a means to shift the balance of power to the West (particularly NATO) and it's allies. This is true both militarily and economically.
It is not nuclear weapons that pose such a serious threat to world peace and stability and also kill so many living beings as well as destroying property. When was the last time nuclear weapons killed so many people or were used in a full scale war?
Compare that to the number of times regular weapons from simple machine guns to sophisticated missiles that do damage and take lives on a regular basis. Nuclear weapons productions are not yet (and probably never will be) an industry as regular conventional weapons. Many countries such as America rely on wars to sustain their economies part of which is heavily dependent on arms exports.
A sudden standstill in wars and conflicts worldwide would do severe damage to the economies of mainly NATO countries as well as others.
It's also ridiculous how America and many other Western countries supply sophisticated weapons to two opposing countries. Why are F-16s supplied to both Greece and Turkey who have had military and territorial conflicts going back decades?
Because it's an industry. It's understandable that weapons are needed by some countries in order to protect themselves from hostile, larger, more aggressive states. But to make an entire industry out of these deadly weapons is a much larger danger to the world than nuclear weapons, which only create stalemates.
The American bombing of Japan in World War Two was an exception as America was the only nuclear power for that short period of time. In the modern world, no country dares use nuclear weapons unless they wish complete destruction of life on the planet Earth.
Why did not the United States and the Soviet Union not use their nuclear weapons against each other during the Cold War? Because there is no winner in a nuclear conflict. Why did not America and North Korea engage in a nuclear conflict? Why did India and Pakistan hesitate to go to war after producing nuclear weapons? The answer became clear in all these cases: A nuclear conflict means utter death and destruction on not only the parties involved but also in the surrounding countries caught in such a conflict between the opposing nuclear powers; hence no one with logic will ever use them.
Regular non-nuclear weapons on the other hand are used all over the world and the a major part of the economies of major arms producers depend on such conflicts to keep their arms industries going to feed their continual growth based economies.
And in such a process thousand upon thousands of people are hurt and killed (even non-human species such as plants and animals suffer) simply because some countries feed off these deadly conflicts.
Also when countries purchase arms from their allies to feed their economies in order to keep good relations, they trigger a arms races which is when other countries in the region also pursue similar or the same weapons to keep the balance of power neutral.
Before we know it, all sides are wasting money on weapons and constantly trying to overpower one another, only wasting precious GDP and fueling tensions on all sides. So I ask why has this not been the case for nuclear weapons? When again was the last time nuclear weapons used deliberately to kill or hurt people since World War Two?
Nuclear weapons are not the causes and sources for so many conflicts around the world. It's the dangerous conventional arms market that relies on wars that is the biggest danger and is getting even more dangerous as these conventional weapons get more sophisticated.
Nuclear weapons bring stalemates and keep a decent balance of power around the world. If it wasn't for nuclear weapons distributed around the world, America would probably swallow up China, North Korea, the Russian Federation and others.
India would have also probably swallowed up Pakistan being far bigger had it not been for nuclear weapons.
And with the balance of power uneven on certain sides, the danger of full scale wars breaking out is much, much higher.
I am not trying to advocate nuclear weapons for all or anything close to a nuclear arms race. I am simply against the disarmament of nuclear weapons by countries that currently posses them- including Israel.
It is not nuclear weapons around the world that has caused so many deaths and suffering since World War Two, but these conventional weapons industries that are used to fight small and full scale wars.
Nuclear weapons on the other hand prevent these full scale wars. Many corrupt and dangerous warlords also depend on these conventional weapons to keep their businesses running while many people are hurt/killed in the process in addition to loss of property and infrastructure.
Today some countries are so dependent selling the arms they produce, that excuses to go to war are the only solutions to keep their economies alive. So I ask once again, what is a bigger obstacle to world peace? Nuclear weapons that prevent full scale conflicts due to the devastation they would bring if ever used or conventional weapons industries that are regularly used and have destroyed so many lives?
The solution in my perspective is to greatly reduce this dangerous arms market that only continues to incite wars and are used all over the world everyday.
No comments:
Post a Comment