The Need for Nuclear Proliferation

0
25

“A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.”

— Margaret Thatcher

There can be no peace without justice and justice demands equality – if all the nations are equal, then nuclear deterrence is the right of all or none of the nations. Likewise, preventing nuclear proliferation should be the obligation of all the nations, or none at all. If the West is eager to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, then they should lead by setting an example!

Peace and stability is more likely to prevail, when all the countries are brought to level footing by total disarmament of nuclear weapons: alternatively all the nations have the right to use nuclear deterrence. Any other position is likely to result in instability, as certain nations will possess greater power with nuclear weapons and will be seeking to maintain the status quo; naturally they will act to prevent other nations from acquiring such weapons, which is bound to ignite conflict that can escalate into a full scale war. Accordingly, Iran is now being selectively targeted, even though at this stage it is only developing nuclear energy capabilities and not nuclear weapons. So when the US and its allies say Iran is a threat to international security what they mean is: Iran is a threat to the US-led hegemony in the region, known as building democracy!

Some of the Western hawkish commentators have argued that nuclear weapons are the right of the ‘civilised’ world only. Such nasty and racist views run through the veins of the establishment. However, it is difficult for the governments to express such views openly, so they use their non-affiliated political henchmen to the dirty work. Those political thugs forget – it is the ‘civilised’ world that has used such weapons against civilians. The same ‘civilised’ world have just murdered 30,000-100,000 Iraqi civilians, in the name of eradicating WMDs; enough blood to paint the entire White House red. Even before the advent of nuclear weapons, mass murdering was a key feature of US history. Almost every couple of decades, the US has committed mass murder in some distant land. Like the devils child, the nation’s birth was marked by the systematic elimination of 70 million peaceful Native Americans.

Even today a significant section of the US masses have no reservation for mass murdering civilians, while simultaneously they have the audacity to label others as terrorist, violent, extremists etc. In a recent street survey, some ordinary Americans were asked [1] about using nuclear weapons, the vast majority of them had no qualms and very enthusiastic about it. One person said: “We should nuke them to hell like we did the Japanese". A lady said she could not understand what is holding the US back from nuking Baghdad, so imagine what the cowboys are thinking. Astonishingly, another lady said nuclear weapons should be used against Iraq, because: “they did the same thing to us”. Really, so it seems that Americans do not just believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs but he actually used them against the US.

When asked [2] who the US should invade next, in terms of the war against terror. The answers ranged from Iran, somebody in the Middle East, Cuba, North Korea, France to even their allies like Russia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka? Yes, even Sri Lanka. I guess someone must have told those folks that Tamil Tigers are Al-Qaeda in disguise! Some could not even locate countries like Iran and North Korea on the world map. But does it matter, since they are going get blown to pieces with American nukes. The Americans will see the entire operation with running commentary from the FOX-TV crew, and they will never know if it was fiction or faction or real!

Such level of ignorance and idiocy is very frightening, considering that it is coming from a nation, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. Furthermore, its population does not have any conscience in using it against its enemies. As long as their way of life is intact, they have cheap oil, burgers, fries, shakes, porn, baseball, popcorns and plastic surgery etc. they have no problem, no matter what level of suffering and carnage is inflicted on other nations.

Astonishingly, while these Americans show little reservation in using such destructive weapons, they demonstrate plenty of moral indignation against the tiny bombs of human bombers, who act in retaliation. There is not a single country in the world, where the public would show such lax attitude towards using nuclear weapons. Even in places like Iraq and Palestine, such types of opinions would not be expressed by the general public, even though they have plenty of good reasons to do so!

In any case, it is not the weapon that kills but that the hand that wields it; the hand in turn is controlled by the mind, which makes the decision to kill –” the root cause. Therefore, the approach should be largely based on the traditional Keynesian approach of reducing the demand, by eradicating the criminal mindset that is so eager to use such destructive weapons, instead of focusing solely on the supply side of reducing the availability of such weapons.

However, altering this criminal mindset, and to disarm its nuclear capabilities is not possible at this moment. That only leaves, one other alternative for peace and security: that is for everyone to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Then all you are likely to get is the odd verbal threats, like North Korea got, but not the disarmed Iraq. Nuclear weapons guarantees peace and security from the marauding Americans, hence the US avoided war with nuclear states like North Korea, Russia and China. This is why “democracies do not fight each other” as many of the pro-war pundits constantly yell, because many of those democracies have nuclear deterrence.

Any nation that unilaterally pursues a policy of non-proliferation of WMDs would result in increasing the relative power of its adversaries, while weakening its own position even further. An axiom of international relationship is: powers of nations are relative. It is not how much firepower you posses in absolute terms but in relation to your adversary. As an example, Britain has more firepower today in comparison to its colonial days, but her position is much weaker today, as her firepower is weaker or on par compared to other nations. Also unilateral disarmament does not guarantee a more peaceful world, but a world where the weaker nations can be brought to its knees, like slaves to serve the empire.

The West armed with huge stockpile of nuclear weapons claims to be intimidated by Iran’s decision to resume the development of nuclear energy (not nuclear weapons). How strange, is it Iran or Europe or the US that is surrounded with hostile military bases with nuclear capabilities? Why Iran is less trustworthy in this issue of nuclear technology, given that Israel has nuclear weapons and has not signed up to NPT? Even if Iran started to produce nuclear weapons, it would take sometime before it can acquire enough nuclear weapons only to deter aggressors, let alone pose any direct threat to Western countries in distant lands. The future Iranian threat, if it eventually manages to produce nuclear weapons is a possible threat to the Western hegemony in the region and not to the security of the West.

Germany is now taking a lead in this matter by siding with the US openly, perhaps this is a U-turn in their foreign policy, after realising that they have lost considerable amount of war booty, by not fully cooperating with the US over Iraq. Germany may eventually sign up as a full member to the “war on terror”, which is a veil for allying with the US to share the spoils of war. So, the “old Europe” of Donald Rumsfeld is becoming unreliable for Iran, to use it as a bulwark against American unilateralism.

Facing threats from militant West, the need to acquire nuclear deterrence is essential to maintain sovereignty and security. First step is to withdraw from the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) by citing Israel, who has not signed up to NPT. A nuclear Iran would bring about stability in the region as it would balance the other regional power (Israel) with nuclear weapons and an expansionist agenda to build Eretz (greater) Israel; also, it would deter the US from further aggression. Iraq and Palestine, clearly illustrates the need for the Islamic world and others, to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, to deter marauding capitalist nations from waging colonial wars on behalf of large corporations.

Notes:

[1]. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/141205idiot_America.htm

[2]. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/071205perspective.htm

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here