Today's post will be cut short a little, I intended on composing a much more lengthy post on cars and oil, but that will be saved for another day. I will be responding to Mr. Butler's view of nuclear weapons.
If you did not get a chance to watch his interview, I still would recommend you at least watch the first ten minutes. The claims which Butler makes about nuclear weapons (obsolete, unnecessary, outdated; among other claims) I find far too idealistic. I prefer a bit more realist point of view.
"Speak soft but carry a big stick" -- Teddy Roosevelt
Nuclear weapons are far from a thing of the past; rather, they are the weapon of the future. It is sad, both in my view and in Mr. Butler's view that this is true; but it is...
Nuclear weapons are not going away anytime soon. Currently there are nine nuclear weapon states:
1. United States
2. Russia
3. China
4. United Kingdom
5. North Korea
6. Israel
7. Pakistan
8. India
9. France
President Barack Obama and President of the Russian Federation, Dmitri Medvedev just held talks on the status of nuclear weapons and decided on a goal of reducing the number of deployed nuclear weapons. This goal hardly accomplished anything as I noted a few days ago.
As long as there are countries pushing for a military edge the world, there will be nuclear weapons. That is the truth, I invite anyone who disagrees to email me and we can continue that discussion. Last time I checked, India and Pakistan still have disagreements over Kashmir; Iran is still threatening to wipe Israel off the map (and vis versa); and North Korea is still threatening war against South Korea and the US....Nuclear weapons are not going away.
The simple fact is that nuclear weapons give us the "Big Stick" that Teddy Roosevelt spoke about many decades ago. Until the world realizes how bad a nuclear attack would be, there will be no elimination of nuclear weapons.
The need for them comes from the "macho" posturing that dominates international politics. There is no way to threaten a state that has a nuclear weapons when you have an army and some rifles. The fact is strategic competition on the world stage is composed of "I have more nukes than you." We need to focus our efforst not on eliminating nuclear weapons, but on having more control.
Here is a link to a post I wrote about a month ago about nuclear weapon safety. Enjoy.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Opinions of an innocent bystander in the world.
Restarting
Anybody who followed this blog for its brief lifetime saw its ups and downs. I AM still currently looking for guest writers if anyone would like to submit an article. The same guidelines apply:
1) At least 750 words long.
2) Must be relevant to the blog title and previous posts (this should be obvious). I will accept posts on subjects other than those provided but should be in the same guidelines of IR, Geopolitics, etc. I would be especially interested in seeing articles utilizing theories of Marxism and Critical Geopolitics.
3) I reserve the right to deny any article written for any reason. I also reserve the right to decide whether I will give you a reason for my decision. Along those lines, I will try and give you a reason why, but I like to keep my options open.
4) Any article accepted will be posted on Digg, and other social media websites.
Please email me your article at c.kirkland(at)sussex(dot)ac(dot)uk. Please make the subject "BLOG" (ensure all caps, I may just delete it otherwise). I look forward to restarting this blog and (hopefully) having a healthy, informed discussion of international politics.
Others to Watch
Blog Archive
About Me
- C.K.
- Finishing my MA in Geopolitics and Grand Strategy at University of Sussex. Interests: Marxism, Critical Geopolitics, Energy Security, Critical Theory (and those which intersect with IR, particularly critical security analysis), Russian foreign and security policy, Central Asia (particularly Kazakhstan), Caspian Sea politics. Sometimes I enjoy reading a bit about COIN.