nuclear stockpile actually declined by 30 percent. For example, between 19, the number of weapons in the U.S.
and Soviet nuclear arsenals were reduced to very small, less intimidating, and probably more vulnerable forces.ĭevelopments that contribute to a safer world need not be the result of negotiations to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. Similarly, many scenarios for the outbreak of nuclear war which are now “implausible” would become “not implausible” or possibly even “plausible” if the existing U.S. World War I broke out largely because of an arms race, and World War II because of the lack of an arms race. The objective of nuclear-weapons policy should not be solely to decrease the number of weapons in the world, but to make the world saferwhich is not necessarily the same thing. Even if it cannot be total, the goal should be disarmament rather than arms control. It would not be acceptable to have a disarmament “solution” that allowed those with hidden weapons or weapons-grade material to gain an extraordinary advantage over the rest of the world.ģ.
TOTALLY RELIABLE DELIVERY SERVICE 100 PERCENT SAVE HOW TO
And even if they were destroyed, there is still a large amount of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium available, plus the knowledge of how to turn these materials into nuclear devices. Under the circumstances, the Security Council is the best we have, and while a consensus by that body potentially could still have enormous impact (e.g., theoretically it is able to overrule national laws and possibly even the Constitution of the United States), it is unrealistic to expect a major and “binding” UN resolution on nuclear weapons to have much real-world significance.Īs for total disarmament, there are almost 50,000 nuclear weapons in the world today even if they were banned, not all would be destroyed. All three options are unacceptable, and a compromise seems almost impossible. And there could be no chance of agreement today on who would have the veto power.īut even assuming a new world government were negotiable, how would it be structured? If it followed the “one man-one vote” principle, it would be dominated largely by Asian nations under “one country-one vote,” it would be run largely by the small states and with “one dollar-one vote” it would result in domination by the United States, Japan, the Soviet Union, and Western Europe. The small nations intentionally turned over their power to the great nations of the world in 1945 today they fight fiercely to retain it by voting in blocks, changing allegiances and alliances as it suits their purposes. In fact, it is very doubtful if the creation of the Security Council, or a successor body, could be negotiated today. The effort of trying to establish a more effective world government would itself involve major problems.
History, however, has proven its basic ineffectiveness. It is definitive on almost any issue on which a majority, including the five great powers (the United States, Soviet Union, China, Great Britain, and France), can agree. A world government of sorts already exists: the UN Security Council. The control of nuclear weapons should be pursued through the creation of an effective world parliamentary government and/or total worldwide disarmament. It is, then, the “nonissue” of least relevance to government policy on nuclear war.Ģ. If there is a “redemption of mankind,” it will not occur as a result of a great debate on national security policy or defense. Redemption may be an appropriate and correct concern for a church, but it has nothing to do with any policies that the government canor shouldcarry out. This concept has also been suggested in A Pastoral Letter on War and Peace by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Christ said, “I come not to judge the world but to save the world.” Let us, also, not judge the world but save the world. Auden told us, “We must love one another or die.” Let us love one another…. Forster told us, “Only connect!” Let us connect. f we had begun with Gandhi’s law of love we would have arrived at exactly the same arrangement. Today the only way to achieve genuine national defense for any nation is for all nations to give up violence together…. This concept has recently been popularized in a book by Jonathan Schell: We must halt the nuclear “arms race” in order to achieve the redemption of mankind. The following twelve assertions, however common and sincerely held, in terms of policy making are basically irrelevant, impractical, inaccurate, or foolish and should be eliminated from the debate at the outset.ġ. Twelve Nonissues and Twelve Almost Nonissues
0 kommentar(er)
