21st Century “Cojones”: Having Nuclear Weapons
Oct 13th, 2009 | 12 responses
Some of the most dysfunctional autocratic regimes run by the most repressive and nasty leaders on the planet want Nuclear Weapons. The only explanation is their lack of perceived “Cojones” (vulgar Spanish for testicles or balls) and some modicum of international respect and fear. I apologize to some readers who might be offended by this word but I used it because these regimes are essentially so vulgar they merit the appellation.
The only purpose for a country to have a nuclear arsenal today is the threat that the possessor will environmental destroy as much of the world as possible if anyone tries to remove them from power. Most of the nicest places on the planet with the sanest governments and civilized societies do not have nuclear weapons. Rational people and nations do not need them to avoid outside military invasions or internal popular revolts. However, North Korea and Iran are places where life is so miserable for the residents that the governments are constantly paranoid and fearful about being deposed for being utterly corrupt, vulgar and incompetent regimes.
There are stateless terrorist groups, such as the Taliban or Al Qaida that would relish having nuclear bombs. They consider them offensive weapons, not defensive, and a means to quickly transport themselves beyond this life and simultaneous punish the infidels. You don’t really talk to or negotiate with these madmen. You eradicate them by any means necessary before they can do further harm to others. Unfortunately one cannot use nuclear weapons against them because that poses the high potential of extensive collateral damage to innocent people and the world’s environment.
The past 8 years since 9/11/01 show that excellent and continuous police and anti-terrorism work at the local, state and national level by thousands of dedicated Americans, serve as the best protection to additional terrorist attacks. Every individual should not be afraid of notifying appropriate authorities of highly suspicious behavior of neighbors, acquaintances and strangers. However, deterring every crazy individual who wants to kill as many innocent people as possible while blowing up himself is essentially impossible. These jihadists do not have exit or escape plans though more are now interested in using the latest technology to wreck havoc from remote positions and then be able to attach again. Only a sick and demented mind will embrace religious dogma for the intentional savagery towards other humans. An even stupider one is needed to blow itself up in the process but those are getting harder to find. Continuous excellent police work and international cooperation are the only ways to eradicate these madmen.
What should we do about the reclusive, closed, repressive, psychotic, vulgar and dangerous regimes such as Iran and North Korea? Sanctions, embargos and further political and economic isolation are not the answers. Instead, let’s shower them with gifts from the west; including food, fuel, construction materials, consumer goods, and all our latest communications media to permit their citizens full access to the world outside. We should also demand more free travel out of and into these places.
Let’s only confront them on a continuous basis for their internal human rights abuses and their utter incompetence and corruption as regimes. Let them storm out of meetings because we continue to hold up the facts to the entire world that they are corrupt, inhuman and degenerate regimes. Constantly putting international pressure on them for these abuses have yet to be tried. At least they could not charge their own citizens with conspiring with the enemy when we are doing all the criticizing from outside.
Talking directly to these despotic leaders does not mean we shouldn’t insult and castigate them at the same time. These regimes do not deserve much respect or politeness since they do not extend these policies to their own citizens.
However, we should not fear to over-engage them as the decades of sanctions, embargos, and other isolation methods have proven to be wholly ineffectual. Even our failed treatment of Cuba since 1959 supports this alternative policy because we all know that Fidel is still in charge despite the decades of embargos and isolation. For decades the only major exports from Cuba have been Cubans.
If you knew your neighbor was abusing his children, would you stay silent when you meet him on the street? In fact, is it not your moral and ethical duty to report him to the police and testify truthfully to the facts of which you have personal knowledge? And insulting him to his face, rallying all the neighbors to stop the abuse or get him out of the neighborhood after he is convicted, might also be appropriate methods of dealing with the pervert. Instead our frequent silence and intentional disregard for such situations only perpetuates the crimes and emboldens others to do the same. The wimpy defense of “not wanting to get involved” flies in the face of the age-old questions: “Are you your brother’s keeper” and “Who is your neighbor?”
If today, we ostensibly do not go to war over natural resources, to acquire more land for national expansion, or to transform another country’s economic policies, what justifications remain for intervening in the affairs of other nations beyond direct physical threats to, or actual attacks on, our own people or territories? What internal matters are still open for world inspection and castigation? We have had too many examples of internal genocides in human history that were callously ignored by the rest of the world under the lame excuse that it was “an internal matter” for the particular despots who ran the place to voluntary cease.
If the U.S. quickly deposed the brutal regimes in Burma, Mozambique, and a few other utterly corrupt and dangerous military dictatorships around the world, and then withdrew without any “nation-building,” would the world really protest that loudly, impose economic sanctions, or use military force against us? The U.S. military in the 21st Century should be much smaller, but more technologically lethal and operationally agile to permit multiple brutal, effective, targeted, and quick military strikes around the globe that further our national and international goals.
We should not continue a national military policy that moves tens of thousands of troops and billions of dollars in military hardware and support equipment to various trouble spots for prolonged occupations and involvements with no clear timetables, goals and exit strategies. We have proven in the latter half of the 20th Century that our military forces are best employed when quickly overwhelming a surprised enemy with high technology and superior forces, and then promptly leaving. We should only level the playing field so the local populations can work out a new political order after we topple an old one. Imposing a new ruling regime or occupying a country indefinitely does not engender us to the local populations, nor does it further our long-term national goals.
Marc Pascal in Phoenix, AZ
12 Responses to “21st Century “Cojones”: Having Nuclear Weapons”
“Most of the nicest places on the planet with the sanest governments and civilized societies do not have nuclear weapons”
Please name a country that qualifies under this that isn't A) part of the Commonwealth B) part of NATO and/or C) doesn't a mutual defense treaty with a major super power. Even Japan is suspected of having “out of the box” capability to develop a weapon if our protection treaty with them ends.
I don't agree with your basic premise at all.
I've been told that the military power of Fiji has been secretly inquiring about the possible purchase of a nuclear weapon. Seems odd, but they have had military takeovers of the elected government. What are they going to do with it, threaten Micronesia?
Horse shit…
A) The only countries that have enough nukes to destroy the planet are the US & Russia.
Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance
B) After seeing what has happened to Iraq, any country (Iran, Venezuela, Libya, Nigeria, Angola) that has anything that the US wants or may want any time in the near future should start a Nuclear program, any country (Brazil, South Africa, etc ) that wants to be a regional power should start a Nuclear program. It's the only guarantee that the US will not invade.
Actions have consequences, and the Iraqi invasion has done more to convince the world that the US is a rogue state that will not follow any of the international norms…
Interesting and thought-provoking post, Marc”
I do have a couple of comments and questions.
“You don’t really talk to or negotiate with these madmen [stateless terrorist groups]. You eradicate them by any means necessary before they can do further harm to others.” Totally agree.
“Unfortunately one cannot use nuclear weapons against them because that poses the high potential of extensive collateral damage to innocent people and the world’s environment.” There are other weapons available.
“Continuous excellent police work and international cooperation are the only ways to eradicate these [jihadists in the US and elsewhere]madmen.” Totally agree
“What should we do about the reclusive, closed, repressive, psychotic, vulgar and dangerous regimes such as Iran and North Korea? Sanctions, embargos and further political and economic isolation are not the answers. Instead, let’s shower them with gifts from the west; including food, fuel, construction materials, consumer goods, and all our latest communications media to permit their citizens full access to the world outside.” Are you serious about this? Is there a historical precedent that such works?
“Let’s only confront them on a continuous basis for their internal human rights abuses and their utter incompetence and corruption as regimes. Let them storm out of meetings because we continue to hold up the facts to the entire world that they are corrupt, inhuman and degenerate regimes. Constantly putting international pressure on them for these abuses have yet to be tried.”
I don't know how this latter, the continuously confronting them and constant international pressure approach, would go hand-in-hand with “showering them with gifts.” Unless it is the big carrot and the little stick approach?.
“However, we should not fear to over-engage them as the decades of sanctions, embargos, and other isolation methods have proven to be wholly ineffectual. Even our failed treatment of Cuba since 1959 supports this alternative policy because we all know that Fidel is still in charge despite the decades of embargos and isolation. For decades the only major exports from Cuba have been Cubans.” Here, are you proposing the big carrot and the little stick approach?
“If today, we ostensibly do not go to war over natural resources, to acquire more land for national expansion, or to transform another country’s economic policies, what justifications remain for intervening in the affairs of other nations beyond direct physical threats to, or actual attacks on, our own people or territories? What internal matters are still open for world inspection and castigation? We have had too many examples of internal genocides in human history that were callously ignored by the rest of the world under the lame excuse that it was “an internal matter” for the particular despots who ran the place to voluntary cease.”
But I think that in fact “we” (We and other nations) have gone and do go to war (althought we may not advertise it as such) for strategic reasons, including strategic geography/location, perceived strategic/geo-political threats (domino theory?), land grab, national resources (oil?), etc.,etc. Regrettably, with very few exceptions (perhaps Kosovo), we do not go to war to prevent or quell “internal genocides.”
“If the U.S. quickly deposed the brutal regimes in Burma, Mozambique, and a few other utterly corrupt and dangerous military dictatorships around the world, and then withdrew without any “nation-building,” would the world really protest that loudly, impose economic sanctions, or use military force against us? The U.S. military in the 21st Century should be much smaller, but more technologically lethal and operationally agile to permit multiple brutal, effective, targeted, and quick military strikes around the globe that further our national and international goals.”I mostly agree with you, but what happened to the carrot-and-the stick approach
“We should not continue a national military policy that moves tens of thousands of troops and billions of dollars in military hardware and support equipment to various trouble spots for prolonged occupations and involvements with no clear timetables, goals and exit strategies. We have proven in the latter half of the 20th Century that our military forces are best employed when quickly overwhelming a surprised enemy with high technology and superior forces, and then promptly leaving.” Amen!
“We should only level the playing field so the local populations can work out a new political order after we topple an old one.” Perhaps, but then you get perilously close to the dreaded nation building, etc. and start coming mightily close to “Imposing a new ruling regime or occupying a country indefinitely” which, as you say, ” does not engender us to the local populations, nor does it further our long-term national goals.”
Marc, I am not trying to be critical, just trying to understand your thesis a little better.
And, by the way, don't worry about using “cojones,” when used as a figure of speech, IMO, it is perfectly OK to denote courage (or no courage). Madeleine Albright, (who has cojones) has used it and so has George W. Bush (referring to Tony Blair). and so have many others.
Thanks for your post
Dorian
I don't think that Marc said anything about destroying the planet.
He said “The only purpose for a country to have a nuclear arsenal today is the threat that the possessor will environmental destroy as much of the world as possible if anyone tries to remove them from power.”
In that context, I believe that other countries, in addition to the US and Russia can do plenty to environmentally destroy a lot of the world, if not destroy the planet. In any case, I would not want to be around after any of the following countries used their entire nuclear arsenals.
I believe that
China's 100-200 warheads, France's approximately 350 strategic warheads, the UK's 160 warheads,.
India's 100 nuclear warheads, Israel's between 75 to 200 nuclear warheads, etc., would do the trick nicely
But even that's not true… Imagine an Iraq that had nukes when we invaded, if they had been smart they would have waited for our invasion, once we had crossed the border they could have found a choke point (easier said than done) attempted to bottle us in there and either dropped a nuke on top of us or better yet have the nuke planted in advance so that they can destroy most of the invading army, if neither of those is possible drop or plant a few nukes behind the invading army so that you can nuke their supply lines, hell they could have dropped a small nuke in the port of Kuwait, no supplies would mean the end of the invasion…
All of the uses I just described would be perfectly legitimate use of nukes, all aimed at military targets in self defense.
I am sure that if the Chinese and the Euros got into a real Nuclear pissing contest, that neither Europe, nor China would be habitable for the next 10,000 years, not to mention the climatic change that all that dust in the atmosphere would cause. On the other hand if we were to use our entire arsenal, the entire planet would be inhabitable, we have more than enough nukes to destroy the entire planet.
And if you think that anyone who has nukes today is going to get rid of them after we have just demonstrated the consequences of not having them, I have a bridge to sell you…
I am not taking issue with what Marc said about nuclear weapons, I am taking issue with your statement that:
“The only countries that have enough nukes to destroy the planet are the US & Russia.”
I think THAT is, as you say, “horse shit”
I am pretty sure that the planet would survive a couple of hundred nukes going off, it has so far…
Nuclear testing by country
Now a couple of hundred nukes ( The biggest arsenal outside that of the US and Russia being 350 Nukes, Don't know how many megatons that would be ) going off simultaneously is not something I look forward to, but I think that humanity would probably survive the catastrophe, I don't know if humanity could survive if every non-American & non-Russian Nuke (approximately a 1000 nukes) went off simultaneously, on the other hand the approximately 10,000 American (or Russian Nukes) going off simultaneously would likely kill off humanity.
In a rational world everybody would destroy their nukes, but as long as the Russians and Americans have them no one in their right mind is going to give them up.
[...] [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hans Spee, BeautyFest News. BeautyFest News said: 21st Century “Cojones”: Having Nuclear Weapons http://bit.ly/f4jZH [...]
Marc:
I guess I/we need to read your follow-up post to get some feedback on/acknowledgment to my/our comments to this one?
Of course there are some lesser-developed nations with lesser-developed psyches who want nuclear weapons in order to add weight to their chest-thumping, as well as add weight to threats to their neighbors. In Iran's case, one can add the ability (as with a few in Pakistan willing to launch a nuclear war with India) to initiate a destructive nuclear strike against Israel. Even if Israel were to cause many times as many Iranian casualties in an exchange, if it ended the state of Israel, or even if the destruction of Israel entailed the destruction of Iran, too, the arithmetic is acceptable to a few in Iran (as was shown already to be the case with Pakistan — when told about the consequences to Pakistan and asked if the general really wanted to start a nuclear war with India, the reply was: “Why not?”)
Of course, viewing these lesser-developed nations and associated mentalities remains useful to some on the Left, in trying to mischaracterize the West and especially the Evil USA (as well as Israel), especially whenever the USA has a Republican president at the time the mischaracterization is contemplated.