Assuming Global Nuclear Disarmament, What Wars Would We Fear?

Yesterday I wrote a post questioning the need for so many countries in the 21st Century, particular vulgar, repressive military dictatorships, to have nuclear weapons. My premise was not the relative civility of non-nuclear nations vis-à-vis those that possessed nuclear weapons but the proper use of U.S. military power. However, many nice places can be found that have no nuclear arms, nor are they signatories to any treaties that give them nuclear protection. These nuclear-free zones include all of Latin and South America, the Caribbean, Australia and Southeast Asia.

One reason suggested for the surprising Nobel Peace Prize award to President Obama was the Norwegian panel’s support of his global nuclear disarmament proposals. To convince all nations to abandon nuclear arms and to instead focus on the environmental health of the planet for the long-term benefit of all mankind is a laudable yet highly difficult odyssey for any world leader. However the panel felt so strongly about these global issues that they used their influence to strongly encourage their advancement by citing our President’s strong support of the same goals.

If as a species we collectively agreed upon a complete global nuclear disarmament, what would happen? Would we fear another conventional WWIII or multiple regional wars? Are human beings just itching to invade their neighbors to rebuild their economies, impose their religious, economic and political beliefs on others, establish direct ownership over natural resources controlled by others, or pursue “lebensraum” as in more real estate and territory for national growth or urban sprawl?

For discussion purposes, we will have to assume that all nations turn over their nuclear weapons to a powerful international organization that would secure and dismantle them. The existing nuclear powers would safely secure their plutonium and uranium not required for domestic electrical energy production. Finally, all nations would permit international inspectors to monitor all nuclear and military facilities to ensure these weapons are not produced again.

Religious zealots, angry jihadists and other extremists will naturally wish to keep waging wars or terrorist activities against their perceived enemies and to avenge long-ago affronts to their ancestors. They thrive on perpetual conflict and really would be lousy employees in any public or private enterprises as their skill sets are not easily transferrable. (”I said FIX the copier – not blow it up.”) But fortunately they constitute a very small percentage of humanity. With proper global nuclear safeguards, no individuals or groups would be able to obtain the materials to build any nuclear devices.

Most countries that acquired nuclear arsenals did so during the early part of the Cold War during the 1950s and 1960s. Building up a stockpile of warheads was based upon the theory of mutually-assured destruction. This theory stated that if one were fired, that would set off a chain reaction to launch all the rest so as much of the entire planet would be destroyed. After the 1980’s some thought we could successfully use tactical nuclear weapons in a limited way but that theory was thankfully never tried.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, most of its nuclear arsenal was divided between Russia who kept most of them and Ukraine who later gave them all up to Russia. Most nations have 200 warheads or fewer and only the U.S. and Russia still have over 5,000 nuclear warheads each as a well-informed commentator noted to my prior post. Even blowing up 100 bombs in a limited geographic area would cause global environmental havoc for several years under the rosiest scenarios. Underground and atmospheric testing are just not the same. But I digress. The essential question for readers of this post is what would humanity do if no one had Nukes?

Would Russia invade Europe even if it faced conventional war with NATO – and for what purpose? Would Germany invade France again? Would Italy invade Slovenia so to divert attention from Berlusconi’s sexual escapades? Would China invade North Korea, Taiwan or Australia? Would Japan invade China? Would India and Pakistan continue their perpetual war over Kashmir? Would various Arab countries invade Israel despite their winless record over the past 60 years? What visceral psychological benefits inure to those who start wars? What 21st century grievances can only be settled by military force?

Would the US invade Iran? Would the U.S. invade Canada to eliminate that pesky reminder of universal healthcare and seize all their oil reserves – something to warm the hearts of many conservatives? Would Canada invade the U.S. and force universal health insurance upon us in a sinister socialist plot with Great Britain? Would the U.S. invade Lichtenstein, the Cayman Islands, and other well-known international tax havens to recoup billions of dollars in lost tax revenues? Just imagine our Marines leading a small army of auditors and accountants into downtown Grand Cayman to storm the modest office building where thousands of former U.S. businesses have their new “official” headquarters – it makes my heart go aflutter. What a great plot for a movie.

I would recommend readers watch the 1995 movie “Canadian Bacon” written, directed and produced by Michael Moore. It was the last film released to star the late lovable comic John Candy. The premise of the film centered around a weak liberal President played perfectly by Alan Alda who needed to divert the country’s attention from a deep recession by starting a war. The only option left became an invasion of Canada. During the inane run-up propaganda period, several nut-jobs in Buffalo, NY jumped ahead of the military and launch their own inept attack on Canada. The film ended up in Toronto and uncovered a sinister doomsday machine that was diffused at the last moment by pure accident. I personally think this was the best film ever made by Mr. Moore who limited his on-screen participation to a few minor cameo roles.

Our conventional weapons carry far more punch than they did just 20 years ago and are far more lethal than those used during WWII – and the devastation in certain parts of the world was pretty severe. We also managed to kill between 60 and 80 million people worldwide during the early 1940’s, though that included internal wars of attrition by the Soviet Union under Stalin and Germany under Hitler to kill even their own citizens under fraudulent pretexts.

What prevents or encourages countries from going to war with each other? Wars during the 2nd half of the 20th Century and the past 9 years indicate that possessing nuclear weapons is not a deterrent to or an impediment to starting a conventional war. Certainly the US and other nations have effectuated foreign policy through conventional military means, and the pretext for the Iraqi invasion was to prevent its dictator from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Would a world free of nuclear weapons be less susceptible to waging conventional wars, or would this weapons void be filled with far more conventional wars? For those political leaders who would miss the pointless bragging rights of having more nuclear weapons, perhaps a better international competition would be comparing the total miles of operating high speed rail lines country to country.

I also recommend readers watch the disturbing yet excellent award-winning 2005 film “Lord of War” starring Nicholas Cage as an amoral private arms dealer working in 3rd world nations. I welcome all thoughts, ideas and possible predictions from TMV readers.

Marc Pascal in Phoenix, AZ.