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