US creating a dangerous world.

Monday, September 12 2005 @ 12:52 MDT

Contributed by: evilscientist

I\'ve been seeing in the news where the United States is revising their nuclear doctrine to make it easier to use their nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity. There are some things that need to be cleared up with this as well as some points for discussion. First off, before everyone starts panicking that the hawks that are the Bush Administration are out to start a nuclear war it should be pointed out that US nuclear war fighting strategy has always had a component of first use of nuclear weapons. What is changing is the addition of certain “War on Terror” (TM, Pat . Pend.) type targets to the list of things the US will nuke if it feels threatened. This will make it easier for the US to use its nuclear arsenal. With a president who sees himself as a gun-slingin\' cowboy, this would tend to be a little destabilizing in the world.

The problem the US has is that no state is crazy enough to launch a nuclear weapon at the US. Lets look at the actors in this play:

1. Russia: Has thousands of weapons left over from the Soviet era. Some of them might even still work, enough to overwhelm any ballistic missile shield thrown up by Bush and Co., definitely enough to survive a first strike by the US and rain nuclear death on US cities.

2. China: Has hundreds of weapons at its beck and call. Still enough to survive any first strike and overwhelm a missile shield. Besides, China holds enough US debt to destroy the US without firing a shot.

3. Great Britain: Has tens of weapons and is a staunch US ally. Also can harm the US economically, though not as much as China.

4. France: Like the UK also has tens of weapons and has been known to blow up South Pacific Islands for the hell of it. Though not in bed with the Americans like the British are, they\'re still in the room.

5. India: Has a few weapons and is most likely to use them against Pakistan than against the US. In fact, India generally ignores the US in terms of its foreign policy and is generally neutral towards the US.

7. Pakistan: Has a few weapons and is most likely to only use them against India. Currently a US ally, things can change in this politically volatile Islamic country so who knows how things will be in a few years.

8. Israel: Suspected to have nuclear weapons. Tel-Aviv is most likely to nuke its Arab neighbors, probably causing more US involvement in the region to try to cool things off.

9. South Africa: Suspected to have nuclear weapons, how the SA government views them since the end of Apartide is unclear.

Some countries are developing nuclear weapons and may have or are near having devices. These countries are Iran and North Korea. It is these countries that the US is likely to use their nuclear arms against. Though I suspect that China would not be impressed if nuclear weapons were used so close to their borders (in N. Korea). As stated before, China has the means to cripple the US economy without firing so much as shot.

So what does this all mean? Well, with the end of the Cold War, the American right has been in desperate search for an enemy so they can justify huge military expenditures. As seen above, most of the Nuclear weapon powers either are so large a threat that a first strike is meaningless (balance of terror) or pointless (not enough weapons to get to the US). Many of the powers are also US allies, making it even more difficult to paint them as enemies. This is where the War on Terror (TM, Pat. Pend.) comes in.

With the War on Terror, it is possible to have an amorphous, invisible enemy that will never go away. It\'s the military-industrial complex\'s wet dream. An enemy that\'s impossible to truly defeat, but one that can be used to justify huge expenditures in military hardware. Being able to justify the use of all those expensive nuclear weapons that have been sitting around for the past 60 years is just the icing on the cake.

Will the US be more likely to use nuclear weapons. Probably, the Bush administration has shown to the world that they are capable of an unreasonable response to any situation so nuclear arms are on the table. Also, with US conventional forces stretched to the limit, something has to fill the gap. Again nuclear arms enter into the equation. Unless the Bush administration has a sudden personality change or leaves office, they\'d better start moving the hands on the nuclear clock back towards midnight.

Comments (1)