Is there any evidence of the existence of humans in the absence of the existence of weaponry or has the arms race been one of the central activities of human existence since the start. We now have nuclear weapons, rockets, bombs, really big guns, really little guns, and an assortment of knives and cudgels and there seems to be no end in site. Aside from the fact that it appears to be immensely profitable to make these weapons, they seem to be considered quite utilitarian as well.
Now, I am an American and, to me, it would seem rational to place security as one of the highest of objectives of our government and it would also seem that security is worth paying for in the form of taxes and other contributions of time and effort. Yet, even as an American, it is impossible for me to imagine that this is a uniquely American point of view. It seems to be a common human point of view for all those who are not absolute pacifists. Most of the worlds population whether active participants in their government’s military infrastructures do not seem to be pacifists.
So, while I was watching the news yesterday (and indeed on a number of other occasions), the topics of North Korea and Iran came up in segments about the potential for these countries to develop nuclear weapons. When considering the position of the UN and the US that nuclear proliferation needs to be limited for the sake of peace and stability, I can see the point of the argument, but only to a point. In my final analysis it would seem that there are a multitude of reasons why North Korea and Iran should develop these programs and why a number of other countries that do not have these programs would best server there own rational national interest thought the development of devastating arsenals.
This might seem odd, but countries and their leaders (unless they are puppet leaders) generally do not like to be pushed around and need the ability to defend state sovereignty against all exterior and exterior threats. The threat of being invaded by a more powerful force is real as has been demonstrated time and time again.
If anyone out there happens to read this post and has links to resources that might show the relationship between nuclear capability and trade agreements, I would be quite interest to review the material.
These are the nations I know of the possess nuclear arsenals: - United States of America
- Russia (f/k/a Soviet Union)
- United Kingdom (a/k/a Great Britain or England)
- France
- India
- People's Republic of China
- Pakistan
- Israel (undeclared - but everybody seems to know)
- North Korea (declared, yet unconfirmed)
These countries seem to do pretty much what they want all over the world and also seem to have a lot of leverage over other countries of the world. They can resist more pressure to act or refrain from acting. This would seem to be quite valuable in negotiating "fair trade agreements" and "resolving disputes" peaceably.
There are also some other thoughts that come to mind when considering this surface of this issues: Nations with nuclear programs and advanced weapons programs are constantly producing some of the things that nations of the future will need to remain and become more economically competitive. These nations produce and retain scientists, engineers, statisticians, and knowledge workers. They retain people with transferable skill sets and high-level knowledge. The have people in their societies capable of design and program management. In other words, these nations, despite what some portions of the media may insist are comprised solely of mad, keystone cops, but are commanded and advanced by a thoughtful, methodical leadership that has demonstrated an ability to complete major tasks and reach significant goals, while overcoming a myriad of challenges.
These programs are incredibly important to the development of a nation. Additionally, the ability to enrich uranium and detonate a nuclear weapon indicates that the nation also has the ability to harness that energy for fuel for industry and its society in general. There is substantial value in this. Even an oil rich nation would have incentive to utilize nuclear fuel domestically and to sell the carbon based fuels abroad. There is little reason to doubt that this would be financially feasible and beneficial. Nuclear energy is a great form of energy that we should use more of domestically simply because of the low cost per kilowatt. Nuclear energy allows nations to be more profitable. And the wastes can always be preserved for future weaponization and deterrent. |
