 |
By Yousef Munayyer
One Bomb, one flight, and millions of casualties. This is the true horror of nuclear warfare. Since that fateful day in Japan in 1945, the world has known the horror and power that these weapons bring. An event that President Truman termed "the greatest thing in history" was the beginning of an extremely scary era.
Today the fear is realized again. With colored coded warnings from the government, talk of war, and possible terror attacks, the fear that embodied the American citizen in the Cold War has resurfaced.
In the 1950s, atomic warheads were in the Taiwan strait. In fact, President Eisenhower told a reporter that they would be used just as bullets if the time came. These are scary realities. And these realities surround us again with the ongoing crisis in North Korea, Iraq, and those pesky terrorists.
The nuclear weapon is a peculiar thing. Though it brings so much death and destruction, it is argued that it also brings superior security. Nations think twice before attacking a nuclear power. And when one nation attains this power, other nations find it necessary to achieve this power as well so that they can maintain a balance and not be dominated. And so this is one way nuclear weapons spread across the globe. We got the bomb and let the French and the British in on the secret, so the Soviets had to have it. Once they had it the Chinese didn't want to be left out. And as soon as India got it, Pakistan followed. It provided for scary times yet they were relatively peaceful times for those nations, save India and Pakistan in the '70s, and that didn't "go nuclear." Several other nations have attempted nuclear programs like Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa before they gave them up. Israel also "has" nuclear weapons, but its programs are highly secretive. And it took a lot of American diplomacy in the 70's to get South Korea and Taiwan to abandon their ambitious attempts at getting that radioactive prize.
Now North Korea wants (has/had?) the bomb and I wonder who could blame them. They are surrounded by nations who do not wish them well. Russia has the bomb, as do the Chinese. The Japanese and the South Koreans do not but they are on very friendly terms with the U.S., which in turn to the North Koreans is threatening. The last Stalinist regime in the world has a lot to be worried about. So it seems that they are searching for that security that comes with the nuclear warhead. This might be logical for the North Koreans but it presents a problem to the U.S.
North Korea is by no means friendly to the U.S. or the opposite. As President Bush told Bob Woodward he "loathes" Kim Jong II and his regime. Second, the North Koreans have shown their willingness to sell weapons in the past and are in desperate need of oil as well. This would make one think that there could be dealings with the Middle East. Now I'm not saying that Kim Jong II has the "Axis of Evil" on speed dial but I would also not assert that he is the most rational man either.
Another problem with a Korean bomb, aside from the blatant threat to the American continent, is that it would in turn rouse fear in Japan and South Korea and it would be nearly impossible for the U.S. to expect those nations not to go nuclear at that point.
Looking at the Korean situation, the best way to go about solving the problem is diplomacy, maybe even send a high level diplomat like a secretary of state and show the Koreans that you are serious about talking to them. Also, if the current administration refuses to resolve the Korean "non-crisis" by diplomacy because that was how President Clinton had handled it they should take a step back and realize how foolish they are being, not to mention down right dangerous.
That's the thing about dealing with nuclear powers; you really don't want to get them angry at you. A nuclear power may not have a superior army, or even an army at all but the fact that they have the weapon of mass destruction makes them an asymmetrical force, as the political scientists like to call them, and you have to recognize and respect that.
A greater problem arises when weapons like this, whether they are nuclear, biological or chemical, fall into the hands of terrorist networks. What would happen if al-Qaeda had a weapon like this and decided to use it? Imagine if the target was civilian, how can we deal with something like this?
The answer is very simple; it's nearly impossible. These networks are not nation-states; they have no borders, no representatives, and no declared property. We can only imagine what capabilities they could have. And how could we use deterrence or this theory of mutually assured destruction that got us through the cold war against people who are already committed to paying the ultimate price? You can't.
It is illogical to approach the problem from this angle; this is a new enemy(s) with different objectives than what we had used MAD to deter. We need to recognize this and approach it differently. Sure we could play peek-a-boo in endless caves with flashlights and a gun in hand but how is that helping us stop the problem? This is an enemy that is fueled by our hatred for it. We could kill terrorists everyday and never win this war. That should tell us something. My admonitions to policy makers would be to stay as diplomatic as possible; belligerence only leads to further violence and we have seen enough of that. In the Cold War era, which we so narrowly escaped from safety, we created many enemies in the periphery that may come back to haunt us. So now we must keep the future, not just the past in mind when considering decisions to avert tragedies tomorrow.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said "the most advanced nations are the ones that navigate the most."
For mine and for the unborn generations, I hope our decision makers can be navigators in these difficult times. If not, our ship is sure to sink.
The Massachusetts Daily Collegian
February 21, 2003
Sending Out An S.O.S.
|
|
|
