A Strategy to Contain Nuclear Proliferation: Peace

[Tom Rinaldo]

Some times the obvious must be stated, and this seems to be one of those times. It may almost be too simple to easily grasp; War doesn't prevent War, Peace does. There may be times when War can not be prevented, but War is most effectively prevented by waging Peace. War inflames hatred, and hatred fuels War. Peace promotes understanding, and understanding furthers Peace. This is a good time to review these basics, because we are steadily moving toward war with Iran, ostensibly to contain nuclear proliferation.

War will never contain nuclear proliferation, just like Luddite sabotage of cotton mills in early 19th Century England could not contain industrialization. The prevailing logic that drove the industrial age could not be stemmed by violence. Individual factories could be and were destroyed, but never the knowledge that advanced the technology. It was never a possibility. Had luddites somehow managed to imprison or assassinate every individual with the knowledge needed to build textile machines, those machines would have been invented again. That's because every invention springs from a broad foundation of shared fundamental knowledge, but far more important, that's because the logic then driving industrialization was historically irresistible. Conditions were ripe for the Industrial Revolution. And conditions are now ripe for nuclear proliferation.

A military strike against alleged Iranian proto type nuclear weapons facilities may set back such programs by a number of years. People differ on the exact number of years, but it is always estimated in single digits. If Iran were the only nuclear threat facing America, and if our collective anticipated future life span was also estimated in single digits, a preventive military strike on Iran might resolve this potential threat. But how much comfort can the parent of a First Grader take in hoping that military action against Iran now will delay a nuclear threat from Iran until their child enters Ninth Grade? That's assuming of course that an American military strike against Iran didn't push Islamic extremists in Pakistan to seize nuclear weapons already inside that unstable nation, to use against America for once again attacking another Islamic nation.

The nuclear Genie isn't returning to his bottle anytime soon. The information needed to create nuclear weapons is spreading, not vanishing. The technology needed to create nuclear weapons is becoming cheaper, not more expensive. Stockpiles of radioactive materials that can be enriched to weapons grade yield are growing not shrinking. The geographic distribution of those stockpiles is expanding, not consolidating. But all of that is secondary to the logic currently driving nuclear proliferation, an inevitable by product of a poison stew of suspicion, hatred, pride and fear. Conflict is the fuel that boils that stew. Conflict can not contain it. Only Peace can contain it.

Peace comes in many forms. There is warm Peace and cold Peace. There is Peace that is wholeheartedly embraced, and Peace that is grudgingly accepted. There is Peace based on close cooperation, and there is Peace based on mutual deterrence. Many types of Peace, each with it's time and place, but what all Peace has in common is the lack of War. Conflict and War are driving Nuclear Proliferation. To the extent that conflicts intensify, nuclear proliferation will intensify also. Like a weed we can attack it in one place, but when winds of war blow strong, it's seeds blow far and wide.

[Roland99]

1. Peace doesn't make the military-industrial complex any money, though

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. No, it doesn't. But they aren't pitching War for the profits

They are pitching it as a way to keep America secure, and too many Democratic "leaders" are playing right along with that pitch. We have to call them on it.

[Roland99]

3. Well, I disagree there. The * family has LONG been associated with the...

war machine and national security. They and their cronies will continue to create war to keep the money flowing. They're just using "spreading democracy" as the raison du jour.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. What is our disagreement?

I agree with everything you wrote. I only said that they attempt to sell their wars to the public on other grounds. With Iran, they claim it will make the world a safer place if we attack Iran now

[Roland99]

7. Oh, n/m me. I'm in a lunch-induced comatose state

:D

[Igel]

4. I wholeheartedly agree.

On the other hand, war is sometimes necessary to produce peace. Just as a matter of principle there are times when war is preferable to peace.

It takes two to have a war. It also takes two to have peace. If you only have one that refuses to fight, it's called submission. Some elevate that to the level of a nearly religious principle, as long as the submission is of the right kind.

I don't.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. I am not a pacifist by any means

I supported the Kosovo war for example, and wanted the United States to send troops into Rwanda. My complaint with George W. Bush allowing a handful of U.S. troops to enter Liberia with other Peace keeping forces was that it took him too long to do so.

But I tried to look a larger picture than a single conflict here. The strongest justification for a U.S. military attack on Iran right now is to prevent nuclear proliferation, and I think such an attack would ultimately increase rather than decrease that threat. That was my real point. Iran does not now pose an imminent threat to either the U.S. or Israel. Current U.S. policy is contributing to an increase rather than decrease in tensions. A belligerent attitude toward Iran now in my opinion, lessons our security, it does not advance it. Future circumstances may change that equation, but we are writing this in the here and now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. One kick for the weekend n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Nixon knew better

Most of us here understand that, in the world as we know it, sometimes War is unavoidable. And sometimes War is more than unavoidable, sometimes War is even a moral responsibility. The United States avoided military involvement in Rwanda during the Genocide there, but that wasn't the moral thing to do. We should have fought to stop it.

Some individual wars still have to be fought, but the solution to "War" with a capital "W" will always only be Peace, and everything Peace entails. Revenge cycles can last for generations. In some cases they survive for centuries. We saw that in the Balkans. We see that in the Middle East. A threat to the United States has to be serious and immanent before we consider unleashing violence in order to protect us from violence. The United States will not be able to intimidate those whom we view as adversaries from acquiring nuclear technology and/or nuclear weapons indefinitely. It doesn't matter how powerful we are. Israel got nukes, India got nukes, Pakistan got nukes, North Korea got nukes. Even South Africa got nukes and we didn't see it coming before they voluntarily gave them up. Escalating world tensions will not make us safer. Even Nixon knew that.