Last night I participated in a panel discussion. I was allowed a few minutes to respond to a presentation about U.S. policy (how it came to be, what it is, what it might be) regarding nuclear enrichment in Iran. Of course, as happens on occasion, my Realist side came out to play. I argued that fundamentally it does not matter what policy exists or could exist in the future if we start from a position that says the U.S. must be intimately involved.
All states including the U.S. have the fundamental interest of state survival. What other material interests, political interests, social interests that evolve are all connected to the goal of survival of the state and the population represented by the state. One way in which we work to ensure the survival of the state is to deter other states from attempting to alter the existence of the state. Nuclear weapons are a great deterrent to this behavior. Has anyone engaged in an invasion of a seriously nuclear armed state? You probably are thinking the same thing as I am--Israel? Well, Israel has not been invaded since it became a known member of the nuclear weapon owners club.
What is most interesting to me is that those opposed to nuclear proliferation gainsay the nuclear deterrent value by referencing the fact that we do still have militarized interstate disputes involving members of the nuclear owners club. Why yes, we do have those disputes. But did the former USSR invade the U.S. during the cold war? Did the former USSR invade the territory of our close allies who we promised military support and protection? Was the U.S. able to use nuclear diplomacy to gain ends that might otherwise not be achieved?
Nuclear deterrence will not stop Russia under Putin from taking control of parts of Ukraine, and potentially parts of the Baltic states and other Eastern European territory not connected to NATO where a large Russian population exists. Why not? Because the U.S. has not made a commitment to the protection of those states to the level of offering are own nuclear capability as a defense against an aggressive Russia. Nuclear deterrence only works when it is credible and it can only be credible when offered where the U.S. truly has interests. The rest of the world should recognize that we do not have interest in every single human politically motivated issue in every possible location on the face of the earth. Trying to say that we do leads to lack of credibility. For my two cents, the liberal and conservative internationalists should also come to recognize that interjecting the U.S. into every politically motivated issue in every possible location on the earth is also killing U.S. credibility. These bad behaviors are also undercutting the ability of deterrence to work in the world. Oh, by the way internationalists, before you start yammering about isolationism, etc. I never mentioned isolation, I do not live in a vacuum, so stop the gainsaying before you start.
All states including the U.S. have the fundamental interest of state survival. What other material interests, political interests, social interests that evolve are all connected to the goal of survival of the state and the population represented by the state. One way in which we work to ensure the survival of the state is to deter other states from attempting to alter the existence of the state. Nuclear weapons are a great deterrent to this behavior. Has anyone engaged in an invasion of a seriously nuclear armed state? You probably are thinking the same thing as I am--Israel? Well, Israel has not been invaded since it became a known member of the nuclear weapon owners club.
What is most interesting to me is that those opposed to nuclear proliferation gainsay the nuclear deterrent value by referencing the fact that we do still have militarized interstate disputes involving members of the nuclear owners club. Why yes, we do have those disputes. But did the former USSR invade the U.S. during the cold war? Did the former USSR invade the territory of our close allies who we promised military support and protection? Was the U.S. able to use nuclear diplomacy to gain ends that might otherwise not be achieved?
Nuclear deterrence will not stop Russia under Putin from taking control of parts of Ukraine, and potentially parts of the Baltic states and other Eastern European territory not connected to NATO where a large Russian population exists. Why not? Because the U.S. has not made a commitment to the protection of those states to the level of offering are own nuclear capability as a defense against an aggressive Russia. Nuclear deterrence only works when it is credible and it can only be credible when offered where the U.S. truly has interests. The rest of the world should recognize that we do not have interest in every single human politically motivated issue in every possible location on the face of the earth. Trying to say that we do leads to lack of credibility. For my two cents, the liberal and conservative internationalists should also come to recognize that interjecting the U.S. into every politically motivated issue in every possible location on the earth is also killing U.S. credibility. These bad behaviors are also undercutting the ability of deterrence to work in the world. Oh, by the way internationalists, before you start yammering about isolationism, etc. I never mentioned isolation, I do not live in a vacuum, so stop the gainsaying before you start.
No comments:
Post a Comment