Nuclear Proliferation
Of course it would be better if nobody new acquires nuclear weapons. It would be best if they did not exist. Confrontation and censure will not achieve either of these goals. There may be some subtle changes in the Obama administration’s approach, but American public opinion remains gung ho. Whenever some guru or think tank boss in the U.S is interviewed for one of the British news channels the message is always the same. We have to stop Iran acquiring them and we have to control North Korea. Now they add Pakistan to stop it either using them, or giving bits to AlQaeda to build a basic terrorist bomb. This is going to get nowhere.
The essense of control is deterrence. It makes no difference if Iran has the bomb. It just needs to know that if it makes a first strike it will be wiped of the face of the earth not just within hours but within minutes. This applies to everyone else. Including North Korea, Pakistan, Israel or even the U.K. The U.S, Russia, the U.K, France and China working in concert, can deter any first strike anywhere by a rogue state on a neighbour unable itself to retaliate in kind. That is much more effective than sanctions. It is the diplomacy of the dim witted to suppose that Iran, facing Pakistan and Israel, both nuclear armed, is going to accept that it is a morally inferior country which should not be allowed to protect itself with deterrent capability, unless somebody else offers protection.
Where was the U.S when South Africa, Israel, India and Pakistan made their bombs? Nowhere. It did not care because it was of no practical significance in strategic terms, even if it was undesirable. What has changed? The answer is 9/11.
It is the continuing failure of the U.S to understand what 9/11 actually was and what it actually meant that places the U.S at risk, together with its allies of some kind of nuclear attack by terrorists. France has said that any such attack on it will trigger a nuclear response, presumably on the country perceived to have helped Al Qaeda build its weapon. This may not be that easy to determine, but it was the right response. In fact the attack, if it comes, would most likely be on several countries at once and not happen until the terrorists have about six weapons to guarantee maximum calamity. It may not happen. It need not happen. If America was less agressive, less arogant and less in thrall to its military and their cheerleaders in politics and academia it would not.
9/11 was organised to teach America a lesson that those inferior people in its eyes, the Muslims, were not going to be trampled underfoot like the so called Red Indians and exploited for their oil to feed the energy gorging of the most prolifgate people in all of history, nor were they going to be humiliated like the post cold war Russians, nor made to live in squalour generation after generation under the heal of America’s puppet Israel. Never before in history has so self righteous a country as the U.S. been so wrong about so many things in the belief that it was right in all of them.
The lesson has not been learned but there are straws, just a few, in the wind that a learning process is beginning. Meanwhile the Commons Select Committee of M.P.s has recommended a less deferential relationship to the U.S and the dropping of the term Special Relationship, which they feel is overused and devalued. I agree. America is, historically family, but, as in all families, we can go separate ways. We also need to teach America that lesson. They should climb off their high, arrogant, horse and listen to us. Better our admonishing voice than the nuclear flash of Al Qaeda. For all of us.
President Obama knows all this. That is why he is so angry with Israel. Americans need to back him to the hilt.