NATO- Preemptive Nuclear Strike an Option
Posted 50 weeks 1 day ago byWow. Former General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and Nato's ex-supreme commander in Europe along with key European military officials submit a report on upgrading NATO that includes the potential "first strike" nuclear option to prevent the proliferation of WMD. This is because there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world." This comes in direct contradiction to the recent op-ed published by foreign policy gurus like Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, and Brent Scowcroft which called for a renewed effort at nuclear disarmament. Interestingly, the authors are not overt military hawks with any sort of "neoconservative" bent. In fact, Shalikashvili was former President Clinton's Joint Chiefs Chair for a time. This is sobering, but a fairly realistic as opposed to naive view of the challenges the world faces today.
Key issues for NATO to deal with are:
* Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.
* The "dark side" of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
* Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential "environmental" migration on a mass scale.
* The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nato/story/0,,...
Thoughts
Poor nation's insurance policy
Submitted on January 22nd, 2008 by Cycle_GeezerIn 60+ years, atomic weapons have gone from an expensive undertaking requiring the total concentration of a fully industrialized nation to an off the shelf technology utilized by the little guy (Israel, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran?) as an equalizer. Whether it's concessions ala North Korea, deterrence ala Israel or who knows what ala Iran, proliferation is just something we'll have to learn to live with. I can't help but think that a variant of the old MAD that kept us going through the Cold War won't keep us through the long war. We'll just have to remain vigilant and make it clear that any use against us will result in the end of the offending nation. As for terrorists, how can you devise a rational response to what looks like an irrational stimulus? Some version of he who funds them suffers the consequences? I don't know.
Proliferation happens
Submitted on January 22nd, 2008 by JoelAs much as I hate to admit it, I think the generals are right: The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. I think the last decade has taught us that proliferation happens, no matter what we want.
That said, the efforts of Kissinger et al might still be worth it, if only because counterproliferation -- even if doomed to ultimate failure -- might help slow proliferation.
Two other thoughts:
* The nuclear stuff got the headlines, but that is -- as far as I know -- a re-affirmation of existing policy. More interesting, I think are the questions about whether NATO can or should continue to exist. The experience in Afghanistan is starting to suggest otherwise.
* That said: I don't know if we can ever publicly take first-strike off the table, because of how that might be interpreted by rivals, etc. But I think that first-strike should be off the table. Nuclear weapons are inherently genocidal in nature; whoever chooses to be the first to pull that trigger will have committed a great moral wrong.