Dueling Opinions: Nuclear Disarmament

 On April 8th at the Prague Castle in the Czech Republic, President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev both signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, pledging to reduce our cache of nukes to 1,550. That's still enough remaining weapons to obliterate the world beyond recognition, but the treaty is nonetheless significant considering the bitter rivalry between the leaders' respective homelands.

On April 12, heads of state from 46 different countries convened in Washington D.C. for the Nuclear Security Summit, the largest meeting of its kind since the 1945 United Conference on International Organizations. During the Summit, Obama championed "Nuclear Posture Reform," which would endeavor to move away from the chest-thumping acceleration exhibited by the United States and the USSR during the nuclear arms race, with hopes of fostering an international community that would no longer tolerate nuclear proliferation from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, whose emerging nuclear programs pose a palpable threat to the international community.

The reform would impose a "no first-strike policy," wherein the United States made a commitment not to retaliate to non-nuclear attacks with nuclear weapons or Obama's diplomatic efforts have been criticized by many pundits either for the mostly symbolic concessions in Nuclear Posture Reform, or what many on the political right have incorrectly perceived as mitigation of American military might.

If the United States, the only nation in the history of the world to attack our enemies with an atomic bomb, has nuclear weapons and continues the truculent postures of the Cold War, then it isn't unreasonable for Russia, Israel, Pakistan and India to stockpile their arms while Iran and North Korea scramble to develop the necessary technology to bomb the bejesus out of the U.S. and our allies. If the guarantee of mutually assured destruction is the primary motivating factor preventing nuclear war, citizens have much to fear indeed from emerging nuclear nations, not to mention the havoc a terrorist group could wreak if they were to get a hold of loose nuclear material.

I cannot overstate the necessity of eradicating nuclear arsenals around the world, nor do I delude myself into thinking the progress achieved at the summit is anything more than a first step toward a future without the fear of nuclear weapons.

The nature of warfare has changed. Nuclear arms have no place in any of our current overseas conflicts, as our enemies are disparate, ambiguously connected radical organizations, often operating within the borders of our allies. These bombs exist for no other reason than to devastate entire regions. While the concept of mutually assured destruction has stymied nuclear war thus far, the concept of mutually assured destruction is unlikely to persuade a suicide bomber, but the volatility of today's international climate renders the mutually assured destruction caused by nuclear war nearly inevitable.