Taking a Knee Against Nuclear Weapons

The popular protest, the Take a Knee Movement, occurring during the National Anthem of sporting events originated with Colin Kaepernick as a statement against police brutality supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. This movement has spread to many televised sports as a way for people to use their power for what they believe is right. Unlike nuclear weapons, their protest isn’t harming anyone, except human feelings. Nuclear weapons have been used as a threat in order to defend the country they belong to since the 1940s. Similar to the taking a knee campaign, nuclear weapons push the limits on how far they can anger people before retaliation. In the same way that people are allowed to exercise their free speech in protests, countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons to protect themselves as a part of self-defense.

            Nuclear weapons are a part of worldwide war history and a technological accomplishment that many countries are proud of. Regardless of the fact that they were invented for mass destruction, their creation was a major technological feat. Their creation is a testament and statement to how much money a country has and the intelligence of their citizens. As humans with morals, national leaders should be able to make peaceful negotiations without having to worry about the threat of their entire country being destroyed. In the Declaration of Independence, which was established on good moral principles, it states that if the government becomes destructive, the people have the right to abolish it. The nation's people should be able to have a say in the use of nuclear weapons. For example, if the United States drops a nuclear weapon on Iran without the consent of the American people, the American people could retaliate against the government because they could have a nuclear weapon dropped on them to kill them. Just because we have nuclear weapons, doesn’t mean we have to use them.

            Much like Americans have the right of free speech, they should have the right to decide if they want to risk being killed by a nuclear weapon. Even though the take a knee movement is perceived as offensive to certain public officials, members of the military, veterans, and police officers, the Constitution allows citizens to speak out when they feel injustice. Some football players that are participating in this movement feel that the police should not be using their power for hate crimes against black people. The use of nuclear weapons by government officials without the consent of the citizens can be viewed as a hate crime because they are throwing away millions of lives in order to win an argument with another country.

            But, in both cases, not everyone is happy with the end result. There has to be a balance found in order to protest quietly and respectfully and have another way for countries to peacefully settle negotiations. Mutually Assured Destruction is not the answer because then there will be no world left to negotiate and protect.

The Delusions and Illusions of Intervention

On April 4th, 2017 the Syrian Arab Air Force on commands by President Bashar Al-Assad dropped bombs on the rebel held town of Khan Sheikhound . In the following days 80 people would be dead and a international incident would arise. The United Nations and the coalition forces in the Middle East believe that Assad used chemical weapons a violation of international law against militants and civilians in rebel held territory as a part of a offensive against the rebels in western Syria. The Syrian government and Russian allies state that while the strike happened the bombs were conventional and hit a rebel chemical weapons depot. In response to these attacks president Donald Trump authorized the bombing of the airbase that the original strikes launched from.
The fact is does it matter if the attack was chemical? When a bomb is dropped on someone they die. a chemical weapon or a barrel bomb still kills you. The United States has used chemical weapons in wars for decades and you will never hear any criticism for it. During the Vietnam War, the United States dropped thousands of tons of agent orange on Vietnam destroyed half the country giving both American soldiers and Vietnam civilians cancer. During the invasion of Iraq the United States used depleted uranium and white phosphorus during the battle of Fallujah. Many people ignore the facts of history during the discussion of Syria and the possible intervention.
Shadi Hamid is a writer for the Atlantic who wrote an article "A Practical Guide for Avoiding Fallacies on Syria" which used the excuse of defining debate on intervention to push for intervention. First off Hamid works for the Brookings institute a think tank that has received millions of dollars from foreign governments including governments sympathetic to the jihadist opposition such as Qatar.
First Hamid states that military action does not equal regime change and that is delusional if the United States attacks assad with ground troops then Assad is going to declare war simple as that.  He then makes the delusional claim that not everything is Iraq. While that might be true in the fact that every intervention is not the same, Syria is essentially Iraq. The only reason Syria happened was because of Iraq. ISIS spawned in from the Sunni uprising against the American occupation. The Arab Spring was supported by US diplomats and the United States supported Jihadist opposition that killed women and children for supposed crimes against Islam. He also states that we are not doing anything which could not be further from the truth. The United States has been supporting the SDF (Kurds and communists) since 2013 with weapons, tanks, and vehicles. The United States has been dropping bombs all over Syria since 2011. Also the final notion that the United States should do what strikes fear into Russia is something that has hurt America for centuries and cost thousands of lives through such wars as Korea and Vietnam. The United States should simply support the SDF with military arms, airstrikes and in the long term support the federalization of Syria.

A World without Nuclear Weapons

For most people, a world without any state having any nuclear weapons in their possession would be a good thing. The world would never be on the verge of mutually assured destruction, and there would be more cooperation between countries that would otherwise not cooperate had there had still been nuclear weapons. This assumption is false for many reasons.

One reason as to why this is wrong is because the world before nuclear weapons there were always arms races between rival countries which would in time lead to war due to asymmetric information. Neither state would know what the other intended to use its built up arms so one state would act preemptively and attack their rival state before it attacks them. Major wars occurred before nuclear capabilities were discovered. A state with no nuclear capabilities would never think to attack another state with nuclear capabilities. Without the deterrence of nuclear weapons, wars would be more likely to start with conventional forces.

A second reason as to why it would not be better is that even if states dismantle their nuclear weapons programs, it is very difficult to believe that each state that would not have "hair-trigger mobilization plans to rebuild nuclear weapons and mobilize or commandeer delivery systems and would have prepared targets to preempt" (Schelling, 127) other states' nuclear facilities. They might have dismantled their programs, but they did not destroy their facilities. There is also the likelihood of each state developing its own secret or unofficial nuclear weapons program. This means that it will be even more difficult to know who really has nuclear weapons and who does not.

A world without nuclear weapons is actually less stable than a world with nuclear weapons. When both World Wars started, there was a very unstable system that evolved. the entanglement of alliances that occurred and the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand allowed Austria-Hungary the excuse they needed to attack Serbia and start the First World War. there was no deterrent of mutually assured destruction to prevent them from attacking. The beginning of World War II started similarly in that there was no real deterrent to keep Germany from attacking Poland and starting World War II.

Nuclear weapons, although very powerful and destructive, maintain peace and act as a deterrent to belligerent states that wish to act aggressively. There has not been a large full-scale war between multiple countries across continents since the end of World War II. The world might have seen a Cold War; however, it was an uneasy peace that never brought the two main powers in direct conflict with each other.

The Negative Effect of Complete Disarmament

            Nuclear weaponry has been a discussion at the forefront in the world of international politics since World War II when the first atomic bombs were utilized.  Despite the Cold War and the nuclear arms race the ensued, the development of nuclear arms has created a more stable world.  The argument against, per say, could be that nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous and a threat to society as a whole.  However, as soon as the United States created their first nuclear weapon during the Second World War, a nuclear arms race was inevitable.  Therefore, we cannot change the past, and technology will only continue to advance into the future.  Trying to completely eradicate nuclear weapons at this point in history would not be beneficial to the global society as a whole and would be impossible to control and enforce.

            Thomas C. Shelling makes an important point when talking about India in the 1970s and whether or not they “had the bomb.”  He argues that it is not important if India actually has a nuclear bomb or not, but rather if they have the potential – expertise, personnel, laboratories, equipment- to produce a weapon if they decided to.[1]  This was India in the 1970s; today, not only does India (who is a much more developed country than 40 years ago) have the potential to create nuclear weapons, but many other states have this potential as well.  Current technology and globalization have allowed for the ease of nuclear development to occur in states that did not have the capacity even 25 years ago.  The potential for nuclear weapons development, one could argue, is equal to actually possessing nuclear weapons in physical form.  Therefore, even though the Non-Proliferation Treaty only allows 5 countries to actually possess nuclear weapons, there are a significant amount of other states that have the potential to have a nuclear weapon ready within days, if not hours, if needed.

            If this is the case, then complete disarmament of nuclear weapons in the world is near impossible.  Because the technology is already present to rapidly create nuclear weapons, it would be impossible to regulate all nations in not utilizing their intelligence.  Schelling aids this idea in saying that, despite “disarmament,” [nuclear powers] would seek ways to make it known that they had the potential for a rapid buildup.  Therefore, “mutual nuclear deterrence” could take the form of letting it be known that any evidence of nuclear rearmament would be promptly reciprocated.[2]  Eliminating nuclear weapons is thus not a viable solution to the ideology behind disarmament.  It is more beneficial for countries to be transparent about their nuclear weapons, as with most nuclear capable states.  If all nations decided to sign a treaty of disarmament tomorrow, it would still be known just which states have the knowledge and capability of rapid rearmament.

            More and more countries are seeking to develop nuclear weapons as it has become visible just how accessible the technology can be.  The more nuclear weapons produced, the more backlash that ensues and the call for nuclear disarmament.  In a perfect world where all countries followed the rules, disarmament of nuclear weapons would benefit society as a whole.  However, this is not the case for the world today.  Therefore, accepting countries’ potentials for nuclear arms and encouraging transparency is the best form of control over such powerful tools of destruction.

---

[1] Thomas C. Schelling, “A World without Nuclear Weapons?” Daedelus 138, no. 4 (2009), 125.  

[2] Schelling, “A world without nuclear weapons?”, 126.