Back To Your Regularly Scheduled WP Blog

The largest problem in world politics for the WORLD - and, thanks to our entangling alliances, the US - is nuclear arms and what to do with them. Now, most familiar with this space are also familiar with the dangers of nukes in the hands of North Korea and Iran. Obviously, efforts must be made multilaterally and urgently to stop events of that respect from transpiring; these things are paramount to securing the security of our near future. However, nuclear arms are dangerous no matter where they are housed, or who houses them; and regardless of what future weapons may come, the ones we have now are a big enough threat.

There are several reasons for this. First, the New START drops the level of active missiles for both the USA and Russia to 1,550. This is a large reduction from the original START; however, this number is still much larger than is necessary to prevent an attack from another nuclear country. If the level of deterrence is defined as "enough weapons to survive a first strike by another power, and still be able to counter effectively" - and if "effectively" can be reduced to a matter of 5-10 cities razed, not the pulverization of an entire country into a modern-day salt-sowed Carthage - can we not dig deeper into the nuclear stockpiles of both countries? We can certainly go under a thousand - perhaps (probably?) more than that.

Why do we have to worry so much about nuclear weapons if the United States has them, though - by far the most in the world? The biggest reason is not fear of attack but fear of accident and error. For example, most of our nukes are under a "launch on warning" system, where a huge amount of missiles can be launched at a moment's notice. What if this came on account of a false report? A radar blip or computer error? Why are our nuclear systems launch readiness still stuck in the 50s? And what about the threat of terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear weapon by stealing it? Less nukes would mean less of a likelyhood for this to happen.

Most of all, though, the United States should be worried about Israel. We are very closely allied to this very aggressive nation, and an avid reader of this blog already knows all about my views on the subject of Israel and nuclear weapons. It is not necessary to restate it here, except to reiterate that it is quite within the realm of possibility that Israel will use a "launch on warning" quick-strike nuclear attack on PURPOSE, to quickly devastate an (even if only perceived) attacker, and that this would only draw the United States in. Far worse, Israel is limited by no START treaty.

One modern nuclear weapon can unleash more destructive power than any other force on earth. With the sheer numerical amounts that are at the disposal of man today, a war or even an accident could cause irreversible tragedy for not just any one nation, but potentially a huge swath of the world. Reigning in these weapons - with the aim of eventually reducing to zero - is the biggest step we can take to providing for a future where, at the very least, one's world will not become vaporized overnight.