Aby The Liberal

Aby April 15th, 2007

Who decides the morality of nuclear bombs a country possesses? Is it Greenpeace and the USA?

I had a talk with a friend when we veered off danger zone called nuclear politics. My country pursues an active nuclear program mainly for the purpose of deterrance from enemy countries. Greenpeace finds this irksome and so does my political scientist friend. I am sure a few of you would agree with her. My morality was questioned by my friend which made me wonder how many people in the world really understand the politics of nuclear weapons programs. Morality reflects person’s idea how the world should work. Realism (and maybe economics) is an understanding of how the world actually works.

Killing of more than 200000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was morally and ethically wrong while Harry Truman’s explanation would say it was for a higher cause. Negotiations were underway for a conditional surrender while the United States government had alternative ideas in mind, a way to show to the Soviets what US is capable of doing to win a war. Atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ensured a shocking victory for US with a strong message to the Soviet Union about its power. The world knows the United States (US) could never be wrong even if it kills the 5.8 billion people of the world for the comfort of the few 0.3 billion Americans - history has been evidence of that kind of attitude.

The Nuclear Holocaust left the world gaping at such powers of brutality and the nation wielding it. The definition of warfare changed, the US had weapons which could eliminate cities in a matter of a few seconds and if needed it would not hesitate to use them. Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party were evil because they wanted a war of super humans. What about a war of push button annihilation of normal humans and their habitats?

The Joe 1 Soviet nuclear test (Left); physicist Igor Vasilievich Kurchatov (Right) who led the Soviet nuclear race (Images by Nuclear Weapons Archieve)

The Cold War crisis and the verbal threat of NATO to use nuclear weapons against the USSR led the Soviets to concentrate on nuclear bombs. After toppling Hitler in World War 2, the Soviets showed US and the world their superiority in a conventional non-nuclear war. The Americans and British found it hard to come to terms with it. Nuclear weapons gave it an edge over the socialist USSR from a diplomatic and political viewpoint at the minimum. The power was polarised when Первая молния (First Lightning) test was conducted in August 29, 1949 (codenamed Joe 1 by Americans). The world realised nuclear bombs will divide the world between countries who can defend themselves and countries who are at the mercy of nuclear powers.

The fireball from the site of Chinese 506 nuclear test (Photo by Wikimedia)

China faced a threat and constant nuclear blackmails from Britain and US during the Hong Kong and Taiwan crisis of the 50s and 60s. Mao Zedong realised China would be in a diplomatic or political crisis over Taiwan without being a nuclear power. He then pushed China to a race for missile delivery systems and nuclearisation program under his leadership. It climaxed to the 596 nuclear test in October 16, 1964 and deployment of Dongfeng DF-3A MRBM missile on 1971 which gave it a sufficient deterrance power against Anglo-US aggressors. This followed a blatant nuclear proliferation to Pakistan, a neighbouring ally of China which put India in a precarious position. The Indian Administration acted with the 1974 nuclear test using civilian nuclear project materials.

North Korea which was always in the receiving end of terrorisation and genocides by NATO finally put up an end to it with the 2006 nuclear test. Iran became a diehard fan of nuclearisation, which it realised is the most effective Bush Insurance and way to get to terms with the world.

It is really ironic in today’s world that America decides the morality of nuclear weapons program of its rivals and enemies. That is quite rich, coming from the country which is the only country to use nuclear weapons on civilian targets and the only country to develop nuclear country for offensive purposes. The rest of the world is in a nuclear race as an insurance policy for its citizens from despots. Having a nuclear weapon prevents you from getting bombed to stone age by enemy countries and despotic nations. If Vietnam was a nuclear power, the lives of 4 million Vietnamese civilians would not have been lost. There would have been diplomatic talks and agreements rather than Agent Orange and Napalm bombings by US on Vietnamese civilians. Today Russia has a nuclear stockpile of about 16,000 and US pegged at 10000 which would be sufficient to eliminate living beings on Earth ten times over. Now who says possessing nuclear weapons as a deterrance is immoral?

• World Politics , Internationalism
• Comments(3)