Former United States President Jimmy Carter once said “ For this generation, ours, life is nuclear survival, liberty is human rights, the pursuit of happiness is a planet whose resources are devoted to the physical and spiritual nourishment of its inhabitants.” Whether his statements resonate with you or not, I tend to identify with his sentiments. Nuclear proliferation is a major crisis in the world we are a part of today, and in my opinion the most important world politics issue.
If our world fails at the task of subverting nuclear proliferation in any way, such as letting nuclear weapons fall into the hands of terrorists, our world may cease to exist. Organizations would begin attacking institutions that went against their orthodox dogma, and nations would begin to mobilize preemptive strikes on neighboring countries in order to protect their own citizens. Before the rest of us blinked, our families, friends, and peers may be obliterated from the face of the Earth.
Society would live in constant fear of the end of days, governments would begin to instill excessive regulation which would result in a loss of liberty and a destruction of our pursuit of happiness. Human rights would be unobtainable through “big brother policies” and planetary resources would be inaccessible because of harsh regulation. The citizens of the world would not truly be living, instead they would simply be existing- unable to move without “proper” planning by their states. Since nuclear proliferation is so relative to our lives it should be our world's first priority to suppress nuclear arms or rid of them entirely to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Unfortunately, I think the world has accepted nuclear proliferation as a resilient fact, rather than an issue that can be tackled and effectively dealt with. Despite the creation of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1970, which sought to promote "cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology", nations throughout the world continue to harbor nuclear weaponry as a worst case scenario for massive global conflict. The collective fear of these nations acts in a cycle, constantly reaffirming peoples' belief that there is reason to be suspicious. There isn't a country on earth that enjoys this fear, yet they all revere this emotion rather than face the alternative: forfeiting their respective nuclear weapons for global piece of mind. As you said Chris, we are all concerned about our friends, family, neighbors, and selves; we forget that people halfway across the world experience the same fleeting thoughts. And despite the raw memory and reality of events such as Hiroshima or Chernobyl, we would still rather risk the same fate than propel ourselves into vulnerability.
ReplyDeleteThe quote above came from an article published by the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs, which can be found here:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/
Chris, I agree with your statement about preemptive strikes and how quickly the entire situation can turn into an irreversible global disaster. The first nation to lay down arms becomes instantly at risk and must put full faith in other nations alike- essentially hoping that no one will take advantage of the now "powerless" nation, though it can be recognized that nuclear weaponry isn't the only form of power a nation can exercise. The reason that nuclear proliferation probably will remain an issue for the foreseeable future revolves around power politics, or realism in international relations theory. This theory ultimately explains why nations keep their nuclear arsenals, regardless of the fear it inspires, by stating that all nations are unitary actors and are moving towards their own national interest. This essentially builds immense distrust amongst nations who pursue a realist policy, and maintains nuclear proliferation as a tool for intimidation and symbol of strength.
ReplyDeleteRealism policy in international relation definition/article: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/11/06/the_realist_persuasion/
Julie, I find this global cognitive dissonance to be quite destructive. States realize the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear weapon or nuclear war but disregard this notion under the idea that they will somehow remain more "secure" by holding on to a power that is a global security threat. Unfortunately, I think this is a result of the competition-oriented way of thought that is engraved into the mind of individuals. It appears that people's default focus is on "winning" (however the individual or state interprets a victory) rather then having an aim at mutual benefit.
ReplyDelete