Singh, Anurag

English

Texas ScholarWorks

Nov 26The Nuclear Threat: Flaws in the U.S. Stanceanurag singhIn January of 2017, the highly respected Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board set thefamous Doomsday Clock, which measures the likelihood of a man-made catastrophe (with midnight beingannihilation of the human species), to two and a half minutes to midnight, which is the closest it has beensince the Cold War period. The Board cited the environmental catastrophe looming above our heads and thegrowing prospect of nuclear war as imminent existential threats to humanity. Though this change shouldhave been plastered on the front pages of every publication claiming to study the news, it was not. But thethreats still exist, and the future looks incredibly bleak for both prospects. The issue of nuclear Armageddonis rather timely — flip on the television and you’ll find non-stop coverage of the crises in North Korea andIran. It is interesting and instructive to examine the current political discussion regarding nuclear weaponsand what is missing from it.Take for instance the escalation with North Korea, a recent headliner. Any attempt at war with North Koreawould inevitably lead to the deaths of millions in both Koreas, Japan, and perhaps the United States. Generalsin the Trump administration — the so-called “adults” in the cabinet — seem to understand this, and so anattack is unlikely. Instead, the reckless escalation by the President is likely puffery for the Republican base,who are buying it hook, line and sinker. One alarming Quinnipiac poll showed 46 percent of Republicanswant war with North Korea. One wonders what the coverage might be were there to be a poll releasedsuggesting 46 percent of, say, Mongolians wanted war with America. Though there is incessant reporting ofTrump’s threats on Twitter and the subsequent response by the North Koreans, notably absent from theV O X  P O P U L Icoverage is the historical record that suggests a clear alternative, one the United States has repeatedly blocked.A 1994 Framework Agreement, which stipulated that North Korea would stop building nuclear weapons ifthe United States allowed them to develop nuclear energy was torn to shreds by the famous Bush speechabout the “Axis of Evil.” A similar proposition in 2005 fell flat after instant U.S. rejection. One reason cited isthat the United States and South Korea would, as per a quid pro quo, be obligated to cease intimidatingmilitary exercises on the border of North Korea. This cannot be entertained and is an unserious proposition,as the UN Ambassador for the US Nikki Haley describes.What about the other headline, Trump de-certifying the Iran deal? Like most actions this President takes, it isall show and no substance. As Michael Wilner of FiveThirtyEight notes, it merely allows Trump to flex hismuscles in front of his adoring base and boot the issue to Congress, where the terms of the deal are not likelyto change. Even if the United States were to pull out of the deal, the other nations part of it would not followsuit, so newly imposed sanctions upon Iran would be largely fruitless.The hysteria over pulling out of the deal is only part of a different kind of paranoia regarding Iran that is notaddressed at all in the intellectual or political circles of this country. It has been made clear by Israel and theUnited States that any Iranian attempt to deploy a nuclear weapon would result in immediate destruction, sothe idea they would use one is predicated on the belief that they are on a suicide mission — the concept ofmutually assured destruction comes to mind. If Iran were to deploy a nuclear weapon, they would thenalmost immediately be obliterated. This is what we are told to believe: Iran is run by crazed leaders who seekto sacrifice themselves and their entire country. No evidence presented supports this. Yet the claim is madetime and time again that Iran is the gravest threat to peace in the Middle East. Indeed, the country isfrequently attacked by the United States for supporting terrorism within the region. Experts of the regionquite rightly meet these claims with derision. How else can one respond to statements made by a country thatcontinues to sell billions of dollars worth of arms to Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia, which uses American bombsto obliterate Yemen faster than the cheering weapons manufacturers can produce them?Many claim that the Iran deal did not go far enough. Among them is Iranian foreign minister Javad Sharif,who writes: “if the Vienna deal is to mean anything, the whole of the Middle East must rid itself of weaponsof mass destruction.” But because this would require Israel, a key US ally and a country that has refused tosign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to make concessions, this cannot be entertained and is, again, an unseriousproposition.There are clear solutions to the threat of nuclear destruction that the international community haveconsidered. In July, 120 nations signed a United Nations resolution to ban the production of nuclear weapons.Globalnuclear threat, foreign policy, U.S.A N U R A G  S I N G HAnurag Singh is a freshman student studying computer science at UT Austin and is an avid readerof news. He also is part of KVRX, the radio station at the University, and is the host of Not FakeNews, a news program on the station.Leave a commentAll the nuclear powers, who did not participate, met the resolution with harsh rebuke. When asked if shecould envision a nuclear-free world, Ambassador Haley said it was unrealistic. She should have added that itis unrealistic because people like her and the country she represents actively undermine and ignore attemptsat ameliorating the situation. Instead, vague and often bewildering claims by American officials about “good”and “bad” countries are offered to justify refusing to discuss the issue. A reminder that the United States isthe only country to have used nuclear weapons in combat.  The threat of nuclear annihilation is one that is quite preventable. That nuclear powers like the United Statescannot be bothered to move toward peace is, to experts, deeply troublesome and jeopardizes all of humancivilization. Those who care about this issue and have a degree of privilege should seek to elect leaders andrepresentatives that will work toward the goal of de-escalation, organize around this issue, and educate thegeneral public on this crisis and the terrifying prospects of it. For if there comes a day when the missiles arelaunched and the extinction of human life begins, we will have only ourselves to blame.Related PostsNov 28 What Trump Can Learn from Prime MinisterModiNov 26 Fake News Isn't New N wsDec 2The Libyan Intervention and itsBroader ImplicationsFeb 10Trump, Pence, and the JerusalemQuestionApr 13The War on DiplomacyThe Texas Orator is a nonpartisan, peer-reviewed political publication that was founded and is maintained byUniversity of Texas at Austin students. We value thorough analysis in our articles and strive to protect theideals of free speech and unhindered access to information on campus and nationwide. We seek to keep thestudent body informed of the implications of ever-changing political climates, both domestically and abroad,from a range of voices and perspectives.Join Our CommunitySubscribe to our weekly newsletter!Email Address  SUBMITD O N A T EPowered by Squarespace

The Nuclear Threat: Flaws in the U.S. Stance

https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/2152/64327/2/www-thetexasorator-com-blog-2017-11-26-the-nuclear-threat-flaws-in-the-us-stance.pdf

The Nuclear Threat: Flaws in the U.S. Stance

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Texas ScholarWorks