I was concerned to read, “The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.” in the Washington Post last week. Here is the full article: Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
My concern rose from two points. First, who decides that a stockpile of weapons is “known” to exist? Our current president has a less than flawless record in this department. Personally, I am deeply grateful that he did not have nuclear weapons at his disposal during his attempts to destroy Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
Second, our Pentagon and Administration leaders seem to be backtracking on the lessons learned during the Cold War. The START treaty was originally proposed by President Reagan, certainly a “hawk” if there ever was one. President George H. W. Bush, no dove himself, signed both START I (in 1991) and START II (in 1993). Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, much of the world, including the United States, has worked hard to secure the USSR’s old nuclear weapons and prevent the transfer of them to other nations. We are currently in talks with Korea and Iran, trying to convince them that they do not need and should not build nuclear weapons. Yet, simultaneously, our own Pentagon contemplates using the very weapons that we insist no one else needs. Given our own warmongering posture these days, is it any wonder that other nations are nervous in our presence?
Metaphorically stepping back a couple of paces, this situation looks a lot like a bunch of grade-school boys posturing on the playground. The biggest bully (the United States) puffs up his chest and insists that he will make the rules and he will assure that everyone plays nice. And, he continues, if anyone doesn’t like it then just remember that his daddy has a whole shitload of rifles and ammo at home, ready to be used “if necessary.”
I do not know what went on inside the minds of the children who perpetrated the various schoolyard shootings but I wonder if they did not rationalize their actions in much the same way. Were they angry that other people failed to “act nice” and play by their rules? Did they decide to make the other people behave by teaching some of them a lesson? Were they missing some component of self control that tells most of us that some weapons are simply too horrendous, too violent, to actually be used?
No one has resolved a conflict with nuclear weapons in 60 years. No one rational person believes that rifles are needed to resolve teenage angst. I worry about people who contemplate the use of the former just as I worry about the children who contemplate the use of the latter.
Have we failed in some ways to teach limits and self-discipline to our children?
