North Korea has now tested it's second nuclear weapon. This removes all doubt that the regime headed by one of the true madmen of our time is now a growing nuclear power. The weapon that North Korea exploded underground is said to be significantly more powerful than the first one that it tested a year ago. The U.N. immediately condemned the testing, which means only slightly more than me and my dog condemning it. President Obama responded by challenging the world to "stand up" to this new threat. He is going to be very disappointed.This all coincides with the recent testing 5 days before of Iran's long range missile that can now easily reach Israel. Needless to say, the world is getting far more dangerous right before our eyes. It really doesn't take a Evil Genius to put these two events together. North Korea is a very poor country that could use the money that rich countries like Iran would spend for nuclear secrets or weapons. To believe that we could stop them is tantamount to believing we can stop international weapons trade or drug trafficking. North Korea has already been accused of sending nuclear components to Syria that resulted in Israel doing a very clandestine attack that no one really knows the true extent of. If Iran, or Hezbollah, or Al Qaeda, doesn't already have a nuclear weapon, they are only a billion dollars away from having one.
How this will play out in international politics is anyone's guess.One thing is certain, it will effect it.
Increasingly, around the world, countries from Venezuela to North Korea have been openly flipping off the once-powerful United States. To the Liberals in the U.S. who have been praying for America to be far less influential on the world stage, you are getting your wish.
The new policy of the U.S. is one of diplomacy over threats, condemnation and embargo over military action. I'm not a hawk, I believe that diplomacy has it's place and military action should be the tact of last choice. However, I have come to the conclusion that the villains in the world now believe the U.S. to be a Paper Tiger, no longer having the capacity or the will to address the problems facing the world. That leaves us with only our combined efforts with Europe and the U.N. to stop a nuclear disaster. I hate to say this folks, but that doesn't sound too good to me. The U.N.'s history of stopping nuclear proliferation is dismal at best. The E.U. believes that the U.S. is the cause and answer to all the of world's problems.
This new frightening development in North Korea has demonstrated that we are powerless to stop what is going to be a second Arms Race around the world. One that is not between two superpowers, but between dozens of countries all with their own agendas. I believe this will eventually lead to a nuclear weapon going off somewhere in the world. The most likely candidate? London.
We humans have a hard time excepting things that we fear. Much like our inevitable death, the thought of nuclear weapons going off is too frightening for most people to deal with. Perhaps when the first nuclear weapon strikes and we see the results on our T.V.'s and computer screens we will wake up to the reality. Much like how we realize our own mortality when we have a near death experience. Until then, I'm afraid we will continue to "kick the can" on down the road, God save us. H.C.
7 comments:
i'm glad you mentioned the role of venezuela but what few people seem to be aware of is the situation with bolivia and iran. bolivia is rich in lithium and other materials useful in the arms race and has entered into all sorts of agreements with iran since evo morales took power and continues to consolidate it. iran has a growing presence in south america and yet we sleep on.
i am curious why you say london would be the likely first target.
Hey Lime,
Great points! The anti-Americanism that has spread throughout South America (thanks to Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez) has bred some scary alliances. I don't know if it's possible to wake the world up to the danger before a nuclear weapon goes off. I know it's one of the things that scares me the most in international politics. It's also the main reason I continue to blog. I can't sit idly by without at least trying to wake people up.
On London as the most likely target;
The order of targets for Islamic terrorists (the most likely source) goes like this. (and I think you'll agree) 1)Israel 2)America 3)U.K. Israel is the most fortified country on the planet and I would be suprised if a nuclear weapon could be brought in. Launching one with a ballistics system from any country would spell annihilation for that country. So even though that would be their target of choice, I think they know there are easier targets. America is simply too far. Transporting a nuclear weapon across the ocean and through ports risks losing it to an on-the-ball inspector or a roaming U.S. ship. That leaves the U.K., which is vulnerable and open. If your going to use a big weapon, you want a big target for maximum impact. Therefore, London. That's my thinking anyway.
I agree w/ what you stated about the new multi-nation/group arms race, but realistically, what can be done? Military force is certainly out of the question, & w/ the broad areas of multiple countries needing to be covered, it would still be out of the question even if we weren't spread out in two concurrent wars. Diplomacy only works if you have somebody to speak to, & w/ many nations/groups beating around the bush, or just blatantly refusing, that's a waste of time as well. So, close off the borders? You'd have to refuse or screen every import too, but that's hardly feasible. Now, w/ the missle defense system being all but eliminated, there's another vulnerability that was supposed to be closed that isn't. This is a lion that has been let out of it's cage only to grow into an entire pride. I don't see any solution to this.
-n
Hey Nic,
I completely agree. There's really no good realistic solution at this point. It would be wonderful if the world community would stand together, but unfortunately, that's not going to be the case. What I fear is what will happen after the first nuke goes off. Will the world then decide that we need to disarm all these rogue nations? Will irrational fear prevail? Will we even be able to find all these WMD's ala Iraq? My guess is the world will eventually find itself in the position of excepting the reality of nuclear threats that they simply cannot stop. One thing is certain, placating these nations will not stop them and giving them more time assures that they will reach their goal.
thanks for outlining your thinking on targets. it does make some sense. and no, time is not on our side. that's for sure.
I think people tend to look back at events like the Cuban Missle Crisis of the 60's and arms race of the 80's and think that was the worst thing to ever happen. Especially given that plutonium deposits in N. Korea don't come close to what the Russians were packing in the 80's or what some of the major players are carrying today, people have almost blown off smaller nations like N. Korea.
But I sincerely hope that we don't fall in the trap of underestimating our North Korean friends. Despite their relatively small size, they are making clearcut progress and is displaying the kind of resolve that will make it a big and credible enough player itself. Their unwillingness to slow things down and their increasing strident tone at this point is only further indication that they are not to be taken lightly.
I'm a little concerned about Obama's rhetoric lately. With him having Cheney nibling at his ear about his policies (how a disgraced VP can get as much airplay at a standing President will always be a mystery to me), Obama will feel the pressure to take on Bush's Cowboy persona. Yet, it's that very thing that contributes to the anti-Americanism currently motivating the nuclear arms race.
Sucks to be president right about now.
Hey Dre,
I'm not really sure how anti-Americanism or cowboy politics causes the nuclear arms proliferation that we are now seeing. Iran only cares about destroying Israel and uniting Persia. Do you really think that would disappear if we were completely removed from the equation? What about the thousands of years of conflict in that area before there even was a U.S.? North Korea only cares about unifying Korea and maintaining it's dictatorship. Would that change if we were uninvolved? I highly doubt it. There are a lot of reasons for War and wanting the better weapon. Was the crossbow invented as a result of American politics? Or the catapult? They were invented to give themselves an advantage over their enemies, whether to defend themselves or to conquer others. Admittedly, we sometimes don't help the situation, but don't kid yourself, this is about power for them, not defense from us.
Post a Comment