Langley wrote:
Some people who have read Prof Shimizu's paper have wondered at the motivation for him to write it when he did (in the 80s). And one concludes that in the context of Nationalism which seeks its own means of defence and or aggression, Prof Shimizu was reminding those in Japan who sought nuclear weapons independence (ie a Japanese nuclear deterrent or capability) of the horrors of the use of such things.
Many nations around the world seek their own nuclear capability. It is one of the ironies of the end of the Cold War.
At the height of that, the potential existed for a full scale exchange.
Such an event would have, according to Carl Sagan, amounted to the explosive equivalent of a World War 2, but for each minute of a lazy afternoon.
For the moment, it seems, that scenario is on ice. In the interim, there is chaos and the threat of unannounced and "stateless" singular threats.
At one time it seems, we had reached a point where the nuclear armed nations were capable of Mutual Assured Destruction, and yet they also knew that it was insanity to do so. But times have changed and now we are on the bring of another nuclear weapons crisis, only this time it is not with the diligence of ethics or morals driving the physics, but with a religious fanaticism and fervor.
Often times we are confronted with choices of diplomacy or war, and often times we choose the latter as the "best" means to handle an issue. It can be argued that war does not create peace, and I will agree that it does not. However there are times when it becomes the alternative that suits the expeditious end result. We are rapidly approaching a crossroads, and instead of a MAD path, this one seems abhorrently insane, one that can end life on the planet for millennia.
We know that both India and Pakistan have had nuclear weapons fro some time now. Somehow we have all managed to avoid a confrontation that would have started a nuclear exchange there. Iran is saying that its nuclear program is peaceful and for energy, but considering all that we know about that nation, and what it has done and continues to do regardless of United nations directives or sanctions, I feel that it is a nation without conscious control. It's continuing rhetoric regarding Israel and the US as its enemies, can only lead one to think that given the opportunity to use nuclear arms, they will.
Now I am not advocating a war with Iran, and in many ways I would consider myself pacifistic and against armed conflict. But if I was in my own house and intruded upon I would certainly do what ever it takes to keep my family and myself safe from harm. I don't see inviting that person to sit down and break bread as an alternative that would prevent harm. Cocking the hammer on a 9mm semi-automatic sidearm might, but when that is no longer a deterrent, it may be necessary to pull the trigger.
I don't know who will be our next President, and I don't know where Iran is up to as far as producing nuclear weapons. What I do know is that it will take more than diplomacy to convince the Iranian nation that an attack on any nation with nuclear arms is not an action that will be taken lightly by the majority members of the UN, nor gain the sympathy of most of humanity around the world.
But here is the paradox:
The extremists that are controlling many of the terrorist groups and probably much of the middle eastern oil fields don't care. Their beliefs are such that there is no such thing as a deterrent, because if they succeed, "Praise Allah!" and if they don't they still see themselves being rewarded for their Jihad, with 72 virgins in heaven.
I am meditating and offering positive energy to create an environment of love and peace. I don't know how many others are committed to creating peace, but based on what is currently happening in the world, I would say we have yet to reach "critical mass." As far as I am concerned we are not doing enough fast enough. Just one man's thoughts.
