On The Verge Of A Global Arms Race?

As we approach the turn of a new decade, the global balance provided by the Cold War is now but a distant memory and the assertive influence of the United States appears to be little more than a perceived reality as we continue to handcuff this great nation with progressive foreign policy.  Nations from across the globe are positioning for power and their place at the table; and to accomplish that end they are arming themselves in a manner the world has never seen.  Are we on the verge of a budding world-wide arms race?  Could we be on the cusp of a repeat of the Cold War but on a global scale?  Just take a look at some of the headlines from the last twelve months.

I am certainly not predicting that we are heading toward global Armageddon or worldwide obliteration at the hands of weapons of mass destruction, but it is extremely alarming that in an era where so many nations have a stake in the game, WE are the only nation talking about nonproliferation and disarmament.  In a time such as this, wouldn’t a more prudent course be to increase military spending and expand our weapons programs rather than reducing them? 

Since the creation of the nuclear bomb - well actually since the moment that a second nation other than the United States got the thing – we have been of the mindset that the greatest deterrent to their use was the threat of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).  It is what allowed cooler heads to prevail throughout the Cold War and it is what keeps Russia hanging on to the belief that it is  still a “superpower.”  Essentially, no nuclear power is going to use a their arsenal because doing so would trigger a response – and then a response – and… well you get how that plays out. 

But the fact remains that while only a handful of nations hold the power of nuclear weapons, a great many nations have now developed the capacity to strike well beyond their borders and to do so with technology capable of destruction that far exceeds previous major wars. 

Essentially, if we are of the mindset that no one will use nukes because of MAD, we have entered an era where the slightly less than nuclear weapon is the most dangerous weapon of all.  Any weapon that can cause adequate to severe destruction more than 500 miles outside its own territory is essentially more desirable – or at least more practically effective than a nuclear weapon.  I’m not discounting the desire of power-hungry nations to acquire nuclear weapons, but the fact that no one will ever really use them effectively gives rogue nations and the little brothers of former super powers an equal hand in the global community by simply building arsenals non-nuclear in capacity.  Nukes have become Doomsday scenarios and the race is for everything short of that end. 

The problem with this is really two-fold.  One.  If such a ”less than nuclear” war was to break out between regional rivals, what is the end game?  Obviously alliances would impact the depth of the conflict, but at the most simple of levels, do two nations simply continue launching these non-nuclear weapons at one another until they return each other to the stone age?  The answer to that question is essentially yes; well yes and no.  If war was to ever break out in such a fashion that would in fact be the logical resolution – hence our desire in WWII to build the war finisher – the nuclear weapon.  But the answer is more likely no, because non-nuclear weapons are actually more useful than nuclear weapons for use as a threat.  If Iran poises ten short to medium range missiles at Israel we believe that they may use them.  They may target vital infrastructure or specific targets.  This gives them a great deal of bargaining power and puts them in a position of strength as they are perceived as an imminent threat.  In contrast, if India lines up a nuclear warhead and aims it at Pakistan, they are far less likely to use it, so the threat is not as great even though the effect of what weapons system would far exceed that of the other.  The point is MAD keeps nuclear wars from beginning and to a certain degree keeps tensions at a manageable level, but for nations without nuclear capabilities, even the slightest non-nuclear aggression can ignite quite a powder keg.

This leads to the second major problem.  How to prevent these arms races without creating an exorbitant amount of unnecessary and meaningless multilateral allegiances, alliances, leagues, associations, pacts, groups, unions, treaties, and world bodies that inevitably lead to World War rather than relying on the Pre World War era philosophy of letting two insignificant nations wipe each other off the map.  In a world where (regardless of whether Russia or China want to admit it) the United States is clearly the only true superpower, how do we bring balance to the situation without being directly involved in the process every time conflict arises?  Continuing to expand NATO or developing new allies through economic / regional partnerships cannot be the answer for the long term unless we intend to have half the nations of the world swear allegiance to us in return for our broad protection.  It simply an implausible strategy. 

Hegemonic Stability Theory is the nerdy version of what people refer to as a relationship like the one that existed during the Cold War.  Essentially two superpowers and their minions / allied nations keep balance in the global community by both exerting their powers to keep the outlier nations as well as one another in check.  There is still a power struggle but for the most part is only focused on bringing more nations under the respective rings of influence rather than genuine conflict.  Perhaps the most important characteristic of that system is that it is mutually beneficial for both the large and the small nations.  Its a much better scenario for the two world powers as well because neither side has to solve all the world’s problems alone.  Its a schematical equivalent to preferring that 50% of the world hates you as long as 50% loves you rather than gambling that 99% won’t hate you if you’re out there alone. 

In the current system, we are the lone Hegemon.  The role of playing arbiter to any and all problems has fallen at our feet and ours alone.  There are some – like our wonderful President – who believe that balance is achieved by empowering institutions such as the United Nations.  This is a noble cause, but is whimsical at best in its likelihood for success.  The truth is that the UN has no real power, and we are the only entity that gives it even an ounce of credibility.

Those in the Obama fantasy world will disagree with that point, but I would ask them simply – what would happen if the UN wanted to sanction the United States?  What would they do if we said no?  They could do absolutely nothing.  As it is now, we bear the burden for 75% of the overhead costs for running the thing, and we provide 80% of the security /peacekeeping forces for 95% of the places in which they are deployed.  The UN is essentially our frustrating liberal little brother that we keep around because he’s family, but while we throw him some cash and get him a job from time to time, we could survive happily without him and never give it a second thought.

The UN is nothing without the U.S. and the world knows it.  As crazy as it may sound… that was actually the only part of crazy Muammar Qadaffi’s speech to the UN that made any sense - the first ten times he said it at least.  It is a broken entity that placates shared and cooperative power in a world where the only true power shared is that which we choose to concede. 

So where does this leave us?  It leaves us staring at the very real reality that the US is the lone peace keeper in a world where everyone is fighting for a piece of the second tier pie.  It leaves one nation with the responsibility of bringing balance to a world that cannot achieve any such balance as long as we are in it. 

What it truly means is that as the Obama administration attempts in every way to be the “Anti-George W. Bush administration” its only going to make this burden greater.  For all the hatred and animosity that the Bush administration generated in the global community, it was a necessary evil.  The post Cold War years left the world wondering if Russia would reemerge or if China would rise to fill the void.  When neither of those outcomes came to fruition, the United States simply assumed a greater role.  We were just unfortunately on the negative end of that 99% love/hate thing for a while absent another power willing to carry 50% of the burden.  And for as painful as it may be for progressives to hear, George W. Bush’s time in office is not likely to represent the limits of that expansion either.  For as hard as President Obama tries to empower the UN and to decrease the sphere of influence of our great nation, he will eventually be forced to realize that sometimes there simply has to be an asshole; someone to blame; someone to hate; and even someone to turn to.  For now that someone is US.  Attempting to empower an institution that the world knows is powerless without our support is the foreign policy equivalent to doing all the work and getting none of the credit or taking all of the blame and getting none of the praise. 

So do I think we are on the verge of a global arms race or a 21st century version of the Cold War?  The short answer is no.  Most of the governments across Europe are even more progressive than even we are at the present time, and appeasement is more likely to permeate there than any military bravado.  But that does not mean that the second and third tier nations of the world will rest.  Those who can’t achieve credibility economically often attempt to militarily.  As our focus continues to center upon the nuclear ambitions of rogue states like North Korea and Iran, we may be missing the bigger picture.  Is it important that we prevent nations such as these from acquiring nuclear weapons?  Of course it is – it should be issue number one, but we have to remember not to lose sight of the trees for the forest.  We must be vigilant not to ignore the threat that non-nuclear weapons may pose as we continue our efforts to combat world-wide nuclear proliferation.  Nuclear weapons may end world wars but it may be the non-nuclear weapon that sparks one.

Tags: Arms Race, ballistic missiles, France, germany, Hegemonic Stability Theory, Iran, MAD, Muammar Qaddafi, Mutually Assured Destruction, North Korea, nuclear weapons, Obama

This entry was posted on September 29, 2009 at 7:09 am and is filed under FEATURED, FOREIGN AFFAIRS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.