This one article in The American Thinker titled “Global Zero: Naive, Dangerous, and Provocative” caught my attention, so after reading this piece by Sierra Rayne, I clicked on the website for “Global Zero” (here) to see exactly what they’re proposing. This group, Global Zero, sets its goal as an elimination of all nuclear weapons by 2030 and the webpage boasts a video with President Obama speechifying on a “world without nuclear weapons” followed by a bunch of Hollywood celebrities spouting off about this issue and offering their “expertise” on nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation – “the greatest threat” according to these yahoos. Rayne offers a spirited defense of a nuclear weapons deterrent impact in some detail and backs it with historical examples to make the case.
Now, I admit to having an idealistic plan to get us on the road to peace, but it sure doesn’t begin with the US and Russia cutting their nuclear arsenals dramatically first, which is how the Global Zero experts propose we go about eliminating nuclear weapons. Of course, “multilateral” negotiations will follow that and “proportionate” cuts will be negotiated. (one can only wonder what these folks have been smoking). I think the very last countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals should be the US, Russia and China, or even India and a few other democracies, because these are world powers and military strength keeps a balance of power in the world.
I believe that if a handful of the world powers acted in unison to defang the rogue regimes of nuclear weapons, it wouldn’t take more than an example or two of taking out their nuclear capabilities before other similar countries opted to hand over their nuclear weapons without a fight. This might be a start at reining in nuclear weapons. Even my scenario is fraught with complications and risks, but not anywhere as dangerous as to start disarming and hope others follow your example.
Peace can only come through strength, because nothing so encourages bullies (tyrants, despots and others seeking power) than weakness. I tried not to laugh at our champion of “leading from behind” being at the front of this rose-colored, strategic nothing-burger plan.
Here’s another one of those home truths that I am so fond of using to make my point. Let’s state what should be obvious, but apparently needs to be driven home once more – any weapon, be it a slingshot or a nuclear weapon, is an inanimate object. Inanimate objects aren’t the problem. Yep, it’s always the people that pose the problem and let’s be more precise here, it’s what’s in the hearts of man that can turn that slingshot or nuclear weapon into a “threat”. We’ve always got to contend with people first and the rest of the inanimate objects truly rank as a secondary issue.
No matter which way the world goes regarding nuclear weapons, you can’t un-invent something. You can eventually make something obsolete, but that doesn’t follow some neat little plan devised by left-wing political activists with a victory date already set. Boy, President Obama sure fit the bill for this poster boy, because he naively announced the withdrawal date from Afghanistan before he even got the troops in place for his ballyhooed surge. Of course, we all know the Taliban will be right back in power, because they smelled President Obama’s weakness all the way from the Pakistani tribal areas.
Let’s talk about people, since the solution to all human problems falls on our shoulders. People always form groups – it’s how we live. Groups always compete and also many groups don’t get along (let’s face it Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, the long-running American TV show to teach kids to be “good neighbors” seems to be the global exception, not the rule). So, let’s look at life in the “Neighborhood of Make Believe”, the imaginary setting in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood for his puppet show segment in each episode.
I watched Mr. Rogers Neighborhood for years when my kids were young and unlike many children’s shows, Fred Rogers’ show, highlighted important lessons on the people problems, that carry us further toward finding peaceful solutions than most of the touted geopolitical experts in the world. In the Neighborhood of Make Believe reigned a bullying, irrational, impulsive monarch, King Friday XIII – the worst type of leader to deal with and as his name implies – bad news. Each episode highlighted a different “people problem” and solutions to work out this problem. King Friday never wanted to admit he was wrong, but his calm, more rational wife, Queen Sara Saturday, usually intervened to help resolve the crisis and to calm down King Friday and try to reason with him.
Sadly, the Neighborhood of Make Believe mirrors our real world rather closely, except in the real world we don’t have enough level-headed, steady leaders, like Queen Sara Saturday, running things (yes, she made running a group, “Food for the World”, a primary duty).
King Friday often made impulsive, poorly thought out decisions and it’s leaders like him that pose the challenge on dealing with the nuclear proliferation issue. While King Friday loved to give long-winded speeches (he didn’t own a teleprompter thankfully), he still could be reasoned with, but in the real world we must contend with the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of batshit crazy leaders, who don’t have a Queen Sara Saturday nearby to calm things down. Some idiotic celebrity-driven group like this, Global Zero, is just one more misguided attempt at trying to fix a complex, multifaceted problem with a leftover 60s “kumbaya” solution.
We need an international security framework, not some celebrities with a dopey plan. Really, let’s put it this way, since ‘bullying” is now such a new crisis requiring national action: Is the way to deal with bullies to let them keep their sticks to beat up others and to force everyone else not to defend themselves (this is that zero tolerance that these leftists always embrace – hint: Global Zero)? Yes, this is how these idiots solve the problems – no fighting, leaving the bullies to run wild and teaching other kids to be passive victims. I dealt with some bullies on my school bus as a kid and got into more than one fist fight. Zero tolerance for violence doesn’t deal with bullies on a school bus any more than an idiotic zero nuclear weapons policy will deal with the bullies in the world.
Every effort should be made to reduce ethnic and regional friction points, but in the big picture world, we all need a geopolitical structure that offers some stability. That comes from global leadership and strength, not from the major world powers feverishly eliminating their nuclear arsenals and hoping others follow suit. A phrase like “greatest threat” presumes a whole heck of a lot and basically it’s sheer arrogance to believe one problem poses the greatest threat. Sure nuclear proliferation ranks as a serious threat, but personally I think something more basic could be a greater threat – access to water.
Since I don’t pretend to be an expert, I’ll concede the point that many unforeseen threats could emerge that jump way ahead of even water. Some pandemic could pose an existential threat to many countries in rapid succession, throwing the world into a tailspin or some natural catastrophe, which impacts several continents. Heck, it could even be both, a natural catastrophe followed by a pandemic. This is why I hate celebrity-driven causes, they’re filled with “informed experts”, who possess not an iota of understanding about military history, grand strategy, nuclear strategy or even general history. This glossily-packaged cause is about the celebrities’ vanity, not about any serious effort to impact nuclear proliferation.
Here’s a thought, perhaps, the greatest threat just might be weakness, which this loopy movement would increase dramatically. My best advice for people – if some morons come up with a plan that has ZERO in the title, consider it null (nothing but hot air).