|
A Nuclear Reality Check
By Justin Darr
October 04, 2004
Gone are the days when nuclear weapons capability was controlled by a few, if not friendly, at least relatively sane nations. After 60 years, advances in technology have made it possible for rogue states with the inclination and resources to release the nuclear genie. The major question facing the United States today is quite simple; what are we going to do about it? Lacking the prescience to see the future, American voters have a choice between two men with diametrically opposed views on how this issue should be addressed. And, despite the spin of the candidates' respective campaigns, they are basing their choices on little more than faith. Faith that their respective candidate better understands the nature, goals, predispositions, and methods of dealing with the issues these states seeking nuclear weapons raises. The problem is that while John Kerry is sincere in beliefs, his world view is not based on the reality of the character of the rogue nations he must face as President.
In regard to North Korea, Kerry feels that it is best to pretend that Kim Jong-il has not just violated an international treaty with the United States and developed nuclear weapons. Kerry may want to blame this development on the Bush Administration, but it takes far more than the year Bush was in office to develop a nuclear weapons program. No, in order to develop the WMD they now hold, North Korea would have had to systematically violate the treaty almost from the day it was signed by the Clinton Administration in 1994. The rigorous system of oversight and inspections stipulated by the treaty were easily side stepped by the North Koreans and now two of our closest allies, South Korea and Japan, have a psychopathic despot pointing nuclear weapons at their major cities. John Kerry's solution to this major crisis is to give into the demands of the North Koreans, pretend the last 10 years did not happen, and hold bilateral talks with North Korea, effectively ostracizing the nations most directly effected their nuclear threat.
What do you suppose the character of these negotiations would be? It is pretty simple, North Korea will want its oil, food, medicine, and humanitarian aid back that was cut off by Bush with the violation of the old treaty with a new caveat where the United States would accept and forgive their development of atomic weapons. What would we get? Nothing but promises from a regime that has proven itself unable to abide by an international treaty. John Kerry may claim that the guarantee of North Korea dismantling its WMD is worth the price of abandoning our values and risking millions of lives, but what does Senator Kerry plan to do if North Korea violates this treaty just like they ignored the last? Set up another round of negotiations begging them to just tell us how much we have to give them live up to their word?
John Kerry has a similar plan in regard to Iran's nuclear weapons program. Oh, I am sorry, peaceful nuclear power program. First, Iran needs nuclear power about as much as Bill Gates needs food stamps. The entire country is floating on an ocean of oil! Iran's history does not need retelling. Since 1979, Iran has been the single greatest promoter and exporter of terrorism and civil unrest in the world. A nuclear Iran, in any capacity, is an unacceptable risk. Rather than working to stop the threat, Kerry will give up all opposition to Iran having nuclear capabilities and actually supply them with the enriched uranium fuel they need in exchange for international inspections. Kerry's reasoning goes that if the Iranians refuse such a good deal, they must be up to no good. The United States can then go to the United Nations and begin the process to impose stiff economic sanctions.
Kerry's plan is flawed in two respects. First, Kerry assumes that Iran will refuse the deal if they actually want to develop nuclear weapons. But what if Iran decides to agree to the deal, receives the fuel, and then embarks on a concerted program to either deceive or stall the inspectors in order to accelerate their WMD development? North Korea is far less capable a nation than Iran and they seemed to have no problem avoiding international oversight, so what is stopping the Iranians? Their good word and history of peaceful temperance?
Second, Kerry assumes that our allies and the United Nations would enact touch economic sanctions on the Iranians. This might sound reasonable until you realize that the Iranian nuclear power plants are being built by the Russians with help from the Germans and other companies from EU nations. There is no way the Russians and our European "allies" will take anything other than symbolic action against Iran when they have billions of Euros at stake. More than likely, they will repeat their actions with the Iraqi Oil for Food Program and the failed Iraqi sanctions, doing a lot of sanctimonious moralizing while profiting from their duplicity on the side.
If John Kerry is elected President, in four years we will have a nuclear Iran and North Korea attempting to spread WMD to other nations around the world and terrorist groups. North Korea will sell anything to anyone so long as their money is green and American. Iran will give anything to a terrorist group so long as it can kill lots of Jews. Rather than addressing this threat, Kerry has decided to bury his head in the sand and pretend that he is not dealing with the Axis of Evil, but misunderstood problem states who only need a little understanding to become good global citizens. This November, Americans will be voting on faith that their candidate is the most competent for office. But if we vote for John Kerry, by the time the next election rolls around, we may be needing our faith to see us through the nuclear nightmare a Kerry Administration could create.
|
