On Sunday, President Barack Obama told a crowd of over 20,000 in Prague that the world needs to rid itself of nuclear weapons. Admirable, yes. But realistic - especially after North Korea's missile test last week? That's another thing.
If the U.S. leads the effort, as Obama suggested during his speech, doesn't that make us more vulnerable? Now, I'm not saying that we need more weapons, but I just can't see why other nations would follow suit if we got rid of all, or even a portion of ours. In fact, it would be misguided to think such a move would work.
If the idea of getting rid of nuclear weapons is even to be entertained, we've got to look at various other issues too: First, who will be in charge of making sure all of the weapons are gone? Second, what is the timetable for disarmament? Third, how do you suddenly expunge the intelligence mankind possesses to create these weapons? And fourth (we'll stop there for now), what if it doesn't work, and the only countries left with weapons are North Korea and Iran?
It's a frightening reality that could actually happen, amongst many other potential results. Just because you get rid of all of the weapons that are currently in existence, it doesn't erase the knowledge of how to make them.
"I think it's (a world free of nuclear weapons) a great thing to think about and strive for," said Joey Priola, a junior bioengineering major. "But unfortunately, as long as the technology's out there, I don't think it's a realistic idea."
Like I stated earlier, I don't have any issue with trying to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. I just don't understand why an administration would set the goal of getting rid of them completely, knowing full well that it is virtually impossible (by their own words). On top of all of this talk of disarmament, Obama also endorsed President Bush's proposal for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. Is anyone else confused?
"That would be the goal," said David Axelrod, senior advisor to Obama. "To remove this scourge from the face of the earth and take away that threat that hangs over us now." During the same discussion, Axelrod also went on to say "unilateral disarmament would be impossible". So, what was the point of the previous statement then?
The fact of the matter is that as long as those who want to do us harm, as well as our strong allies, possess nuclear weapons, we must possess them as well. And I would say the same thing if I resided in any other country. Nukes were not used at all during the Cold War. Why? Because both powers knew that the other side would be able to retaliate. Doesn't a similar principle make sense today?
Saying that other nations will follow suit if we get rid of our nuclear weapons is just like saying that the way to fixing our economy is to perpetuate deficit spending. It's foolish. As unfortunate as it may seem to some, we just need to deal with the situation we're in, instead of wishing it wasn't there. In this case, it involves keeping our nuclear arsenal, and ensuring our nation's safety for the future.
John Cassillo is a junior public relations major and vice chairman of the College Republicans. His columns normally appear every Tuesday. He can be reached at jccassil@syr.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!