Bush Administration Inspiring Nuclear Proliferation
In his new article, Ivan Eland argues that"The Bush administration spends so much time strutting and flexing before the world gallery that it fails to realize that such behavior accelerates nuclear proliferation." He continues:
Although Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are tyrannical regimes, they may have legitimate security concerns that drive their efforts to acquire so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD). They may want these weapons to deter neighbors or even a self-righteous superpower from attacking them. One does not have to be an apologist for the abysmal human rights records of those regimes to caution against feeding into their paranoia.
Indeed, this isn't only a problem with the current administration, nor is it merely theoretical, since
dictators in small, relatively poor third world countries don’t have to be paranoid to worry about attack from an interventionist superpower. President Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada; George H.W. Bush launched an assault against Panama and removed Manuel Noriega from power; Bill Clinton bombed Serbia over the Kosovo issue; and George W. Bush invaded and occupied Iraq. And the world saw that all of those non-nuclear states got a lot less respect than the likely nuclear-armed North Korea.
Of course, the U.S. government—the only regime in the world ever to use nuclear weapons on people—could also help the situation by greatly disarming on its own. It does not take a radical anarchist to see the problem with the most powerful, well-armed State on earth, one that has intervened in dozens of countries throughout the planet—one whose current head of state seems ever willing to invade other countries"at the whim of a hat" (to borrow from his own fascinating lexicon)—trying to induce foreign States to disarm, even as it plans to enhance its own arsenal in spectacular ways.
In considering whether it is realistic for smaller States to doubt the U.S. government's dedication to peace, let us remember that it was Bush himself who also said,"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
comments powered by Disqus
Anthony Gregory - 5/3/2005
That's right!! "Free nations are peaceful nations," after all.
M.D. Fulwiler - 5/3/2005
Out of the horse's mouth---Bush admits we aren't a free nation!
Anthony Gregory - 5/3/2005
Why, thanks a million! I wouldn't say it's "totally unrelated," though.
chris l pettit - 5/3/2005
I caught the new article on Lew Rockwell re: collateral damage...fantastic work. As a human rights lawyer and lecturer, you cover quite a few points that I raise in classes on humanitarian law and human rights. Good work.
- Ken Burns on Colbert to promote his new documentary, "The Address"
- UC Santa Barbara History Department featuring a series on the Great Society at 50
- Historians are trying to recover censored texts from World War I poets
- Diane Ravitch blasts the NYT for failing to understand the controversy over Common Core
- Mormon history professors debate atheists in bid to foster greater understanding