Let them have nukes

What right do we have to say what countries may, and what countries may not have nuclear weapons?

The United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. Israel probably has them too.

I am not tickled with the idea of North Korea or Iran acquiring the bomb. But they are sovereign nations. How would we like it, if Russia tried to dictate to us what weapons we could produce, and how many? How would we like it, if Chinese troops were stationed in Mexico?

The U.S. and most of the western world are straining every effort to prevent Iran and North Korea from getting nuclear weapons. Hardly any politician, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, has even hinted that we may be wasting our time or perhaps even making the situation worse.

I know. I know: Iran and North Korea are run by people of questionable judgment and stability. But is treating them like children likely to improve their behavior?

Pakistan has the bomb. How stable is Pakistan? How many of their leaders have been assassinated? How many Pakistani Muslim schools preach hatred for the U.S.? Osama bin Laden was “hiding” right under the noses of Pakistan's military. Yet Pakistan can have the bomb and Iran can't?

We can't turn back the clock or put the evil genie back in the bottle. It is hopeless to try and stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

What do children do when you tell them, “No, you can't have that.”? They cry and kick and scream; exactly what North Korea and Iran are doing. And they become even more determined to have the forbidden fruit.

I know it's difficult – but try to step back and view it from their perspective. Like it or not, the U.S. is perceived by many countries as the aggressor in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they note two important facts: The U.S. is the only country that has used nuclear bombs in anger, and has never invaded a country that has nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are different from conventional weapons in the degree of devastation, but that does not justify a preemptive strike. How can you justify saying, “We bombed them first, because we thought they were about to bomb us.”?

Most will argue that the threat of mutually assured destruction that ruled the Cold War with Russia carries no weight with radical Muslims anxious to commit suicide. I don't buy it. The mullahs may be able to persuade brainwashed radicals to blow themselves up for Allah, but the leaders don't seem to be that anxious to meet 72 virgins. That brave jihadist general, Osama bin Laden, had to be tracked down and offed in his lair.

We should tell Iran and North Korea, and indeed any nation, “Sure, go ahead and make all the nuclear weapons you want. We will not initiate an attack on you.” But in secret diplomacy, we should tell them, in a similar way that the Godfather warned assembled Mafiosos not to harm his son: “If a nuclear weapon goes off anywhere in the world, you had better hope that no evidence points to you as the source. If a lone terrorist steals a bomb and detonates it, you'd better pray it was not one of yours. If so, you may kiss your country goodbye.”

In the short run, mutually assured destruction is the most viable path to peace. In the long run, a vigorous anti-missile shield and constant vigilance to block smuggling of “suitcase” bombs will be essential second and third lines of defense against the nuclear nightmare.