Ok then. How �bout this so-called war?


First off, I�ll admit candidly that my tendency, born of my conservative upbringing and personal recklessness, is undeniably hawkish. But I also plead that I am not blindly so�even the thought of what war means, to the Iraqi people, to the world, etc, gives me pause. After reading Jonathan Schell's latest piece against the war on The Nation�s website, I was quite dovish for a long moment.


Schell paints a picture much starker than any I�d allowed myself to entertain since I first heard of the atomic bomb and Mutually Assured Destruction in elementary school. The picture of rampant nuclear proliferation and inevitable use of the bomb is possibly the most hopeless thought I have ever had. Disarmament began to look quite attractive.


For a contrast, look at this piece, Paul Greenberg�s latest in the Washington Times. He makes telling comparisons (which had not escaped my notice last Friday as I listened to NPR�s coverage of the inspectors� presentation at the U.N. Security Council meeting) with the policies of western Europe in the �30�s when faced with Hitler�s growing threat in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Europeans seem bound and determined to forget history and pursue peace at any cost. I honour their commitment to the protection of human life, but decry their stupidity and bad memory.


Hitler should be remembered well by the world as it faces Saddam Hussein. Likewise, the entire 20th century should be kept in mind as the world considers what to do in the post Cold War world of nuclear proliferation. A century has shown that inspections simply DO NOT WORK. Disarmament is a wonderful dream, but there is no hope that it will actually happen. As was pointed out to me last night by a friend, the argument for disarmament is the same argument as that made by gun control advocates. It would leave us with a lot of powerless nations terrorized by a few nuclear criminals.


Disarmament, however, remains the preferred method for many of preventing nuclear holocaust. The theory is that gradual, bilateral surrender of nuclear weapons could eventually reduce the nuclear stocks of the nations of the world first to a less dangerous quantity, then to a negligible quantity, and finally to nothing at all. A nice idea indeed. But one entirely overlooking the realities of human existence. If the technology exists, someone will use it. Ensuring that the civilized, law-abiding nations of the world do not possess it only guarantees that, when (not if) rogues such as North Korea or Iraq acquire such weapons, the rest of the world will be at their mercy.


The alternative to America leading the way in peaceful disarmament (which common sense assures us is a recipe for disaster) is ensuring that the only people possessing the bomb are trustworthy. Which, ideally, would mean that only we would have it. Unfortunately, we don�t. The one opportunity we had to ensure that passed over 50 years ago. (yes, I am suggesting that it would have been better to invade Soviet Russia the moment it became evident what they were seeking; yes, I am suggesting that we should have seized empire the moment World War II ended, when it could have been done relatively easily and peacefully with the threat of the bomb and our overwhelming conventional military superiority).


But we didn�t, and now the situation we face is far worse than it ever was with Russia. It seems that practically every nation with the slightest beef against us has, or is in the process of acquiring, the technology for nuclear weapons.


But we retain an overwhelming superiority to the rest of the world in both nuclear and conventional weaponry. Our culture and ideals are sweeping the world. There is at least the theoretical possibility of a true new world order, enforced by America, not for imperialistic gain, but for our own simple security.


Thus, Bush�s National Security Directive of last year makes a lot of sense. Recognizing September 11�s writing on the wall guaranteeing that, sooner or later, someone will acquire and use nuclear or chemical or biological weapons against America, Bush is seeking to commit the United States to maintain completely unmatchable military superiority over the rest of the world. In this way alone can larger nuclear nations such as Russia or China be deterred�in this way alone can we possess the ability to safely neutralize rogue nations such as Iraq or North Korea.


But this path will lead to empire� it demands the manipulation and abandonment of the United Nations, NATO or any former alliance that stands in the way of American interests. And it is a path for which, if the last few weeks are any indication, we may not be ready.


This for two reasons. First, while we are powerful, most would admit that we are not powerful enough to take on the entire world in an all-out rumble. And even if we were, that price is far too high. Second, the American psyche is not adapted to the notion of empire. Isolationism is still a strong force here�and too many Americans cannot stomach the idea of running roughshod over the nations of the world in pursuit of our self-interests, even if those interests are simple survival. The true peril of our position still escapes the vast majority of Americans, as it does the rest of the world.


But the facts remain. Nuclear weapons will continue to proliferate among the nations of the world. The mini-arms race between Pakistan and India over the last few years bodes ill for the future. Eventually, someone will use the bomb again�probably in a regional conflict. Then someone else will�a smaller nation against a larger, even against Europe or the United States. The crossed sabers of past military maps and conflicts will be replaced with little mushroom clouds all around the world. And the only force with even the slightest hope of stopping this is the United States.


For Schell�s point, that proliferation is a natural and inevitable consequence of possession of nuclear weapons, might prove to be untrue in only one situation. If one nation possessed such superiority that it would be pointless and wasteful for any other to even make the attempt�and particularly if the good will of that nation was well established�others would cease to seek the bomb. The others could be brought to give them up if it were clear that they could gain nothing from their possession.


So essentially, I am still arguing for disarmament�but disarmament forced by the United States, which would remain the only nuclear power. Indeed, I admit the necessity of a one-world government�but it is clear to me that that government must be controlled by, and indeed BE, the United States. Such is ultimately the only way to ensure our security.