The Violations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

North Korea:

It's been a long while since there was a political article on Awkward Mixture. While you, may have even forgotten the topic, I haven't. I'm also unable to proceed without a final article, and so I find myself compelled to conclude this North Korean topic with one final article, otherwise it will dangle unresolved. Though I originally intended to expand the following ideas into their own articles, time has passed, and at this point, the only reasonable action is to finish quickly.

To begin, though the Trump administration has categorized Kim Jong-un's regime as brutal, brutal does not equal undeterrable. There is no disputing North Korea's brutality toward its own people, but cruel action does not imply an irrational mind. Deterrence, made (in)famous by MAD, is predicated on the belief that both participants are rational actors. They can choose a goal with their own interest in mind, plan to achieve it, and recognize how the other parties will react.

Even at the most perilous period of the Cold War, the government of the United States recognized the Soviet Union as a nation capable of logical action. Since that time, the United States has chosen to depict its foreign foes as irrational beasts, but this is detrimental to an enlightened citizenry and an effective foreign policy.

There are a few caveats. Even if both participants are rational, their priors, their method of thinking, may be so different as to make them appear irrational. Additionally, those priors inspire a leader to destroy an enemy nation or the world, at the cost of his own life. But no expert on North Korea believes Kim Jong-un wants to sacrifice his life of luxury prematurely. And finally, no one is perfectly rational. People may want what others consider grossly undesirable, plan their path poorly, or misunderstand those they interact with. But assuming Kim is a semi-rational actor who enjoys his status as Supreme Leader, there are further topics worth considering.

The President delineated his Red Line on North Korea: they shall not be allowed to have a nuclear missile capable of striking the United States (this strikingly strong stance is undercut by their worry that North Korea will aid other actors in proliferation). The only acceptable conclusion, the White House has repeatedly declared whether through disgraced McMaster, recently installed Pompeo, or POTUS, is “complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization”. Presidents, including Obama, have often failed to act upon their declarations. When Trump sits face to face with smart cookie, little rocket man, madman, short and fat, bad dude, maniac, honorable Kim Jong-un will his hold, or will he fold, accepting a lesser outcome?

Here's an outrageous opinion: in spite of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, no power currently wielding nuclear bombs should disparage, or attempt to prevent, any other nation from producing nuclear weapons. How dare I say this? Aside from the insanity of an International Treaty which arbitrarily determines that nuclear nations prior 1967 are justified, while all those after are renegade nations, all current holders of nuclear weapons are violating the Treaty. Article VI which says, “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,” explicitly demands that all nuclear nations peruse disarmament.

Citizens of the United States mistake the Treaty, never having read it, as a document which solidifies the position of Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Powers: an eternal establishment of the status quo, but that is not the document's intent. In a revolutionary statement, it actually intends for all powers to relinquish their nuclear dominance, including those already armed with Death, the destroyer of worlds. The United States has no right to tell other nations what path to pursue, because it is in violation of the Treaty itself, through a clear lack of interest in international disarmament, and even worse, its abominable aggravation of the nuclear arms race.

No individual should have access to a weapon capable of devastating a city in seconds, with an arsenal able to annihilate a nation, or even the globe, in one blow. A reader might say, no individual has the authority to such action. But as Robert Heinlein's Professor Bernardo de la Paz knows, “My point is that one person is responsible, Always. If H-bombs exist--and they do--some man controls them. In terms of morals there is no such thing as 'state'. Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.”

Congress and the Pentagon agree, that the President has sole authority to determine if the use of nuclear weapons is justified (even though the Chief Executive supposedly can't begin a war without congressional authorization...)

So here's a preposterous proposal to accompany my outrageous opinion. If the summit between the mentally deranged U.S. dotard and the madman can't achieve peace for our time (even though WikiLeaks prematurely wants to award someone the Nobel Peace Prize), maybe the President should consider Niccolo Machiavelli's advice:

Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.

That is, the President must either decide to obliterate North Korea, an option which is both morally repellent and whose outcome is devastating to the United States, or seek to treat North Korea as a friend. Friendship does not mean embracing its brutal, self-serving dictatorial class, as it has with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other abhorrent regimes. Friendship does not mean cultivating a relationship of favors between the ruling classes, but establishing a culture of care between the people of the nations. Money spent not on weapons of war, but aid for the the starving, not petty propaganda, but assistance without political intent.

Recent:

Relevant:

Comments