3 ms·
Given the deep economic codependence of China and the US, to say nothing of the historically limited range of China's territorial ambitions, there is precisely
by alexqgb 13y ago
Given the deep economic codependence of China and the US, to say nothing of the historically limited range of China's territorial ambitions, there is precisely zero need for the threat of mutually assured destruction in order to keep the peace between China and the US. In fact, we could unilaterally disarm and suffer absolutely no increase in risk from China for the very obvious reason that they are not going to nuke their biggest market.
Nor are nuclear weapons needed to keep the peace with Russia, which is a shadow of what it was as the Soviet Empire. Indeed, even then their primary concern was containing the American threat. As far as the arms race is concerned, that was very much something America started. It took several years for the Soviets to join, and several more for them to even try to match us, which they never came close to doing. Unlike the Space Race, where we were playing catch up, the arms race was one in which we were ahead, by a very wide margin, from the very beginning. They were responding to our lead. We were not responding to theirs.
I know Americans don't like to think of themselves as the belligerent party, but in the case of nuclear weapons pointed at the USSR, we really were. Even the Cuban missile crisis, which we like to think of as an unprovoked escalation, was a direct response to our own truly unprovoked escalation (placing missiles in Turkey aimed at Moscow). Having seen the error of our ways (well, sort of) and more importantly, having seen the Soviet Union collapse entirely, we can safely dismantle our arsenal, knowing full well that the biggest threat to world peace following WW2 was always us.
Indeed, having first gotten rid of our own, we could help the increasingly impoverished Russians make the world safer by helping them get rid of theirs. The truth is that we were the ones who brought the scourge of nuclear weapons upon the world. We were the ones who sparked the Arms Race. And we remain the only country to have used them in combat. Frankly, leading efforts to rid the world of these things is the least we can do.
Clinging to outdated and conspicuously unworkable "balance of power" arrangements simply isn't in our interests. And having removed the biggest threat from the table, without demands for reciprocity, we not only project massive confidence, we also make others look foolish by fearfully and pointlessly holding onto theirs. Truth be told, we all have better things to do with our money.
- philwelch 13y agoThe world would be less safe, not more, if all three parties disarmed. Economic interdependence isn't sufficient (it didn't prevent WWI) and "just trust Russia" isn't tenable either.