This leads me to comment about something I've been thinking of for a bit. I wonder if historians, however many there may be left, in 200 years will judge the Americans with great harshness for what we didn't do. What we didn't do was make certain that after WWII nobody else developed nuclear weapons. We didn't maintain a nuclear monopoly.
We could have done it. The Western nations would have simply been told not to develop any or no aid and by the way pay your war debts tomorrow. The USSR and Red China would have required something harsher, no development or no (pick a city or province). We didn't because it would have required a willingness to actually torch some cities and we weren't willing. Besides the egalitarian streak in us always is susceptible to the argument that if we have something why can't they?
But what did that get us? The Pak Army/ISI with nukes, North Korea with nukes, the Russians with nukes. What it got us, the world, is a lot of people with nukes and more getting them every decade. And many of those realize that if they convince others they are willing to use them regardless of the consequences they most often get their way. They will continue to get their way until they meet somebody who will call a their bluff that may not be a bluff and then-tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions dead. I believe we are a lot closer to that in the Indian sub-continent than people realize. In any event it will happen somewhere in the next 50-80 years.
So that is where we stand today. Nukes everywhere in the hands of some very bad people and an almost certain nuke war somewhere. Now let's say we were the only ones with nukes, nobody else, just us. Things would be rather more stable I think, regardless of what you think of the noble Americans or the imperialist war-mongering Yankees. The threat of incineration wouldn't be hanging over the heads on millions and millions of Indians and Pakistanis. That is why I think the historians many tomorrows from now will judge us very harshly.
Bookmarks