Loving your nukes

When commentary was raging about the possibility of Iran and North Korea getting nuclear bombs I wondered why there was no talk of why the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction did or did not apply. It turns out I was a bit premature in my wondering.

Jonathan Tepperman offers an essay in Newsweek on why nuclear weapons are a good thing. He wrote it because Obama is about to convene a meeting of world leaders to discuss how the world might be rid of agents of mass destruction. Tepperman's disagreement with the prez. is this:

In the 64 years since it was first used, there has never been a war of any magnitude between two countries who both have the bomb. That includes Pakistan and India. Before both acquired the bomb they fought a few wars. Afterward, they have been working hard at not fighting. Disagreements that used to spread into war no longer do so. Bombs mellow behavior.

Critics say, "But…"

Aren't current world leaders crazy enough not to care if their country gets annihilated? Crazier than Stalin and Mao?

Won't they give bombs to terrorists? If a country is central to a country's sense of survival they won't give it to someone they can't control and whose aims don't match their own. Besides, we've said that we'll go after the country that a terrorist nuke came from.

What if the country collapses? Russia managed to secure its nukes when the Soviet Union collapsed. Pakistan's nukes are isolated from its political chaos. Besides, bombs are difficult to operate.

What about a new arms race? Countries that do not feel their survival is threatened don't bother with bombs. South Africa gave theirs up. And if a country does get nukes it will mellow behavior.

Instead of getting rid of nukes (which he won't be able to pry out of Russia's and China's hands, anyway) Obama should work to make them more secure.