Connect with us


Nuclear Weapons – An Instrument For Peace?



A 61-kiloton nuclear device is fired
at the Nevada Test Site in 1953.
Photo by :
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

Published in Romanian on our partner website

On February 19, 2013, during an UN debate, a North Korean official said “erroneous behaviour of South Korea will lead to its final destruction“. While such a statement is reprehensible, it is simply another example of Pyongyang’s aggressive rhetoric, designed to fuel the perception of a state willing to use nuclear weapons to eliminate threats of the capitalist imperialism. North Korea will not use its nuclear arsenal in an eventual confrontation with the South. The equation is simple: a nuclear strike is an act of national suicide, and for the regime of Kim Jong-un maintaining power is of paramount interest. The peninsula will not change a lot in the near future, if we consider the current variables – the same bellicose rhetoric discretely supported by the super powers.
Immediately after September 11 our world has entered a period of transformation and subtle mutations whose effects are still diffuse, and nuclear weapons have not signed contractual arrangements.
In the last six decades there have been no major wars among the super powers, but affairs were settled by low intensity conflicts or wars restricted both in terms of losses and geography. The liberals strongly argue that this is the effect of democratic peace, constructivists add the evolution of social norms and the realists close the game saying the reason are nuclear weapons and the deterrence brought ​by it. Behind all of these perspectives there is a profound transformation of war and how it should be carried, and nuclear weapons are one of the things that weigh much in this equation. The veil covering this transformation was partially removed after 11 September. Conventional War is obsolete. Conventional confrontation tends to provide increasingly less performance sought out by the stakeholders who initiated it. Most times the earnings of a war are measured by the increase or decrease of the security level of those involved, but we must not forget that security is now represented by a huge list of things. Insurgency is the future of war: robust flexible groups, capable of producing hybrid threats and jeopardize the security of an entire state. This transformation is caused by: the evolution of combat, the deterrence provided by nuclear bombs, the changing nature and complexity of the international system. Talking about the crisis in Cuba, Waltz wondered: Why fight when you can win some or you can lose everything? Waltz’s question is still valid because of the changes mentioned above.
Conventional wisdom tells us that force is used in four ways in the international system: offensive, defensive, deterrence and coercion. Conventional War is an attribute of offensive and defensive. Provided that its prevalence on the international stage will gradually diminish, force will continue to be used in the other two ways that will add force as a vector in a move to combat insurgency – a hybrid mix between offensive, defensive and stabilization actions. These assumptions do not belong to the realm of ideas, but some of the changes we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. Allies entered in the two countries prepared for war, conventional and short-lived, but theatre of operations quickly turned into a battle of insurgency versus counterinsurgency. Success in this type of war is not ensured just by raw military power: it does not matter that you have 100 tanks and 10 000, because the operative cells in Waziristan can not be wiped out anyway just with their help. Success requires the existence of legitimacy.
So can nuclear weapons be regarded as a legitimate method? Is owning a nuclear arsenal a moral thing? Is the state justified to pretense nuclear arming? Nuclear weapons are moral and legitimate as long as they are used in the service of peace. The rest is now history…
How can an instrument of mass destruction be in the service of peace? How can destroying a target be considered a moral act of self-defense? What would happen if a terrorist group would get their hands on a nuclear warhead?
Morality is not determined by a semantics, but on how the technology is used. Is the technology used in the V-2 Rocket German moral? At a first glance an idealist would say loud and clear No! but we must not forget that the same technology was the starting point for the latter space programs and for the development of the aviation industry. If nuclear weapons help maintain peace then they are legitimate and moral (nuclear deterrence or negotiation tool).
Clausewitz tells us that war is an act of force which seeks obedience from the opponent by his own will. Although there have been many years since Clausewitz wrote his work, his ideas remain valid for because it treats an essential part of human nature and our history. A war is triggered by hostile intentions having as basis the security interests of the states involved. Firstly, states have a responsibility towards its own population and only secondly is the responsibility to the international community. Hypothetically speaking, if the security of their own collectivity is ensured through a nuclear strike then that is a legitimate action for the state that initiates it. When talking about the legitimacy and morality you need to be lined up with on side or they other because in a general note one can not say that a war was or was not a legitimate / justified measure.
Was the great conflagration from 1939-1945 justified and legitimate? An answer to this question is difficult. Instead we can say that it was justified under the Allied or the Axis powers perspective.

What would happen if a terrorist group would obtain nuclear technology? 

The mutation of war after September 11, 2001 brought on stage a discreet global enemy which demonstrated that it is able to strike in the heart of the symbols of our world. An analysis of a terrorist organization is based on the identification of two aspects: the totality of the capabilities of the structure and the power of its will. Based on past experience, obtaining nuclear weapons is a difficult road and many states gave up this ambition, forced by the security environment circumstances, the high costs of a nuclear program, the interposing bureaucracy, the diminishing of their international prestige and attracting international sanctions. But terrorist organizations don’t have similar objectives to those of a state so for them it should be much easier to gain access to nuclear technology. Religious terrorist groups (Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda) have political goals built on ideological, ethnic, nationalistic or religious paradigms, and therefore need popular support to operate. In connection with this dilemma, a RAND expert says: “Terrorists want lots of people watching, not lots of people dead.” By spreading terror is intended to send a message and obtain political benefits. You do not need the huge number of casualties resulting from a nuclear strike to do this: the bomb in Oklahoma, September 11, the attacks in Madrid and London – all these moments created the atmosphere of terror sought after by the originators. That does not mean that nuclear proliferation in the terrorist groups is not possible, it is a real threat, but like every threat can be countered by necessary means. In our world there choices aren’t simple and therefore we must weigh the advantages and disadvantages.

Nuclear weapons is the kind of technology that brings important strategic and geopolitical benefits, ie it is an advantage owning it. You should not use it and should look with fear at the thought that one day someone will click on the red button.

Please share and join the discussion on Facebook by clicking the “Like” below.
Visit The World Reporter for discussion on this post. Or you may like to know what others are saying on this topic.
Continue Reading


Nepal Hindu Rashtra: Time to Wrap Up Communism?



nepal hindu rashtra

Nepal abolished the Constitutional Monarchy in May 2008 and declared itself as a Federal Democratic Republic. There was a new hope in Nepal as it was becoming world’s newest democracy even though it had dissolved the Hindu Rashtra. However, the democracy in Nepal immediately got into the tight grips of leftists and communists backed by China. It has been almost 12 years since monarchy was abolished in Nepal. Interestingly, the Himalayan country has already seen 11 Prime Ministers in this period. Thus, leaving the Nepalese people still yearning for good and stable governance.

Re-establish Hindu Rashtra

As the political instability is growing in Nepal, people are demonstrating concerns about the future of the country. In fact, Nepalese citizens are unhappy with frequent interference by China and India influencing its unstable communist regime. More voices are now growing in support of reinstating the Monarchy and declaring Nepal as world’s only Hindu Rashtra (which by default offers full religious freedom to other religious minorities as per Hindutva concept of Sarva Dharma Sama Bhavaall paths lead to one).

Former Deputy Prime Minister of Nepal, Kamal Thapa said that if political parties do not recognize the seriousness of reinstating the monarchy, then the country will head for a period of darkness. “Recently, we’ve had high-ranking officials from India and China come to Nepal to try and solve problems within the ruling party,” he said. “We cannot let others dictate what we want to do.”

Communist Party All Set to Suppress Protests, By Force

Kamal Thapa has firmly demanded an all party meet to discuss reinstating of monarchy. Throughout the month of December, 2020 Nepal has seen anti communism protests across the country in support of reinstating the monarchy and Hindu Rashtra. Most importantly, the demand has become a nationwide mass people’s movement. So much so that the communist regime had to send a directive to 77 districts in 7 provinces. The directive suggests suppressing the protests by force. Nevertheless, Rashtriya Prajatantra Party and other royalist groups have ignored this threat from the communist regime. Protester groups have pledged to strengthen the protest in the coming weeks.

Role of China – Hope for Communism in Nepal

China’s ambassador to Nepal is known to have very close relationship with Nepalese Communist regime. In fact, She has been super effective in tilting Nepal’s posture towards its ideological partner, China. One of her greatest achievements in 2020 was artificially manufacturing a border conflict between Nepal and India. Consequently, souring relations between the two Hindu majority nations. In addition, she managed to silence Nepal’s communist government after China took one of Nepal’s border villages under its control. However, recent political turmoil in Nepal and a renewed demand for reinstating of Hindu Monarchy is showing that the situation is now out of Chinese hands

Role of India

Year 2020, was not a good year for India and Nepal relations. India was busy in controlling domestic Covid cases. On the other hand, China had launched an invasive campaign into Indian territory. In addition, India is always busy with Pakistan on its western borders. However, the surprise came to India when China was almost successful in creating a new border tension between India and Nepal.

Those who do not know about Indian government should note that the current ruling party in India finds itself ideologically opposite to communism. This further creates differences between the two countries.

Communist party in Nepal has blamed India for supporting the ongoing anti communism protests in Nepal. However, former advisor to Nepal’s PM has suggested there is no proof that India is fueling pro Monarchy, anti communism demand in Nepal.

Nevertheless, There are certain influencers in India who have, in their personal capacity, expressed support for reinstating the Hindu monarchy. Yogi Adityanath, who is the Chief Minister of an Indian state bordering Nepal, said in 2015 that Nepal should declare itself a Hindu Monarchy. Readers should note that in 2015 Yogi Adityanath was not the Chief Minister yet. However, today he is not only popular in south of Nepal, his popularity is growing in Nepal as well.

Will The World See the first Hindu Rashtra?

It is difficult to answer this question at this moment. However, Nepalese communist government could not resolve the political instability and in December 2020 Nepalese government dissolved the parliament. Nepal will see next elections in April – May 2021. Hopefully, the world will see Nepal’s 12th Prime Minister in 13 years or may be a Hindu King? Royalists and protester groups have expressed confidence in winning next elections. We have our eyes on Nepal for updates.

Continue Reading


America’s Justice System – The Need For Reform



A recent poll by the National Opinion Research Centre revealed that 95% of Americans favour vital criminal justice reforms. This is hardly surprising, given that several people of varying racial, partisan and ideological dispositions have called out the justice system over its many failures throughout the years. Most Americans received the Trump Administration’s First Step Act as a step in the right direction, as about 60% of people approved the criminal justice reform bill according to a 2018 poll. However, many people still believe the justice system’s approach to crime is ineffective and needs dire change, and these are some reasons why.

Prison population and funding concerns

Research conducted revealed America has about 2.3 million prisoners, making the US the country with the highest incarceration rate globally. Experts estimate that the country’s prison population has grown by a whopping 340% over the past three decades; new prisoner admissions into jails are higher than prisoner release numbers. The cost of maintaining the nation’s prisons at taxpayers’ expense has inspired a lot of backlash and calls for budget cuts. According to research, slashed correction spending was the preferred option by most states to balance their budgets and redirect spending to other areas.

Minimum mandatory sentences

Minimum mandatory sentences are statutes that force judges to give defendants convicted of a crime the minimum prison sentence. Mandatory sentences rob judges of the traditional way of considering the defendant’s character and the unique circumstances surrounding offences. Even when represented by criminal defense attorneys with many years’ experience, defendants often succumb to prosecutors’ pressure to plead guilty or face more severe charges with higher mandatory sentences. The guilty plea bargain consequently resolves about 95% of both federal and state court cases. Research also shows that about half of inmates in federal prisons are doing time for drug offences- causing overpopulation in the prison system.

Growing number of people killed by the police

An estimated 1000 civilians are killed by police officers annually in the US. The frequency of police brutality cases over the years requires immediate reform to the American justice system. Data suggests that the incidence of fatal police shootings is higher among African-Americans than any other ethnicity, inspiring movements like the ‘Black Lives Matter’ campaign to press on with protests for significant police etiquette reforms towards coloured minorities. The police force faces incessant accusations of racial profiling, indiscriminate use of power, and poor discretion, which has led a reported 58% of Americans to think policing needs major reforms through measures like better-trained officers, and wearing body cameras.

Evolving public opinion on crime

Research released by the Sentencing Project and The Justice Policy Institute reveals that more people in conservative states are embracing preventive, rehabilitative, and alternative sentencing options for non-violent offenders. Most Americans now view the prevention of crime as the most vital function of the justice system, as 77% of Americans think that focusing more on character education and after-school programs would be cost-effective by reducing the number of people going to jail. Almost two-thirds of Americans also believe in the need for lighter sentences with more useful, reformative programs in prisons that will benefit inmates upon release. Therefore, support for harsh penalties that harden criminals and make them a more significant menace when reintroduced into society has dwindled.

Continue Reading


The History Question: Is It Better to Remember or to Forget?



Years ago, a philosopher by the name of George Santayana said a phrase that fuels many debates to this day. His original saying is “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, although, many sources now present it as variations of “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. The latter definitely has more substance to it in the light of the ongoing debate about how much history we should be learning and how.

Is It Better to Remember or Forget About the Past?

On one hand, Santayana was right. Learning about the past is essential in order for people to progress. One also shouldn’t overlook the importance of remembrance and paying respects to the dead, both those who pushed the progress forward and those who have fallen victims to major tragedies that could and should have been averted.

The main argument in favor of learning about the past is that its knowledge is necessary for preventing the same thing happening in the future. Having it one can see the signs and stop the tragedy before it gains momentum.

That’s sound in theory, but the reality is always different. For example, today people are surely forgetting, and the much-critiqued education system is only partially at fault here. Even the greatest of tragedies weren’t spared this fate. It’s a proven fact that about two-thirds of millennials today don’t know about the Holocaust, and this number is surely greater for generations that follow them. In the school history course, the subject of one of the greatest disasters in history is barely touched, if touched at all. And outside of a history classroom, one can only see small, but terrifying, glimpses of it at the Holocaust Museum and other museums that rarely attract many visitors. And now we are witnessing a rise of antisemitic crime.

Are these two facts related? Does the lack of awareness about the horrors done in the name of Aryan supremacy contribute to the fact that right-winged extremists seem to be gaining popularity again?

It does, but by how much? That is the question that no one can truly answer.

And what about other genocides? The Holocaust had the highest death toll, but it was far from the only genocide in history. And quite a few of those happened after World War 2 and before the memory of the atrocities against the Jews began to fade. This means that while forgetting history is a factor, it’s not the deciding factor in its repeats.

But what is that thing responsible for the reenactment of past mistakes and tragedies?

Learning. This is the important thing that is most often overlooked when citing Santayana’s famous saying. It’s not enough to learn about the past and know the facts of things that happened. It’s important to learn from those facts and put in place protections that will prevent them from happening again. And this is something that humanity, as a whole, has yet to succeed in doing.

Dwelling in the Past Can Be Just As Bad

One also shouldn’t forget that there is such a thing as “too much history”. The Bosnian War and genocide that happened there in the 1990s is a vivid example of how the past can be exploited by political powers. Used as a part of propaganda, which fueled the war, history can become a weapon in the hands of those who want to use it for their own goals.

And this is what humans have been doing since the dawn of time. There is always someone who will use any means necessary to achieve whatever it is they wish. This results in wars and genocides, and hundreds of smaller but no less devastating tragedies.

Therefore, the problem isn’t whether people should be learning history but human nature itself. Perhaps, teaching this can help fix this fundamental flaw and truly stop the worst of the past from repeating.

Continue Reading