If it should choose, Germany could go nuclear in six months, its arsenal reflective of a country that makes Mercedes and BMWs. That is not so wild an idea in an age when unstable nations like Iran and North Korea boast of their arsenals and their aggression, while others such as Turkey and Brazil flaunt U.S. faculty-lounge sermons on non-proliferation.
If Iran should go nuclear — and I think it will within a year or two — we should imagine that a Brazil, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria would too. As the European Union collapses, as third-rate nations become nuclear, and as the United States abdicates its postwar role in ensuring the safety and security of the West, why would Germany continue to subsidize southern Europe while receiving mostly blame for its efforts, while its airspace would be in theory vulnerable to the likes of a theocratic Iran?
As long as their money is going down the drain propping up Greece's lifestyle, might not the Germans consider their money better spent on nukes? We'd best think about this just as we consider whether Japan might go nuclear in response to a weaponized North Korean nuclear threat that Japan believes we won't deter (or if Japan doesn't believe our extended deterrence against China's nuclear arsenal).
And ponder the broader implications of a policy that reaches out to enemies yet doesn't keep them from gong nuclear; and that stiffs our friends, which doesn't fill them with confidence that we'll stand with them in a crisis--let alone a nuclear crisis. I mean, not even the nimrods who think that the Obama foreign policy approach should work think that anything has been accomplished!
Engagement is a guiding principle of President Obama’s foreign policy. While the Obama administration has achieved its initial objective of “re-starting” America’s relationship with the world, it has struggled to capitalize on its early promise and so far has failed to make lasting reforms necessary to ensure public engagement strategies further key national security objectives.
Yeah, the problem is that "early promise" of success hasn't been institutionalized. We stopped supporting allies and started sucking up to enemies in January 2009, but somehow, we need more of that. Yep, that's the problem.
Not that I worry about Japan or Germany with nukes, but once proliferation gets rolling, how long will that dream of a non-nuclear world last?
Or will our leaders settle for just a non-nuclear America? I mean, how else to you "engage" the world?
Have a lovely day.
