Mikhail Gorbachev Agrees that Nukes “Gotta” Go — and More Provocatively — that US Militarism Is the Biggest Obstacle to Achieving that Desirable Step

07 August 2015

Arguably unlike President Obama, Mikhail Gorbachev deserved his 1990 Nobel Peace Prize . . .

And today — one day after the 70^th anniversary of the understandable American nuking of Hiroshima — thoughtful people might want to seriously consider what the former Soviet leader thinks about the continuing possibility of nuclear war:

SPIEGEL: What do you think of the oft-cited theory that mutually assured destruction prevents nuclear wars?

Gorbachev: There's a dangerous logic in that.

Here's another question: If five or 10 countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, then why can't 20 or 30?

Today, a few dozen countries have the technical prerequisites to build nuclear weapons. The alternative is clear:

Either we move toward a nuclear-free world or we have to accept that nuclear weapons will continue to spread, step by step, across the globe.

And can we really imagine a world without nuclear weapons if a single country amasses so many conventional weapons that its military budget nearly tops that of all other countries combined? This country would enjoy total military supremacy if nuclear weapons were abolished.

SPIEGEL: You're talking about the US?

Gorbachev: You said it. It is an insurmountable obstacle on the road to a nuclear-free world.

That's why we have to put demilitarization back on the agenda of international politics. This includes a reduction of military budgets, a moratorium on the development of new types of weapons and a prohibition on militarizing space.

Otherwise, talks toward a nuclear-free world will be little more than empty words. The world would then become less safe, more unstable and unpredictable. Everyone will lose, including those now seeking to dominate the world.

The dynamics of Gorbachev’s point are inarguable

I made this Realpolitik case yesterday in less provocative philosophical terms. We humans are too fearful of the Big Boys in our midst to voluntarily give up any means of protecting ourselves from their greedy perambulations.

Gorbachev’s implications are correct. American militarism is too threatening to too many people(s) for them to voluntarily give up the goal of achieving somewhat equalizing nuclear weapons. If one perceives the bully on the block negatively, is one really going to hand him one’s firearm?

Of course not.

All of America’s Second Amendment fanatics — and their unrepentant, militaristically inclined “thought buddies” — understand this.

What we foolishly do not yet accept is that we are soon destined not to be top dog

It is economically and demographically inevitable that competing great powers are soon going to be flexing competing muscle with a probably anti-American bias.

Historically speaking, America’s reign of imperio-militaristic profit-seeking is just about over.

What’s going to happen then?

Being optimistic about non-proliferation and demilitarization is difficult

I do not think that today’s quintessentially aggressive, frequently self-righteous, and often too fraidy-cat American mind is going to change.

We will not demilitarize, unless some Bigger Badder Guy makes us. Which, of course, is just a matter of historically passing time.

With regard to actively designing a workable infrastructure necessary for a more peaceful world, we lack the “do it now” motivation inspired by foreseeing that History’s cycles of change sweep even the most powerful nations away.

We will therefore (most probably) continue to outspend, out-troop and out-tech everyone else — without paying the slightest regard to the two facts that:

(i) we will inevitably not be calling the shots in the future

and

(ii) we will thereafter have to live under the same dog-eat-dog precedent that we ourselves created — while menacing and arguably wrecking other nations.

There seems to be something in American water that prevents us from seeing painful payback coming.

The moral? — Former comrade Gorbachev is correct, but virtually no one is going to see his point . . .

. . . until our future selves are mildly squirming under someone’s else’s imposed yoke.

Do unto others and all that.

Seeking truth is challenging. Having the courage to act on it is even more difficult. Which is why most of us will call Mikhail Gorbachev an irrelevant “commie bastard” and think no more about the issue he raised.

One can see in this too complacent a rejection of a sound point, why spiritually conscious people invented the payback metaphor named karma. Or — for more impatiently inclined religions — Hell.

PeteFree.com

Mikhail Gorbachev Agrees that Nukes “Gotta” Go — and More Provocatively — that US Militarism Is the Biggest Obstacle to Achieving that Desirable Step