What Mr. Waltz Misses - Whose Finger Would He Put at the Button

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Aug 8, 2012 at 11:21

Only in a narrow field of view might one take the circumstances presented here and derive the same type of conclusion; but one could do the same with the works of Orwell and Wells. But if one were to do a more detailed analysis on the assertion that Waltz was correct on all counts would proved to be disconcerting, probably not to anyone so enamoured of Waltz's posturing, but for others who have lived in these periods of global discontent and realize that all is not as it seemed then and the results of efforts at peacemaking are less than favorable even more so now.

Putting nuclear war making in the hands of just anyone is as reckless and irresponsible as if Chamberlain had said it would be OK to allow Hitler his nuclear tipped V-2s for 'defense.' Fortunately, Churchill did not share the confidence of Chamberlain and his delusion of the Third Reich and the world was spared the necessity to learn German under the nuclear umbrella.

The premise that major is less than likely if all were armed equally stems from either a naiveté of the true human condition or the delusion that refuses to believe that at some time someone will be induced to 'try their hand' at pressing a self-made agenda of domination after compiling a secret machine to accomplish just that task. How long did Hitler develop his war machine under the noses of the armistice partners before his open campaign of lebensraum unfolded before an astonished Europe? The aryanesque attitude of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Regime is doing just exactly the same; but this time the stakes are exquisitely more challenging.

Waltz's premise of a stable Iran is faulty by the first and most noticeable misjudgment of character; of thinking that the Islamically influenced desires of dominance of the Iranian ayatollahs is in the same arena of thought of the other nuclear powers. What holds the other powers in restraint for the moment does not drive the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary regime's agenda: a desire for a global caliphate does and strategic nuclear powered weapons provide the means otherwise not available for Muslim domination of the world.

The world that Waltz described from the time of Khrushchev to today is colored by his world view, one that is held by many, but to his frustration, not all. It is a world view that seems to have some following in the global political scheme of things and for that reason the delusion of an achievable world peace can be obtained by following some similar path of parity provides equality. History tells of the impracticality of holding to such thoughts, since by the very nature of mankind and its propensity for war, someone will always be looking for an edge of advantage and having a nuclear weapon capability provides just exactly that.

The United States made the first use of a nuclear device in times of hostilities and one should think it would have been enough to never consider using it again. As we can see, that did not turn out so very well and soon we will see that it will become the ultimate bane of human existence. No Mr. Waltz, it is NOT such a good idea.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".