Wednesday, September 23, 2009

To Nuke or Not to Nuke…

To continue class discussion a bit, I wanted to advocate an idea that was introduced in the scenario of China bombing Sydney. The idea was brought up that the U.S. should carry out a nuclear strike on a comparable city (or cities) in China. I did not introduce the idea, but I think that this would be the way to go.

The first and probably the most obvious reason being that there should be some sort of punitive response on behalf of Sydney. After all, they did just lose over 4 million people. I don’t see much difference regarding where the bomb comes from (U.S., Japan or Australia) since the U.S. would be the source of it anyway, and the Chinese would recognize us as the culprits regardless.

The second reason to bomb a city rather than a strictly military facility is that it would make the Chinese government much more accountable to its people. I realize that this sounds callus, but I believe that the Chinese government would be more reluctant to continue the game of retaliation if it lost citizens (and would continue to do so) and not just military personnel. I also realize that this would be a HUGE gamble, since it could quite possibly lead to a nuclear holocaust, but I believe that if the U.S. demonstrated that it was willing to retaliate in this manor, that it would be a sufficient deterrent.

The third reason to intervene on the behalf of Australia (and Taiwan as well) is that if we decided not to do anything, then the idea of allies becomes nullified. The U.S. would become a global pariah. Militaristically, we would only be able to act unilaterally because we would not be able to count on the loyalty of our allies, and understandably so.

This strategy would allow the U.S. to honor its responsibilities, punish China for its actions, and hopefully prevent further nuclear strikes on U.S. allies. Ideally, Taiwan could then go about its day and become independent. But this is 2012 we’re talking about here, so maybe we’re all doomed anyway…

No comments: