Duck and Cover

Despite my Middle Eastern concentration in college, I would usually find myself term after term in multiple Cold War history classes. I loved the material; dark, uncertain times, full of trench coats and secrets. My fascination with this war on ice was well known, my roommates and friends teased me often. Intrigue and misplaced nostalgia aside, (I once argued on an essay exam that the Cold War never ended), there are lessons to be drawn from this period in history. We need to learn from our mistakes.

Nuclear weapons are a bad idea. Why yes I am familiar with the mutual deterrence theory. As someone in the business of security, I can tell you that amassing more and more weapons to maintain a constant ratio of threat with an enemy is not going to cut it. Yet, sadly, decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall and more than a year after President Obama's Nuclear Security Summit, the headlines assure us we have not progressed as we should. Syria is in the process of being referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions regarding a secret nuclear site. Need I remind you this is the country currently busy massacring its own people. Also keep in mind that despite the reassuring narration in those black and white videos, ducking and covering will get you nowhere.

Equally concerning is the debate surrounding the IAEA vote. Russia and China both objected. Iran and North Korea are likely sponsors of the Syrian program. I appreciate the haze that exists in determining the objectives of a country's nuclear program, but it seems clear there were no peaceful purposes behind the nuclear reactor. (The violation came when Syria did not report building this reactor as per the IAEA regulations.) The problem is that countries are still thinking in terms of who should be allowed to have nuclear weapons vs. who shouldn't. The answer is simple, no one should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

In order for this policy to play out, powers with large arsenals would have to demonstrate a serious commitment to disarmament first before they can ask others not to develop nuclear capabilities. Only after this process begins in earnest would the international community have the credibility it needs to ensure states new to the nuclear community that they too should halt production. No one understands the trust and balance this would take better than a student of the Cold War, but the end result of a policy of nuclear intolerance makes the world exponentially safer than a policy of one-upmanship.

Meanwhile, as you all ponder the attainable, yes, attainable, path to a world free from nuclear weapons, I will be preparing for a follow up interview at the zoo. I'm not kidding. Wish me luck.