You should never argue
with a crazy ma-ma-ma-ma-man,
You oughtta know by now…
– Billy Joel, Movin’
Out
“ ‘And so it was in
those days,’ said Brother Reader:
“that the princes of
Earth had hardened their hearts against the Law of the Lord, and of
their pride there was no end. And each of them thought within
himself that it was better for all to be destroyed than for the will
of other princes to prevail over his. For the mighty of the Earth
did contend among themselves for supreme power over all; by stealth,
treachery and deceit they did seek to rule...”
– Walter M. Miller, A
Canticle for Leibowitz, “Fiat Lux”
Donald Trump created a bit
of a stir over the last few days with some tweets
expressing his desire to expand and modernize the U.S. nuclear weapon
arsenal. As his aides tried to downplay his words, he countered by
offering additional words of “explanation” which increased the
alarm of his hearers. Among the things he said are the following:
-
He intends to “greatly” expand the number of warheads and delivery systems.
-
He does not care whether this action provokes a renewed arms race between the United States and other nations. In his words, “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.” And as his soon-to-be White House spokesman said, “I think it’s putting every nation on notice that the United States is going to reassert its position in the globe.”
While the Donald’s words
contain plenty of cause for alarm, I have to say that I don’t
necessarily view his words in the same way as some of the alarmed
voices see them. For many of these voices are the voices of
regretful players on the losing end of empire who have pointed to the
stabilizing role the United States has played for several decades as
the center of empire. Their lament that this stabilizing role is
about to come to an end seem to me to be a veiled plea for that
empire to continue, a veiled justification of that empire. But while
it is quite true that the United States has played a pivotal role in
nuclear non-proliferation, and while the work that has been done in
that role has been unquestionably good, it is also true that the
United States has made a lot of people suffer by reason of its
imperialism. Most of those sufferers have been citizens of the
“developing world,” a world kept in a continual state of
brokenness in order that five percent of the world’s population
might consume over 40 percent of the world’s resources. It won’t
hurt my ego at all if someone else assumes the role of global
leadership for a while – provided, of course, that the next leader
is sane, rational and moral.
Trump is not sane, rational
or moral. I agree with the alarmists that the Donald’s words are
cause for great alarm – for the following reasons.
First, his intention to
“greatly strengthen and expand [the U.S.] nuclear capability”
would almost certainly be a direct repudiation of the second pillar
of the international Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (or NPT) which was
ratified in 1970, and to which the United States was one of the
signatories. (It seems that Russia may
already have repudiated the second pillar.) There is no doubt
that the NPT has made the world safer by greatly reducing the risk of
nuclear war. Yet even now, there are non-nuclear nations which
have long-standing frustrations with the five major nuclear powers
(the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France) because of the refusal
of the major powers to adhere to the same standard of behavior to
which they hold the non-nuclear nations. A decision by the United
States to abandon disarmament in favor of increasing the total count
of weapons would provide these other nations with ample justification
for turning their own backs on the NPT.
Second, the tone of Mr.
Trump’s nuke language, combined with many of his previous
statements, shows his need to approach his interactions with other
nations as the dominator with the biggest stick, rather than as a
humble, genuine peacemaker seeking the greatest good for all. This
is not likely to go over very well in the world at large, many of
whose nations may soon come to feel themselves to be under
existential threat because of the actions and attitudes of our
incoming Narcissist-In-Chief. And when people feel that their very
lives are threatened, they will be prepared to fight back. Maybe
that’s why the Donald, who campaigned on an ostensibly isolationist
platform, is nonetheless seeking to drastically
expand U.S. military spending, and to eliminate budget caps on
future military spending. The U.S. military budget is already
bigger than the next fifteen largest national military budgets
combined. If Trump really is a peacenik, why do we need more troops
and hardware?
Third, the creation of a
global political climate in which nations felt that they were not
significant or were vulnerable to domination unless they each had
nuclear weapons would produce the same results on an international
level that the massive
promotion of gun ownership has had in the United States. (See
this
also.) The U.S. is not safer as a result of massively increased gun
ownership and concealed or open carry laws. Instead, we have found
that certain kinds of hotheads gravitate toward gun ownership, and
that the fact that these people have guns has greatly increased the
chances that the guns will be used – and not for good purpose! How
do you feel about having a world of nuclear-armed nations whose
leaders say
things like, “Why do we make [nukes] if we’re not going to
use them?”, or, “You want to be unpredictable [in your potential
use of nuclear weapons]”? (Quotes paraphrased from source cited in
paragraph.)
Fourth, Mr. Trump has
promised to build a “serious
missile defense system” to protect the United States from
nuclear threats. Perhaps he is hoping that the U.S. could hide itself behind such a system. However, intercepting nuclear missiles is much harder than it has been made to seem by proponents of missile defense systems. There are three stages in the flight of a ballistic nuclear missile
where the missile could be intercepted by a defense system: boost, ballistic and reentry.
But trying to intercept a missile during the reentry phase is, in
many respects, waiting until it’s too late. And U.S. attempts to
build systems that could intercept a missile during the boost and
ballistic phases have uniformly failed. (See this,
this,
and this.)
Is Trump promising to build a system that would actually and
reliably work against a modern ICBM? Fuhgeddaboudit.
To me, Trump’s recent
military statements can be taken in two ways. First, I think he will
treat the United States – with all of its various peoples – as
nothing more than a narcissistic extension of himself. Now that he
has, by means of a rigged election, graduated to the biggest of the
big leagues, he will try to display the biggest persona of them all.
At present he receives a great deal of narcissistic supply from his
association with Vladimir Putin, who has distinguished himself as
another Big Man on a Big Stage. But I suspect that there is also in
Trump a feeling of rivalry and envy in his association with Putin and
with Russia – an envy with Freudian overtones. A buildup of the
U.S. military may be one way by which Trump seeks to resolve that
envy and prove to himself that he is the bigger man. Indeed, there
are already signs of instability in the relationship between these
two narcissists, as indicated in Trump’s response
to the thoughts expressed toward him in a recent letter from Putin:
“In response to Mr. Putin’s letter, Mr. Trump said that a failure
by either side to ‘live up to these thoughts’ would require the
United States to ‘travel an alternative path.’” I remember
reading how last year, Mr. Putin publicly lectured the
West concerning American intervention in the Mideast, pointedly
asking, “Do you realize what you’ve done?” However, Mr.
Putin’s solution to American imperialism has been to support the
political ambitions of a man who is morally unfit to be the President
of the United States. Therefore Putin’s “cure” will almost
certainly be worse than the disease for which it was intended. A day
may soon arrive in which other heads of state pointedly ask Putin,
“Do you realize what you’ve done?”
(I used to have a great deal
of respect for Putin and his version of Russia, but unfortunately,
his mask has slipped. Even though many of his criticisms of the West
have validity, I no longer view him as the doctor to be writing
prescriptions for anything.)
The second way to look at
Trump is to see that deliberately sowing consternation (and
confusion) is part of his overall style. He seems to take great
pride in being unpredictable. Indeed, he seems to see this
unpredictability as a strength. Others don’t necessarily agree.
(See this,
this
and this.)
I also have a few thoughts on Mr. Trump and unpredictability, which
I will disclose in a future post. In that post, we’ll be climbing
back out onto the skinny branches again.
Aggressiveness, insecurity,
unpredictability, and nukes – oh, my!