North Korea and India: No Need For Nukes
By John E. Carey
Former military people talk. And often, because we share a certain culture and background, we come up with the same questions. Less frequently, but still often, we come up with the same answers.
One questions swirling around former U.S. military officers, especially those with experience in nuclear weapons is, “Why in the world do North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons?â€
Policy wonks like my friend Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy don’t have this question. They know that North Korea and Iran both want the recognition, respect and “clout†that comes from just owning nuclear weapons. Playing a role in the development process gives the developer even more prestige. This is an international policy point of view.
Former military men sometimes say to that answer: who cares? When many were asked about the North Korean and Iranian drive for nuclear weapons, many said, “Whatever for? They don’t need them.â€
This is not because former and current military people are dense. Far from it. It is just that many military people see way more negatives than positives to being a nuclear weapon owner or landlord. The people we spoke with had actually managed nuclear weapon systems.
Former U.S. military officers might caution North Korea and Iran on four points:
a. The development cost is severe
b. Maintaining a safe and reliable arsenal is difficult (if you care)
c. Transferring the technology for cash is more and more problematic, and
d. Nukes get you more negative attention than positive
When we spoke to officers responsible for developing, managing, employing and securing US nuclear weapons; many former B-52 crewmembers, strategic ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) officers and those closely associated with US silo-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM); we opened by telling all who participated that, as is obvious to all who follow world events, North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons. A frequent response was, “we know but why?â€
US personnel cautioned about the tremendous cost of developing, securing, training with and otherwise managing nuclear weapons. Many instantly regaled us with stories about the difficulties encountered just trying to keep the proper cadre of skilled, highly reliable people with special security clearances on hand.
Many asked why Iran would want to pay Russia and France tons of money to develop nuclear weapons. The officers were more astonished still that North Korea, an economic basket case, would want to pursue nuclear weapons when that nation has so many other obvious needs.
Those with military experience know how difficult it can be to own, manage and care for a nuclear arsenal; along with the raft of specially checked-out people you can trust with, well, nuclear weapons.
France, the UK, Russia, Israel and India also know this difficulty. Pakistan knows the difficulties too, but Pakistan remains in a special category all its own. Pakistan’s “Father of the Nuclear Bomb,†A. Q. Khan traded, sold or just plain gave away a truck load of nuclear know-how before he was reigned in.
Intelligence experts believe, and have significant concern about, some nations, like North Korea, transferring nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology internationally. It is already known, for example, that Iran and North Korea cooperate on missile development efforts for missiles that may, one day, be configured to deliver nuclear weapons. Iranian engineers were on hand in North Korea for the missile events last July 4.
The big fear in the war on terror is that some stateless terror group will get their hands on nuclear weapons from some evil doer like North Korea.
But precautions are in place to address this fear, and some nations such as Libya have even given up on their nuclear ambitions as a result of war on terror operations and safeguards.
Programs like the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) mean that one-time international trouble makers like Col. Moammar Gadhafi most probably had fewer and fewer opportunities to transfer and profit from his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missiles. PSI is an international effort to track WMD and missiles internationally, and to seize unlawful transfers where possible.
One Comment
john Carey
Forgive me as this is, as yet, incomplete….
North Korea and India: No Need For Nukes
By John E. Carey
Former military people talk. And often, because we share a certain culture and background, we come up with the same questions. Less frequently, but still often, we come up with the same answers.
One questions swirling around former U.S. military officers, especially those with experience in nuclear weapons is, “Why in the world do North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons?â€
Policy wonks like my friend Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy don’t have this question. They know that North Korea and Iran both want the recognition, respect and “clout†that comes from just owning nuclear weapons. Playing a role in the development process gives the developer even more prestige. This is an international policy point of view.
Former military men sometimes say to that answer: who cares? When many were asked about the North Korean and Iranian drive for nuclear weapons, many said, “Whatever for? They don’t need them.â€
This is not because former and current military people are dense. Far from it. It is just that many military people see way more negatives than positives to being a nuclear weapon owner or landlord. The people we spoke with had actually managed nuclear weapon systems.
Former U.S. military officers might caution North Korea and Iran on four points:
a. The development cost is severe
b. Maintaining a safe and reliable arsenal is difficult (if you care)
c. Transferring the technology for cash is more and more problematic, and
d. Nukes get you more negative attention than positive
When we spoke to officers responsible for developing, managing, employing and securing US nuclear weapons; many former B-52 crewmembers, strategic ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) officers and those closely associated with US silo-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM); we opened by telling all who participated that, as is obvious to all who follow world events, North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons. A frequent response was, “we know but why?â€
US personnel cautioned about the tremendous cost of developing, securing, training with and otherwise managing nuclear weapons. Many instantly regaled us with stories about the difficulties encountered just trying to keep the proper cadre of skilled, highly reliable people with special security clearances on hand.
Many asked why Iran would want to pay Russia and France tons of money to develop nuclear weapons. The officers were more astonished still that North Korea, an economic basket case, would want to pursue nuclear weapons when that nation has so many other obvious needs.
Those with military experience know how difficult it can be to own, manage and care for a nuclear arsenal; along with the raft of specially checked-out people you can trust with, well, nuclear weapons.
France, the UK, Russia, Israel and India also know this difficulty. Pakistan knows the difficulties too, but Pakistan remains in a special category all its own. Pakistan’s “Father of the Nuclear Bomb,†A. Q. Khan traded, sold or just plain gave away a truck load of nuclear know-how before he was reigned in.
Intelligence experts believe, and have significant concern about, some nations, like North Korea, transferring nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology internationally. It is already known, for example, that Iran and North Korea cooperate on missile development efforts for missiles that may, one day, be configured to deliver nuclear weapons. Iranian engineers were on hand in North Korea for the missile events last July 4.
The big fear in the war on terror is that some stateless terror group will get their hands on nuclear weapons from some evil doer like North Korea.
But precautions are in place to address this fear, and some nations such as Libya have even given up on their nuclear ambitions as a result of war on terror operations and safeguards.
Programs like the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) mean that one-time international trouble makers like Col. Moammar Gadhafi most probably had fewer and fewer opportunities to transfer and profit from his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missiles. PSI is an international effort to track WMD and missiles internationally, and to seize unlawful transfers where possible.
Finally, nations possessing nuclear weapons….