Nuclear End Game

Through the natural progression of technology things become more and more common. Nuclear weapons are no different. While still extremely difficult to create a weapon and a delivery device, it's becoming easier and easier to do.

Just a few years ago we were sending IAEA inspectors into Iraq as long as they could stay at one time without being kicked out. Right now we're battling both North Korea and Iran over their nuclear pursuits. We're putting a lot of diplomatic pressure on Iran in cooperation with the Europeans. Russia and China are still far less than supportive. How can they not support forcing a country who's stated intention is to "wipe [Israel] off the map" to waive their nuclear ambitions? It makes me wonder what their angle in this deal is.

What's our end game in this whole pursuit, though? Lets say tomorrow Iran announces they're inviting inspectors in. We inspect. No nukes. What if we're wrong? What if the inspectors don't find them and they obtain nuclear weapons anyway?

Or the most likely scenario, regardless of how things play out with Iran, what happens when the next country pursues nukes? What happens if Syria starts trying to build a bomb? What happens if radicals take over Pakistan and gain control of their nukes? What happens if 20 years from now Mexico is governed by radicals and they start pursuing nukes?

Do we just continue this pattern of apply diplomatic pressure, involve the international community, threaten sanctions, offer billions in aid and other concessions, apply diplomatic pressure, threaten military force, finally start paying out the nose in the hopes that some rogue dictator that we didn't trust with nukes keeps his word? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Don't misunderstand me, we're doing what we have to do now. That can't be our end game, though.

Technology eventually becomes a commodity. Computers were novelties years ago. Now almost every household in the industrialized world has one. Internet access is the same way. We would never consider it a viable option to keep "bad guys" from getting computers even though they can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Just look at the time, money, and privacy lost every year due to sabotage. Why do we consider this a viable option when it comes to nukes?

Someone said once that silence can never be bought, only rented. Preventing the spread of technology and innovation is the same way. Eventually our best efforts at presenting "bad guys" from getting nukes will fail. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying. Right now that's buying us time but we need to looking beyond that. How do we respond when they eventually obtain nukes? The answer to that question should be our end game.