- People closely following the geopolitical and geostrategic scenario around the world would have observed how some of the most advanced nations have reached such a stage on the back of tremendous economic progress. Now, economic might also denote a country’s preparedness to face the global challenges vis-à-vis security threat perceptions to sovereignty by strengthening its military with every possible new invention in line with the emerging situations. Of course, modern-day warfare itself has undergone an unbelievable transformation in the last few decades, with the cutting-edge technology-driven initiatives dotting the frontline. Little wonder, every country worth its salt would not mind investing in pumping up its security intervention measures.
PC: Middle East Eye
- The moot point to ponder over here is whether the conventional military inventory must be accorded less primacy than investing in deadly nuclear weaponry. Let’s dwelve deep to comprehend the not-so-easy conundrum. Of course, experience shows that economic strength and conventional military superiority matter more than nukes in a war. As the whole world gasped at with bated breath, the US president Donald Trump’s truce may prove only as permanent as his tariffs, with both Israel and Iran alleging attacks this week, but if it holds, Iran might want to rethink deterrence. Israel made this war a campaign against Iran’s alleged nuclear programme. US pummelled Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan in pursuit of the same phantom. Why?
PC: AP News
- Even though Iran maintains its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, the discovery of 83.7% pure uranium at Fordow in 2023, better than the 82.7% purity of Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima, was a case of malicious contamination. But assume that Netanyahu and Trump are right, and the centrifuges at Fordow, etc, are indeed spinning uranium hexafluoride to concentrate fissile U-235 for one or more bombs. The likely explanation is that Iran wants a nuclear deterrent, a bomb that discourages others from attacking it. Nuclear deterrence has been a seductive idea for 80 years, and the USSR/Russia, China, UK, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, and N Norea have realized it. For three years now, it’s been argued that Russia couldn’t have invaded a nuclear-armed Ukraine.
PC: Times of India
- But data from 348 territorial disputes show nuclear-armed sides enjoy no advantage. Mind you, nuclear America couldn’t prevent revolutions in China, Cuba, Iran, and Nicaragua. It stalled in Korea against a non-nuclear China, and failed miserably in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Nuclear USSR likewise failed in Afghanistan. Saddam fired Scuds at nuclear Israel in 1991. Even the idea that mutually assured destruction prevented the Cold War from turning hot is doubtful. Because the US and Russia had never fought a war anyway, and the USSR never showed intent to invade Western Europe. While autocratic regimes blindly pursue nukes as a guarantee of survival, a strong economy and conventional military strength seem to be better bets.
