You are here: Home » Bureaucrash HQ » Nuclear Proliferation Saves Lives

Nuclear Proliferation Saves Lives

Posted on May 7th, 2009 by J. Nick Puglia in Bureaucrash HQ

Competition is a beautiful, glorious thing. Competition breeds innovation and efficiency and pushes all of us to improve ourselves.

Competition in business is a boon to the consumer. When a competing business moves into town the resident business cuts costs or improves its customer service or offers new products or services to gain a competitive edge.

Competition among schools, if fully realized, would lead to better education and a populace better able to compete in the global economic environment.

Nonviolent competition is good for about everyone but the US Postal Service. It’s even good for world peace.

mushres

Consider that in all of recorded history there has been but one short, four-year period in which a government had a monopoly on atomic weapons. During that four-year blip on the time line of recorded history the only two atomic attacks occurred. Ever. Coincidence? Hardly.

Competition in the arena of atomic weapons works. Large wars between the world’s powers are a thing of the past and, so, the nuclear arms race has likely saved countless millions of young lives.

A government is, at its core, a monopoly. Monopolies are the antithesis of a freed market. Governments grant monopolies to corporations by creating barriers to entry that prohibit a freed market, while blaming the fictional “free market” for the economic woes within the territory they claim as their own.

Competition is a beautiful, glorious thing. And that is precisely the reason that governments are against it.

Nuclear weapons don’t kill people. Governments kill people. And I eagerly await the day that I will hear a pageant participant rave about the beautiful prospect of nuclear proliferation.

To discuss these issues further head over to the Non-Aggression Principle or Austrian Economics groups on Bureaucrash Social, start a blog or comment on the discussions and blog posts dealing with state-sponsored violence and freeing the markets. For more information on the dangers of statism and on achieving peace through voluntary interactions be sure to read the Stop Statism and Free Trade Now! Intel overviews.

asocialist

Interesting argument, but I think probably born from a very simplistic and ignorant view of the history of nuclear weaponry.

During the cold war, the world came very close to complete nuclear destruction. Much closer than most of us think. During the Cuban missile crisis, there was an incident wherein two American destroyers engaged a Soviet submarine. The Soviet submarine was somewhat cut-off communication wise, and assumed that a new world war had broken out. The order was given to return fire with nuclear-tipped torpedoes, which would presumably have led to an American nuclear response, then a Russian response, then probably a European and a Chinese response; and I wouldn't be sitting here writing this comment. There were three commanders aboard the Soviet ship: Two of them gave the order to fire the torpedo, and luckily the third countered the order in the last seconds. We were one Soviet submarine commander away from assured extinction as a race. Just think about that for a few minutes. It has been about 55 years since the Atomic bomb was created; and since then it has been used twice, and threatened the world with very realistic nuclear annihilation at least once. If we continue in this trend, the prospects for survival don't look fantastic.

And the prospect of a similar war to the cold war, really isn't that far-fetched. As well as being on the verge of economically over-powering the west; China is looking to strike deals in the Americas that could seriously threaten US hegemony in it's own back yard. That is exactly how the cold war started, and elite mentality has not noticeably changed since then. In addition to this, the near-hysterical public reaction to Bush and Cheney's Iraq war propaganda, shows that the public is still as susceptible to fear tactics as it was during the cold war.

You just got socialized.

rjmiller

"During the cold war, the world came very close to complete nuclear destruction."

But that didn't happen because both powers knew the implications of MAD.

"It has been about 55 years since the Atomic bomb was created; and since then it has been used twice, and threatened the world with very realistic nuclear annihilation at least once."

And despite the growth of the number of nations with nuclear capability, we haven't had a cold war since. Of course, the nuclear annihilation was a threat made on behalf of governments.

"If we continue in this trend, the prospects for survival don't look fantastic."

With the number of nations having nuclear capability increasing, and the use of nuclear weaponry continuously remaining at zero, I can't say I'll hold my breath.