Liberty MavenIs Nuclear Reduction Necessary?
July 8th, 2009 8:15 am | by Chad Fent | Published in Commentary, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Libertarianism, Politics, War | 6 Responses
I was thinking about the recent news regarding the agreement between Obama and Medvedev on reductions in nuclear warheads and missiles. How does this coincide with a Libertarian frame of mind?
So afraid was I that I’d fall into that tired Republican claptrap about a “weak America” that at first, my reaction was, “Great! We and Russia can lead by example in reducing our nuclear arms, hopefully lending other nations to relax their nuclear programs.” But was that reaction correct?
As Libertarians, we take the Constitution seriously. We understand the importance of the Second Amendment:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
But does this apply to our government and the protection of us as a nation? I thought I might find a rebuttal in Article I, Section 8 somewhere, regarding standing armies and such, but none of those apply, in my opinion.
As a nation with a strong military, we should keep weapons for defense. But should we keep nuclear warheads capable of killing millions in one swoop? Is there a caveat to the Second Amendment that excludes WMD’s? Even if we never had any intention of using them, even in self defense, why would we not keep them?
They seem to provide at least an adequate means of deterrent for would be enemies. Or, are they seen as antagonistic, encouraging enemies and combatants to develop nuclear warheads for their own defense? Would enemies even be enemies were it not for an “antagonistic” weapons program?
I have an easier time defending the first point, that we should keep them as they act as a deterrent, and make sense given the Second Amendment. It is harder to defend the second point, that they are seen as antagonistic. Even if they are seen that way, I would certainly say that any military installations we have overseas are far more antagonistic than simply holding a weapon.
I think in this respect, Obama missed a fantastic opportunity, yet again, to bring all of our troops home. Instead of concentrating on the first line of defense, he is focusing on the last resort.
But still, a Libertarian needs some help here!
Follow LM on Twitter
July 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pm (#)
My biggest concerns are twofold:
First of all, we are intervening in another country's sovereign rule. Why should they have to submit to our whims?
Second of all, we are tying our own actions to another country through a treaty. If for some reason, this turns out to be a bad idea, we won't be able to back out on our own.
One of the biggest reasons for this nuclear proliferation is our interventionist policy. Countries notice that we deal with them differently and give them more freedom in exchange for not reducing their commitment to nuclear weapons.
If we do think that nuclear weapons are a problem, we should reduce them without a treaty and stop our interventionist foreign policy.
Meanwhile, the biggest problems with nuclear weapons are coming not from Russia, but from independent terrorist groups who have no societal accountability.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:56 pm (#)
Yes, I was hoping someone would touch on the point of treaties.
And to the point of someone submitting to us, we should also ask, "why would we submit to their whims"?
Also, when we sign treaties and form alliances with some countries, does that create jealousy or hatred within other nations in which we do not?
Interestingly, I heard yesterday that Russias nuclear arsenal is bigger than ours (more warheads and more missiles). Is that true?
To your last sentence; this is like gun "control" laws. Those that it effects most are those who obey the law. Criminals couldn't care much less about gun control laws – they will find ways around them. Duh, they are criminals!
July 8th, 2009 at 5:43 pm (#)
And what Constitutional authority does the President have to enter into any treaty with any nation?
July 9th, 2009 at 8:23 am (#)
You might try actually READING the Constitution, it's not all that long:
Article II
Section 2
Second paragraph:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and (yada, yada, etc.)
July 9th, 2009 at 1:48 pm (#)
Do you know what "rhetorical" means?
"provided two thirds of the Senators present concur'
As if that ever happens. I suppose you can get around that by simply not having any Senators present.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:33 am (#)
Sorry Chad, I may have been a bit out of line there. I was still a bit irritated by another blog I'd just been on. Looking at your previous posting I suspect we're essentially on the same side here.
As to the matter of "two thirds of the Senators present", it isn't unheard of for a president to at least attempt to time things in a way that assures that two thirds of those present are in fact Senators he expects to concur.
Given this President's political heritage and personal political history I would expect such tactics.