Obama's Dream Prize

Barack Obama by MANDEL NGAN/Staff/AFP/Getty Images.

The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend that Obama’s speech at the United Nations describing his dream of a nuclear-free world helped clinch his Nobel Peace prize. Many have observed that while Obama’s words and sentiments are noble, the accomplishments that go along with earning a Nobel are lacking. However, I find his dream itself disturbing. The Journal earlier reported that Obama’s U.N. speech infuriated French president Nicolas Sarkozy, who wanted Obama to use the forum of the U.N. to expose the fact that the West knew of another Iranian uranium-enrichment facility. Obama refused, saving the news for the ecomonic summit in Pittsburgh because he didn’t want to have to rewrite his world-without-nukes speech. Why would the president of the United States gas on about fantasies that are being proven ridiculous and even potentially dangerous?

Nuclear nonproliferation is a necessary and admirable goal. However, since we cannot unlearn our nuclear knowledge, I want the United States, France, and yes, Israel, to have these deterrent and defensive weapons, rather than leave their possession to rogue and genocidally-inclined states such as Iran and North Korea. (Yes, I know, we wouldn't get rid of our nukes until we know all the bad guys have gotten rid of theirs. In other words, it's not going to happen, so why make this a goal?) I hope at his Nobel acceptance speech, Obama takes the opportunity to talk about what Sarkozy, in his U.N. rejoinder to Obama’s dream, described as the job of a politician, “[T]he present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises [ Iran and North Korea]. We live in the real world, not in a virtual one.”

Tags: Nobel Peace Prize, nuclear weapons, Obama

Emily Yoffe is Slate's Dear Prudence and Human Guinea Pig (emilyyoffe@hotmail.com)

Comments

Nuclear Deterrence

By: Dausuul | Tue, 10/13/2009 - 07:22

Why on earth would we need nuclear weapons to deter aggression from North Korea or Iran? Our conventional military is perfectly capable of smashing both countries to their knees. To invade and occupy them would be difficult, but to simply overpower their air defenses and bomb them back to the Stone Age (which is the threat upon which nuclear deterrence rests) is easily within our capabilities.

In fact, as deterrents go, our conventional military is much more effective against rogue states. I doubt very much that the leaders of Iran or North Korea are sitting up nights worrying about American ICBMs. They know we aren't going to launch in response to their (comparatively) minor provocations. What they worry about are our soldiers, our tanks, our planes, our ships; because they know we can use them without risking apocalypse.

Nuclear deterrence is only necessary when conventional military deterrence is insufficient. We need nuclear weapons as long as Russia has them, because Russia is in a position to threaten us directly, and without nukes we have no credible counter-threat. But Iran and North Korea? Hardly.

"I find his [nulear-free] dream itself disturbing."

By: MrJM | Mon, 10/12/2009 - 17:31

"If Barack Obama was somehow able to cure hunger in the world, some would blame him for overpopulation. If somehow Barack Obama could somehow bring about world peace, they would blame him for destroying the defense industry." -- Rep. Alan Grayson (paraphrased)