Pakistan and Nuclear Deterrence

In today's issue of the Wall Street Journal in the opinion section of the front page, an editorial discussed the implications of a nuclear Pakistan and the possibility of buying its nuclear weapons from it. The idea is comes from the fact that Pakistan needs financial capital desperately, and in return for buying their nuclear weapons, the U.S. would provide a nuclear shield in Pakistan and give them tanks and jet fighters. That idea raises several questions, if this purchase actually came to fruition, could it serve as an example to other nuclear armed nations around the world such as India and some European nations, and what are the possible ramifications of a nuclear non-proliferation that excludes the super-powers like the U.S., Russia, China, and Western Europe? In answer to the first, a nuclear arms treaty would only work in nations that are trustworthy that would respond to economic sanctions. This description would exclude nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea. These nations, with the backing of Russia and China, have been able to side-step the brunt of the U.S.-led sanctions. Some nations that would take notice of a nuclear purchase would include India and maybe Israel. A disarmament between Pakistan and India would invariably decrease the odds of a nuclear war happening anywhere on the globe. The answer to the second question is that the world would become a much safer environment in which to engage other nations diplomatically. A guarantee of an American nuclear shield would become an enormous deterrent to any hostile nation. A nuclear shield would not stop conventional warfare, but merely act as a safe-guard against nuclear attacks by the opposing state. However, for the nuclear shield to be completely effective, the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal must be modernized. The last nuclear weapon to be commissioned was back in the 80's at the height of the Cold War. Nuclear weapons can only be a proper deterrent if they are reliable and safe to handle. Efforts by the Bush administration to modernize our arsenal were stymied in the Democratic Congress of the past two years, and with the Obama administration coming into power in a little over a month, the hopes of a modern nuclear arsenal are slim.

The time to act is now, while tensions in the hot spots of the world, namely between Pakistan and India, are not escalated to the breaking point. The Obama administration should take note of these options of nuclear purchasing and nuclear modernization. I paraphrase the words of Vice-President elect Joe Biden, the U.S. will be tested within the first six months of an Obama administration. Other nations do not know what Obama's breaking point is and will test him to discover how far he will go to deter a conflict. In short, the nuclear future of this nation rests on the shoulders of the new government. How it chooses to handle this issue will be telling of how it will handle foreign policy over the next four years.

Social Justice

One of the more controversial topics of this past election season. Social justice remains a major talking point in any debate of political ideology. This subject, however, goes much deeper than politics. Not only is social justice a topic discussed in the Bible, it is something ingrained into every person's mind. Everyone, including evil people like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot have consciences, their's are just repressed and relegated to obscurity. The Bible speaks of social justice as an action that Christians are called to do. Back then, it entailed letting the poor and widows pick up the fallen grain during the harvest, and other such acts of care taking. The Bible, however, does not touch on the subject of free-government handouts, which have recently come to the center of political debate with the discussion of stimulus packages for auto companies, financial institutions, and the everyday citizen. Government handouts do not promote social justice; they never have, and they never will. Giving someone money for doing nothing only encourages that person to continue in his or her current path. People must work for their money, or they will never learn how to properly take care of themselves. Programs that promote this sort of "work for your money" mentality are very sucessful in promoting social change and social justice. Habitat for Humanity, one of Jimmy Carter's only good acts as president, is a program that I can believe in. The premise of the program is that they provide cheap housing for lower income people. The kicker is that the recipient must complete so many hours working on either their house or another Habitat house, and they must still pay some significant sum of money for the house. Not only does the family or individual receive a house that they have bought, but they also are learning the value of hard work.

All that is to say that I do not believe in just giving out money, but sometimes a pick-me-up is what someone needs to get back on his or her feet. This job, however, is not the government's but, rather, the church's. Prison ministries, inner city ministries, and ministries to the poor fulfill Christ's commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. The book of Amos in the Old Testament describes what happens to a people if they neglect or even take advantage of the poor and helpless. A lack of social justice was one of the reasons that the nation of Israel was destroyed. God used the Assyrian empire as his tool of judgement to punish Israel for her poor treatment of the poor.

Social justice is an important part of a Christian's life. To neglect it is folly that will lead to judgement and humility. At the same time, we must not let ourselves think that by throwing money at a problem will make it go away. I hate to use a cliche here, but it best exemplifies the situation. If you give a mouse a cookie, he will not simply take it and try to get his own food next time. He is going to ask for a glass of milk, and so begins the viscious cycle of dependence.