World peace in the shadow of nuclear weapons
The recent developments pertaining to world peace really make us wonder if the whole world is peaceful because of nuclear weapons. Would America, which launched an attack on Iraq on the pretext of that country possessing weapons of mass destruction, stay mum if Iraq actually had possessed those deadly weapons? This question remains unanswered even till date.
A nuclear war is just waiting for a tipping point to be unleashed across the globe is a fact well known to all. However, it should be irony of times that if peace prevails in the world today, it is also because of the nuclear weapons that are sitting duck somewhere. Their presence is threatening enough. Powerful nations are declaring war upon each other in their talks. Small countries that do not have nuclear weapons are being taken under the wings of stronger nations.
On one hand, nations talk about nuclear disarmament, and on the other they are demonstrating to smaller nations the inevitability of possessing nuclear weapons. Big countries do not want smaller nations to have nuclear weapons. If they do, the big ones force small nations to give up the nuclear weapons. Today, the situation is such that small nations would be consumed with fear for their security if they do not have those weapons. This is the contradictory situation that exists in the world. Big nations that preach peace are also equally responsible for wars across the world.
Let’s consider North Korea and United States of America. Both nations would speak in most threatening terms with each other that they’d press the button to unleashing nuclear warfare with each other’s nation as target. A war was almost predicted to be certain.
The world could heave a sigh of relief after talks transpired between America and North Korean leaders Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un respectively at the meeting in Singapore on June 12, 2018. Trump has reiterated his commitment to offer security assurances and Kim has offered an assurance to get rid of nuclear weapons in North Korea. Kim and Trump held a press conference together and declared that America would put a stop to joint military marches with South Korea. These marches had kept North Korea under a war threat since long. Not only this, America declared that it would withdraw 32,000 soldiers from the region. But the other nations seldom believe that North Korea will completely disarm itself of nuclear weapons. So long as America sets the rules of the game, other countries will seldom pay heed to it.
History is testimony that America is solely responsible for the competition over stocking up on nuclear warfare since long. America dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The bombs wreaked hellish havoc in the history of mankind. After this destruction, American President Harry Truman had said the country was ready to drop nuclear bomb on North Korea in 1950, just five years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki destruction.
From then on, America as continued its threatening stance on the world regarding an assault on other countries, especially North Korea, using nuclear weapons. America added nuclear weapons in Korean region. As a response to this, North Korea had to make and stock up nuclear weapons in order to ensure its own safety should things go bad around its borders. North Korea tested nuclear weapons in 2006, 2009, and 2013 only to send across a strong message. The President of America George Bush had categorized North Korea along with Iran when America went to war with Iraq in 2002. Hence North Korea often feared an America attack anytime. Even then, North Korea had said it was ready for a nuclear disarmament to peace talks and economic growth, should America engage in peace talks with them.
If America thinks a country can be attacked or brought under control by imposing sanctions, this method has been a grand failure even by its own experience with North Korea. At some point North Korea threatened to launch a nuclear attack on America sooner or later.
North Korea depends on global trade for its food supply since the country has hilly terrain that is not suited for cultivation and growing food. The country which gave 60% exchange to its import was being hounded with sanctions. North Korea was projected as an evil country, using all forms of mass media. This forced North Korea to secure its nuclear weapon stock with even more care.
A situation was created where North Korea suspected the country to be vulnerable to an attack from external forces, especially America anytime, and this forced the country to clam up. Because North Korea entered the game as an equal player, America stepped back for a bit and both met as equals in this game. With things having reached this stage, it seems like a miracle that both countries have come together on conducive and responsible terms. One can never forget the role of South Korea President Moon. Now the onus lies on America to stay committed to its words and ensure peace prevails between both countries after ages, minus the nuclear weapons.
This changed situation has a very significant message for India as well. The immature politicians in India keep speaking irrelevant things against Pakistan and declare verbal war against the neighbouring country every now and then. This has given rise to insecurity among both nations. Whenever India tested nuclear weapons Pakistan has done the same too. Both countries are suffering a diplomatic breakdown in the recent times like never before. That Pakistan is ruled by its army is an open secret.Saffron terrorists or Hindutva terrorists dictate peace talks in India. Only diplomatic efforts can save the bridge between both countries.
In its recent report, a Swedish agency had said Pakistan has more nuclear weapons as against India. What are the reasons for impoverished Pakistan to stock up on costly nuclear weapons? Indian diplomacy and politics plays a major role in this response mechanism. If a war breaks out between both countries the pain and loss will be endless. Everything would stand destroyed at the end of it. Hence, America is hesitating to launch an assault on Iran. United Nations is watching the whole situation with the eye of an eagle. Those politicians who wish India goes to war with Pakistan need to understand this loss.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
US lawmakers seek clarity over financial burden, human cost, endgame in Iran conflict
Washington: Tensions rose at the US Capitol on Tuesday as lawmakers sought clearer answers from the Trump administration on the objectives, duration and costs of the ongoing military campaign against Iran, even as preparations advanced for votes aimed at curbing the president’s war powers.
Senior officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, briefed members of the House and Senate for a second consecutive day behind closed doors, as reported by the Associated Press. The sessions came ahead of votes on war powers resolutions that would limit President Donald Trump’s authority to continue joint US-Israel operations without congressional approval.
Rubio told reporters that the president acted to prevent Iran from striking first. He rejected suggestions that Washington moved only because Israel was poised to launch its own offensive, saying instead that Trump believed the weekend presented a rare opportunity to act with maximum impact. “There is no way in the world that this terroristic regime was going to get nuclear weapons, not under Donald Trump’s watch,” Rubio said.
ALSO READ: BLR airport sees 34 int'l flight cancellations amid Middle East crisis
The conflict has widened following US and Israeli airstrikes on February 28 that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran has since launched missile attacks targeting US military bases in the region. At least six American service personnel have died so far.
The administration has indicated that supplemental funding may be required to sustain operations. It added that the concerns among lawmakers about the financial burden and potential for a prolonged engagement has disrupted legislative business, sharpening political divisions at the start of a competitive midterm election cycle.
Associated Press cited Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer’s concerns about what he described as possible “mission creep.” Senator Angus King questioned whether the United States had been drawn into war at Israel’s urging, while Senator Elizabeth Warren asked how the campaign aligned with Trump’s “America First” pledge to avoid extended foreign conflicts.
Defence official Elbridge Colby told senators the president had directed the military to degrade Iran’s missile capabilities and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, stressing that the objective was not nation-building. Trump, speaking separately from the Oval Office, dismissed claims that Israel had forced his decision and suggested the conflict could continue if necessary. He has not ruled out deploying US ground troops.
Senator Richard Blumenthal was quoted by Associated Press as saying that he feared the possibility of American boots on the ground while Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin defended the operation, saying the president had acted decisively.
Uncertainty over Iran’s future leadership has added to concerns, with questions mounting about who might succeed Khamenei as Trump rejected the idea of backing Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran’s former monarchy. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the future of Iran should be determined by its people and House Speaker Mike Johnson said the United States would not engage in nation-building.
Lawmakers from both parties also reported a surge in calls from constituents seeking assistance for Americans attempting to leave the region as hostilities intensify.
The US Constitution grants Congress the right to declare war, however presidents have routinely begun military activities without formal declarations. Both houses are anticipated to vote on proposals that would require explicit congressional approval to continue operations. Some members have also argued that if constraints are not imposed, Congress should consider issuing an Authorization for the Use of Military Force to put lawmakers on the record.
Associated Press quoted House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries questioning the rationale for the campaign and saying there would be strong support among Democrats for the resolution. Johnson, however, warned that restricting the president during active combat could pose risks.
