criticism Herfried Münkler nuclear theses Titled
" nuclear weapons deter jihadists " published" Spiegel Online "(25.06.08) an interview with the teaching at the Humboldt University of Berlin History Prof. Herfried Münkler. The interview contains, among other things, and just passed the following propositions: first
A world without nuclear weapons, as proposed by Obama, McCain and considered by the former U.S. Secretary Henry Kissinger and George Shultz is required Münkler considers "realpolitik very unlikely" because the fear of nuclear powers was too great, one of them will not keep it secret and then will "Lord of the world" .
Kissinger, Shultz, McCain, Obama no real politician? Mr Münkler seem like it, but
"realpolitik" is the presumption that if a nuclear waiver agreement is on the way, only including effective control mechanisms.
second A nuclear-free world is also unrealistic because there are a number of countries that could at any time secretly developing nuclear weapons. Münkler fails to recognize that a control scenario would apply globally and across each state, ie the principle of universality of membership rather than the principle of the United Nations and
NPT was agreed.
that depend on this system change, especially from the common will of the United States, Russia and China would, in the truest sense of the word "real politics", because such a joint resolution power could resist, at least at the present time no other state - and would not it, for the majority of the United Nations would support it.
The membership principle can always have only preparatory function, but would go areas maintained as long as you are not the universal principle through struggles.
Münkler the historian should be aware that all legal development was not dependent on whether the last villain confesses insight, but on whether the political forces were sufficient to make a law of general application.
third Münkler claims that Russia and China, nuclear weapons are interested in freedom, because then the conventional superiority of the United States will outweigh.
, this theory is as realistic as fatalistic, because in fact hardly anything is likely to change for the better, if only arguments for the worse in the balance . Come
Münkler clearly assumes that the U.S. will not be willing to abide by the Charter of the United Nations and to refrain from acts of vigilantism, bow to the veto of the other powers.
This could prove to be actually the other nuclear powers as an obstacle to global nuclear abandonment, should it not yet, as the resulting risks dr nuclear weapons proliferation would be from the existing nuclear weapons greatly underestimated and weigh too heavy to the security policy on the nuclear based on deterrence.
It is therefore important that the U.S. develop responsible means to do so, by their military Possibilities are not against the will of Russia to make use of China.
Modern security policy should be based on verifiable security guarantees, not on deterrence and military superiority, because the latter has, in the extreme result, which also Münkel in his essay "The Transformation of War. From symmetry to asymmetry to some extent counter-terrorism analysis reproduces.
4th On the question of whether we in Germany still need nuclear weapons, responding Münkler: "For political reasons: yes For operational reasons:.. No If not we be willing to store these weapons in Germany, we are no longer the finger with the trigger may have. This may not be bad. But the decisive factor is that we will not lift a finger over the safety lever, have also no longer have influence, to prevent a nuclear attack. Therefore should remain the weapons. "
Apparently goes Münkler assume that the" nuclear sharing "is so broad that" we the finger on the trigger "would have. Then he would be better informed than" we "is, for general assumed that the nuclear sharing while West German assistance, but no power is available
"For political reasons, yes.", says Mr Münkler for the retention of nuclear weapons in Germany and is apparently in the belief that international obligations are not political reasons, because the Federal Republic of Germany signed the NPT on 28/11/1969.
5th Münkler keeps the debate about the security shortcomings of European nuclear weapons camp for "launched" because the U.S. had a strong interest to shift investments to accommodate their nuclear weapons to the allies. The fact that the investigation by the Pentagon at the behest of the U.S. Congress was conducted after it was revealed that there had been accidental nuclear technology sales to the Taiwan, transport supposedly secure nuclear weapons on U.S. territory, to documentation problems in the nuclear weapons inventory, all the first time has nothing to do with the provision invoked by Münkler financial interest, but with decidedly security interests to prevent unintended use of nuclear weapons. Especially a historian should be known and to assess such history.
6th Münkler speculates that jihadists were deter nuclear weapons. Their sacrifice is no different from the soldier's sacrifice type-safe, take one's own death in favor of the survival of others into account. Maybe, although the thing with the soldier's sacrifice complex and different in most cases>>
www.inidia.de / heldenmythos.htm It does, however, in nuclear weapons not the question of soldiers' sacrifice, as soldiers in matters of war and peace, usually have little say.
The question is whether the results can politicians be deterred by nuclear weapons, and if the historian Münkler can not think of many examples, how many politicians any compassion for the survival interests of others was lost, then its deterrent certainty would be gone and possibly more insight to a regime the development and provision of nuclear weapons exclude.
Any deterrent that works always, at all only when a sense of responsibility would rest at least resistant, while each deterrence fail, once someone believes to have "nothing to lose"
.
7th Münkler had claimed that the "religious intensity," "heroic potential," and sacrifice in the developed world compared to, for example, Islamic countries had diminished and was compensated for by technological superiority, and be.
Apart from the resonant argument in such arrogance that tends to make no distinction between feasibility and legality, Münkler recognizes that the likelihood of terrorist Access to nuclear weapons-grade material is growing, but he is nevertheless on the technological edge as a security doctrine.
Logically, however, is if in the grow-along skills on the part of the technology defeated a gradual paradigm shift would conclude:
renunciation of nuclear weapons privilege against a global control system for nuclear weapons ban.
And "real politics" can be such a contract rather close from a position of strength as free of nuclear weapons possession, but the circle of nuclear powers is too great, would complicate that possibility.
8th Münkler calls in the event that the State dissolve Pakistan: "You have to try to have the parts of the Pakistani army, access to nuclear weapons, be structured so that they move at the moment of disintegration of the state, along with their skills in either Russian, American or Chinese custody." Münkler seems from the military in charge of rationality so convinced that they can withstand the ideological confusion, may fall into the policy and country, and would then proceed to "care" of other states? Well, if that not even
"very unlikely" too risky and hopes are.
The real politicians in Washington are in any further for since the November 19, 2007
is known that the U.S. already gave since 2005 with more than 100 million U.S. $ of the Pakistani government to secure nuclear weapons and have probably contingency plans in the drawer. That sounds reassuring for some people, on the other hand, it violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, because the U.S. should Pakistan do not grant such relief, but would first ensure that Pakistan join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
What is good is not right, not for the security policy, but only deepens the rift between the present and future litigants.
The only realistic alternative is that the nuclear weapon states fulfill their obligations under article 6
NPT and bring to a universal ban on nuclear weapons on the way - ban on nuclear weapons.
-Mark Rabago-
>> discussion
.jpg)
