A Logical Blog asking Logical Questions
The Equality of no Nuclear. Over the early months of the year 2025 by the Gregorian calendar, President Trump raised the subject of nuclear weapons, saying, ‘There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. You could destroy the world 50 times over.’
In February statements spoke of America, Russia and China, and the idea of nuclear arms control, and that was said from the American President, not from Russia and China, but it was put out there. Where is ‘out there’? Well, that is into the modern digital tech world, entirely dependent on electricity from big power stations down to the i-phone charger, and without which nothing now would run, not that world leaders consider that real baseline.
But out there it was stated, and then in early March President Trump told reporters that he was in favour of denuclearization amongst global powers. That would be the global powers who ‘have nuclear’, being the nine of America, China, Russia, France, the ‘UK’, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India.
The nuclear spectre raised its head as Pakistan and India faced each other, the world held its breath, which of course is a meaningless term because the natural world never follows news events on a digital screen and it is only the human stuck is this strange in between, and President Trump again took the role of a leader and some talking was done, and the nuclear button was not pressed over on the complicated border region between Pakistan and India. Phew.
Now the matter of nuclear weapons has swung the other way, not among the top dogs in the global realm who have this nuclear facility, but looking down the ladder, the same President Trump took on Iran with a smaller than could have been missile lobbed over, and Iran responded with a smaller than could have been, and possibly the heat was taken out of the explosive situation, for the time being. That’s clever leadership tactics too, because leaders should be engaging with each other in that mixture of talking for mutual benefit or engaging in a kind of thinking martial arts tactics because leadership is a difficult role, and for us masses, it is none of our business to sit and opinionate all day when we don’t have any responsibility.
This blog is not an opinion but a measurement, and as the question of nuclear arms has appeared in these various ways in the first half of this year, it would be a very good idea to freeze the frame and keep both directions on view, before they sink beneath the daily new events in this tragic human world. As 9 countries have nuclear weapons, and they are meant to be a deterrent, why should Iran not have one, or a few, too? The west says nuclear weapons aren’t safe in countries not part of the civilized western world, and already views North Korea as somewhere far out on the fringes of inclusion. But if nuclear weapons are a deterrent should not every jurisdiction have a nuclear? Then it would be an equal safety for all.
Looking the other way, up the ladder, to return to President Trump’s radical statements on denuclearisation made only a few months ago, will this be the paradigm missed in the modern era? If, on paper, a little diagram was doodled of the lower orders, seen as mad, bad and dangerous and who must at all costs be prevented from gaining these dangerous nuclear facilities, up through the perceived order of things to the major powers who believe they and their nukes hold the balance of peace, why can we not start at the top line instead of the bottom line?
As the ‘UK’ gears up to invest more in missile and arms manufacture, and talks of security in this dangerous age, yet at the same time relies on manufactured goods from all those countries who come in for the stinging criticism from the pious ‘UK’, and as gun boats were despatched to the Channel Islands to scare France, not so many years ago over fishing questions, the existence of nuclear weapons designed to obliterate the enemy only stands like a great towering mountain, brooding over the daily life below.
If President Tump followed though on his statements given out a few months ago on denuclearization amongst the global powers, what would the world look like, the human world that is? Or rather, if it was followed through to actual denuclearization? If no country has any nuclear weapons the top slice of stress would be evenly sliced off, the line brought down evenly instead of the see-saw reactions and this Russian roulette of friend or foe. If all jurisdictions were nearer ground level and the nuclear deterrent became a nuclear equality of no one has nuclear, how much aggravation would evaporate in international relations?
It would a really good weekend event if the leaders of the 9 met for a serious chat. Are we going to actually use a nuclear? If not, just come down and start the dismantling process. Such a move would show that global co-operation is possible, and maybe the best proof of all, and really there’s nothing to lose because no world leader would really want to go down in history as the one who pressed the button, not that anyone would know about it anyway after that, but still…not great if there is any posterity. But if a summit of 9 came out and announced that hereinafter the line of this towering aggravation will be now calmly taken down quite a few notches, what is there to lose? And there would be a lot to gain.
Leave a Reply