Most people are willing to consider anything that has their survival as its goal. If we're sitting in a crowded theatre, we pay attention when somebody yells fire. Books are not the place to yell so I will say politely, "Fire."

Unless something is done, nuclear proliferation will have all of us yelling.

Nuclear proliferation is hard to say but even harder to live with. Few people in contact with reality in the 1990's would deny that nuclear proliferation poses a grave threat to the future of our species on this planet.

The specter of every nation in the world possessing nuclear armament commands our attention because the citizens of all nations know the nation they live in has enemies--blood enemies. Nuclear proliferation potentially gives those blood enemies access to power that can destroy us all.

Unless something is done to stop nuclear proliferation, it is a statistical certainty that nuclear terrorism will become a fact of life on this planet. Roll enough dice enough times and any conceivable combination will come up. So too with nuclear terrorism: it is a statistical certainty that only requires dice and enough time to keep rolling the dice.

World leaders know this. The present world leaders know full well a lot of people-groups out there have many good reasons to hate, and want to see destroyed, the present world powers. World leaders look at the prospect of nuclear proliferation and suspect that, had they the means, there are several people-groups and nations in the world today like Saddam Hussein who would not hesitate to deliver a nuclear weapon. (Once the weapon is in hand, delivery methods are innumerable. Anything from missile to Federal Express would suffice.)

Many people outside the circles of power that rule this planet have already looked at the events leading up to the Gulf War and smelled something fishy. Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait looks a lot like the action of a man walking blindly into a trap.

Speculation on the nature of the trap is already forthcoming. Many articles have been written outlining a scenario where Hussein was led to think his invasion would be unopposed by the United States. But no smoking gun has been found.

Perhaps there is no smoking gun. Perhaps the leaders of the world are not yet operating at the level of conscious deliberation in their play to control nuclear proliferation. Perhaps the events developing around us are responses to deep subconscious awareness of facts we have refused to consciously consider because we know to do so would force us to see we live in a time when redefinition of foundational ideas that truly rule the world are now required.

Such times have always been dangerous times. Times of war. Nuclear proliferation has given us a time when war has never been more dangerous to the survival of our species.

Such is the nature of our present tension. Such is the nature of our present dis-ease. Anyone who wants to trace the myriad examples of dysfunctional individuals, institutions, cultures, and nations to their root must come finally to the context outlined here, a context where the specter of an impending meteor collision lurks beneath the consciousness of every individual in every developed nation on earth.

Were a meteor the size of planet earth to be spotted in the heavens and tracked to be on a direct collision course with this planet, averting the collision would be a top priority on this planet's agenda. National leaders would huddle to call the play designed to stop the meteor.

A key component of the play would be secrecy. Leaders would conclude that secrecy was necessary because the specter of doom created by the image of the hurtling meteor could strike panic in the masses who perceived themselves impotent to avert total annihilation.

Some things though cannot be kept secret. Having lived for forty years with nuclear arsenals controlled by a few nations who never used them, all the people on this planet now face the prospect of nuclear weapons becoming available to virtually every nation on earth. Beneath us, the nations move like tectonic plates grinding inexorably, tectonic plate against tectonic plate, pressure building beneath the surface. While above the earth, we look up and see the hurtling meteor of nuclear proliferation on a collision course with the earth, its trajectory clearly visible to anyone who cares to look.

World leaders have looked and they have huddled and they have brain stormed and they have acted. Since all the people on earth are involved in the play that has been called, an argument can be made that if a person can comprehend the danger without panicking, that person can exercise the same confidence and self-control being exercised by world leaders, and deserves to be involved in the brain storming leading to the next play.

But in order to deal effectively, or even coherently, with our present historical context, we must insist whatever has been hidden in the subconscious recesses of the mind of man now be brought forth into the light of conscious deliberation. The present world leaders have failed to help us do this.

By 1991 very little, if anything, had been said by world leaders attempting to explain how nuclear proliferation would be brought under control. About all the general public got from world leaders was a rueful shrug when the subject came up. This in a context where each year brought several relatively small nations closer to joining the nuclear fraternity.

The shrug is easy to understand: the problem of nuclear proliferation is enigmatic precisely because most people sense that the only viable solution to the problem of nuclear proliferation will require altering the world's present definition of National Sovereignty. For the leader of a World Power to candidly discuss such a subject in public creates shock waves that rock the tectonic plates upon which nations rest.

Political leaders do not discuss altering the present definition of National Sovereignty because a nation's Rights are enumerated in the present definition. Presently, every nation on earth claims the Right to do whatever it wants within its own national borders. Any power that tries to refuse the nation that Right is violating National Sovereignty.

The concept of National Sovereignty is the idea that explains why it is wrong for one nation to invade another nation first. Without the present definition of National Sovereignty there is no way to explain why it is wrong for a big, powerful nation to subjugate a small, weak nation. At least there is no explanation that nations have committed themselves to listening to.

Once we see this, we can understand why every nation on the earth has a vested interest in defending both the concept and the actuality called National Sovereignty.

And defend it they do. Even nations like the Soviet Union that have already gobbled up smaller nations are quick to come to the defense of the concept of National Sovereignty. So too the United States and her allies throughout the world are very reluctant to do anything that violates either the concept or the actuality of National Sovereignty. We all live in a world where to do so invites war.

In fact, all wars today occur because someone has violated the present definition of National Sovereignty. Now, if we see that war is a product of a violation of the present definition of National Sovereignty, yet, at the same time understand that nuclear proliferation will never be controlled without altering our present definition of National Sovereignty, we have grasped the nature of the present dilemma that confronts this world. Paradoxically, in trying to eliminate the greatest threat to the survival of our species, nuclear proliferation, we must tinker with the trigger mechanism that causes wars to explode.

World leaders rallied around George Bush and supported United States goals in the Gulf War because all of them have glimpsed what will happen when a developed nation like France or the United States or Russia or Japan or Germany or England is struck by a nuclear weapon.

It does not take much imagination to understand that public opinion in developed nations will not tolerate nuclear weapons exploding around them. People in the developed nations are prepared to contemplate nuclear weapons exploding in distant lands, but explode a nuclear device within a developed nation and public opinion will be willing to do anything necessary to eliminate this threat to survival.

World leaders understand this fact and understand as well that the public will, quite reasonably, see the explosion as a failure of present world leadership. At a minimum, wholesale shifts in leadership will occur.

The Gulf War was fought to prevent these wholesale shifts in world leadership. The Gulf War is the first step in a plan to control nuclear proliferation, but other steps will follow, flowing logically out of the steps already taken. Since this is inevitable, insight into the reasoning behind the Gulf War will equip anyone to understand what lies ahead.

The Gulf War occurred because Saddam Hussein was perceived by world leaders to be a dangerous person. He was perceived to be dangerous because he was a cold-blooded murderer who had seized the reins of power in a nation of vast wealth, a cold-blooded murderer on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, a cold-blooded murderer with delivery systems that could catapult nuclear weapons far enough to threaten and perhaps destroy nations with resources all the nations of the earth depended upon.

World leaders were not alone in their assessment. Were the American people to candidly assess their reasons for support of the Gulf War, few people would deny that Saddam Hussein's potential nuclear capability was the decisive factor leading them to believe war was a just response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. The specter of a cold-blooded Arab murderer with the Bomb chilled the blood of people in all the developed nations. And, at least subconsciously, everyone knew that under the present definition of National Sovereignty the only legal way to destroy his nuclear capability was through the instrument of war.

Without war, there was no legal justification for any nation intervening in Iraq's internal affairs and destroying Saddam Hussein's nuclear capability.

Why must the present definition of National Sovereignty be altered if nuclear terrorism is to be contained? Without the presence of a Power that can effectively prevent nations from obtaining nuclear weapons, four decades of nuclear proliferation proves that as soon as a nation possesses the resources to develop nuclear weaponry it does so. Even though the world has lived for nearly fifty years without nuclear weapons being used, most of us know enough about the laws of probability to know that unless something is done time is running out.

Saddam Hussein showed us the future. The specter of nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein, Al Fatah, Muammar Khaddafy, IRA, the list goes on and on, convince most people that nuclear proliferation must be stopped. Yet when we look for a way to control nuclear terrorism we run into a dead end at the borders of nations.

Whether we are trying to keep renegade outlaw bands or fully recognized nations from obtaining nuclear weapons, the present definition of National Sovereignty prevents any effective deterrent. Enemies within the borders of a nation can be legally controlled by national authorities within the nation. Enemies outside the border occupy another nation and if those national authorities will not control enemies who reside within that nation, the present definition of National Sovereignty precludes other nations from controlling them except through the control mechanism called war. If a host nation does not prevent renegade groups from obtaining nuclear weapons, international control of nuclear terrorism between nations is illegal except through the instrument of war.

If international control of nuclear terrorism can hardly be controlled without war, it is presently impossible to avoid war in preventing a bona fide nation from creating nuclear weapons. Since the nations comprising the present World Powers already possess nuclear weapons, there is no logical or legal justification for denying nuclear weapons to any nation with the ability to produce them. Such is the nature of the problem facing the world today.

 Go To Chapter Two

Return to Table of Contents

Go To The Creator's Rights Party Website

You Can Mail A Donation To: Neal Horsley, PO Box 1081, Carrollton, Ga 30116,

Or If You Can't Donate Now, Click Below and Join The We Choose Life Network.
Use Your Internet Connection Fee To Help Deter People From Butchering God's Children