Why Our Enemies Won't Give Up WMDs Until The US Does
Recently, we discovered that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction.
The WMDs in question were filled with a lethal nerve gas. They were purchased and destroyed by the CIA during the years 2005 and 2006.
Operation Avarice, as it was called, is considered a massive success for keeping these weapons out of the hands of dangerous insurgents who might have used them to kill US soldiers.
However, this begs the question, what if it hadn't been a success?
The United States military is one of the best organizations ever at getting sh*t done. Its hierarchy is tightly structured, the training is top-notch and the funding is basically endless.
But, as we've seen in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes, our enemies slip through our bulky fingers.
In each of those battles, we haven't cleaned up the messes, we've only made them different. The conflicts haven't been resolved. When we left, the mucky situations remained.
Kim Jong-un's silly dictatorship is a direct result of our failure in Korea. ISIS' prevalence in the Middle East is due to the power vacuum we created when we deposed Saddam and didn't set up an adequate system to replace him.
We don't need to go into those countries and fix the messes we've made — we don't even know how.
Even if we did head over to take down Kim Jong-un or ISIS, some other power-hungry group of jerks would rise up in their places and continue to hassle the United States' interests.
There will always be the likes of Kim Jong-un and ISIS springing up and promising America's demise; it's inevitable.
We have a great country, but to achieve that greatness, we've stepped on some toes, or some countries feel as though we've stepped on their toes.
So, we should limit these conflicts to the point where mass destruction is not a constant threat, but a last resort. It is mighty hypocritical of us to say other countries can't have WMDs, when we've got the world outgunned by an exponential factor.
Our only competition in the WMD department is Russia, due to our chilly arms race in the 60s. Either of us can destroy Earth with the push of a button.
Regardless of international tensions, the nuclear destruction of our planet is something no one wants. But, we can't expect the small-scale terrorists to give up their weapons first.
We're world leaders. We're the only ones to ever drop nuclear weapons in warfare. When we did, we killed 129,000 innocent people. It is not hard to see us as the bad guys.
But, our actions have a tremendous impact. If the biggest, strongest, second-most nuclear country on the planet gave up its weapons to some sort of international council, it would send a powerful message.
Yes, giving up our weapons does not mean terrorists will give up theirs, as well, but this gesture of limited peace would be a strong step toward worldwide stability.
We can't give our enemies what they want, but we can show them we do not want to send them back to the Stone Age.
It's not a huge step and it's not going to fix the world, but it is an important step. Next to global warming, nuclear weaponry is the greatest threat to our survival as a species.
We may disagree on the best way to live, but we can agree it is better to be alive than anything else.
Besides, the current roster of bad guys are not particularly terrifying. Kim Jong-un and ISIS are threats, but they are still too small to be scary. But, this won't always be the case.
Our enemies are constantly shifting.
If history is any indicator, it is only a matter of time before we get into a conflict with a country that can do some serious damage.
When that happens, it would be nice if nuclear weapons were off the table.
Subscribe to Elite Daily's official newsletter, The Edge, for more stories you don't want to miss.