But notwithstanding the concurring testimony of experience, in this particular, there are still to be found visionary or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace between the States, though dismembered and alienated from each other. The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord.
Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.
Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a wellregulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.
Carthage, though a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the very war that ended in her destruction. Hannibal had carried her arms into the heart of Italy and to the gates of Rome, before Scipio, in turn, gave him an overthrow in the territories of Carthage, and made a conquest of the commonwealth.
Venice, in later times, figured more than once in wars of ambition, till, becoming an object to the other Italian states, Pope Julius II. found means to accomplish that formidable league,9 which gave a deadly blow to the power and pride of this haughty republic.
The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and taxes, took a leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They had furious contests with England for the dominion of the sea, and were among the most persevering and most implacable of the opponents of Louis XIV.
In the government of Britain the representatives of the people compose one branch of the national legislature. Commerce has been for ages the predominant pursuit of that country. Few nations, nevertheless, have been more frequently engaged in war; and the wars in which that kingdom has been engaged have, in numerous instances, proceeded from the people.
There have been, if I may so express it, almost as many popular as royal wars.
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers : No. 6
However long the exile in peace, limited Democratic nations composed of free men always return to slaughtering their neighbors in wars of aggression for the sake of commerce.
Among the top Nationalistic priorities of the American commercial Republic is the consistent enforcement of a policy of preemptive strikes, initiated by ourselves or by a regional ally, to destroy the nuclear programs of rogue governments before those programs are completed.
We will demonstrate that a preemptive airstrike is worthwhile even if we can assume nuclear armed rogue governments have no intention whatsoever of using their weapons.
Or, if airpower alone is not enough to destroy the program for whatever reason, then some combined arms operation involving air, land, and sea forces to quickly go in after the weapons and then get the hell out.
Of course, if we can’t assume the chances of their use is zero (it isn’t) the argument for preemptive measures is even stronger.
Whether rogue governments intend to use nuclear weapons or not, Federalist anti-proliferation policy remedies both possibilities with wonderful simplicity: Enemy states cannot threaten America or our alliance system with nuclear weapons if they do not have nuclear weapons.
Although this policy can be equally applied against chemical and biological capabilities, nuclear programs are above all the highest priority in anti-proliferation because of the limits to the effectiveness of chemical and biological agents.
Bio-warfare and chemical warfare were researched extensively by America and the Soviet Union at research centers such as Fort Detrick, Maryland and, in Russia, VECTOR. Both forms of warfare produced mixed results primarily because of limits to delivery mechanisms and lack of certainty over how widespread an outbreak zone would be due to factors such as weather conditions, geography, etc. Nuclear weapons remain the most dangerous WMD of all because of the certainty of what the impact zone is regardless of weather and other obstacles to the effectiveness of biological and chemical arsenals.
The example America should follow is the one set by Israel in the 1981 against Saddam Hussein’s facilities at Osirak and their strike against Syria’s program in 2007.
The example we want to avoid is President Bill Clinton’s when his Administration did not attack (and did not allow India to attack) Pakistan’s nuclear program in the mid-1990s and when his Administration did not strike North Korea’s nuclear program in 1994. The time when they had not yet produced bombs was when they were most vulnerable to an American attack (or an attack indirectly supported by America) that would have come at a much lower cost than they would today.
Continue reading “Returning the Preemption of Rogue Nuclear Programs Back to Constitutional Government”