.....Libya 2011 and we stand on the cusp of yet another conflict. I have no hang ups about the arms industry, it is a necessary fact of life if we are to defend ourselves against those who would see us enslaved a la Hitler or fundamentalist Islam.
But I do have an intense dislike for a total lack of moral concern as shown by our attitude over the arms industry.
Since the end of the Second World War we have been served well by the nuclear defence industry and the code of conduct that accompanies it, namely, only the "civilised" nations are permitted to own nuclear weaponry and the consequence of its use would, in all likelihood, destroy aggressor and defender alike.
Now, this policy may be presently coming apart at the seams when one considers North Korea and Iran but it has held well for 60 years.
Is it too naive of me to think that the "civilised" powers ought to adopt the same practice when it comes to conventional weaponry, that is, we keep it to ourselves and do not sell it on to the Gaddafis, Mugabes and Al-Bashirs. Would that be such an economic disaster?
There is a grim irony in the fact that both Gulf Wars involved us in largely blowing up tanks and weaponry that originated in Sheffield or Illinois and now we are about to do the same thing in Libya.
Of course, if we had not supplied arms to Gaddafi he would have just bought inferior versions from Russia and China but at least we would have a portion of the moral high ground and there would have been the benefit of us warring with a better class of weapon that might, arguably, be more effective at ending a conflict sooner rather than later.
But I do have an intense dislike for a total lack of moral concern as shown by our attitude over the arms industry.
Since the end of the Second World War we have been served well by the nuclear defence industry and the code of conduct that accompanies it, namely, only the "civilised" nations are permitted to own nuclear weaponry and the consequence of its use would, in all likelihood, destroy aggressor and defender alike.
Now, this policy may be presently coming apart at the seams when one considers North Korea and Iran but it has held well for 60 years.
Is it too naive of me to think that the "civilised" powers ought to adopt the same practice when it comes to conventional weaponry, that is, we keep it to ourselves and do not sell it on to the Gaddafis, Mugabes and Al-Bashirs. Would that be such an economic disaster?
 |
| Photo: BBC It is difficult to find a picture reference of Gaddafi in which he looks relatively sane |
Of course, if we had not supplied arms to Gaddafi he would have just bought inferior versions from Russia and China but at least we would have a portion of the moral high ground and there would have been the benefit of us warring with a better class of weapon that might, arguably, be more effective at ending a conflict sooner rather than later.
Well said!
ReplyDeleteI couldn`t agree more. Thanks for this post!
ReplyDeleteLibya has plenty of oil, and that's the real (hidden) agenda. I think things are going to very messy.
ReplyDeleteOdd how democracy is of such moral imperative when the country has oil. I didn't notice such qualms when our Government began cosying up to this despot.
ReplyDeleteSomething else worries me, too. The habit among some recent US presidents to display an itchy trigger finger seems to be catching on here.
I can't tell whether the reason for this is historical naïveté or whether historical ignorance of men who are too young to have heard first-hand experience of two devastating world wars.
Despite the solemn words there appears to be a suppressed excitement about committing our forces to war. That, however, may be cynicism on my part.