The Moral Responsibility To Act
I did a double-take when I heard this statement excerpted from a speech by President Obama in Prague (with my emphasis):
Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. (Applause.) And as nuclear power -- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.
We do have a moral responsibility to act, but it comes from our present arsenal of weapons and not from our having used nuclear weapons in the past. We would have the same moral responsibility to act if we presently had our current arsenal and we had gone with Plan B in 1945 and sacrificed upwards of a million American troops in ending the war in the Pacific without nuclear weapons. We would have less of a responsibility to act if we had virtually no current arsenal, despite our use of nuclear weapons over 60 years ago.
The decision to use nuclear weapons to try to bring an end to the war in the Pacific was one with deep ethical considerations. I don't think the President should be making statements that bear on the appropriateness of that decision in a forum where he cannot do justice to those ethical considerations. Let's hope that this was just an ill-considered ad lib by the President.
So we agree that there is a moral responsibility to act. But how should we act? I'm all for a world without the fear of nuclear weapons being used. In my view, that world is more likely to come about when the United States has a nuclear and non-nuclear arsenal that is big enough to deter others from using whatever nuclear weapons they may possess or acquire.
Obama Indeed
What boundless confidence: worst economic crisis in 50 years? No problem, we'll double the budget, subsidize toxic waste purchases, and toss out the banksters. Inadequate health insurance? No problem, we'll cut everyone in whatever the cost. Fidel about to kick it? No problem, we'll just reverse 50 years of sanctions. Nuclear proliferation? No problem, we'll just all agree to get rid of the weapons and be nice guys. Energy dependence? No problem, we'll just pretend we can do it with wind and solar.
At some point, doesn't every one suddenly start laughing?
On the Job Training
How many more ill considered ad libs does he get before we can call him the biggest naif ever to be President?
It would take a LOT to catch
It would take a LOT to catch up with 8 years worth of W. To parse every sentence the man speaks in search of something to hurl attacks with seems intellectually lazy and unproductive. What does this add to the public discourse?
A different reading
is simply a qualification of nuclear power rather than a qualification of moral responsibility, but it is ambiguous at best and I concur with you as I expect he would as well.
Umm...it's true, no?
What's up with you guys? Are you just so used to outright lies from your own "team" that you can't take a little truth?
The people whom we want to convince not to use nuclear weapons look askance at the only country that has in fact used them -- it's the proverbial elephant in the living room. Even though the reasons were clear and in my opinion justified, the usage is not in dispute. So, it's better to occasionally address it and move on.
It seems to me that talking about it is better than hiding it under a rug the same way the Japanese refuse to admit their atrocities in China/Korea, and the Turks have such a problem with Armenia. It's not naive, it's being a good salesman for America's values. And given the lousy 12 years of selling he's got to overcome, and the worst administration in my lifetime to clean up after, I'd say he's off to a fine start.
Admit, Acknowledge, Apologize, or Atone?
The U.S. has not refused to admit using the weapons or to acknowledge the damage that was done to civilian populations by using them. That's why I don't think the comparisons you suggest are appropriate in this case.
Obama's statement comes across to me as going beyond admission and acknowledgement -- it sounds like an apology to the world for having made that choice. It comes across this way because he links it to a moral responsibility that is placed on us for having done it -- as if we have to atone for having dropped them. He offers what I have deemed to be an apology in what appears to be an ad lib or a parenthetical statement while speaking to a crowd in a foreign country unrelated to the episode. That's not the right venue to offer an apology, even if he thinks one is required. And as I have indicated in the post, the episode for which I think he is apologizing really doesn't have any bearing on the moral responsibility that we have.
Agreed, and also...
Prof. Samwick, I for one agree with you completely.
Beyond that, I'd make the additional point that while the US is the only nation to have detonated a nuclear weapon on an enemy in anger, other nations certainly have used nuclear weapons to secure spheres of influence, and attain objectives in adversarial international relations.
The Soviets possessing thousands of nukes surely played a big role in their ability to sit on millions of people across all of Eastern Europe for over 40 years in spite of being very unwanted by their hosts, and in securing Castro from getting a quick boot off his island. Israeli possession of nukes reputedly has signifcantly influenced the course of events in the middle east on more than one occassion. Etc.
So if one were to take a highly moralistic view of such things, I think there'd be a fair amount to consider regarding a number of users. In reality though, international power politics is much more of a pragmatic thing, ISTM. The moral justifications, rationalizations and qualms come later, to the extent they are then useful to somebody.