A lack of outrage

Bush's attempts to keep the Soviet Union intact in order to have a single Russian finger on the button was mistaken, humiliating to the non- Russian republics, and futile. It was mis-taken because a single button is more vulnerable to a takeover. The non-Russian "nuclear" republics won a veto over the use of nuclear weapons; it is to be hoped it will not just be anchored in legislation, but enforced by interlocking electronics. And glory hallelujah, the Soviet Union is no more.

But apart from being inept, this policy was also one of totally mistaken priorities, for it is no longer the ex-USSR that is the biggest danger of a nuclear launch. True, we have not yet seen the end of the turmoil which could bring a military takeover, nor even the reaction of the people to the introduction of "free market" prices in a government-owned distribution system. But clearly even in the worst of cases the ex-USSR is in no shape to launch a nuclear attack against the US.

The real danger of such an attack will sooner or later arise in the small tyrannies of the Third World.

There were some 100,000 scientists in Soviet nuclear weapons research and production. They will be looking for a well paid job in hard currency, and many will get offers they cannot refuse. This is more important than the Soviet plutonium that is already being sold in shady deals akin to the drug trade. The missiles and other equipment will not be far behind.

Against this serious and ever-increasing threat Bush and the West offer only the corpse of the Non-Proliferation treaty, killed by Carter in 1976, but still not yet buried. Iraq was a signatory and dutifully let in the International Atomic Energy Agency's in-spectors whenever they asked. What use are they in the secret labs of the Third World's tyrants, who know they can stir up the resentment of their peoples against the Great Satan, and that the Great Satan is unwilling to defend himself?

There are two genuine defenses against the threat. One is, of course, the SDI, the "brilliant pebbles" and other defensive weapons in space that the Green Left has been unable to scuttle completely (much of the credit for saving some of it goes to V.P. Dan Quayle). The US lacks the will, but not the capability, to destroy the nuclear missiles that Assad or Khadaffi or some dic-tator of Neanderthalia might launch against it.

The technical possibilities of such a defense are enormous, but they remain technical.

For the will to defend oneself is based on a consensus of morality, a consensus of what is acceptable and what is in-tolerable. But in its decline, the West is blurring the distinction. There was a time when the US sent its Marines to Tripoli to tame the Barbary pirates who were taking US citizens as hostages. There was a time when the British would send their warships to extract compensation from Greece after one of its citizen's home had been plundered. There was a time when an outraged US waged war against the Nazi tyranny, and a cold war against the Soviet Empire.

For to contemporary decision-makers (not all of them in government) objectivity means taking a stand halfway between the truth and a lie; fairness means equal rights for aggressor and victim; and the solution of all battles between right and wrong is negotiation and compromise.

It is this lack of outrage and the fading away of the consensus of what was once considered intolerable that will eventually allow the pipsqueaks of the Third World to build, trade, and launch nuclear missiles. The immediate answer is a space-based defense; but it will fail without the will of a population to defend itself and without a righteous civilization worth defending.