The problem of nuclear proliferation has recently come back to the forefront of public concern with the ongoing U.S./Israeli conflict with Iran. Although we reportedly destroyed most of Iran’s capability to produce the fissile material needed to build nuclear bombs in last year’s raids, there appears to be enough highly enriched uranium to build 10 or so bombs in the rubble, which could possibly be recovered by Iran. The justification for our attack is the need to deprive them of that material, and to disable the Iranian missile-building program that could be used to deliver a bomb.
The danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of a medieval theocracy with an apocalyptic worldview, which has repeatedly threatened to destroy a nuclear Israel, is pretty obvious.
For the last 80 years, we have maintained a precarious nuclear stability in a world in which the nations possessing nuclear weapons were limited in number and stably governed. That situation slipped when North Korea joined the nuclear club. The nuclear peace has been maintained by the threat of mutual assured destruction, a sort of insane bilateral “Mexican standoff” in which the use by one adversary was promised to result in the utter destruction of the other. So far, it has worked.
Most U.S. allies declined to develop their own nukes under assurances from the U.S. that they were under the protection of the American “nuclear umbrella” and that we would use our nukes to defend them. There was always some skepticism about our willingness to engage in a nuclear exchange on behalf of another nation, evidenced when Charles de Gaulle rhetorically asked JFK if he really would “trade New York for Paris?” Not entirely assured, both France and Great Britain developed their own nuclear arsenals.
China joined the club in 1964, Israel around 1967, India in 1974, Pakistan in 1998, and North Korea in 2006.
Times have changed. The Feb. 7 issue of The Economist (“Opening Pandora’s Box”) explored a growing movement by some U.S. allies, such as Poland, Japan, South Korea, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, to consider the development of their own nuclear arms. Moreover, both France and Great Britain have announced expansions of their nuclear programs. This is being driven by several factors.
First, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the threat of Russian expansionism have made European nations realize just how vulnerable they are and have already resulted in a continuing buildup of NATO conventional military forces. In Asia, recent Chinese aggression in the South China Sea and the Sea of Japan, as well as their long-standing threats against Taiwan, have made Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan pretty nervous. The North Korean nuclear arsenal is a big worry. These are hard things to ignore, even for politicians who prefer to overlook or defer difficult problems.
Second, the reliability of the American “nuclear umbrella” is increasingly being questioned. Trump has made erratic statements regarding the American commitment to NATO. Our increasingly volatile and extremist politics must cause many to worry about a future presidential administration that was either too pacifistic or too isolationist to honor prior defense commitments, especially when doing so comes at a great cost. Would we be willing to risk our cities? Roughly half of the voters would automatically oppose any action by the “other party.” The unified nation that fought WWII no longer exists.
An effective “umbrella” requires that our potential adversaries believe that we would act. What sort of impression does our current bitterly divided domestic scene create? Would an adversary believe that a President Kamala Harris, AOC, or Gavin Newsom would actually engage in a nuclear exchange to retaliate for a nuclear attack on, say, Poland? Would Trump risk his New York city empire?
International relations are a brutal calculus ultimately controlled by strength. It is natural and reasonable for any nation to conclude that the only reliable deterrent is their own nuclear capability. The nations mentioned are all advanced, industrialized nations that are capable of developing a nuke. In particular, Japan already has a large supply of plutonium from its nuclear power industry and could probably build a weapon within months if it chose.
Whether we approve or not, each nation is always going to act in what they see as their own interest. Nuclear weapons deter attacks from other nations. They might also be useful to a desperate nation like North Korea to gain concessions or to extort aid.
For decades, many nuclear programs were discouraged by the implied threat of “or else” if they pursued one. That threat was shown to be empty by our inaction in stopping North Korea’s program. The outcome of the current Iran conflict will undoubtedly figure into the thinking of some nuclear aspirants. Say what you will about Trump, he has helped restore the credibility of the “or else” threat.
Hang on. It is going to be a wild ride. ∆
John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach who grew up crouched under his school desk during Cold War air raid drills. Send a response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in April 9-16, 2026.
John:
Perhaps you should send your son or grandson to Kharg Island in the first wave when an American invasion begins if you are so motivated to attack Iran, rather than sit around and advocate other Americans die for the greater Israel project.
What about the insane 1.5 trillion dollar proposed defense budget and supplemental request for an additional 200 billion dollars? Are you ready to pay for that or are you so well off it doesn’t matter? Most of aren’t, we need every dollar we have.
You’re old enough to have lived through the Vietnam war and Red Scare, have you lost your mind?
Fly: Since you often cite history, you must recall that we ended the nuclear standoff with the Soviets by Reagan and Bush standing firm against them, not by meekly capitulating to every threat and demand that they made. Weakness and a lack of resolve invites agression from predatory nations. Russia would not have invaded Ukraine had Ukraine retained its share of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, instead of accepting Russian promises to respect their territorial sovereignty if they gave them up. An Iranian nuke is not just a problem for Israel and the other Middle Eastern countries, it is a threat to us as well. Iran’s nuke is not a problem which will go away just by ignoring it, or by engaging in yet more “feel good” but meaningless negotiations like we have been. A nuke in the hands of Iran is like giving a loaded pistol to a 2 year old having a melt down.
It’s one thing to “stand firm” against an adversary, it’s another to actually bomb them. During the Cold War, did we actually bomb Russia? Answer: not once. Why? They had nukes. We are bombing Iran.
Again, if you are so enamored with attacking Iran, why don’t you just send the male members off in your family in the first wave when we actually put boots on the ground in Iran? Instead, you’d rather see what you probably consider trash, the working class, get blown to pieces in Iran, right? All because they joined the military because your generation, who basically enjoyed free college and gainful employment, have removed it from us and for a young man living in say…Kansas, sees no other option to pay for college or buy a house than join the military.
Good luck finding any other fools ready to die in Iran for you and all the people you represent.
I can do this all day long, John, I’m a history major. I’m not buying it. I’d recommend you go watch the movie “Born on the 4th of July.” You can really learn what it’s like in a VA hospital after getting shot in combat. Imagine your son or daughter in there while you’re at it. Being a well-off retired attorney, you’d probably put him or her in a private hospital, right? Do get where I’m coming from? We are sick of dying for people like you. Sick of paying the taxes people like you dodge or hide. If you want war, you pay for. If you want war, you pick up a gun. We have nothing to lose, you do. Social security and Medicare won’t even be here for us and you want Americans to go die for you. Not in a million years, lol.
Lastly, the launch codes for the nuclear weapons in Ukraine still remained in Russia. Ukraine couldn’t have used them even if they wanted, lol.
Good luck finding any young person willing to be inducted into the military when a draft happens. Why would they? Young people have no future in the USA, why would any of them die for a country that refuses to provide a rising standard of living? The kind of living standards your generation enjoyed but now deny them.
Mr. Donegan wrote, “Say what you will about Trump, he has helped restore the credibility of the “or else” threat.”
Hogwash! Let’s look at the facts. Under President Obama, the U.S. and its allies (we still had them then) negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran, the JCPOA. Under that agreement, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, “As of late 2017, Iran was abiding by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) (nuclear deal), maintaining its stockpile of uranium enriched up to 3.67% U-235 below the 300 kg limit. By November 5, 2017, IAEA reports indicated Iran’s stockpile was approximately 96.7 kg, and in early 2017 it was recorded around 101.7 kg.”
In 2018, Trump tore up that agreement because he was attempting to erase anything good that Obama had accomplished. He would have destroyed Obamacare, which added 20 million Americans to the number of Americans with health insurance, if not for John McCain.
Fast forward to 2026 and, again according to the IAEA, “Iran is believed to possess approximately 440 kilograms (roughly 970 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60% purity, a level very close to weapons-grade. This stockpile is sufficient to theoretically create over 10 nuclear warheads, with a significant portion stored at the Isfahan facility.”
While this material is indeed buried it is still under control of the Iranian butchers and it seems more likely that an even more fanatical regime will most certainly move to actually create a bomb.
Trump’s war has accomplished nothing other than blowing up a lot of things—though reports indicate we have only destroyed about one-third of Iran’s ballistic missiles. In addition, Trump has emboldened the regime to take control of the Strait of Hormuz and cripple the world economy.
Now it would appear that the only way to accomplish the goals of ensuring Iran has neither a nuclear weapon nor ballistic missiles, not to mention an opening of the strait, would be to place tens of thousands of U.S. troops on the ground. It took about 175,000 in Iraq and could take twice that many in Iran.
As to your other points, I blame the idiocy of Trump for the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the globe. Since 1948 the U.S., through the NATO coalition, was the world’s military and economic leader. In five years of Trump that leadership has been whittled away. Today, the Germans are increasing their military budget tenfold. I don’t have to remind you of the past to know that a belligerent Russia and a heavily armed Western Europe are not good for the world. Add a nuclear Iran and I’m quite glad my years are numbered.
Another agreement (the “Agreed Framework”) negotiated by another Democratic president (Clinton) also “solved” the North Korean nuclear program before they got their nuke. How’d that work out? We gave them a lot of aid, took military force off of the table, and they cheated and built a nuke anyway. They now have a number of nukes, and missiles which can reach the US mainland, and have made themselves untouchable. Like the North Korean agreement, the Iran agreement was merely cosmetic and politically convenient. At most, it just momentarily paused their enrichment, while they did other undetectable weapons development and developed long range missiles, and they easily resumed enrichment at will. “Kicking the can down the road” solved nothing.