Hypocrisy, Favoritism and Fear-Mongering: Why the U.S. Position on Nukes is Totally Bankrupt

President Obama has seized upon North Korea's missile launch to talk about a new approach to nuclear disarmament. Most people agree with the swell commonplaces associated with Obama's vague rhetoric. Sure, we shouldn't blow up the planet. Yes, nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous.

But beyond that, the rules for nuclear armament are very hazy. Who can pursue nuclear weapons changes depending on time, place, and what the United States can gain from allowing (or forbidding) nuclear ambitions.

Certainly, reducing armaments is the pathway to abolishing nuclear weapons. However, the United States has placed itself in the position of favoring/allowing some countries' nuclear pursuits (United States, United Kingdom, France, Israel, India, China, Russia) ahead of other countries' sometimes-identical quests (Iran, North Korea, Syria). There was some good in Obama's Prague speech, but there were also bad pockets. Let's explore the minefield, shall we?

Good: reducing nukes

Few people adopt qualms for statements like this. It would be nice to live in a safer world where we're not consumed with the fear that some general somewhere has gone bat shit crazy and sold the nuclear armament codes to Al-Qaeda.

Bad: The complete lack of universality

The United States picks and chooses which countries can, and cannot, pursue nuclear technology. Whilst holding Kim Jong-Il's missiles just out of his reach, America gives an enthusiastic thumbs-up to Israel's possession of nuclear weapons in an extremely volatile region of the world.

Soon after North Korea's missile launch, President Obama gave a speech in Prague during which he declared, "Rules must be binding ... Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." True, but what words? What are these rules, and why do sacred rules only apply to certain people?

Who can have missiles? Who can pursue nuclear technology, and why are 1,000-2,000 nukes on the U.S. and Russian sides any less dangerous than 5,000?

Furthermore, "nuclear" describes a range of pursuits from missiles and bombs to energy. Iran claims it wants nuclear energy to power its state, while Israel and the United States claim their true interests lie in nuking Israel off the map. Such a move would be pretty dumb, considering Tehran would be obliterated instantly during the retaliation, but there it is, the strange double standard, combined with vague guidelines: Israel may have nukes, but Iran may not pursue nuclear power because we clairvoyantly believe Iran's true intentions are to nuke Israel. And yes, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch document all kinds of human rights violations on the part of Israel that should lead us to believe it too is a reactionary government incapable of living humanely with its neighbors, and therefore shouldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons, but never mind. Step aside: confusing standards to uphold here.

North Korea's pursuit of a missile is another illustration of such a variance in priorities. While certainly crazy, Kim Jong-Il is hardly a looming threat to the west. His sputtering rocket is the equivalent of a five-year-old's tantrum. He got the attention he's been craving, but he's unlikely to blast Alaska to smithereens. Call this the flexing-for-attention strategy. Sarah Palin needn't stakeout the coastline with Todd, and her armed children, just yet.

Bad: Fear-mongering for the sake of geopolitical conquest

I recently interviewed activist and author of several books, Tariq Ali, about the volatility at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Obama's rationale behind expanding the covert drone operation within Pakistan is that we can't let the Taliban get a nuclear weapon. (Pakistan is one of those "nuclear no-no" countries that we curse having the bomb). Mr. Ali very patiently explained to me how absurd this notion is: