John Mueller has often gone against conventional wisdom. As the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies at The Ohio State University, he has published an array of articles and books on The declining significance of war as he explains in his book Remnants of War; The incredible overreaction to national security threats, especially the threat of terrorism and how it has harmed the country is addressed in his most recent book, Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats and Why We believe Them; and his current work, how the U.S.'s attempts to prevent nuclear proliferation have been counterproductive, will be published as a book next year.

Mueller's argument in his current work, as outlined in an article in The National Interest last year, is as follows:

1. The "obsessive quest to Control nuclear proliferation — particularly since the end of the Cold War — has been substantially counterproductive and has often inflicted dire costs." Examples include the Iraq War, which was sold by the Bush Administration as the only preventative act to keep nuclear and other WMDs from Saddam Hussein's weakened state of Iraq. The sanctions in the 1990s which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children could also be included, as well as a potential conflict with Iran.
2. While the fear that terrorists themselves would obtain atomic weapons and/or other WMD has taken root in the national security community, it is "highly improbable" that either a rogue nation would give these terrorist groups these weapons, nor that the groups themselves could develop them. If a nation gave these weapons to a terrorist group, and the source was discovered, "international retribution could be unfathomably fierce." It is also incredibly unlikely that a rogue group could obtain all the necessary materials to create such a weapon, or gain access to the facilities to put it together, and then control it thereafter. Even when examining the supposed evidence that Al-Qaeda is seeking out the bomb, it is clear that they haven't even come close to the first steps.
3. Countries that do obtain nuclear weapons do so either for prestige (France) or deterrence (Israel, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea). While Mueller emphasizes that he does not like nuclear proliferation, and is clear the he considers "dissuading more countries from obtaining nuclear weapons to be quite a good idea and preventing terrorists from getting them to be an even better one," many of the actions performed in the name f nuclear proliferation have caused more harm than good. While we would rather Iran did not have such weapons, there is no reason to believe that if they got them, they would actually use them.

The Seminal: Do the politicians and security experts who perpetuate the importance of the issue of nuclear proliferation really fear it, or do they just see it as a beneficial issue for themselves?

John Mueller: They really are genuinely afraid. When the issue is raised, people get hysterical — but countries that do get the bomb never use it. Even "unstable" countries like China at least so far have not used theirs. They basically use it for deterrence and prestige. Sure it would be nice if they didn't get the weapons, but if the policies to prevent them from getting them cause hundreds to thousands of deaths, then the strategy must be rethought.

The Seminal: Do you think that these so-called "unstable" countries are more apt to try to get nuclear weapons due to the actions of the U.S. and other developed countries in the name of non-proliferation?

John Mueller: If that includes real or assumed threats — it is hardly surprising that these countries may feel the need to get nuclear weapons. the best way to reduce their incentive is to not threaten them. An example of this is putting Iran in the "Axis of Evil." After Iraq we basically have been saying to Iran, "You're Next." In 2003 John Bolton said about Iran, "Take a Number." So Iran's reaction isn't surprising.

The Seminal: Are there any major threats to our security or issues of concern to America;s safety that we are under-reacting to?

John Mueller: No. Since World War Two we have consistently over-exaggerated threats. Nasser was another Hitler. Sukarno was another Hitler. Qaddafi, Khomeini, and of course Saddam Hussein have all been called the next Hitler. None of them are good people, but to put them into the same class as Hitler is absurd.

The Seminal: What about Chemical Weapons or Biological Weapons?

John Mueller: Chemical weapons are not really WMD. Despite the view of them, only 7/10 of 1% of World War One deaths were caused by chemical weapons. They are very unstable and unpredictable. Biological weapons, in most cases, are very difficult to work with and control. To think that some rogue groups will be able to successfully use them when developed countries still don't view them as viable weapons, is unrealistic.

The Seminal: Is there a sensible approach to controlling Nuclear Weapons and other threats?

John Mueller: We should definitely keep an eye on biological developments and scientific knowledge in those arenas. There should also be more on the ground policing of chemical plants and other sites of concern. We can use normal safety precautions to address them. You don't leave dynamite lying around, there is control over guns — that kind of thing.

Last week, I mentioned being of the opinion that a "solution" to a problem (e.g. crop-based biofuels in response to global warming) that creates a problem of comparable proportions (e.g. a global food crisis) is, in fact, no solution at all.

I also believe this to be true of nuclear power, yet another ill-conceived "solution" to the dual fossil fuel-shortage/climate change conundrum in which we presently find ourselves.

In fact, harnessing nuclear energy may qualify as an even stupider idea than harnessing biofuels, only because it represents humans' repeating the exact same mistakes they have made with respect to fossil fuels.

Here again, primarily for my own benefit, is a rapid review of human history: Humans discover what they believe to be an endless source of energy-intensive materials buried in the Earth, in the form of coal, natural gas, and crude oil. They begin extracting and burning these so-called "fossil fuels," slowly at first but then at an exponentially increasing pace, thereby growing a massive, unprecedented global economy. Then they realize these fossil fuels (a) are not in fact endless, and will soon run out, and (b) emit, when burned, gases with dangerous climate-warming potential, which are rapidly double-glazing and overheating the atmosphere in such a way that will soon make their planet uninhabitable.

"Shit," they say to themselves. "We're going to have to find another source of energy."

So what do they do? They look into the ground and find a different material, this time called uranium, which they again determine to be abundant in supply. They learn how to harness its energy, and when they discover it can be done without releasing any of those climate-warming gases, they cry "hallelujah!" They start extracting and using these new materials, slowly at first, and then more and more rapidly, giddy with the thought of switching their still-growing global economy over to nuclear power. (As they did with fossil fuels, they disregard the horrific environmental damage caused by uranium mining.) Humans forget, however, two important facts: (a) while abundant right now, this new material is not endless, with some predicting known resources running out in 70 years at current rates of extraction, and (b) while nuclear power plants do not produce climate-warming emissions, they do produce highly radioactive waste that can kill or mutate all life to which it is exposed for tens of thousands of years after extraction. Both the "source" and "sink" problems are repeated. Humans are back where they started — short on energy and inhabiting a profoundly polluted planet — except now nuclear weaponry is a perfected science.

I don't think it melodramatic to say the fate of the world hinges on our ability to ween ourselves from an oil addiction. Nor do I think I embellish when I say that the political, social and environmental consequences of this addiction are biblical in their magnitude. The seven angels with seven plagues have nothing on the consequences of not finding a clean alternative to oil.

President Bush and like-minded individuals have been pushing nuclear power as our methadone for years; a clean, safe, autonomous, zero-emission form of energy production, they assure. Well, if the fact of Bush's support isn't enough to dissuade you, a sober analysis of the reality of nuclear energy should be. First, the cheerleader-ing:

Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy … all without producing a single pound of air pollution and greenhouse gases. — June 2005

Nuclear power generates large amounts of low-cost electricity without emitting air pollution or greenhouse gases. Yet nuclear power now produces only about 20 percent of America's electricity. It has the potential to play an even greater role — February 2006

I believe that it is essential that we have a comprehensive energy policy to be able to deal with the challenges we are going to face in the 21st century - whether that be energy independence, or economic security or good environmental policy. And at the core of that policy must be electricity generated from nuclear power — June 2007

I strongly believe the United States must promote nuclear power here in the United States. Nuclear power, if you're interested in economic growth and environmental stewardship, there's no better way to achieve both of them than through the promotion of nuclear power. Nuclear power is limitless. It's one existing source that generates a massive amount of electricity without causing air pollution or any greenhouse gases. — March 2008

Too often, the U.S. sets up a terrible incentive system whereby building a nuclear weapon becomes the only way for countries like Iran and North Korea to earn respect:

Are you a small, under-respected nation? Do you want to get the attention of the "big boys" and be taken seriously on the world stage? All you need to do is obtain a nuclear weapon and you'll be rolling in cash, favors, and prestige.

This seems to be the message the U.S. and others in the so-called "first world" are sending. Get a nuke and we'll take you seriously. Until then, we can and will ignore you. Clearly, this is a counterproductive message to send, as it encourages nuclear proliferation.

Instead of pushing countries like Iran up against the wall, a more balanced approach of carrots and sticks seems to work better. Case in point, as the saber-rattling coming from the Bush administration died down after our Intelligence Community concluded Iran shelved its nuclear program, Iran has continued to cooperate with weapons inspectors and allies have been slowly pressuring Iran to come to the table for talks.

We will be kicking off our April issue on nuclear power, weapons, and politics later this afternoon. We hope you enjoy!

(and I apologize for the site outage just now, doing some upgrading…)

Starting April 1st, The Seminal will be exploring issues surrounding nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation, and nuclear power. From Iran and India to conversations with experts, we hope to explore the possibilities, perils, policies, and politics behind humanity's quest to tame the atom.

Check back soon for the new issue!