| |
COMMENTARY
Double standards in US nuclear policy
By Michelle Ciarrocca
(Posted with permission from Foreign
Policy In Focus)
The Bush administration has its foreign policy hands full with each nation in
its "axis of evil". From the ongoing search for weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, to the appearance of negotiations with North Korea, and the push to
declare Iran in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
President George W Bush is following through with his promise to make certain
these "dangerous regimes and terrorists" cannot threaten the United States with
the world's most destructive weapons.
But he's going about it in a way that will actually increase the nuclear threat
to the US and the world.
Buried in the president's 2004 defense budget are two particularly troubling
requests. The first seeks to repeal a 10-year-old ban on the development of
smaller, lower-yield nuclear weapons, also known as mini-nukes. The second is a
US$15.5 million request to conduct research on a new bunker buster bomb called
the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.
The Senate voted 51-43 to lift the ban on research and development of low-yield
nuclear weapons. Actual production of the weapons would require the president
to obtain congressional authorization. The House is expected to vote on the
measure soon.
Administration officials contend that they are not seeking to build new nuclear
weapons, but only studying and researching the options. Speaking at a press
conference, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld added, "Many of the things you study,
you never pursue." Senator Dianne Feinstein, a supporter of the ban, replied,
"Does anyone really believe that?"
The Bush administration's desire to develop a low-yield nuclear weapon stems
from the theory that a cold war nuclear weapon is so massive and destructive
that the US would never actually use one. The thinking goes, a smaller,
five-kiloton nuclear weapon - about a third the size of the nuclear bomb used
on Hiroshima - would be more useful in deterring nations such as North Korea.
But as Senator Jack Reed noted, "We're moving away from more than five decades
of efforts to delegitimize the use of nuclear weapons."
As for research into a new bunker-buster nuclear weapon, the Union of Concerned
Scientists released a fact sheet outlining the "troubling science" behind the
proposed weapons. The scientists note that even a small, low-yield
earth-penetrating weapon will create radioactive debris, there is no guarantee
that the nuclear blast would successfully destroy chemical or biological
weapons, and there are current conventional weapons that could be used as
alternatives.
The Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review, released in January 2002, was
a foreshadowing of a new nuclear era in which the once-termed "weapon of last
resort" has turned into a usable, necessary tool in the anti-terror arsenal.
As part of the Nuclear Posture Review, the Pentagon expanded the nuclear hit
list to include a wide range of potential adversaries, such as North Korea,
Iraq, Libya and Syria, whether or not those nations possess nuclear weapons.
The circumstances under which the use of nuclear weapons might be considered
has also expanded beyond situations threatening the national survival of the US
to include retaliation for a North Korean attack on South Korea, or simply as a
response to "surprising military developments". The review also sanctions the
first use of nuclear weapons to "dissuade adversaries from undertaking military
programs or operations that could threaten US interests or those of allies and
friends".
The Bush administration's nuclear doctrine represents an abrupt departure from
the policies of prior administrations, Democratic and Republican alike. How
likely are countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Russia and China -
all of which have been targeted in Bush's new nuclear plan - to heed the
administration's calls to reduce or renounce their own nuclear arsenals in the
face of this new threat from the United States?
"I can't believe that I have witnessed in my time on Capitol Hill a more
historic debate than what we are undertaking at this moment," said Senator
Richard Durbin. "We are literally talking about whether or not the United
States will initiate a nuclear-arms race again. Nothing that I can think of
meets this in terms of gravity and its impact on the future of the world.
"If Bush were serious about reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons he
would focus on preventive measures, such as increasing funds for
non-proliferation and threat-reduction programs, while also reducing our own
massive arsenal. Non-proliferation programs receive about $1.8 billion
annually. Compare that to the $41 billion budget for homeland defense, or the
$79 billion supplemental for the war in Iraq. "
Representative John Spratt pointed out the disparity in funding, saying the
almost $10 billion "ballistic missile defense is a prime example of how the
emphasis on counter-proliferation comes at the expense of non-proliferation".
The Russian parliament recently ratified the nuclear arms reduction treaty
signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Bush last year. The US Senate
approved the treaty in March. The treaty reduces each nation's arsenals of
strategic nuclear weapons by two-thirds, to fewer than 2,200 each over the next
decade. While the treaty is a worthy and symbolic signal of a new relationship
with Russia, much more can and should be done.
By taking 10 years to make the proposed reductions, allowing both sides to keep
thousands of their withdrawn warheads in "reserve" rather than destroying them,
and giving either party the right to withdraw from the agreement on just 90
days' notice, the Pentagon has preserved its ability to rapidly reverse the
Bush administration's proposed reductions in the US arsenal whenever it wants
to, even as it continues to seek new types of nuclear weapons.
Deeper, verifiable cuts on both sides - to as low as 200-500 strategic warheads
each rather than the 1,700-2,200 allowed in the current proposal - would give
Washington and Moscow leverage to begin pressing nuclear-armed states such as
Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel to eliminate their own
arsenals. This move toward multilateral reductions would also make it much
easier to get states with nuclear capabilities to agree not to aid nations such
as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea to develop their own weapons of mass
destruction.
Whereas former president Ronald Reagan left office saying that a nuclear war
can never be won and must never be fought, two decades later, the word coming
from the Bush administration is that nuclear weapons are here to stay. The
recommendations contained in the Nuclear Posture Review and 2004 budget
requests are steps backward, and arguably violations of US commitments to
"pursue negotiations in good faith" for the reduction and eventual abolition of
nuclear weapons under the NPT. The only way to protect the American people, and
the people of the world, from the threat of nuclear weapons - big and small -
is to take determined steps to get rid of them, once and for all.
Michelle Ciarrocca (ciarrm01@newschool.edu)
is a research associate at the World Policy Institute and writes regularly for
Foreign Policy In Focus.
(Posted with permission from Foreign
Policy In Focus)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
