|
Bush's
nuclear plan:
Dr. Strangelove revisited
by
Michelle CIARRACCA and William D. HARTUNG
Even
the Great Communicator would have had a hard time explaining
how planning to use the deadliest weapon on earth could
possibly reinforce the message that killing civilians
is wrong and that the United States is more civilized
than its terrorist adversaries.
(March
14, 2002) Almost two decades ago, President Reagan unveiled
his Star Wars scheme with the intention of rendering nuclear
weapons "impotent and obsolete." Today, the
word coming from the Pentagon's recently released Nuclear
Posture Review is that nuclear weapons are here to stay.
If
the recommendations from the Bush administration's Nuclear
Posture Review are carried out, the declared purpose of
U.S. nuclear weapons could change from a tool of deterrence
and a weapon of last resort to a central, usable component
of the U.S. "anti-terror" arsenal.
Even
the Great Communicator would have had a hard time explaining
how planning to use the deadliest weapon on earth could
possibly reinforce the message that killing civilians
is wrong and that the United States is more civilized
than its terrorist adversaries.
By
increasing the kinds of situations in which the United
States might employ nuclear weapons, from launching them
"against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack"
to retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological or chemical
weapons, the Bush nuclear posture dramatically lowers
the threshold for using these weapons.
While
President Bush talks of the need to prevent the spread
of weapons of mass destruction, the Pentagon report stresses
the need to develop a so-called mini-nuke to have new
capabilities "to defeat emerging threats, such as
hard and deeply buried targets" and "to improve
accuracy and limit collateral damage."
The
review does recommend reducing the number of operationally
deployed nuclear weapons in the United States from 6,000
to between 1,700 and 2,200. However, reducing and destroying
may not be the same thing. The number of warheads that
would be dismantled and the number that would become part
of the "active reserve stockpile" – a
phrase worthy of Stanley Kubrick's fictional nuclear strategist,
Dr. Strangelove -- has not been disclosed. This discrepancy
drew immediate criticism from Russia and threatens to
further delay nuclear reductions that have been stalled
for almost a decade. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov,
in a recent meeting with U.S. officials in Washington,
asked, "Can such a reduction be considered a real
one?"
The
review suggests shifting U.S. strategic forces from the
Cold War triad of ICBMs, bombers and submarine-launched
ballistic missiles to a triad of forces that includes
both non-nuclear and nuclear strike capabilities. In theory,
any force structure that relies less on nuclear weapons
and more on conventional bombs should be a step in the
right direction.
But
the practical impact of the Bush administration's emphasis
on usable nuclear weapons and a costly missile-defense
system will be to launch a new, multisided nuclear arms
race.
The
Bush administration has already announced its intention
to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Its
decision to find missions for nuclear weapons is arguably
a violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as
well. The United States and other major nuclear powers
signed the treaty, which compels them to take rapid steps
to eliminate their nuclear arsenals in exchange for a
pledge by non-nuclear nations to forswear the nuclear
option.
Recognizing
that they are already being targeted, countries like Iran,
Iraq, North Korea, Syria and Libya are likely to try to
get nuclear weapons in a hurry so as to have some semblance
of deterrence against a U.S. attack. And Russia and China
-- which also made the list -- are not likely to reduce
or renounce their own nuclear arsenals in the face of
this new threat. With Washington intent on a multibillion
dollar missile-defense plan that could, if it worked,
nullify some of their weapons, and with Washington showing
a reckless readiness to use its nuclear weapons first,
China and Russia will have every incentive to maintain
and build up their nuclear stockpiles.
Commemorating
six months since the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush said, "Terrorist
groups are hungry for these weapons and would use them
without a hint of conscience." The logical response
to this fear should not be to build more nuclear weapons,
but to take concrete steps toward eliminating nuclear
weapons before they are used again in some future conflict.
Reagan
signed off on the first major reductions of the nuclear
age and warned that a nuclear war can never be won and
must never be fought. Bush, who thinks of himself as a
Reagan disciple, is now spelling out new circumstances
for fighting such a war. The security of our nation and
the world would be far better served if Bush would follow
Reagan's lead and sign off on the first major nuclear
reductions of the 21st century.
_ . _
Michelle
Ciarrocca is a research associate and William D. Hartung
is a senior research fellow at the World Policy Institute
(www.worldpolicy.org) at the New School in New York City.
Hartung is the author of "And Weapons for All"
(HarperCollins, 1995). They can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
|
