|
MADNESS IN THE MAKING US NUCLEAR STRATEGY THREATENS THE WORLD Leader, The Guardian, Friday January 10, 2003 The possibility that the US will resort to the use of nuclear weapons in a future conflict is greater now that at any time since the darkest days of the cold war. This growing danger does not principally arise from old fears about the threat from strategic nuclear missiles. Although the US, Russia, China, France and Britain retain such weapons, their overall numbers have been reduced. Rather, the 21st century's own looming nuclear nightmare has two other main causes. One is the US development of new generations of theatre or battlefield nuclear weapons and an increasing willingness by the Bush administration to use them pre-emptively. The other is the proliferation of nuclear weapons-related technology and the linked acquisition by "rogue states" and international terrorist groups of other relatively less potent weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological agents. Under President George Bush, the US is progressively lowering the threshold for nuclear war. Its national security strategy declares: "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use WMD... To forestall or prevent such hostile acts the US will, if necessary, act pre-emptively." The national strategy to combat weapons of mass destruction goes further: "The US reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force, including through resort to all our options, to the use of WMD against the US, our forces abroad, our friends and allies." What this means in practice is chillingly clear. Any attack on US interests, however limited, from whatever source, and anywhere in the world, involving any form of chemical, biological or radiological weaponry could trigger nuclear retaliation. Increasingly the US is also assuming the right to decree who may or may not possess such weapons. Having raised its declared annual defence budget by $60bn to about $360bn, the US is now pouring money into new nuclear weapons programmes set out in last year's (highly classified) nuclear posture review and over which Congress appears to have little effective oversight. One key part of the Pentagon's "limited nuclear options capability" programmes is the "robust nuclear earth penetrator" for destroying underground targets. Other projects in the pipeline include an "enhanced radiation weapon" that supposedly incinerates toxic agents (and anything else in the area), space control satellites and a "worldwide nuclear survivable communications system". By one estimate, the US is now spending 45% more on "nuclear weapons activities" than at the end of the cold war. Meanwhile, in order to test its new weapons, the Bush administration is preparing to end its de facto compliance with the comprehensive test ban treaty. Having abrogated the anti-ballistic missile treaty, it is now also planning a global missile defence shield that by protecting its nuclear arsenal from attack will render its use more feasible. That this US nuclear build-up is massively destabilising should be obvious. Faced by what the US is doing, nuclear states such as India, Pakistan, Israel or North Korea are less likely to surrender their weapons. Iran, Brazil, South Africa or Japan, all potentially nuclear-capable, may abandon the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (which the US itself ignores). Other non-nuclear states, their safety from nuclear attack no longer guaranteed, may resort to enhanced forms of WMD and missiles for self-defence. From here, as the pillars of international arms control crash one by one into the sea, it is but a short step to uncontrolled, global mass production and proliferation, particularly into terrorist hands, of the very chemical and biological arms the US (and Britain) most fear. This is madness in the making. It is mutually assured destruction by other means. Only a uniform, enforceable, collective, global approach to non-proliferation, applying equally to all, can curb the overall WMD menace. Through verifiable treaties, well-funded inspection regimes, effective technology and fissile material controls, containment, deterrence and sanctions, there is a chance of success. But if any of this is to work, the US cannot be an exception to the rules. It must lead by example, in particular by ending its pursuit of an ever more dangerous nuclear dominance. Maintaining double standards and singling out states such as Iraq is not only hypocritical; it is also ultimately doomed to failure. In this century as in the last, worldwide nuclear disarmament remains the goal. But now add to that another urgent aim: a legally binding global treaty for the total prohibition and outlawing of all weapons of mass destruction. Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited |
