| |
Nuclear Nightmares by John Steinbach
The Evolution
of American Nuclear Strategy
Only the Peace Movement Can
Prevent Nuclear War
Dear fellow
peacemakers,
This very lengthy and important paper has no URL, so I'm sending
the whole thing. It details the evolution of American nuclear
weapon strategy from 1945 to the present. While the US has always
had a first strike policy, the Bush administration has escalated the
rhetoric and lowered the bar, putting us in the highest danger of nuclear
war since Truman.
You might want to scroll down to the conclusion, then file
it with your nuclear weapons papers. It is an invaluable reference.
Toward the end, Steinbach says: "The real
key to preventing the use of nuclear weapons, an act which will inevitably
have calamitous consequences for the entire world, lies in the ability
of the anti-nuclear, anti-intervention, social justice and anti-globalism
movements to understand that their issues are inextricably linked. The
task is not an easy one... . Our daunting task is complicated even further
by the present jingoistic atmosphere and Constitutional lawlessness
that have undoubtedly intimidated millions from speaking out...
The best strategy for abolishing nuclear weapons is to broaden and strengthen
the people's movement to challenge all aspects of the corporate
imperial state.
We're making progress - the media recognize us as an important
factor, and the members of the Security Council are taking heart from
our resistance to war.
We have an awesome responsibility; the future of life on the
planet depends on us.
Peace, Carol Wolman
NUCLEAR NIGHTMARES REDUX:
The Bush Administration and U.S. Nuclear War-Fighting Policy
by John Steinbach
March 2, 2003
"The most ambitious
(damage limiting) strategy dictates a first strike capability against
an enemy's strategic offensive forces which seeks to destroy as much
of his mega-tonnage as possible before it can be brought into play.
An enemy's residual retaliation, assumed to be directed against urban-industrial
targets, would be blunted still further by a combination of active &
passive defenses, including ASW(anti-sub), ABMs, anti-bomber defenses,
civil defense, stockpiles of food & other essentials, and even the
dispersal & hardening of essential industry."
--Sec. of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld from 1978 Nuclear Posture Review1
"Not since the dawn
of the nuclear age at the end of World War II has the danger of nuclear
war been greater."2
--Richard Falk
"As the Bush administration
relentlessly injects itself into conflicts around the world in the name
of eradicating terror, rather than bringing peace, it only fans the
flames of hatred. If this is allowed to continue, it may carry us to
nuclear war, and to the annihilation of humankind."3
-- Haruko Moritaki, Hiroshima
Since the controversial election
which resulted in the judicial installation of President George W.Bush,
and his extremist foreign policy team of nuclear hard-liners, the world
has careered toward a nuclear precipice. Continuing and accelerating
existing nuclear war-fighting policies, Bush has radically lowered the
threshold to the actual use of nuclear weapons. The current risk as
measured by the "Doomsday Clock" of the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists reads seven minutes to midnight, the closest since 1990.4
Given the present confluence of international developments
including 9-11, impending total war against Iraq, the Bush Nuclear Posture
Review, political instability in the Middle East and South Asia, and
the abrogation of the antiballistic Missile Treaty, the first military
use of nuclear weapons since Nagasaki may be imminent.
The purpose
of nuclear weapons never has been principally about deterrence or mutually
assured destruction (MAD), but rather to serve as a coercive foreign
policy instrument designed and intended for actual war fighting. In
the words of the Joint Chiefs of Staff rebuttal to Jimmy Carter's 1976
proposal to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 200 warheads, "U.S.
nuclear strategy maintains military strength sufficient... to provide
a war-fighting capability to respond to a wide range of conflict in
order to control escalation and terminate the war on terms acceptable
to the U.S."5 First
strike nuclear weapons, designed to back up military intervention and
enforce geopolitical dictates, are seen by Pentagon war planners as
the backbone of war-fighting strategy, and in this capacity have been
used at least 27 times between 1945 and 1998.6 Daniel Ellsberg, former RAND Corporation nuclear war planner,
wrote; "Again and again, generally in secret from the American
public, nuclear weapons have been used: ...in the precise way that a
gun is used when you point it at someone's head in a direct confrontation,
whether or not the trigger is pulled."7 Dominating the most powerful
economic system in world history, the U.S. will use any military force
necessary, including the use of nuclear weapons, to expand, consolidate
and maintain its control.
Unfortunately, this 'deadly
connection' between intervention and nuclear weapons is poorly understood.
"...few disarmament and arms-control activists or leaders have
understood the relationship between the nuclear arms race and the global
ambitions of the U.S.. Similarly, efforts to halt and restrain U.S.
intervention in the third world have too often proceeded in ignorance
of the nuclear ramifications of 'conventional' conflicts in Asia, the
Middle East, Latin America, or Africa."8 According to William Arkin,
"One year after President Bush labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea
the 'axis of evil,' the United States is thinking about the unthinkable:
It is preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iraq."9
As Bush prepares public opinion for the invasion of Iraq, the overthrow
and/or assassination of Saddam Hussein, and the possible use of nuclear
weapons, General Pervez Musharaf is rattling the nuclear saber against
a nationalistic nuclear-armed India. Once again, the rational fear and
anger of a mobilized public may be the only truly effective force against
the mass-murder psycho-pathology of nuclear weapons. In his memoirs,
Nixon claimed that the only reason he refrained from using nuclear weapons
in autumn 1969 to "end" the Viet Nam war was the October 15
Mobilization which brought hundreds of thousands of protesters to the
nation's capital: "On October 14, I knew for sure that my (nuclear)
ultimatum failed."10
The Legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
According to Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International
Law, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes which
violated virtually every treaty of that era. "...the atomic bombings
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were egregiously illegal under the relevant
rules of international law that were fully subscribed to by the U.S.
government as of 1945."11 The targeting criteria used by the Interim
Committee, including giving no warning, and the selection of "a
vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded
by worker's houses," were in direct contravention of numerous treaties.12
The deliberate mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians,
overwhelmingly women, children, elders, and Korean war slaves, was celebrated
by Harry Truman on August 9 in a profane radio message to the American
people: "We thank god that (the atomic bomb) came to us instead
of to our enemies, and we pray that god may guide us to use it in his
ways and for his purposes."13
P.M.S. Blackett, a renowned British physicist and Nobel prize
winner argued that there was no doubt that the atomic bombings were
"not so much the last military act of the Second World War, as
the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia."14
Arjun Makhijani wrote, "If only implicitly, the decision to...
explode the atomic bombs over Japan was partly in the hope that it would
induce a quick surrender thereby providing a better postwar position
for the U.S.." He pointed out that had saving lives been the "main
criteria" for the bombings, no harm would have come from waiting
until mid-August when the Soviet Union was scheduled to enter the war
against Japan.15 Of course, had the Soviets
participated in the invasion and occupation of Japan, their geopolitical
position in Asia would have been greatly enhanced, an outcome totally
unacceptable to U.S. post war imperial designs. In 1945, the U.S. launched
a first strike with atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki to
consolidate and advance its unprecedented position of economic, political
and military power. In 2002, the U.S. remains resolutely prepared to
do precisely the same! Its strategy has been and continues to be to
threaten use of nuclear weapons to advance U.S. interests and, if necessary,
to launch a first strike.
Containment
In an unusual
moment of candor, George Kennan, the principal architect of the strategy
of 'containment'(see Paul Nitze's definition below) wrote in a top secret
memo in 1948, "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only
6.3% of its population ...we cannot fail to be the object of envy and
resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern
of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity....To
do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreamings....We
should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human
rights, the raising of the living standards, and emocratization. ...we
are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are
then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."16 This admission, ever more
relevant as the U.S. becomes increasingly dependent on imports of nonrenewable
resources, encapsulates the real purpose of military interventions and
the nuclear arsenal; "The exercise of U.S. power is intended to
preserve not only the international capitalist system but U.S. hegemony
of that system."17
Issued by Harry Truman in 1950, NSC-68, written by Paul Nitse,
openly discussed a first strike against the Soviet Union, and articulated
the war-fighting basis of the nuclear arsenal. The following extended
excerpts illuminate the gist of U.S. nuclear policy at the dawn of the
nuclear age, policies which are still largely operative to this day.
"... Without superior aggregate military strength, in being and
readily mobilizable, a policy of "containment"--which is in
effect a policy of calculated and gradual coercion--is no more than
a policy of bluff."..."Our overall policy at the present time
may be described as one designed to foster a world environment in which
the American system can survive and flourish."... "A large
measure of sacrifice and discipline will be demanded of the American
people. They will be asked to give up some of the benefits which they
have come to associate with their freedoms."... "The execution
of such a (military) buildup, however, requires that the United States
have an affirmative program beyond the solely defensive one of countering
the threat posed by the Soviet Union." ..."In the event we
use atomic weapons either in retaliation for their prior use by the
USSR or because there is no alternative method by which we can attain
our objectives, it is imperative that the strategic and tactical targets
against which they are used be appropriate and the manner in which they
are used be consistent with
those objectives.".... "The United States now has an atomic
capability, including both numbers and deliverability, estimated to
be adequate, if effectively utilized, to deliver a serious blow against
the war-making capacity of the USSR."18 NSC-68 laid the foundation
of modern U.S. 'flexible response', 'counter-force' and 'escalation
dominance' nuclear war-fighting strategy.
Counterforce & Escalation Dominance
The U.S. exercised a quarter
century of nuclear superiority, but by the late 1960s the Soviet Union
had reached a rough nuclear parity, seriously eroding the Pentagon's
ability to wield a credible nuclear threat. In response, Henry Kissinger
and others elaborated on Nitze's policy of "calculated and gradual
(nuclear) coercion" to develop a policy of "escalation dominance."
In essence, escalation dominance is the ability to control every level
of conflict from conventional, to battlefield nuclear, to strategic.
Despite popular rhetoric about Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD) the
official U.S. policy continued rely on nuclear weapons. The principal
theoretical problem with escalation dominance was the inability to control
the final rung of the 'escalation ladder'- strategic
nuclear war with the Soviets would result in the U.S. own destruction.
According to nuclear dogma, such control is essential at each escalation
level, including all out nuclear war, otherwise the nuclear threat lacks
credibility.
In 1976,'moderate Democrat'
Jimmy Carter ran on a successful presidential campaign of deep cuts
in the U.S. nuclear arsenal but was soon compelled by a bipartisan claque
of nuclear cold-warriors, The Committee On the Present Danger founded
by Paul Nitze, to launch a massive new attempt to regain absolute nuclear
superiority.19 Carter ordered development and production of the MX missile,
Trident 2 submarine launched missile, and Pershing 2 missile, all three
super accurate counter force weapons designed to destroy hardened Soviet
targets like missile silos and command and control facilities. In 1980,
Carter implemented Presidential Directive 59 which specifically targeted
Soviet missile silos, a threatening escalation of formal U.S. policy
which implied a first strike- a meaningless retaliation would destroy
already empty silos. Ronald Reagan continued and greatly accelerated
the policies of Jimmy Carter, and embarked on his 'Star Wars' anti-ballistic
missile program which was, and is, an integral part of a first strike
capability. The result of Reagan's extremist nuclear policies and outrageous
political provocations was massive global anti-nuclear protests,
especially in the U.S. and Europe. Faced with strong public opposition,
Reagan was forced to negotiate the Intermediate Nuclear Forces(INF)
treaty, which removed medium range U.S. and Soviet missiles from Europe,
leaving the British & French arsenals still threatening the Soviet
Union. Reagan also negotiated the Strategic Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty(START),
which significantly reduced the nuclear arsenals by enabling the elimination
of obsolete weapons while continuing to produce and deploy counterforce
weapons; in essence, pruning the deadly nuclear tree to the U.S. advantage.
Following the end of the 'Cold
War', the sophistication and accuracy of the U.S. nuclear arsenal continued
to improve while the Soviet arsenal, already substantially inferior
to that of the U.S., began to deteriorate at every level. At a great
disadvantage because of geographical 'choke points' and stunning advances
in U.S. anti-submarine warfare(ASW), the aging Russian nuclear submarine
fleet, containing only a small fraction of its nuclear warheads, became
increasingly vulnerable to a preemptive strike. Russian strategic
bombers became easy targets for advanced U.S. technology like AWACS,
sophisticated guidance systems and cruise missile. Russian land-based
missiles fell under the bulls eye of super accurate missiles like Trident
2, MX and Minuteman 3 with a circular error probable(CEP) of 400 feet,
close enough to destroy them with a high degree of certainty.20 Star
Wars, intended to 'mop up' surviving Soviet retaliatory missiles, was
the only missing part of a renewed credible first strike strategy.
"The end of the Cold War
marked a return to historical patterns repressed or obscured by the
U.S.-Soviet confrontation."21 Echoing imperialist propaganda from
a century earlier, the new strategic emphasis became access to resources
and cynical concern about human rights. With the U.S. determined to
expand and consolidate control world-wide, the specter of nuclear war
was increasingly threatened against non-nuclear nations like Iran, Iraq,
Libya and North Korea. When Clinton issued PDD-60 in 1997, the Washington
Post reported, ""general planning for potential nuclear strikes
against other nations that have... 'prospective access' to nuclear weapons
and that are now or may eventually become hostile to the United States.
A separate official described these countries as 'rogue States,' specifically
listed in the directive as possible targets in the event of regional
conflicts or crises."
22 Nuclear weapons were seen by war-planners as an increasingly
important, indeed essential, component of the war machine.
Enter George W. Bush.
Dubya's Excellent Nuclear
Adventure
Rather than a radical departure
from established U.S.(nuclear) policy, as widely reported in the mainstream
media, the Bush Administration's nuclear strategy is actually a continuity
of policies developed during the Gulf War by his father and further
advanced by Clinton.23 The Bush Nuclear Posture Review(NPR)24 exposed
by investigative journalist William Arkin in the Los Angeles Times,
"...myopically ignores the political, moral and military implications-
short-term and long -of crossing the nuclear threshold," and indicates
that Bush officials "are looking for nuclear weapons that could
play a role in the kinds of challenges the U.S. faces with Al Quaeda."25
The NPR calls for contingency plans to nuke Russia, China, Iraq, Iran,
North Korea, Syria and Libya, and proposes the development of new nuclear
weapons to destroy buried bunkers and reduce collateral damage. The
Nuclear Posture
Review "is understood to identify three circumstances in which
nuclear weapons could be used: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear
attack; in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological or chemical
weapons; and 'in the event of surprising military developments'."26
The plan further blurs the already fuzzy distinction between nuclear
and conventional weapons by calling for integration of "new non
nuclear strategic capabilities" into nuclear-war plans, and for
"incorporation of 'nuclear capability' into many conventional systems
under development."27 Although a continuation and elaboration of
Clinton's nuclear policies, the Bush NPR represents a dangerous lowering
of the threshold for the actual use of nuclear weapons.
Prior to 9-11 it was widely
understood that National Missile Defense(NMD), was dead on arrival in
the Democratically controlled Senate. However in the wake of the attacks
on the twin towers and the Pentagon. Bush, by arguing "national
security" and the fraudulent concept of 'rogue nuclear states',28
was able to ram through a massive increase in the "Defense"
budget, including billions for an antiballistic missile system. (The
current Pentagon budget now exceeds total expenditures of the next 28
largest militaries combined.29 ) Although the workability of a NMD system
is highly questionable, the point is not whether such a system will
work, but, rather, the perception that it might work.
Russia, and especially China
have both vehemently opposed NMD, and the Chinese threaten to modernize
their archaic and feeble ICBM arsenal in order to maintain deterrence.
Japans largest circulation daily newspaper, Yomiuri Shimbun, reported
that China tested a multiple warhead missile in December, undoubtedly
a response to NMD.30 "Joint Vision 2020, 'a key defense guidance
document', envisions Asia instead of Europe as the prime focus of US
military in the coming decades, identifies China as a "peer competitor,"
and sees even closer military coordination between the US and Japan,
31
The compelling destabilizing
logic of antiballistic missile defense- no conceivable ABM system can
stop a massive first strike, thus the only rational purpose for such
a system is for "mopping up" after your own first strike-
led Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger to negotiate the first ABM treaty
in 1972.32 Admiral Eugene Carroll with the Center for Defense Information
said, "Missile defense sends a signal to the rest of the world,
'we will hide behind our nuclear weapon shield and you can't do anything
about it. We will use nuclear weapons when and if we choose.' We've
even said publicly that we will use them against non-nuclear states.
Then we build
what we say is a National Missile Defense System to make certain that
we don't suffer the consequences of our policies and actions."33
The stakes are enormous, not only because NMD will further destabilize
the nuclear standoff making nuclear war more likely, but Rumsfeld's
plans include the weaponization and domination of space. This costly34
first strike weapon can only be stopped by an informed and mobilized
public.
Rumsfeld Doctrine
Of all the Bush foreign policy
team, Donald Rumsfeld is perhaps the most dangerous. Tellingly, Henry
Kissinger called him 'The most ruthless man he has ever known.'35 While
Gerald Ford's Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld championed larger military
budgets and advocated a return to U.S. nuclear superiority. He was responsible
for initiating the B-1 Strategic Stealth Bomber, the Trident Submarine
and the MX Missile, all first strike weapons.36 While Kissinger was
in Moscow negotiating the SALT 2 treaty, Rumsfeld went behind Kissinger's
back and persuaded the Joint Chiefs of Staff to kill the treaty.
After leaving Government for
the corporate boardroom, Rumsfeld continued to maintain a high profile
as a nuclear hawk, especially his advocacy of missile defense.(In 1998
he received the 'Keeper of the Flame Award' from the Center for Security
Policy, the 'nerve center of the Star Wars Lobby.'37 The 1998 Congressionally
mandated Rumsfeld Commission predictably found that the U.S. faced a
ballistic missile threat from "rogue states" within five years;
a finding radically at odds with the CIA's own estimates. In 2001, shortly
before he became Defense Secretary, Rumsfeld chaired another commission
on U.S. control of space. "Last month's report by
the Rumsfeld "Space Commission" calls for U.S. "power
projection in, from and through space." It seeks U.S. "superior
space capabilities." It says the U.S. president should "have
the option to deploy weapons in space." It emphasizes that it is
"possible to project power through and from space in response to
events anywhere in the world. Unlike weapons from aircraft, land forces
or ships, space missions initiated from earth or space could be carried
out with little transit, information or weather delay. Having this capability
would give the U.S. a much stronger deterrent and, in a conflict, an
extraordinary military advantage."38
In a little reported but crucially
important January 31, 2002 speech to the American Military University,
Rumsfeld introduced a new doctrine of "strategic dominance,"
dubbed the "Rumsfeld Doctrine."39 "According to this
concept, the US must always be able to assess its adversaries' military
capabilities and to reduce their ability to react through the planned
destruction of its enemy's industrial, military, and political infrastructures."40
Rumsfeld called for fighting four major wars simultaneously in addition
to eradicating 'terrorism'.41 Preemptive military strikes were explicitly
called for; "Defending against terrorism and other emerging 21st
century threats may wellrequire that we take the war to the enemy."
He said the 2003 Pentagon budget should include money to protect satellites(weapons
in space, a long time favorite of his) and buy a new generation of earth-penetrating
(nuclear)bombs that ''could make obsolete the deep underground facilities
where terrorists hide and terrorist states conceal their weapons of
mass destruction
capabilities.''42
Bill Berkowitz writing in Working
for Change spelled out the basic principles of the Rumsfeld Doctrine.
"First, wars must be fought on multiple fronts -- including economic,
diplomatic, financial, intelligence-related and law-enforcement- related.
Second, the U.S. military must operate as one seamless entity. Third,
international coalitions, sometimes secretive, will be created and dissolved
as the situation dictates. Fourth, these coalitions must not be allowed
to bog down the mission -- committees cannot fight wars. Fifth, preemptive
action cannot be ruled out, and indeed, may be required. Sixth, no military
option can be ruled out; wars will be fought by any means and with any
weapon at our disposal. Seventh, highly skilled Special Forces should
be used early and liberally."43 Coupled with the emphasis on nuclear
war fighting and new nuclear weapons development, the 'Rumsfeld Doctrine'
is a recipe for certain
disaster.
Conforming to the Rumsfeld
Doctrine, the New York Times reports that the Pentagon is proposing
a new nuclear command structure which would "harness in one entity
the nation's missile warning network and the new national missile-defense
system now breaking ground, as well as the country's ability to plan
and launch offensive strikes with nuclear and conventional weapons."
" The command would fit neatly into the Bush administration's new
doctrine of preemptive action against states and terrorist groups that
are trying to develop weapons of mass destruction, officials said."44
The new organization would merge the U.S. Space Command("Not only
does the US plan to wage war in space but it plans to "hold at-risk",
"high-value Earth targets" with "near instantaneous force
application". In English, that means the ability to target cities,
and to kill millions of people, from space.")
45, Star Wars, and the U.S. Strategic Command(STRATCOM). Rumsfeld
has already briefed Bush about the plan and his "top aides"
say it is certain to be approved.46
According to Bill Arkin, "On
Dec. 11, (2002) the Defense secretary sent Bush a memorandum asking
for authority to place Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., the STRATCOM commander,
in charge of the full range of "strategic" warfare options
to combat terrorist states and organizations. The memo, obtained by
The(Los Angeles) Times, recommended assigning all responsibilities for
dealing with foreign weapons of mass destruction, including 'global
strike; integrated missile defense; [and] information operations' to
STRATCOM."47 This chilling newest development in the history of
U.S. nuclear war-fighting strategy is the logical conclusion of over
a half century of first strike planning, and unambiguously exposes the
real purpose of 'National Missile Defense'- the ability to threaten
to dominate all rungs of the 'escalation ladder', including a strategic
first strike.
Pathways to Nuclear War
Although nuclear weapons have
not been used against human targets since August 9, 1945, it is increasingly
clear that U.S. nuclear policy has shifted in favor of the proximate
battlefield use of nuclear weapons. According to Joseph Gerson of the
American Friends Service Committee, "...the U.S. is again threatening
nuclear war against Iraq, this time with powerful forces in both the
Republican Party and in the White House anxious to shatter the taboos
against nuclear war-fighting.48 A principal reason for this radical
policy shift is the perception that the threat value of nuclear weapons
has deteriorated, and that only the actual battlefield use of nuclear
weapons can refurbish it. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Pentagon's
unchallenged military power have given U.S. policy makers an insane
sense of confidence that they can once again unsheathe the nuclear sword
without consequence.
Any actual use of nuclear weapons
will almost certainly follow a carefully scripted propaganda campaign,
followed by one of a litany of rationalizations- 'saving American lives',
'destroying a nuclear/chemical/biological weapons bunker', 'protecting
Israel', 'responding to use of weapons of mass destruction(real or fabricated)',
etc.. The current highly visible nuclear threats, in conjunction with
the calculated
demonization of Iraq and the so called "rogue states," can
be seen as part of a strategy by Bush to reshape public opinion in support
of using nuclear weapons. With the American public (and worldwide) strongly
favoring nuclear disarmament, this would seem at first glance a difficult
if not impossible task.49 However, a Gallup Poll done during the Gulf
War in 1991 showing 45% public support for the use of nuclear weapons
to "save American lives" should give pause to those who believe
that public opinion would
never support U.S. use of nuclear weapons.50 The U.S. political leadership,
especially under a reactionary, quasi-caretaker government like Bush,
will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Iraq or any other opponent
if they calculate that the end justifies the means.
In the likely event that the
Pentagon is ordered to wage total war against Iraq, leading to the overthrow
and assumed assassination of Saddam Hussein and "war crimes"
trials for the senior Iraqi leadership, several factors may come into
play, any one of which could lead to nuclear war. A desperate, beleaguered
Iraqi leadership could order attacks with biological or chemical weapons
(whatever limited ability they may have) against U.S. forces, Israel,
or the Gulf States, leading to retaliation with nuclear weapons. The
Pentagon might use nuclear weapons against Iraqi 'weapons of mass destruction,'
real or fabricated(all "evidence" would be conveniently vaporized).
A significant number of U.S. ground troops might become besieged, as
in Khe-Sanh, Vietnam with resulting nuclear weapons use.(modern battlefield
nukes make this scenario even more likely today.51) Iraqi leadership
might take shelter in a highly fortified and defended bunker and nuclear
weapons used against it. The oppressed peoples of the Gulf region might
rise up in rebellion against their tormentors in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait,
threatening U.S. control of the oil fields. These scenarios
encompass by no means the only potential contingencies described in
the recent NPR.
The chaos and confusion sown
by unilateral U.S. action against Iraq, and continuation of the mindless
and ineffectual "war on terrorism" may have unintended consequences.
Israel could attempt to take advantage of a U.S. attack to intensify
its near genocidal oppression of the Palestinians, risking a military
confrontation with the neighboring Arab states; a war which could easily
become nuclear.52 (Those who doubt Israel's willingness to use its substantial
nuclear weapons arsenal should consider that in 1998 80% of Israelis
supported the use of nuclear weapons.)53 Complicating the situation
further, Israel has been openly weighing air strikes against a Russian
built Iranian nuclear power reactor, a strategy similar to the destruction
of the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. Under Secretary of State John Bolton's
recent statements to Israeli officials that "he has no doubt America
will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats
from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards,"54 will undoubtedly
further fan the flames of war . Bolton, Undersecretary for Arms Control
and International Security, in Orwellian fashion typical of the Bush
regime, is a long-standing and vehement opponent of arms control.
Noam Chomsky, among others,
has accused of broad sections of the peace movement of providing "ideological
support" for Israel by ignoring or downplaying Israeli aggression
and possession of nuclear weapons. "The unwillingness of major
segments of the peace movement to face this issue- and more generally,
to confront the question of how a nuclear war is likely to break out
as a result of tensions and conflicts in the third world to which the
U.S. makes a significant contribution- deserves some thought. It is
a stance that reflects a curious arrangement of priorities on the part
of people who are committed to reducing the likelihood of nuclear war."55
Pakistan and India on the
Brink
The present U.S. "military
footprint" in Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan
and Afghanistan will inflame Arab, Islamic and Hindu nationalism, threatening
the stability of several states in the region, especially Pakistan,
which possesses an arsenal of several dozen atomic bombs.56 Toppling
of the Musharraf dictatorship, reportedly under attack by rogue elements
in the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Agency, could easily intensify
the already near war situation between India and Pakistan over Kashmir,
leading to nuclear conflict. Reversing years of India's opposition to
nuclear weapons, "the Hindu fundamentalist, right wing
, Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP),"57 has strongly embraced nuclear
weapons. Additionally, there are credible reports that the U.S., working
in coordination with Israel, is contemplating raids to capture Pakistan's
nuclear arsenal, a harebrained scheme that if true is likely to backfire
with potentially catastrophic results. "Joseph R Biden, chairman
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has confirmed that President
George W Bush is consulting senior leaders on plans to neutralize Pakistan's
nuclear
capabilities if the Musharraf
regime collapses. He told a Council on Foreign Relations meeting in
New York that "those discussions are under way with members of
Congress"58 The U.S. State Department has denied the story.59
India and Pakistan have brought the world to the brink of
nuclear war. Most press accounts describe the deadly standoff in terms
of a dispute over Kashmir, but the roots of the crisis are firmly interwoven
with U.S. policy. Since the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, Pakistan
has been a client state of the U.S. and the cornerstone of the CIA's
anti-Soviet terror campaign in Afghanistan. It was in the context of
massive U.S. support that Pakistan, with help from China, developed
its nuclear arsenal, a project which would have been seriously complicated
without U.S. financial and diplomatic support. Pakistani Intelligence(ISI)
has been coordinating the terror war in Kashmir, largely fought by veterans
of the CIA's Afghan campaign. "In late 1997, India's... RAW(CIA
equivalent) estimated that some 800 to 1,000 foreign guerrillas, many
veterans of the Afghan jihad of the 1980s... were unleashed in the Kashmir
battle."60 In September, 1997 India reported killing 302 guerrillas,
including 118 Afghans and 106 Pakistanis.61 This CIA initiated terror
campaign is currently being replicated around the world from Chechnya
to the Philippines to Macedonia.
India too has been the object
of U.S. policies. During the Cold War, the U.S. tried, with only limited
success, to drive a wedge between India and the Soviet Union. Following
the collapse of the Soviet Union, India has became a potential strategic
asset in the campaign to surround and isolate China and Russia. Since
9-11 the U.S. has resumed weapons sales to India and announced renewed
military cooperation. In return, India has voiced support for Bush's
Ballistic Missile Defense program. Meanwhile, the U.S. has also resumed
direct military sales to Pakistan. Each side now sees itself as the
favored U.S. client state. "The new relations of India and Pakistan
with the U.S. A. have also promoted the prospects of a nuclear war between
the two South Asian neighbors. "Each is interpreting statements
and signals from the endless stream of U.S. and Western emissaries to
the region over the recent period in terms that encourage them and exacerbate
the tensions."62
In a strategy reminiscent of
the Iran-Iraq war and numerous other regional conflicts, the U.S. is
arming and abetting both sides in the nuclear standoff. "Advise
both sides on the conduct of war. Arm both sides in the conflict, fueling
America's military-industrial complex. Develop joint military and intelligence
cooperation with both countries, enabling the U.S. to oversee the theatre
of an eventual war. Fracture and impoverish both countries. Restore
the Empire."63 The purpose of the orchestrated escalation in South
Asia is not just to extend the U.S. sphere of influence in Central and
South Asia, but to complete the encirclement and isolation of Russia
and China as part of a strategy to maintain hegemony and secure relatively
untapped resources and markets.
Conclusions
The use of nuclear weapons
in war, whatever the rationale, risks global annihilation. If nuclear
weapons are used in Iraq, it is almost certain that both the U.S. and
Russia(and all other nuclear weapons states) will implement a heightened
nuclear alert status. Currently the U.S. has about 7,600 deployed strategic
nuclear weapons64 and Russia has about 5,60065 , but the numbers alone
do not tell the entire story. Russia's nuclear arsenal is undependable
and deteriorating, while the U.S. arsenal is robust. The bulk of Russia's
warheads(over 3,000) are deployed on land-based ICBMs, vulnerable to
the Pentagon's first strike weapons, while most of the U.S. warheads(again,
over 3,000) are deployed on utterly impregnable Trident submarines.
With both sides adopting a 'launch on warning' policy, this strategic
asymmetry greatly destabilizes the 'balance of terror' and lowers the
threshold to nuclear war. In the case of Russia, if the Kremlin believes
that a U.S. first strike is imminent, the pressure to launch their weapons
before they are destroyed would be overwhelming.
There are still nearly 25,000
nuclear weapons in existence worldwide, with over 5,000 strategic weapons
on hair trigger "launch on warning" alert; more than enough
to precipitate "nuclear winter" and potentially destroy life
on earth.66 The recent much ballyhooed nuclear arms reduction agreement
with Russia is a PR sham designed only for public consumption. The treaty
calls for unspecified reductions in nuclear warheads to a total of between
1,700 and 2,200 by 2012 The lower limit of 1,700 warheads is entirely
voluntary and the treaty does nothing to restrain the proliferation
of tactical nukes, a key element in Bush's nuclear plans. The real purpose
is "to create a diplomatic illusion of nuclear arms restraint to
accelerate Russia's integration into the U.S. led free market system,
ensuring Russia's role as a natural resource supplier."67 This
treaty allows the U.S. to increase its arsenal at any time, so long
as the numbers are at 2,200 in 2012, at which point the treaty expires
and the limits would balloon to the 6,000 mandated under START 1.(Theoretically,
the U.S. could comply with the treaty by removing warheads from missiles
for one day in 2012 and reinstalling them a day later!) Each side is
required to give only 90 days notice of intent to withdraw. "'What
we have now agreed to do under the treaty is what we wanted to do anyway,'
a senior administration official said today. 'That's our kind of treaty.'"68
According to Senator Edward
Kennedy(D. MA), "Initiating the use of nuclear weapons would make
a conflict with Iraq potentially catastrophic... the administration's
radical consideration of the possible use of our nuclear arsenal against
Iraq is itself a grave danger to our national interests, our nation
and all that America stands for."69 Bill Arkin warns, "The
danger is that nuclear weapons -- locked away in a Pandora's box for
more than half a century -- are being taken out of that lockbox and
put on the shelf with everything else. While Pentagon leaders insist
that does not mean they take nuclear weapons lightly, critics fear that
removing the firewall and adding nuclear weapons to the normal option
ladder makes their use more likely -- especially under a policy of preemption
that says Washington alone will decide when to strike. To make such
a doctrine encompass nuclear weapons is to embrace a view that, sooner
or later, will spread beyond the moral capitals of Washington and London
to New Delhi and Islamabad, to Pyongyang and Baghdad, Beijing, Tel Aviv
and to every nuclear nation of the future."70
The real key to preventing
the use of nuclear weapons, an act which will inevitably have calamitous
consequences for the entire world, lies in the ability of the anti-nuclear,
anti-intervention, social justice and antiglobalism movements to understand
that their issues are inextricably linked. The task is not an easy one.
For example, In the teeth of unprecedented nuclear saber rattling by
Bush, the April, 2002 mobilization which brought 100,000 to Washington
featured only two speakers on the nuclear threat(Helen Caldicott and
Phil Berrigan), while the June 12, 1981 anti-nuclear protest in Central
Park, during the height of the Israeli annihilation of Beirut, failed
to address Israeli aggression or the intervention issue at all. Our
daunting task is complicated even further by the present jingoistic
atmosphere and Constitutional lawlessness that have undoubtedly intimidated
millions from speaking out.
In The Dialectics of War, Martin
Shaw writes, "By the time nuclear war is even likely, war-resistance
may be largely beside the point. The resistance to nuclear war has to
be successful in the period of general war-preparation. The key question
is the relationship between militarism and antimilitarism, and the wider
social struggles of the society in which nuclear war is prepared."71
He argues that "If the values which sustain all the social movements
for change suffer when nuclear militarism is in the ascendancy ...the
relationship between nuclear militarism and society implies a general
strategic relationship between peace movements and wider movements for
social change."72 The best strategy for abolishing nuclear weapons
is to broaden and strengthen the people's movement to challenge all
aspects of the corporate imperial state.
1 Robert Aldridge, The Counterforce
Syndrome: A Guide to U.S. Nuclear Weapons and Strategic Doctrine, (Washington,
Transnational Institute, 1978) p. 9
2 Richard Falk & David
Kreiger, "Taming the Nuclear Monster", (Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation, April 11, 2002), http://www.wagingpeace.org
3 Haruko Moritaki, Message
to the American People, (Hiroshima, Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons
Abolition, 2002) Contact Steve Leeper at leeps@mindspring.com
4 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/02/020227.doomsday2.shtml
5 Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod,
"To Win A Nuclear War: the Pentagon's Secret War Plans,"(Boston,South
End Press, 1987) p.184
6 Arjun Makhijani, "A
Chronology of Nuclear Threats," (Takoma Park, Institute for Energy
& Environmental Research, 1998)
http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-6/threats.html
7 Daniel Ellsberg, "A
Call to Mutiny," Protest and Survive, eds. E.P. Thompson and Dan
Smith, (New York, Monthly Review Press, 1981) p. i
8 Joseph Gerson, "What
is a Deadly Connection?," The Deadly Connection: Nuclear War and
U.S. Intervention, ed. Joseph Gerson, (Philadelphia, New Society Publishers,
1986) p.9
9 William Arkin, The Nuclear
Option in Iraq: The U.S. has lowered the bar for using the ultimate
weapon, (Los Angeles Times, 26 January , 2003)
9 Kaku and Axelrod, pp 166-168
10 Francis A. Boyle, The Criminality
of Nuclear Deterrence: Could the U.S. War On Terrorism Go Nuclear?,
(Atlanta, Clarity Press, Inc., 2002) p. 57
11 ibid, pp. 67-68
12 Louise Franklin-Ramirez
and Howard Morland, Atomic Power and the Arms Race, Twin Evils of the
Split Atom, (Washington, Visual Information Project, 1980, slide 26
13 P.M.S.. Blackett, Fear War
and the Bomb: Military & Political Consequences of Atomic Energy,
(New York, McGraw-Hill, 1949) p. 139
14 Arjun Makhijani and John
Kelly, Target Japan: The Decision to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, (Washington,
Unpublished Manuscript, 1985) P.32. (Published in Japan as Why Japan?)Contact
Arjun Makhijani at arjun@ieer.org
15 George Kennan, Policy Planning
Study 23, (U.S. State Department, 1948) http://www.marxmail.org/facts/quotes.htm
16 Michael Parenti, Against
Empire, (San Francisco, City Lights Books, 1995) P.36
17 [Kaku & Axelrod, pp.
62 - 66]
18 Kaku & Axelrod, pp.
184 - 192
19 Center for Defense Information,
The World's Nuclear Arsenals, (Center for Defense Information, 2002)
http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukearsenals.html
20 Joseph Gerson, With Hiroshima
Eyes: Atomic War, Nuclear Extortion and Moral Imagination, (Philadelphia,
New Society Publishers, 1995) pp. 2-4
21 R. Jeffrey Smith, Clinton
Directive Changes Strategy On Nuclear Arms, (Washington Post, 7 December
1997), p. A1.
22 Daniel Sneider, Bush Policy
On Nuclear Weapons Traced to Cheney after Gulf War, (San Jose Mercury
News, March 15, 2002) P. 2
23 periodically, the pentagon
conducts a 'nuclear posture review'(NPR) for the purpose of updating
and refining nuclear weapons strategy.
24 William M. Arkin, Secret
Plan Outlines the Unthinkable, (Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2002)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-arkinmar10.story
25 David Wastell, US plans
for first-strike nuclear attacks against seven countries (Sunday Telegraph,
10 Mar. 2002, p. 1)
26 Arkin, op. cit.
27 Joseph Gerson, Continuity
and Change in the Aftermath of September 11 , (Speech to Asian Regional
Exchange for New Alternatives, May 8-9, 2002) www.afsc.org/nero/pesp/jgarena.htm
28 Joseph Gerson, ibid
29 Hiroyuki Sugiyama, Beijing
Tests Missile With Multiple Warheads, (Yomiuri Shimbun, Feb. 8)
30 Walden Bello, Towards a
Just, Comprehensive, and Sustainable Peace in the Asia-Pacific Region
(Focus On the Global South, Speech at the opening session of the Okinawa
International Forum on People's Security, Okinawa, June 29-July 2, 2000)
http://www.focusweb.org/programmes/Security/Okinawa%202000/Walden%20speech.htm
31 Robert M. Bowman, Star Wars:
Defense or Death Star? ,
(Institute for Space and Security Studies, 1985) pp.58 - 63
32 Eugene J. Carroll, Nuclear
Wars Past and Future, (C-SPAN, April 29, 2002)
33 Nuclear Disarmament Partnership(NDP),
Cost Implications of National Missile Defense, (NDP, June 2001) <wwwdisarmament.org/costfactsheet.pdf>
(The NDF estimates that NMD will cost at least $241 billion and probably
much more)
34 Helen Caldicott, The New
Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush's Military Industrial Complex, (New York,
The New Press, 2002) pp. 165-166
35 U.S. Department of Defense,
Donald H. Rumsfeld, 13th Defense Secretary, http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/rumsfeld.htm
36 Caldicott, p. 27
37 Karl Grossman, U.S. Military
moves to "control space"& be "enforcement arm for
the global economy", (Presentation at Technology and Globalization
Teach-In New York City February 24, 2001)
http://www.geocities.com/vafb_m19/articles-grossman1.html
38 Paolo Pontoniere, New U.S.
Military Doctrine Vexes Europeans , New California Media(copyright Pacific
News Service, May 1, 2002)
http://www.ncmonline.com/content/ncm/2002/may/0501newdoctrine.html
39 Pontoniere, ibid
40 Ann Scott Tyson, Bush lays
groundwork for striking first at nations with weapons of mass destruction.
(Christian Science Monitor, February 7, 2002) http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0207/p01s03-usmi.html
41 Thom Shanker, Rumsfeld Asserts
Forces Must Take Risks & Think Creatively to Prepare for New Challenges,
(New York Times, February 1, 2002, National Desk)
42 Bill Berkowitz, Let them
eat guns: Rumsfeld's Rambo rumblings for a permanent 'war on terrorism'.
(Working for Change, February 8, 2002) www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemId=12786
43 Eric Schmitt, New Command
Would Meld Missile Defense and Offense, (New York Times, National Desk,
June 25, 2002)
44 Helen Caldicott, On Star
Wars, Space War & Death Merchants, (STAR Foundation, July 11, 2001)
http://www.noradiation.org/cgi-win/caldicott.exe/artidetl118
45 Schmitt, Ibid
46 William Arkin, "The
Nuclear Option in Iraq: The U.S. has lowered the bar for using the ultimate
weapon" , (Los Angeles Times, 26 January , 2003)
47 Joseph Gerson, "in
this fateful hour US, Iraq, Korea, and nuclear weapons", (Z-Net,
February 28, 2003)
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=3155
48 Abolition 2000, Recent Public
Opinion Polls Indicate Overwhelming Support for Nuclear Weapons Abolition,
(Abolition 2000, 2001) http://www.abolition2000.org/polls.html
49 William Arkin and Stan Norris,
Nuclear Notebook, (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1991)
50 Kaku and Axelrod, P. 159
51 John Steinbach, Israel's
Weapons of Mass Destruction, (Covert Action Quarterly, April-June, 2001),
p. 22
52 Asher Arian, Israeli Public
Opinion on National security, 1998, (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies,
1998)
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/memoranda/memo49chp5.html
53 Aluf Benn and Sharon Sadeh,
U.S. to Israel: We'll deal with Syria, Iran after Iraq War (Haartez,
February 17, 2003)
55 Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle,
The U.S., Israel and the Palestinians, (South End Press, 1999) pp. 451
- 452)
54 Robert Burns, U.S. considers
future military relations with former Soviet states, (Sacramento Bee,
April 30,2002)
55 Praful Bidwai, India Politics
http://www.sacbee.com/24 hour/special_reports/terrorism/story/386005p-3072835c.html
Right-wing Party Hardens Nuclear Stance, (Interpress Service World News,
April 5, 2002)
http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/apr98/04_29_002.html
56 Praful Bidwai , Nuclear
worries mount by the day, (Asia Times On-Line, November3, 2001) http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CK03Df06.html
57 Tahir Mirza, US refutes
report about plan to take out Pakistan's N-arms, (DAWN Internet Edition,
October 30,2001
http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/30/top3.htm
58 John A. Cooley, Unholy Wars:
Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, (London, Pluto Press,2000)
pp. 233-234
59 Cooley, p.234
60 J. Sri Raman, South Asia:
Waiting for the U.S.A., (Global Network Against Weapons and Power In
Space, June 1, 2002) http://www.space4peace.org
61 Michael Chossudovsky, Washington
is pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war, (Centre for Research
on Globalisation, 23 May, 2002) http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO205C.html
62 William M. Arkin & Stan
Norris, U.S. Nuclear Forces 2002, (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
May/June 2002) pp.70 - 75
63 William M. Arkin & Stan
Norris, Russian Nuclear Forces 2001, (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
May/June 2001), pp. 78 - 79
64 John Pike, Status of Nuclear
Powers and Their Nuclear Capabilities, (Federation of American Scientists,
January, 1999)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/summary.htm
65 Natural Resources Defense
Council, The Bush-Putin Treaty: An Orwellian Approach to Nuclear Arms
Control, (NRDC, May, 2002 http://www.nrdc,org/nuclear/atreaty02.asp
66 Michael R. Gordon, Treaty
Offers Pentagon New Flexibility for New Set of Nuclear Priorities, New
York Times Foreign Desk, May 14, 2002
67 Senator Edward Kennedy,
Our Nuclear Talk Gravely Imperils Us, (Los Angeles Times, January 29,
2003)
68 William Arkin, The Nuclear
Option in Iraq: The U.S. has lowered the bar for using the ultimate
weapon, (Los Angeles Times, 26 January, 2003)
69 Martin Shaw, The Dialectics
of War: An essay in the social theory of total war and peace, (London,
Pluto Press, 1988) p. 102
70 Martin Shaw, p. 111
_________________________________________________________
Peace Through Reason - http://prop1.org - Convert the War Machines!
Online Petition - http://www.PetitionOnline.com/prop1/petition.html
NucNews Links
- http://prop1.org/nucnews/
_________________________________________________________
* See also:
NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational
and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section
107) *
|
