US
Presidential Elections:
An Opportunity For Debate On
US Nuclear Weapons Policy
By
David
Krieger
President, Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation
TFF
associate
February 25, 2004
In the post 9/11 world there has been strong concern
about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of
terrorists or "rogue" states. The pretext for the
initiation of the US war against Iraq was the concern
that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, including a
suspected program to develop nuclear weapons, posed an
"imminent threat" to the United States. While it turned
out that Iraq had neither such weapons nor programs, the
United States continues to maintain a large nuclear
arsenal as a matter of long-standing national policy.
Whether US nuclear weapons policies serve to promote
prospects for world peace and national security, or
conversely to undermine them, is a question that begs for
serious public debate.
US nuclear weapons policy should be a subject of
concern to every American. Yet there exists some kind of
taboo that prevents the subject from being debated in
public forums, in the media, or in Congress. The US
presidential elections provide an important opportunity
for national discussion and debate on this issue. With
the US nuclear arsenal of some 10,000 nuclear weapons,
along with policies to research more usable nuclear
weapons while ignoring international obligations for
nuclear disarmament, there are critical issues that
require public attention and informed debate.
Throughout the Cold War, the US and USSR built up
their nuclear forces so that each threatened massive
retaliation in a standoff of mutually assured
destruction. This was a high-risk strategy. In the event
of an accident, miscalculation or miscommunication, the
world could have been engulfed in an omnicidal
conflagration. While today the US and Russia are on
friendly terms, each continues to base its nuclear
policy, in major part, on the potential threat posed by
the other.
Despite the enormous changes in the world in the
aftermath of the Cold War, there has not been a serious
public debate in the United States about nuclear weapons
policy that takes into account changes in the global
security environment. To the extent that there has been
consideration of nuclear weapons policy, it has been
almost entirely about preventing the proliferation of
nuclear weapons to other states and to non-state actors,
with virtually no consideration of how US nuclear policy
affects US and global security.
Current US Nuclear Weapons
Policy
The debate about the role of US nuclear weapons has
been almost non-existent, and yet US nuclear policy
affects the security of every person on the planet,
including, of course, every American. Current US nuclear
weapons policy, under the Bush administration, sends a
message to other states that the US intends to rely upon
nuclear weapons for the indefinite future.
The major outlines of current US nuclear weapons
policy are as follows:
- The US continues to rely upon its nuclear arsenal to
threaten retaliation against a nuclear attack, and has
extended this threat of nuclear retaliation to chemical
and biological weapons attacks or threats on the US, as
well as its troops or allies, wherever they are located
in the world.
- Despite previous promises not to use nuclear weapons
against non-nuclear weapons states, the US has developed
contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against five
non-nuclear weapon states: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria
and Libya. (It is possible, but still not certain, that
North Korea has now developed a small nuclear
arsenal.)
- The US has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
(ABM) Treaty, in order to develop missile defenses,
making way for the development of space weapons, despite
promising to preserve and strengthen this treaty.
- The US has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, despite making commitments to do so. While it
still adheres to the nuclear testing moratorium, except
for sub-critical tests and computer simulations, it has
allocated funds to reduce the time needed to ready the
Nevada Test Site to resume testing.
- The US has entered into the Strategic Offensive
Reductions Treaty (SORT) with the Russians to reduce the
deployed long-range nuclear weapons on each side to
between 1,700 and 2,200 by the year 2012, but has failed
to make these reductions irreversible in accord with the
consensus agreement at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty
Review Conference. Additionally, the treaty terminates in
2012 unless extended. Despite this agreement, each side
continues to keep some 2,250 nuclear weapons on
hair-trigger alert, poised to attack the other at a
moment's notice.
- The US has ended a decade-long Congressional ban on
research and development of nuclear weapons under 5
kilotons (mini-nukes), and allocated funds to perform
research on the development of such weapons, increasing
the likelihood of use of nuclear weapons and blurring the
distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons.
- The US has allocated funds for researching more
powerful Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapons, another
way of making nuclear weapons more usable and therefore
more likely to be used.
- The US has allocated funds to create a facility to
produce some 450 plutonium pits annually that could only
be used for new nuclear weapons. This suggests to other
nations that the US is planning to further develop new
nuclear weapons and to possess and rely upon nuclear
weapons for the indefinite future.
- The US has not adhered to the 13 Practical Steps for
Nuclear Disarmament agreed to in the year 2000 by the
states that are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, including the five declared nuclear weapon
states.
- The US has not challenged the reliance on nuclear
weapons by our allies, including Israel, UK and France,
and has made no attempt to provide leadership for
broad-based nuclear disarmament.
In sum, the current US approach to nuclear weapons is
to rely upon them for extended deterrence, to research
more usable weapons, to indicate that its reliance on
these weapons is long-term, to violate treaty agreements,
to unilaterally reverse previous commitments, and to fail
to provide leadership toward significant and irreversible
reductions in nuclear arms. In a post Cold War
environment, with the United States wielding overwhelming
military superiority, there is concern in many parts of
the world that the United States could succumb to what
has been referred to by Richard Falk, a leading
international law professor, as the "Hiroshima
Temptation," to use nuclear weapons against a far weaker
enemy without fear of meaningful response.
US nuclear weapons policy under the Bush
administration appears to be rooted in a "do as I say,
not as I do" approach. This raises two important
questions: Does this policy make the US more secure? Is
this a policy that the American people would support if
they understood it? I believe the answer to both these
questions is No.
A third question arises. Is it possible that members
of the public could raise the issue of US nuclear weapons
policy and stimulate a real debate on the current course
of the country in this year's presidential elections? It
is of utmost importance that the American people
recognize the importance of these issues and raise them
with the presidential and congressional candidates,
forcing these issues into the public arena.
Considerations to Guide US
Nuclear Weapons Policy
In the post-Cold War and post-9/11 world there are
important considerations that should guide US policy on
nuclear arms. These include:
- Nuclear weapons cannot be used against another
country with nuclear weapons without facing retaliation
unless a country can deliver a devastating first-strike
(preventive) attack that would be calculated &endash;
likely wrongly &endash; to destroy nearly all of the
other side's retaliatory force (the remainder would be
calculated &endash; likely wrongly &endash; to be stopped
with missile defenses or to be "acceptable losses"). Such
a first-strike attack would potentially kill tens of
millions of innocent people, be highly immoral and
unlikely to be successful.
- The use of nuclear weapons in a first-strike
(preventive) attack against a country without nuclear
weapons would be both immoral and illegal under
international law.
- The only possible justification for nuclear weapons
is their role as a deterrent. But, so long as nuclear
weapons threaten other nuclear weapon states, the
threatening nation will in turn be threatened, even if it
possesses so-called missile defenses.
- The greater the number of nuclear weapons that exist
in the world, the more likely that one or more of these
weapons will fall into the hands of non-state extremists
that could not be deterred from their use.
- Russia can no longer be considered an adversary of
the United States, and this creates an ideal opportunity
to negotiate with them far greater reductions in nuclear
arms and to make these reductions irreversible.
- China can no longer be considered an adversary of
the United States (in fact, it is a major trading
partner), and US nuclear weapons policy should not
provoke China to further develop its current minimal
deterrent force. However, US development and deployment
of missile defenses is causing China to increase its
deterrence capability.
- By branding nations as part of an "Axis of Evil" and
by demonstrating willingness to engage in preventive
warfare against Iraq, the US provides incentives to other
countries, such as North Korea, to develop nuclear
deterrent forces.
- The greatest threat to US security arises from the
possibility of extremists getting their hands on nuclear
weapons and using them against a US city. The best way to
prevent this possibility is to reduce nuclear weapons
globally to a low number and assure that the remaining
weapons are kept under strict control, preferably
international control. It would also be necessary to
establish a global inventory of weapons-grade fissile
materials and the facilities capable of producing these
materials and to place these under strict international
control. The only way for this to happen is for the US to
take leadership in promoting this course of action. The
US would also have to provide additional funds to help
assure the dismantlement and control of the aging Russian
nuclear arsenal.
- India and Pakistan, relatively recent additions to
the nuclear weapons club, have indicated that they are
willing to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, but not
unless all other countries will do so as well. They are
not willing to live in a world of nuclear apartheid,
further demonstrating that the effort to achieve nuclear
disarmament requires US leadership.
- The widely recognized possession of nuclear weapons
by Israel is provocative to other countries in the Middle
East. Only the United States, due to the large amount of
military aid it provides to Israel, can pressure Israel
to forego its nuclear weapons and move forward with peace
negotiations to resolve the ongoing conflict with the
Palestinians.
- North Korea has indicated that it is willing to
dismantle its nuclear arsenal and rejoin the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty if it is given security
assurances by the US and economic aid. This seems like a
solid basis on which to establish an agreement that would
benefit both North Korea and the international
community.
Given these considerations and the extent to which
current US policy does not reflect them, there needs to
be broad public discussion of these issues. This should
include, and perhaps be led by, a debate among
presidential candidates on the direction of US nuclear
policy. The American people should demand that the
candidates for the presidency of the United States
address these most important security issues facing our
country that will affect the future of all Americans.
A Responsible US Nuclear
Weapons Policy
A responsible US nuclear policy should include the
following:
1. Removing all US nuclear weapons from hair-trigger
alert, in conjunction with similar initiatives from
Russia.
2. Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and
supporting a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty that would
place all weapons-grade nuclear materials in all
countries under strict and effective international
control.
3. Reinstituting US Negative Security Assurances not
to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon
states.
4. Pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons and making
this legally binding.
5. Making all reductions in nuclear armaments
irreversible through treaty agreements and verified
inspection procedures.
6. Putting the development of missile defenses and
space weaponization on hold while negotiating for the
elimination of nuclear weapons under strict and effective
international control.
7. Fulfilling US obligations under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty for "a cessation of the nuclear
arms race at an early date" by ceasing to perform
research on developing new nuclear weapons.
8. Fulfilling further US obligations under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty "to pursue negotiations in good
faith on … nuclear disarmament" by adhering to the
agreed upon 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament,
including "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear
weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of
their nuclear arsenals." The US should convene a meeting
of all nuclear weapon states, declared and undeclared, to
agree upon a treaty for the phased elimination of nuclear
weapons.
Without such changes in US nuclear policy, it is
likely that nuclear weapons will again be used by
accident or design, including finding their way into the
hands of extremists who will not hesitate to use them as
a statement of rage against the US or other countries.
Additionally, serious US efforts to achieve both regional
and global prohibitions on weapons of mass destruction,
nuclear and otherwise, will aid the country in resuming
the leadership role that it has lost in recent years due
to policies of unilateralism, exceptionalism and
belligerence, policies reflective of double standards in
both law and morality.
Each of us has a role to play in bringing these policy
issues into the US presidential and congressional
debates. Candidates should be asked to speak to his or
her plan to reduce the security dangers that nuclear
weapons continue to pose to the US and all humanity,
indeed to all life on earth.
©
TFF & the author 2004
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|