US Presidential
Elections:
An Opportunity For Debate On US Nuclear
Weapons Policy
by David Krieger*, February, 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
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 of attacks 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 – likely wrongly – to
destroy nearly all of the other side’s retaliatory force
(the remainder would be calculated – likely wrongly – 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:
- Removing all US nuclear weapons from hair-trigger
alert, in conjunction with similar initiatives from Russia.
- 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.
- Reinstituting US Negative
Security Assurances not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear
weapon states.
- Pledging No First Use
of nuclear weapons and making this
legally binding.
- Making all reductions in
nuclear armaments irreversible through treaty agreements
and verified inspection procedures.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 to
all humanity, indeed to all life on earth.
*David Krieger is President of the Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the co-author
of Nuclear Weapons
and the World Court.
|
