| Top

Non-Proliferation Begins at Home
by Tyler Schroeder

More than three years ago, the United States marched to war with Iraq, doggedly routing around international law in pursuit of a “preemptive strike.”  The claim was that Saddam Hussein’s regime was working to proliferate chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions.  A connection between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network was strongly implied if not plainly stated by U.S. officials; as the invasion began, President George W. Bush also declared that the war was for the good of the oppressed Iraqi people.  The war and occupation of Iraq has left nearly 2,500 Americans and at least 35,160 Iraqis dead at this writing: what has been accomplished?  Is America safer?  Is Iraq better off?  Has the world improved with the spilling of so much blood?  Where can we go from here to eradicate the global threat of weapons of mass destruction?

It is now clear that weapons of mass destruction existed on no significant scale in Iraq.  It has also become common knowledge that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.  Pre-invasion Iraq simply posed no imminent threat to the U.S. or its interests.  The newly destabilized nation, however, may prove quite dangerous.  Last year, CIA Director Porter Goss stated that “Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists” (Bjerga).  The war’s existence has provided Islamic terrorism with new zeal, and the devastated country of Iraq itself has become a major center for terrorist training.  Militants who have honed their skills in Iraq may soon go on to lead terror campaigns elsewhere, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan (Jehl). With the Iraq invasion, global security has in fact been compromised; the United States and its coalition allies have merely succeeded in trading a relatively contained threat for an upsurge in anti-American sentiment and Islamic terrorism globally.

There is no question of the brutality of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime.  From a humanitarian standpoint, however, inhabitants of the new Iraq fare little better.  The violence of the anti-American insurgency is claiming huge numbers of civilian lives.  John Sloboda, co-founder of the Iraq Body Count project, asserts: “This conflict is proof that violence begets more violence.  The initial act that sparked this cycle of violence is the illegal U.S.-led invasion of March and April 2003...The insurgency will remain strong as long as the U.S. military remains in Iraq, and ordinary Iraqi people will have more death and destruction to look forward to” (qtd. in Chamberlain).   Due to the violence, much of the nation’s infrastructure remains in shambles.  The stagnant economy has twisted the knife of poverty, leaving families living atop garbage dumps (Reuters).  With the loss of parents and resources, Iraq’s children have been increasingly inclined towards child labor, homelessness, and criminal activity (Al-Ghitta).  Another post-war development has been sex trafficking, an issue rare under Saddam (Bennett).  Iraq’s Shia-Sunni sectarian violence has escalated to civil-war proportions.  Had the United States been genuinely concerned about quelling poverty and injustice, it might have chosen better than to spark this avalanche of bloodshed; one 2004 study concluded that the year’s war costs could have cut world hunger in half and covered HIV/AIDS medicine, childhood immunization, clean water, and sanitation for all developing countries for at least two years (qtd. in Lobe).

Will America continue to respond to any perceived threat by creating such devastation? The world will not find an answer to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in force or intimidation.  Rather, the U.S. must lead the charge of a “disarmament race;” reversing the Cold War nuclear arms race in an international drive for peace.  Complete disposal of all U.S. weapons of mass destruction will require massive funds and effort; thus, we must maintain this as our eventual goal while initiating a step-by-step program to prove our commitment and encourage disarmament the world over.  The U.S. may begin by downgrading its entire nuclear arsenal from active status; it must make it clear to the entire international community that it no longer deems nuclear weapons a valid military option and will under no circumstances use them in such a way.  With this step completed in philosophy, our nation can then begin the gradual dismantling and disposal of all of its nuclear weapons, continue the disposal of chemical weapon stockpiles, and halt any and all biological weapons research; all conducted under the scrutiny of international inspectors to ensure to the world that America carries out its intentions.  Simultaneously, we will engage allies and “rogue” states alike in extended dialogue, encouraging them to follow in our footsteps.  By removing the threat we impose with our own weapons of mass destruction, we will effectively make obsolete their necessity.  A final move could be the rededication of military technological resources toward constructive causes–perfecting “weapons of mass compassion” such as alternative energy, sustainable agriculture, novel transportation methods, clean water distribution, methods to alleviate hunger and poverty, and other technologies for environmental and humanitarian purposes.  These tools will help remove further impediments to a peaceful coexistence of people.

Sadly, current defense policy the world over seems mired in the crude patterns of anger, aggression, and retaliation that have existed since the dawn of creation itself.  There is, however, perhaps a glimmer of hope for those of us–the “oddballs,” the “doves”–who seek a new way.  It appears that Americans are finally beginning to grasp the futility of our mistake in Iraq, and, hopefully, of bellicose foreign policy on a whole.  From the ashes of Iraq; of Afghanistan; of Vietnam; of Hiroshima and Nagasaki comes a cry–a cry pleading for society to take up a new weapon against its common enemy.  This weapon is peace; it is forged in courage and tempered in the echoes of past brutality.  The enemy is not one another, but the fear and ignorance that lead us to believe so.  The choice is clear, and humanity has in it the power to wrest its future from a morass of chaos–but only if it is willing to throw down the glorified sticks and stones that are weapons of mass destruction.

Works Cited
Al-Ghitta, Amal Kashf.  “A Terrible War Is Being Waged on Iraqi Children.”  Daily Star - Lebanon.  10 Mar. 2006.  Global Policy Forum.  24 May 2006.

Bennett, Brian.  “Stolen Away.”  Time.  23 Apr. 2006.  24 May 2006.

Bjerga, Alan.  “Extremists Using Iraq for Recruitment and Training, CIA Chief Says.”  Knight Ridder.  16 Feb. 2005.  Global Policy Forum.  24 May 2006.

Chamberlain, Gethin.  “Iraq Civilian Death Toll ‘Highest Since End of War.’” Scotsman.  9 Mar. 2006.  24 May 2006.

Jehl, Douglas.  “Iraq May Be Prime Place for Training of Militants, CIA Report Concludes.”  New York Times.22 Jun. 2005.  Global Policy Forum.  19 May 2006.

| Top

Russian American Roulette
by Mark Hertvik

It’s our own fault, of course.  We built the first atom bomb, the first hydrogen bomb, the first neutron bomb, and ten thousand other weapons of mass destruction.  We keep our loaded nuclear gun pointed at the heads of anyone perceived to be an enemy, and we refuse to relinquish our grip on the handle, even as our twitchy finger inches closer and closer to the trigger.  To resist us is death; to frighten us will be genocide, a nuclear holocaust that will make Hiroshima look like a cherry bomb.

This is what causes nuclear proliferation.  The world sees U.S. as a nuclear cowboy (and Israel as its atomic Tonto) and decides that it needs to start building nuclear weapons.  Fear of Moscow being leveled, not any particular desire to kill millions of people, was what started the arms race.  Relentless threats and anti-Communist rhetoric convinced North Korea to go nuclear, and Iran’s jittery ayatollahs seem to be pursuing the same course.  Deterrence is not a policy invented by the United States; deterrence is a policy inspired by the United States.

The invasion of Iraq demonstrates this point beautifully.  Despite the government’s repeated assertions that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, it was obvious, at least to the rest of the world, that his government was impotent outside its borders and even within them, in the northern “no-fly zone.”  Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, all countries that Iraq had used WMDs against before 1992, did not consider the nation a threat to their safety.

In fact, Iraq was attacked precisely because it was helpless, defenseless, internally weak and externally unpopular.  It took less than a month for the government to capitulate and its leaders to go into hiding.  Then the Iraqis decided that they didn’t want to trade an Iraqi gang of thugs for one in American uniforms.

The scenes were all too familiar to scholars of the Vietnam War.  A populace that decided it didn’t want to be “liberated” into an American puppet state.  Guerrilla warfare countered by bloody “search and destroy” missions into populated areas like the Sadr City slums, Hilla, and especially Fallujah.  The government’s alternating declarations of victory (“Mission Accomplished!,” “the insurgency is in its last throes”) and insidious meddling by other enemies (the occasional, bizarre assertions that Iraq’s weapons are now in Syria, as well as massive operations near the border and even a few shots exchanged).  And the games the government plays with information, limiting journalistic access, alternately denying and defending torture, and releasing suspect casualty numbers (the official number of Iraqi dead is around 30,000, far too many already; some estimates run as high as half a million.)

The entire country has regressed into a bloody killing field, with various factions fighting the U.S. Army and each other for power, since virtually no one accepts the legitimacy of the U.S.-backed government.  The situation there is now openly being described as a “civil war” and is well on its way to “genocidal.”  Meanwhile, the Army chooses not to get involved in the waves of killings sweeping the country, failing to protect the most holy mosque of Shi’ism from bombers and alternately cowering inside the “Green Zone” and conducting raids of farming villages that often end in the destruction of crops and date palm orchards.

Clearly, the American government is not interested in helping the Iraqi people.  And it has been well established that Saddam Hussein was not a danger to citizens of the United States.  Iraq was simply a target of opportunity, with a weak, unpopular dictator, a large, reasonably wealthy consumer class, and of course massive oil resources.  It was just too good a target for the American Wall Street war machine to pass up.

So what is the lesson foreign governments take away from this travesty?  A defenseless country (Iraq, Panama, Grenada, etc.) will be labeled a “threat” and invaded; a nation that builds weapons of mass destruction will be the target of rhetoric and propaganda but otherwise be avoided like the plague it keeps in test tubes “for when the infidels/capitalists/imperialists come.”

In an age of global warfare, the only defense has become to arm oneself with the same apocalyptic weapons as the quasi-imperial superpower that could come for anyone at any time, given that the military PR machine can convince citizens that they’re in danger, they will not have to make sacrifices, and that the war will be over before The Big Game comes on.  But this complex, vexing problem has a blindingly simple and obvious solution: disarm.

If the problem is caused by terror of the American military machine, why not shut it down?  Russia is already working on recovering and destroying its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.  No other country, with the improbable exception of China, has the capability to deliver a nuclear missile from their country to ours.  We’ve lost our nuclear boogieman; why do we need to keep our missiles pointed at the closet?

The new, “emerging” threat is that a terrorist will get his bloody hands on a “suitcase nuke” and blow it up inside the United States.  First of all, who makes weapons like suitcase nukes?  We are.  The United States is responsible for the Nuclear Age because it created the first atomic bomb; otherwise it would be unheard of.  If it’s inevitable that our technology is going to proliferate, the safest thing to do would be to stop creating bigger, badder bombs.

Additionally, missiles couldn’t stop the September 11 attacks, the original 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, or any other terror attack here or abroad.  That leaves one chilling use of nuclear weapons in a frontless battle:  retaliation.  We blow away Cairo out of spite, vaporize Baghdad out of grief, unleash our atomic fury against Damascus.  The only way nuclear arms can be used in a back-alley war against stateless zealots is hideous retaliatory genocide.  They have no useful application as an offensive or defensive weapon.

Weapons of mass destruction can’t protect us anymore, if they ever could, and have been reduced to an annoying little liability that, coincidentally, could destroy the entire world 47 times over with the push of a button.  (47 times, by the way, is an old number that doesn’t keep up with America, Israel, and North Korea’s new atomic toys.)  Isn’t it about time we got rid of them?

We have no enemies that we have not created.  Everything that happens to us happens for a reason.  The world will not breathe easy until America rids itself of its nukes, its poison gases, its jars of plague, and its heavy-handed imperial policy.

Once the Yankees are disarmed, the rest of the world will have nothing to fear.  There will be no need to hoard canisters of sarin gas to keep the American soldiers out.  And if America joins hands with the world’s other nuclear powers, maybe we can all one day be free of weapons of mass destruction.  But our country, the one that’s supposed to be promoting freedom and democracy and is instead spreading global terror, is the best place to start. 

Works Cited
Chomsky, Noam. Imperial Ambitions. 1st ed. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2005.

Chomsky, Noam. Rogue States. Cambridge, MA: South End P, 2000.

Goodman, Amy. The Exception to the Rulers. 1st ed. New York: Hyperion 77, 2004.

Lappe, Anthony, and Stephen Marshall. True Lies. 1st ed. New York: Penguin Group, 2004.

West, Cornel. Democracy Matters. 1st ed. New York: Penguin Books, 2004.

| Top

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Never an Option
by Joe Kenny

Weapons of mass destruction are immoral. There is no situation in which a whole society can be guilty for a crime, so how can anyone justify punishing them as if they were? As long as they exist, they are an option for a leader in a time of crisis. They are also a liability to the order of the civilized world. It is the responsibility of the leading power in the world, the United States, to take the lead in ending the threat of weapons of mass destruction. If this proves to be a task that is too great for the US to handle, or they show that they are unwilling to act in the interest of the international community, then it is up to the international community to make it known that the existence of weapons of mass destruction will not be tolerated.

There is no situation in which the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) can be justified. According to the fourth principle of the Just War Theory, “the use of force must be proportional, that is, no more than what is need to prevent or rectify the wrong.” (Glossop, 24) There would never be a time where the mass destruction of a society is at all proportional to any crime. Crimes can be committed by individuals or groups, but not by a whole society. So if a whole society is punished with the use of a WMD, it is a war crime.

You cannot try to rectify the killing of innocent people by killing more innocent people. This use of a WMD would violate two more principles of the Just War Theory. It is a violation of the part that states that war must be fought with the right intention. “Even in the midst of conflict, the aim of political and military leaders must be peace with justice, so that acts of vengeance and indiscriminate violence, whether by individuals, military units or governments, are forbidden.” It also violates the part that says civilians cannot be targeted. It states that there should be Noncombatant Immunity which means “civilians may not be the object of direct attack, and military personnel must take due care to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians.”(Usccb.org) WMDs are indiscriminant in the damage they cause. They kill enemy soldiers, allied soldiers, and civilians. WMDs are either used out of cruelty or out of desperation and neither one of those are moral because of all of the unnecessary carnage they cause.

 The main principle that stops the use of WMDs in war is known as Mutual assured destruction (MAD). “Mutual assured destruction is the doctrine of military strategy in which a full scale use of nuclear weapons by one of two opposing sides would result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash Equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome--Nuclear Annihilation.”(wikipedia.org) If the use of WMDs spells definite destruction, then how can one justify their existence? Both initial and retaliatory use of nuclear weapons are heinous crimes because of the civilians they kill and all of the long term damage they cause, so what is the point of having them?

As the leading power in the world the United States must be an example for the rest of the world. They must get rid of their weapons of mass destruction in order to help lessen the need for the weapons. There is what is called a “pecking order” among countries. “Pecking order is a system of organization among a flock of poultry. In this system, a bird pecks another bird who is of lower rank, and submits to pecking from a bird of higher rank. The basic concept behind the establishment of the pecking order among, for example, chickens, is that it is necessary to determine who is the 'top chicken,' the 'bottom chicken' and where all the rest fit in between. Consequently, this also determines which chicken gets to eat first or which chicken gets to peck on any other chickens they want. The top chicken is one which can peck any chicken it wants. The bottom chicken is one that lets all the other chickens peck on it and stands up to none. There are chickens in the middle, who peck on certain chickens but are, in turn, pecked on by other chickens higher up on the scale.” (wikipedia.org) The United States has been established as the “top chicken” and the other countries need to have similar technology in order to remain contenders. If the US would get rid of their weapons other countries wouldn’t have any reason to keep theirs. Countries that have weapons of mass destruction know that there aren’t practical situations where a weapon of mass destruction could be used, but they feel they need to have them for some type of retaliation.

If the international community cannot resolve this situation as sovereign states, then they must put more power into the United Nations. The countries that possess WMDs take the UN far too lightly and don’t respect it as a world authority. Powerful countries just use decisions made by the UN to justify their policy. Or if a decision made by the UN conflicts with a powerful country’s agenda, they dismiss it as a political suggestion rather than a legally binding decree. We know that WMDs have no place in this world, it’s just a matter of finding the people that can get rid of them. If the world powers, as they stand today, can’t solve this problem, then the global community will have to make some drastic changes.

| Top

Fostering Harmonic Security in an Insecure World
by Nicole Morales

The foremost concern facing our government in today's world is the security of our nation and our people. Nuclear proliferation and terrorism are the most imminent threats to this security. As the greatest example of democracy, wealth, and power the world has ever seen, the U.S. holds in its grasp the opportunity to keep our country safe by preserving the legitimacy of the global community.

It is not fair for the people of the U.S. to be ruled by fear; terrorism must be stopped at its origins. To do this, the U.S. must conquer the oppression, poverty, and desperation in unstable areas of the world such as Northern Africa and in countries of the Middle East. The U.S. must take preventive action through military and diplomatic approaches because it is unacceptable for the most powerful and technologically advanced country in the world to practice reactive politics in regard to human life. America cannot forget that it was founded on the premise of the preservation of basic freedoms for all people; the realization has begun of the importance of protecting the fundamental freedoms which transcend borders, race and social class. It is becoming more evident that we need the support of other nations as well to achieve this goal, as demonstrated by the unilateral action in Iraq.

At the turn of the twenty-first century, a trend of globalization brings with it positive and negative effects. While many prosper from the economic benefits of such an open and expanded market, emerging prejudices and paranoia has also become apparent. The U.S. and its allies must work to create a popular culture that promotes not just tolerance but a spirit of unity among people of all nations towards solutions of the world's problems. Since the Cuban Missile Crisis, a rift between the U.S. and Cuba's diplomatic relations have ceased. Americans must begin the process of restoration of perspective and must put aside cultural prejudices that we have linked with terror, and Cubans must absolve the barrier for anti-American sentiment so that our nations can work peacefully together.

For the U.S. to fight this battle alone is impossible. The U.S. must instill in our relations a sense that the U.S. is working alongside other nations to achieve common goals, not only with our allies but with our traditional opponents. To foster security on a global scale, a reevaluation of current policies and global agreements is necessary. Trust and interdependence between states takes priority over individual sovereignty. Although many countries are unwilling or incapable of making the sizeable transition to world government, that does not mean we cannot foster a global community of shared interests that would promote the general well-being of all of humanity. The administration can achieve this by hosting and proposing regional policy forums, creating bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements, and reaffirming formal alliances.

One of the greatest divides between the U.S. and other countries is our policies regarding nuclear weapons. The U.S. cannot afford to alienate other countries, as we have done in Iran and in doing so make it vulnerable to the anti- Americanism that fuels terrorism. To attain global support it is imperative that the U.S. show a willingness to coincide the disarmament of a portion of our arsenal with the deactivation of their nuclear weapons programs. To attain peace between our countries, the U.S must be willing to negotiate with Iran and North Korea. Though we do not want to allow non-security council member countries the ability to have weapons of mass destruction, it would put our society in grave danger to break relations with states which pose a risk of either current or future nuclear proliferation.

The common desire for freedom unites nations who may otherwise have different ideologies. It is important that the administration creates policies that reflect the growing interdependence. With the cooperation of other nations the U.S. can create a terror-free world.