WE DONT NEED MORE NUKES
BY JULIANNE MALVEAUX
When a classified Defense Department document was leaked to the press it
raised both concerns and eyebrows at home and abroad. The Nuclear Posture
Review cites the need for new nuclear arms that could have a lower yield and
produce less nuclear fallout. These weapons could be designed to destroy
underground complexes, including chemical and biological arms. The targets
might be situated in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya or North Korea, China, or
Russia. Some of these countries have previously been identified as part of
the axis of evil. Others, like China and Russia, have been our uneasy
allies. US military leaders deflect criticism of the Nuclear Posture Review,
describing it as little more than a contingency plan.
In the wake of September 11, some think contingency planning is in order.
Nuclear weapons cant combat terrorism and could not have prevented September
11. Indeed, the basic purpose of nuclear weapons, historically, has been
deterrence, not aggression. Therefore, recent contingency plans that call
for the development of nuclear weapons to fight wars, are alarming.
They also dont seem to take world realities into account. Havent we learned,
from September 11, that there is tremendous resentment of the United States
in the rest of the world? Some countries resent us for our power, for our
massive symbolism, and for our freedoms. Others simply resent the fact that
we have, and they dont. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that we
need to be dealing with nuclear non-proliferation, not nuclear development.
When we speak of further developing our nuclear capacity, it seems to me that
we signal others that they should develop their capacity as well. After all,
nukes may be good friends to those who have them, but they most certainly
dont invite feelings of good will from countries that dont. The
Machiavellian mindset that governs the Pentagon and National Security Council
and puts us back on the Cold War, nuclear competition track, is not healthy,
safe, or secure.
Womens Action for New Directions (WAND), a Washington, D.C.-based public
policy organization works actively to promote nuclear disarmament, nuclear
de-alerting (when nuclear weapons are taken off hair trigger alert) and
nuclear non-proliferation. One of their main foci is to raise the debate on
what real security is and advocate for a budget that promotes real security.
And that Missile Defense System thats been much ballyhooed by Republicans
since Reagan was in the White House is a prime example of what is not real
security. Real security is fostered by a reduction in nuclear weapons and
materials but the Bush administration does not agree. According to WAND,
the Bush administration has cut the budget of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative
Threat Reduction and Nonproliferation Programs from $1 billion per year to
just $700 million this despite a bipartisan task forces finding in 2001 that
loose weapons and materials and know-how in Russia [is] the most urgent unmet
national security threat to the United States and that funding should rise to
$3 billion a year and up to $30 billion over the next eight to ten years to
improve security over Russias nuclear stockpile.
To be sure, there are still threats to our national security. Part of the
threat is our own possession of nuclear weapons! This Missile Defense System
of which our President speaks so highly is designed to warn and protect those
on American soil in the event of a nuclear attack. If there were no nukes,
there would be no need for the Missile Defense System. Like the school kids
who, when things get a bit rowdy, get their rubber bands or water guns
confiscated by teachers, countries who historically havent had the means of
destruction (India, Pakistan, North Korea) are looking forward to the day
when they will be able to compete (i.e., possess nuclear weapons). We can
blame a lot of the worlds sentiment towards the United States not necessarily
on nuclear proliferation but on egotism that has fueled both our own
superiority complex and certain folks vengeful agenda of terrorism against
us. Can we put the brakes on this? If we recall the economic impact of
the Cold War, and the way the nuclear arms race crowded out social spending
in the US and the former Soviet Union, wed do well to try. Many blame the
astronomical cost of the arms race for the collapse of the former Soviet
Union. Can we really afford to start this again, with world poverty as high
as it is? Couldnt the money be better spent? Will more nuclear weapons
really increase our security?
We dont need more, safer nuclear weapons. We need to tamper our power
with reason and wisdom. One way to do that would be to shelve contingency
plans that only have the effect of alienating us against the rest of the
world. In the wake of September 11, Womens Action for New Directions wrote,
The United States should reject the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons
of mass destruction. Instead, weve taken a step in the wrong direction.