U.S. Nuclear Policy

The LA Times recently leaked a document called the “Nuclear Posture Review” (excerpts, briefing). In it, contingencies are discussed about using nuclear weapons in the current campaign, under which conditions they’d be used and against whom and which types are needed and must be developed/tested further.

I suppose the obvious questions is why can’t the U.S. just say they wouldn’t use nuclear weapons? I mean, I thought they were the good guys. I understand about carrying a big stick, but when you carry only a stick and the stick is so big that you have to put all of your principles (such as they may be) down in order to carry the stick, then perhaps you aren’t as good as you’re telling everyone you are.

Why is it never possible to take the high ground? With a world terrified of the possibility of the largest power on Earth pursuing war in probably several of 60 countries in which this elusive enemy may be hiding, the U.S. can’t even give them the reassurance that the U.S., paragon of all that is good and right, will maintain the high ground and refrain from using the most destructive and poisonous weapon available.

Why can’t the U.S. just say, “No, we won’t use nuclear capability. At all.” Then, the world, and the enemy, has a far better picture of what this conflict will entail. With this type of dialogue, how do countries even know whether they are the enemy or not? The U.S. has plans to rout Al Qaida from the 60 countries they inhabit and they’re willing to use nukes to do it. Isn’t it possible that this type of policy might serve to tip other countries’ hands? (see Bush Nuke Policy Will Scare Both Friends And Enemies on CounterPunch.)

But, the U.S. is always caught in playing ‘bad cop’, acting as crazy as possible, so that the enemy won’t know what’s coming. How does that separate the Coalition Against Terror from the insane enemy, Al Qaida, we’ve heard so much about? Isn’t their agenda to wipe us off the face of the planet (or so we’ve been told)? Now the goal of the U.S. is to wipe them off the face of the planet first. And they’re willing to take everyone else with them.

Of, course the Posture Review simply said nukes would be used in a retaliatory manner or to attack targets not accessible by other means, but where does that end? Then they unleash whatever they have, the U.S. strikes back, blah, blah, blah. In War Is Now the Cover Story… in the New York Newsday

“The Bush administration has asked the military to design plans for mini-nukes, bunker-shattering nukes, nukes to be used in retaliation and also “in the event of surprising military developments.”

Administration’s Secret “Nuclear Posture Review” Not So Secret Anymore on Plastic has several interesting comments about this disclosure. When Is Your New Ally… points out how unfair it is that Russia is still on the list of seven dangerous countries, even though they’ve been offering up every imaginable service as allies recently.

Another post, Shaping Public Opinion makes a good point about these types of ‘leaks’, one that is well worth considering with each piece of ‘news’ you read:

“My take on the “leaking” of news, whether it be the bombing of Iraq or some tidbit of questionable worth aimed at staining the character of a rival, is nothing more than testing (and tainting) the waters. As a pilot before instrument flying looked at a windsock to assist in a landing, today’s leaders analyse public opinion to guage whether they can get away with their next big move. … If there is a trend in politics, it is the increased precision with which those at the top use leaks, spin, and polls. It is clear to me that all this flap about bombing is nothing more than a naked attempt to shape public opinion and guage the political will prior to making the next move.”

Put Up Yer Nukes… on AlterNet covers the leak, but also quotes from earlier Rumsfeld interviews in which he speaks about the War on Terror in more concrete terms:

“… put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities − - ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare…””

First of all, there is no one country that even comes close to having the bristling arsenal that the U.S. boasts. Not even close. The amount of money the U.S. puts into its ‘defense’ system is staggering. As you can see above, the problem being solved in the latest salvo aimed at the world by the U.S. is the same one as ever: other countries are allowed to exist only insofar as they serve U.S. economic purposes and other countries are by no means allowed to possess any sizable destructive capabilities of their own whatsoever. Until that situation exists, U.S. foreign policy will continue in exactly this fashion. Because that is the only way to make the world safe for U.S. citizens, and it is only right to do so, after all. And the biggest fraud of all? That this is a goal acheivable by military might only.

U.S. Nuclear Policy Deters Threats in the New York Newsday, by “senior research fellows at the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies”, which continues the claims that:

“Countries hostile to the United States are indeed developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that could do us grave harm. … And they are producing and storing these weapons in deeply buried and hardened sites that might be invulnerable to all but nuclear weapons.”

And why are they making these weapons? (if, in fact, they are making them…because that fact has not yet been established. You see, manufacture of some of these weapons require levels of technology fantastically beyond the capabilities of many of the accused nations, particularly those pesky ICBMs, which require billions of dollars of infrastructure just for maintenance, but the illusion of their existence must be kept going so that the Missile Defense System can proceed apace. Whew.) Because the U.S. has them and is willing to use them. Because wars are increasingly fought with this type of terrible technology − dropping bombs from afar. Perhaps if wars were still declared, or even fought by declared parties, nations wouldn’t resort to these types of weapons. Who knows?

And what are the odds that the latest target, Iraq, could possibly still have nuclear capability, if, in fact, they ever had it? A CounterPunch article by Tariq Ali called Attacking Iraq Brings Nuke Holocaust Closer quotes Pentagon officials in 1999 as saying that bombing in Iraq has very few targets left. In fact, “We’re down to the last outhouse”. Don’t forget either that the threat of Iraq appeared only once they stopped cooperating with the U.S.:

“As Iraq crushed Communists at home and fought Iranian mullahs abroad, few apprehensions about its weapons were expressed. … Once the Iraqi regime had turned against Western interests in the Gulf, of course, the possibility of it acquiring nuclear weapons suddenly became an apocalyptic danger.”

In the face of the U.S. determination to disarm the rest of the world, isn’t it possible that disrespect of enemy and ally alike will lead to more armament? Especially when it is possible to obtain armaments now that give power all out of proportion to strength? The report goes on to assert that “These plans were based on the sound logic that threats work only if they are credible” and then mentions that “critics of the nuclear review should debate the implications for deterrence and stability of its one truly innovative feature − the decision to rely more heavily on conventional and missile- defense capabilities in U.S. strategic doctrine.” Again, that MDS rears its ugly head. Even with the MDS, though, they note that “… posing a credible threat to critical targets in rogue states (or, for that matter, Russia and China) does not require the thousands of nuclear warheads the administration plans to keep.”

Even The Onion weighed in on this one. Their latest “What Do You Think” asked about the The Nuclear Response has some nice (fake) quotes, like “Finally, the president is listening to what the American people want” and “At least this means they’ll be reopening the nuclear-warhead factory here in Flint, MI”.

Perhaps the saddest thing is that the Cold War isn’t really over. It’s just changed character a bit. There is no large superpower opposing the U.S., but somehow justifications for a larger and larger military machine work their magic on voters and constituents. Long ago, in another war, nukes were also considered. Robert Scheer wrote The Still Bad New Old Nixon , which talks about the newly released Nixon tapes that catch the former U.S. president insisting:

“I’d rather use the nuclear bomb.“ … He even chides Kissinger for being overly worried about noncombatant victims: “You’re so goddamned concerned about the civilians, and I don’t give a damn. I don’t care.”

On a positive note, he mentions, quite rightly, that this is one of the only nations in history in which this type of damning evidence would ever come to light. We can be thankful for that and take it as a sign that the U.S. hasn’t slipped irrevocably far down the slope. Before we jump to conclusions, though, don’t forget that President Bush has revoked (or modified, actually) the Presidential Records Act to make sure that future, and past (starting with Reagan onward) secrets stay hidden.