By Moondustgypsy1
December 17, 2004
United States President George W. Bush not
only criticized the Iraqi government of making the world unsafe because of its alleged weapons of mass destruction program
(nuclear, chemical, and biological), which would immediately cause the deaths of many worldwide but unilaterally declared
war against Saddam Hussein in March of 2003. Saddam Hussein never used one weapons of mass destruction against the United
States. The United States is in unique company regarding the use of and stockpiling of nuclear arms. To date, the United States
is the only nation in the world to ever have used nuclear weapons. On August 6 & 9 of 1945 the United States dropped two
atomic bombs on Japan to end World war II. However, since Hiroshima, the thought of using nuclear weapons was seen as a last
resort for those making war policy in the United States. Since WWII the defense strategy has focused mainly on the use of
conventional weapons rather than the nuclear weapons option as a deterrent against possible attack. With the arrival of the
most radical Executive administration, (President Bush) perhaps, in all of civilization, the United States which has adopted
a unilateral policy which does not adhere to the "no first use doctrine" of George F. Kennan now advocates unleashing the
most destructive weapons ever created by man onto nations who pose nothing more than a rhetorical threat, if not an imaginative
one.
The Bush administration views nuclear weapons
as a tactical advantage in the same manner a rapist would put a gun to their victim’s head until you are told what to
do or else. The tragedy of the United States is in its irrational yet immoral nuclear arms strategy by its grand design to
use nuclear weapons in an offensive, rather than defensive, manner. So much for Christian morals. So far the Christians in
the United States have more weapons to kill than the so-called atheists in the former Soviet Union, now Russia.
The Bush administration has displayed a very
energetic energy policy led by Vice-President Dick Cheney. Despite the "official" end of the Cold
War, the United States and Russia still have "2500 nuclear bombs on hair trigger alert" but this
has not precluded the Bush administration’s Energy Department in its quest to make inquiries "to mass produce the deadliest
weapons ever made" Thus, despite the end of the Cold War, the Bush administration is using the "War on Terror" to make the
world even more unsafe by a drunken thirst to make more nuclear weapons, as if the present stockpiles would not be able finish
off the human race now. Humanity has a choice to make. This choice is whether you want to spend more money on the arms race,
or to spend more money on the human race. The perverse 2003 military budget of the United States calls for the allocation
of four hundred billion dollars which totals more in costs than the defense budgets of all other nations in the world, combined.
One of the major points in this essay is that
the Bush administration has adopted not only a reckless defense strategy, but one that is obscene predicated on their new
strategy which calls for the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive manner.. According to the Nuclear Posture
Review, there is no longer a "taboo" of using nuclear weapons, which is literally
the "reversal of longstanding policy" dating back to the earliest Cold War period. The Bush administration
has decided to use the "full range of weapons" offensively against hostile nations which it views
to have "major disagreements," whether in vital or periphery areas. .
It should be highlighted that one single nuclear
bomb is enough to bring any one city to a blank status or rubble which is why the populace must begin to think rationally
away from frightful emotion of elected leaders who seem to be on vacation instead of performing the duties of the people they
swore to uphold. The Bush administration was successful in their lying rhetoric over the alleged nuclear threat in Iraq, but
failed to alert Americans that eight nation-states actually possess Armageddon-like capabilities, which includes "50,000
nuclear weapons-enough to destroy the planet several times over."
There are many scientists now who accuse the Bush administration
of using nuclear weapons as an offensive strategy which "broadens the role of nuclear weapons beyond their cold
war function of deterring a Soviet attack." The Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) indicates
clearly that there are now seven countries who could possibly be faced with an American nuclear attack, including, Russia,
China, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Both President Harry S. Truman and Dwight B. Eisenhower rejected the option
to use these various weapons in either Korean war, while Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon rejected its use during the Vietnam war
due to the disproportionate factors of not wanting to risk the lives of humanity or the earth itself, any more than necessary.
Instead of viewing nuclear weapons as a deterrent to war, the Bush administration has veered in a radical direction which
takes on the character of irrational thinking. Paul Nitze the former hawk on American defense strategy who in 1950 was the
Policy Planning Staff Director and signer of NSC-68 has called for the dismantling nuclear weapons.
In March of 2002, the Bush administration’s
nuclear war policy was harshly criticized by three Nobel Laureates, including Hans A. Bethe, Dudley Herschbach and John
C. Polanyi. Bethe was an instrumental player as a physicist in the original Manhattan Project. As part of the
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Bethe, Herschbach, and Polanyi, issued a strong rebuke of the Bush administration’s
pursuit of a new nuclear weapons strategy which they view as a reckless one. These three scientists believe the nuclear policy
decisions made by the Bush administration are quite inconsistent of policy decisions made by past presidents. This led to
their official admonishments towards the Bush administration’s obnoxious bravado ever since the attacks on America on
September 11, 2001. In part the three said in their Nuclear Posture Review that:
The Nuclear Posture Review signals an unfortunate reversal of
longstanding policy, ending the taboo against nuclear weapons by including them in the full range of weapons to be used against
countries with which the U.S. has major disagreements....The Bush administration may be embracing what every previous President
has rejected and could provoke a dangerous escalation of the nuclear arms race at a time when nuclear weapons should be eliminated.
According to Bethe, Herschbach, and Polanyi, the plan to develop
new types of nuclear weapons is irrational. The three scientists point out that the Bush administration is making plans to
build smaller nuclear weapons which would be used strategically that would go after "deeply buried targets."
Logically speaking, once any nation does something successful, as in the past arms race, other leaders want
to follow suit. Therefore, in the military sense, other nations will be more determined to acquire these same types of "usable"
or "small" nuclear weapons. This will not make the United States any more safe, as other nations seek to take revenge or "retaliate"
using "larger and more devastating nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons". Bethe, Herschbach,
and Polanyi also said that:
NPR undermines the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which
187 countries have signed and that commits the five major nuclear weapon states (the U.S., Russia, China, France, and the
UK) to eventual nuclear disarmament. Instead, the Pentagon plan signals a new nuclear build-up that will undercut U.S. diplomatic
efforts focused on stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorists or hostile states. The few countries already
developing nuclear weapons will become more determined to do so. Countries that have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons
under the NPT, already distressed by a growing trend of U.S. unilateralism, may abandon the treaty in the face of a U.S. buildup.
What would be the fait accompli
of the Bush administration’s National Security Strategy and its policy of unilateralism along with the dismissal
of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which 187 countries signed, to deter the world from a Black Day, which would
end humanity as we know now it? Nations who signed the NPT in good faith as well as others who did not sign it may conclude
that a counter-strategy with equal force be developed against America’s new nuclear weapons programs. This is the tragedy
of the very immoral and obscene policy of the Bush administration. Is it moral to break existing treaties which in effect
may cause the destruction of the world and those human beings who want to live life? Already the Bush administration has pulled
out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty which served as a major policy tactic during the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
The ABM treaty was a key element in the arms control agreements since the 1970s as well as being a crucial element to the
notion of deterrence. The breaking of the ABM treaty led the Russian government under Vladimir Putin to "withdraw
from the START II agreement." As reported by Eric Rosenberg of the Hearst news services, on November 21, 2004,
"Russia is building advanced nuclear missiles signals that a new arms race is under way, a development that Bush
administration critics say was triggered by the imminent deployment of the U.S. missile defense system."
Some analysts believe that Putin’s move is a direct response to the new American missile defense program of the Bush
administration that will be ready for full operation by late December, 2004, or early January, 2005. The Bush administration
has developed one system comprised of six rocket interceptors installed in silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, along with four others
to be stationed at Vandenburg Air Force Base in central California.
According to both the ITAR-Tass news agency
and the Hearst news services, Putin allegedly told military officials that the development of new missiles would make Russia
a more potent threat in the new arms race. These nuclear weapons missiles would be the type that other nuclear powers do not
yet possess allowing Putin‘s Russia to hold a strategic advantage. The challenges and the counter-offensive waged
by both the Bush administration and the Putin government has certainly provoked an escalation of the old arms race into a
new one. But without a doubt, the provaceteur, in this new arms race has been the Bush administration’s defiance for
nuclear deterrence as it seeks to develop a new missile defense system. In the future, the United States missile defense system
might be utilized by Taiwan for defense purposes, which, in turn, could propel the Chinese government to build their own nuclear
deterrent program as a counter-offensive. Although there may be cause for concern over the new American threat, the
Russians and the Chinese may also have good reason to doubt the veracity of the new missile defense system. To date, the present
information shows that the American missile defense system has only been successful five times while its had three failures.
The Bush administration who are obsessed with control have not to date openly admitted that the three successful missile
tests were under the authority of Pentagon officials, which leaves room to interpret whether data is manipulated for their
own political reasons.
The biggest diplomatic failure
of the Bush administration has been their unwillingness to seek international cooperation pertaining to arms control agreements,
both past and present. This obvious lack of diplomacy by the Bush administration regarding nuclear arms treaties is more grave
than all the weapons of mass destruction that Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein was "alleged to have", but never the necessary
nuclear delivery capability to hit any of America’s cities. Russia which the Bush administration broke nuclear treaties
with happens to be the one nation which has more than the capability to destroy America. In fact, its seeking to build even
more sophisticated weapons. Say hello, to the new Cold War. For all the former Reaganites who are now employed in the
present Bush administration, I ask, did you really win the Cold War? Or did you return to office to lose the Cold War and
continue your War on Terror which President Reagan declared in 1981? The American people must ask themselves if there will
be any new Osama Bin Laden’s or Saddam Hussein’s created in this second arms race. Bin Laden and Hussein were
both clients of the United States receiving support from past Republican administrations. Why should the human race
in America or elsewhere be dependent upon the politicians in Washington to determine their fate in life? Do you think its
moral or practical in political or economic terms that the Bush administration has on numerous occasions asked for, as Dr,
Helen Caldicott, MD points out, upwards of, "thirty million dollars to fund the construction of a brand
new nuclear bomb factory, which will be able to produce up to 500 new nuclear bombs every year"?
In conclusion, the Bush administration’s National
Security Strategy of 2002, along with its Nuclear Posture Review are arrogant policy
tools which makes America less safe than it was on September 11, 2001. In sum, the Bush administration’s ill-conceived
policies have re-started the arms race because of the gleeful and arrogant right wing Republican faction. Although the right
wing boast that Reagan ended the Cold War, their policy choices has re-ignited the old Cold War arms race despite the collapse
of the Soviet Union.
In closing, the silent war known as the
new nuclear arms race has, in effect, been the creation of President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney as well
as willing Republican members in Congress, the Defense industry, and the Pentagon. Nuclear weapons certainly do cause a balance
of terror. The real terror weapons are not located in Baghdad or Teheran, but right here in Bushland America. For all the
moral rhetoric in the United States, say your prayers and hug your children, for the world could end by the most unthinkable
irrational policymakers in Washington, and of the Republican party. President Bush’s push to bring freedom to the rest
of the world becomes nothing but a shallow vision as long as the nuclear arms race remains at the center of American foreign
policy.
