HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/today/editor/opi3.htm The Nation (Pakistan) March 21, 2002 US Nuclear Policy Review Aziz-ud-Din Ahmad The recently leaked Nuclear Policy Review reveals a basic shift in US nuclear doctrine. Earlier the vast nuclear arsenal at the disposal of Washington was considered by it to be enough to discourage any country to initiate a nuclear war. Every member of the nuclear club knew that in case any of them took recourse to the deadly weapons, the result would be mutual assured destruction (MAD). The mere possession of these weapons, it was agreed, was enough to ward off the possibility of their use. The new doctrine is on the other hand aggressive in nature and allows US to undertake pre-emptive nuclear strikes. So from MAD the US has changed over to UAD, that is unilateral assured destruction. The Nuclear Policy Review envisages three scenarios when nuclear weapons could be used by America, i.e., when dealing with targets capable of withstanding attacks by conventional weapons, in retaliation against an attack by nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and in response to surprising military developments. Henceforth the US is free to employ these weapons in conflict situations to defeat countries declared by it to be enemies, unmindful of the consequences of a nuclear holocaust. Coming after unilateral withdrawal by US from the 1972 ABM Treaty, the development is bound to cause jitters across the world. It is also easy for the world now to realize the full implications of Bush administration's National Missile Defence (NMD) programme. After erecting a shield around America to protest it from incoming missiles, Washington is free to use its own nuclear weapons against any country and may without fear of retaliation wipe out its population, destroy its industries, power stations, railway system and airports and thus force it to surrender as it did Japan after attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Originally the Review envisages a possible use of these weapons against seven countries, i.e., Russia and China which are nuclear powers, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran which have been declared as axis of evil by Mr. Bush and Libya and Syria. Four of the seven possible targets are Muslim countries. Keeping in view the increasingly belligerent attitude of the Bush administration, the addition of more countries to the list cannot be ruled out. The policy review has elicited sharp reactions from both Russia and China. "How can you reconcile it with declaration by the US that it no longer considers Russia as an enemy?" Commented a foreign office spokesman in Moscow. Vladimir Putin was preparing to enter into a deal with Bush envisaging massive nuclear arms cuts during the forthcoming summit in Moscow. According to the plans Moscow was to reduce the number of nuclear warheads to 1,500 while Washington was to scale these down from 6,000 to 1,700. The policy review is bound to give birth to misgivings which could hamper the move at arms reduction. China has reacted even more strongly to the development. On Sunday, US ambassador was called to foreign office in Beijing to be bluntly told that China considered the policy review as nuclear blackmail. "The days when China could be bullied are gone forever," Vice Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing told the ambassador. Among the scenarios where US could order nuclear strikes is the one in which China forcibly reunites Taiwan to the mainland. The new doctrine opens the prospect of nuclear attack on non-nuclear states also renouncing the earlier pledge that these countries would not be subjected to such attacks. With the pledge which had underpinned the non proliferation treaty broken, some of these countries might also try to acquire nuclear weapons. The pursuit will divert their scarce resources from economic and social development to wasteful expenditure on nuclear arms and will increase poverty levels in these countries. It would at the same time exacerbate regional tensions which could lead to wars. The new doctrine aims at developing atomic weapons of a new type which could be used with a mix of other lethal weapons. These are to be smaller and more sophisticated in order to be used by field commanders at their discretion for tactical purposes against limited targets, like ships, tank concentrations or relatively small enemy formations. There would be nuclear weapons capable of penetrating into bunkers used by enemies like Saddam Hussain or destroy nuclear stockpiles located deep down in mountain caves or inside fortified steel and concrete structures. The development of new type of nuclear weapons will force Russia and China to develop similar systems. European countries which are bound to feel insecure would follow suit. An unprecedented arms race involving both nuclear and a number of non-nuclear countries would thus be initiated. This will make the task of terrorist groups easy. They have so far tried without success to acquire non-conventional weapons. A revival of the arms race will multiply the number of the scientific personnel involved in the activity. The larger the number of people associated with the production of such weapons, the more the possibility of leaks and mishandling. It would be easier than it is now for motivated terrorists to acquire the type of deadly weapons they want. Like other major powers, Russia and China have carefully watched the recent war in Afghanistan which was won by the US with minimum losses of manpower and in record time. The war established the superiority of hi-tech arms and ammunition at the disposal of Pentagon. It would have made them consider if the conventional weapons at their disposal were any match for those in the US armoury. There are many who think that Washington's state-of-the-art weapons systems are far ahead of other countries. The US has so far depended on land-based, air-based and ship-borne nuclear weapons and it was possible for Russia and China to develop similar defences, thus maintaining the balance of terror. Now the US has come up with a new triad of defence-cum-offense system consisting of a smaller but more efficient nuclear arsenal, state-of-the-art conventional weapons of mass destruction and the National Missile Defence programme. The recent change in nuclear doctrine leaves the two countries with no option but to develop more efficient nuclear weapons capable of penetrating whatever missile shield the US succeeds in devising. This would make the world more insecure than it is. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards® http://movies.yahoo.com/ --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
