A BUZZFLASH.COM EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
"TIME TO USE THE NUCLEAR OPTION":
This Headline Should Send a Chill Down Your Spine
Amidst the unified sense of American support for a war on terrorism, the debate
about tactics has just begun. The Washington Times, a conservative newspaper (owned by
Rev. Moon) that both influences and reflects Bush administration policy, ran an
alarming September 14th commentary calling for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in
America's "war on terrorism."
Entitled "The Time to Use the Nuclear Option," Thomas Woodrow, described as a
22-year-veteran intelligence officer, advised the Bush Administration
(http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010914-87723680.htm):
"The time has come for the United States to make good on its past pledges that it will
use all military capabilities at its disposal to defend U.S. soil by delivering
nuclear strikes against the instigators and perpetrators of the attacks against the
nation's political capital and the nation's financial capital.
At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilities should be used against the bin Laden
camps in the desert of Afghanistan. To do less would be rightly seen by the poisoned
minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on the part of the United States
and the current administration.
To consider use of the nation's nuclear forces, in the present circumstances, cannot
be brushed aside as an overly emotional response to the unknown face of terrorism. ."
Woodrow concludes his appeal to the Bush Administration by declaring: "No, the bin
Laden groups must be exterminated completely before they become more powerful in their
efforts to exterminate us. We should use our nuclear capabilities to help achieve
this."
If you’re a BuzzFlash reader who has been eager to give the Bush defense team a blank
check to conduct our military operations, take a deep breath and think again. It is in
the nature of initial patriotic feelings to support the nation's leadership in their
military plans as they confront a threat to Americans, but the devil, of course, is in
the details of how the "war'' is waged.
Given that several nations hostile to the United States reportedly have access to
nuclear weapons, it would be fool hearty for America to launch a tactical nuclear
strike unless it were a last resort to saving our nation. A so-called "tactical
nuclear strike" would open the doors to initiating a nuclear or germ warfare
counterattack by terrorists or "rogue" nations against the United States on American
soil. It is one giant step toward abandoning our moral authority in opposing the use
of nuclear weapons.
The fact that the Bush administration has been keen on abandoning the ABM treaty --
in order to pursue its single-minded focus on a missile defense shield -- further
increases the likelihood that the U.S. will face a nuclear attack of some sort. It's
willingness to trade off the build-up of nuclear capabilities in China in return for
their support of a missile defense system is testament to an obsessive focus on a star
wars nuclear defense option that is rooted more in Hollywood fantasy than science.
But it's a fantasy whose implementation, in terms of political strategy, could result
in disaster. As Robin Wright notes in a Slate Magazine article, "How Missile Defense
Would Help Terrorists" ( http://slate.msn.com/Earthling/01-09-13/Earthling.asp) :
"Missile defense won't just fail to stop the next big terrorist attack. It could
hasten the next attack and make it literally 100 times as lethal as Tuesday's….The
more nuclear materials there are floating around beyond American control, the worse
things look. And missile defense would probably raise that amount.
Both Russia and China have made noises about escalating their nuclear programs in
response to missile defense. In the case of Russia, the threat rings hollow for fiscal
reasons, but China has the resources to deliver. In fact, it is modernizing its
arsenal in any event and can well afford to accelerate and expand the program in
response to missile defense. And most experts agree that, within the framework of
nuclear deterrence, doing so would be rational. In the more distant future, rapid
growth in the Chinese arsenal could spur growth in India's arsenal, which could spur
growth in Pakistan's arsenal, which could spur more growth in India's arsenal, and so
on—with each iteration upping the chances of a little plutonium or uranium straying
into the hands of terrorists."
As noted in our Sunday BuzzFlash Editorial Commentary
(http://www.buzzflash.com/BuzzScripts/Buzz.dll/Content), the New York Times reported
in August that the Bush administration, stretched to budgetary limits in its support
of the missile defense system and the tax cuts, was backing off financial support of a
program to neutralize plutonium that is currently in Russian nuclear warheads. The
Bush abandonment of this Clinton administration initiative will increase the
likelihood that terrorists and "rogue states" will be able to obtain weapons grade
plutonium on the Russian black market. In short, the Bush administration may be
indirectly facilitating potential terrorist and rogue state procurement of the very
nuclear material that could be used in rockets or bombs transported by plane, train,
boat or truck.
Wright notes further: "Bush also shrank a program designed to keep Russian nuclear
scientists gainfully employed, so they won't need subsidies from Osama Bin Laden et.
al."
It's a mind boggling illogical strategy, which jeopardizes all of us. This
administration, one critic noted awhile back, only has one mode of thought: linear. It
hasn't shown the ability to be resilient and adaptive to changing circumstances. In
fact, its nuclear and missile defense policies are more rooted in the Dr. Strangelove
perspective of the 60's than the fluid realities of threats to Western civilization
posed in the new millennium. This may be, as Bush declares, the first war of the 21st
Century, but we have cold warriors with a mid-20th Century military strategy at the
helm.
In a September 16th Chicago Tribune commentary by conservative columnist Steve
Chapman, he describes, with alarm, a growing phenomenon along the Turkish border:
"On Tuesday morning, The New York Times carried a story from Istanbul that furnished
cause for mild worry. Police in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, just over the
border, had recently arrested four men with four pounds of enriched uranium--which
could be used in an atomic bomb. This incident, according to the Turkish Atomic
Energy Authority, was one of more than a hundred attempts to smuggle nuclear material
into Turkey in recent years. None is known to have succeeded. But "the rising number
of incidents and the strong belief that only a fraction of shipments are intercepted,"
reported the Times, "have raised the level of anxiety here."
Chapman went on to warn:
"Missile defense, if it can ever be made to work, would address only the least
plausible threat. It would also consume vast amounts of money that could be used to
combat more realistic possibilities. That doesn't mean we should stop research on the
program. But it should come well down the list of priorities.
At the top should be preventing rogue states and shadowy guerrilla organizations
from obtaining the most destructive weapons ever devised. This is one instance where
failure cannot be an option. What happened Tuesday was unimaginably horrific. What
happens the next time could be worse."
The implications of the September 14th column in the Washington Times need to be
taken seriously. Congress should make clear in no uncertain terms that the use of
nuclear weapons in the war on terrorism could result in catastrophic retaliation
against the United States.
And no missile defense system will defend us from nuclear weapons loaded onto hijacked
planes, boats, trains, trucks or cars.
When it comes to nuclear restraint, who will restrain our Commander in Chief?
A BUZZFLASH.COM EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
_______________________________________________________________________
Powered by List Builder
To unsubscribe follow the link:
http://lb.bcentral.com/ex/manage/subscriberprefs?customerid=9353&subid=2A2C8B940C3BE64A&msgnum=458
