HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
> Warhead Storage Ensures More Than U.S. Nuclear Superiority > > Summary > > The White House said on Jan. 9 that it will not destroy all of > the nuclear weapons that would have been decommissioned under a > planned U.S.-Russian agreement. The move will ensure that Russia > will lose its last vestige of superpower status and that China > can never beat Washington in an arms race. But more important, > the plan will help preserve the military, political and economic > dominance of the United States for decades. > > Analysis > > The White House shocked arms-control advocates and Russian > disarmament negotiators Jan. 9, when it revealed plans to store, > not destroy, most of the 4,000 U.S. nuclear warheads that would > have been dismantled under a developing U.S.-Russian disarmament > agreement. The move complicates relations with both China and > Russia, but the rationale behind it is about much more than > maintaining mere numerical superiority in nuclear capacity. > > The decision reveals that the United States is finally moving > beyond the Cold War security policy of mutually assured > destruction (MAD). Stockpiling the warheads will trigger an > evolution in the military toward more advanced and readily > deployable conventional forces. This will help safeguard U.S. > military, political and economic dominance for the next century. > > Since long before the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty first > entered into force back in 1970, U.S.-Soviet relations were > predicated on the premise of mutually assured destruction and > strategic parity. With some notable exceptions, such as de- > targeting agreements, much of this Cold War balance of power > still remained in the post-Cold War era. > > The Bush administration's decision to store the warheads instead > of destroying them, particularly when combined with Washington's > abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), shatters > this pre-existing order. The most immediate effects will be > visited upon Washington's former foe Russia -- which is also > expected to dismantle around 4,000 nuclear warheads once the new > treaty is signed. > > After a decade of political, economic, social and military > decline, Russia was left with but one fragment of its old > superpower status: its nuclear parity with the United States. The > White House's recent announcement thrusts forward a cold, hard > fact: Russia cannot afford to maintain its nuclear arsenal on a > 2002 defense budget of $9 billion while the United States -- with > $379 billion penciled in -- can. > > This unpleasant disconnect is not a new one for Moscow. The > Russians have known for years they cannot directly compete with > the United States missile for missile or dollar for dollar, but > previous U.S. administrations have been willing to let Moscow > save face. > > Now, however, the Bush team has decided the time has come to end > the illusion of strategic parity despite Russia's assistance to > the United States in its recent war effort in Afghanistan. The > message to Moscow is that it's great if you are willing to be an > ally, but there should be no mistake about who is in charge. Even > if it is just stating the obvious, for Moscow that's the > diplomatic equivalent of a kick in the teeth. > > For China, Washington's signal is equally clear and somewhat more > ominous. Behind the wall of rhetoric, Washington and Moscow have > quietly worked together on some facets of an anti-ballistic > missile shield under the rubric of the RAMOS (Russian-American > Observation Satellite) project. And one Russian proposal that > would necessitate Moscow's cooperation, that of targeting hostile > missiles while they are in their launch phase, looks to be a > central tenet in Washington's developing ABM framework. > > China has no chance of such involvement with the United States. > This is mainly due to the fact that Beijing is an as-yet-unspoken > rationale for a U.S. missile shield, which could easily guard > against the threat posed by the 20 Chinese missiles currently > capable of striking the United States. China will use the planned > shield as its rationale for enlarging and modernizing its fleet, > and the United States in turn will use China's efforts as its > rationale for its own upgrades. > > In the intelligence business, this is called an arms race, but > the U.S. decision not to destroy the 4,000 warheads means the > race is over before it has begun. > > Between the ABM treaty, the economic prowess of the United > States, its overwhelming technological edge and a store of ready- > to-go warheads, the Bush plan ensures American nuclear > superiority for at least the next century. If China attempts to > keep up, it will have to surmount far greater economic hurdles > than the defense-budget crunch that led to the Soviet Union's > downfall in the late 1980s. > > After all, even after the expected U.S.-Russian cuts, the United > States will still have about a 1,500-active-warhead advantage > over China, plus the 4,000 warheads stored in reserve. > > That does not, however, mean a nuclear America of the 21st > Century will mirror 20th Century strategies. By taking its > missiles off high alert, separately storing warheads and > developing a multilayered missile defense system, the United > States also ends MAD as a strategic doctrine. > > Although it is extremely unlikely the United States will ever > publicly end its first-strike doctrine, the mothballing of most > of Washington's offensive capability by its very nature makes > America a reactive, not proactive, nuclear power. Warheads > collecting in a warehouse certainly cannot also be on hair- > trigger alert. > > The change in nuclear stance will send a powerful shockwave > through U.S. military capabilities. > > The abandonment of MAD destabilizes the global security > environment. MAD granted predictability, and it ironically gave > second- and third-tier states room to maneuver. A country such as > North Vietnam knew that the United States would never move too > boldly against it for fear of retribution from the Soviet Union. > > With MAD discarded, the United States largely is free of that > concern. This opens up a diverse array of options previously > denied it. Now, anyone opposing the United States must factor in > the possibility of facing U.S. forces that are free to operate > without hesitation or reservation. That will certainly make these > states more skittish and unpredictable, increasing the United > States' need to be able to project power. > > To project this power will require entirely new generations of > weapons systems, with modifications of regional strategic > doctrines to match. The Bush administration's proposed $379 > billion for defense -- a 15 percent increase over last year's and > the largest increase since former President Ronald Reagan's 1981 > buildup -- is only the first step in that very expensive > direction. > > This is an expense the United States has proven it can easily > afford. At the end of the Cold War, Washington spent about 5.4 > percent of its GDP on defense. After the unprecedented economic > expansion in the 1990s, were the United States to ratchet up to > the same level again, it would need to spend $540 billion, > something the U.S. economy could easily support. > > Such a military-capacity expansion will have a multitude of > follow-on effects, most noticeably on American foreign policy. > During the Clinton administration, capability shortage was one of > the most significant restrictions on American power projection. > Replacing MAD with military hegemony changes all that. > > From a military standpoint, Washington will be much more capable > than in years past of addressing skirmishes on multiple fronts. > From a political point of view, the United States will have a far > greater array of options to pursue policies. > > Economically, the constant innovation and upgrading that will > occur in the military sector will also flow into the civilian > market. Such a spin-off phenomenon that came with the 1980s > defense buildup -- which brought the Internet, civilian satellite > systems and modern medical laser therapies to the United States - > - is set to echo throughout the 21st Century. > ___________________________________________________________________ > --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D 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 ==^================================================================
