HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2002043000041000.htm The Hindu April 30, 2002 America's nuclear hit-list By P. S. Suryanarayana The Bush administration is consciously extending the theory of war to cover every peacetime move of America's potential and actual enemies. THE PENTAGON is poised to turn America's nuclear security doctrine upside down. In a comment on the classified suggestions by the Pentagon as contained in the leaked versions of its latest Nuclear Posture Review, the U.S. President, George W. Bush, has said that the idea is to enhance America's power of deterrence. He has, in effect, redefined deterrence � a protective firewall of nuclear weapons. He wants the offensive power to pre-empt America's potential enemies from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. China and Russia are among those dismayed over this. The notion of pre-emption as an updated aspect of the prevailing doctrine of nuclear deterrence may indeed appear to be logically simple in conception. However, the power of pre-emption, now being sought by the U.S., is technologically complex to attain. Not only that. A moral issue about America's high-handedness will cloud any future policy of the Bush administration aimed at pre-empting its potential foes from acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction � nuclear bombs as also chemical or biological capabilities of war and the like. Washington knows that any pre-emption will entail a greater political aggressiveness than that which might be manifest in the "rockets' red glare" during a possible stand-off between the U.S. and its growing legion of adversaries. James Wirtz and Jeffrey Larsen have aptly visualised "rockets' red glare" to capture the surreal drama of America's emerging prowess at missile defences and of consequential world politics. Washington's ongoing programme of fashioning a missile defence shield is actually a super-tech adventure. The stated objective is to enable America to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles that might be launched by its potential and existing foes among the world's terrorists and "rogue states". Washington's assumptive reasoning is that such missiles, if aimed against the U.S., would be laden with crude or even sophisticated weapons of mass destruction. Now, America's idea of pre-emptive deterrence goes a massive step beyond this real-time objective of destroying the missiles and their payloads that might be launched against the U.S. homeland. The novel concept, in fact, is that America's real and potential antagonists must be prevented even from being able to assemble mass-destructive weapons for anti-U.S. purposes. The Bush administration is consciously extending the theory of war to cover every peacetime move of America's potential and actual enemies insofar as their suspected preparations for war might be concerned. This certainly is a new frontier in America's security consciousness itself. The classified yet leaked recommendations in the Pentagon's latest Nuclear Posture Review contain several ideas which many U.S.-friendly states too, not just its adversaries, might well regard as indicators of Washington's willingness to think the unthinkable. Ironically, the idea of "thinking the unthinkable" was also originally visualised in the U.S. so as to read the evolving minds of its present and presumptive enemies, including non-state actors, on the international stage. A particularly "unthinkable" idea, now being considered by the Pentagon, is that the U.S. must fabricate miniaturised clones of mind-boggling nuclear weapons. The reported purpose is to use such nuclear-tipped bunker-busters or similar earth-penetrative weapons to incinerate the underground sites of anti-U.S. forces anywhere in the world. The only definitive guideline for the U.S. administration in this optional context is that such underground locations must actually be the bases for operations connected with the development of any type of mass-destructive weapons. The only nagging doubt, which troubles non-partisan observers and many international diplomats alike, is whether it is sufficient if Washington were to act unilaterally in determining the need to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes of this kind against its perceived enemies. This political question cannot be neutralised by persuasive arguments about the technological precision of American satellites that could remote-sense the activities of its enemies in subterranean sites. Another risk, seen from a purely diplomatic plane, is that the U.S. may feel compelled to renounce or dishonour some important international agreements regarding the spread of nuclear weapons. A cardinal principle enshrined in the controversial yet critical Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is that the five acknowledged powers with atomic weapons � the U.S., Russia, China, France and the U.K. � will not target the other states and their territories with such devices. The U.S. might also find it expedient, at another level, to flout the spirit of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has not yet come into force because of Washington's own intransigence among other factors. Any such U.S. action might trigger new waves of nuclear weaponisation by several others too, including China and Russia. Although India has over time expressed serious reservations about both the NPT and the CTBT, New Delhi cannot afford to see with equanimity or unconcern any future American transgressions of these agreements. The reason is not far to seek. Washington's growing disenchantment with the CTBT may catalyse India's own plans, if any, for transforming its notional nuclear deterrence into a reasonably realistic one over time. However, India cannot embrace a morally controversial idea which is implicit in the Pentagon's reported thinking that favours nuclear strikes against those without the proven means to retaliate in a like manner. New Delhi (no less than Beijing) has repeatedly proclaimed adherence to the principle that India will not initiate a nuclear war by being the first to use the atom bomb. From an Indian perspective, therefore, the idea of a first nuclear strike, as distinct from a retaliatory second strike, can only imply a doctrine of nuclear permissiveness. Now, the U.S. has most recently thought nothing amiss about reneging on its obligations under the bilateral Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. Obviously, Washington can no longer accept parity with the country that lost the Cold War. The U.S. had never thought of circumscribing its options since the dawn of the nuclear security era. In a sense, Washington now seems determined to regain, as decisively as possible, its lost position of the Harry Truman era. The U.S. is now seeking the position of unassailability as a nuclear power even if not its old status as the sole possessor of atomic weapons. It is in this sense that the Pentagon's much-publicised leak about a virtual nuclear hit-list acquires added significance. The countries that the U.S. might target, if considered necessary with nuclear weapons, are Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria. Add to this the Pentagon's reported suggestion that the U.S. can use massive conventional weapons or small but powerful nuclear-tipped missiles against sites of concern to America anywhere in the world. The result is an enlarged nuclear hit-list and an implicit message. With the old U.S.-Soviet bipolarity having disappeared, the U.S. is now in quest of a qualitative nuclear monopoly that can be consistent with the changing security paradigms of the space frontier and cyberspace. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] 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 ==^================================================================
