Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : China Warehouse- More Than Crockery -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BubbaFred who wrote (211)	8/9/2003 12:31:00 PM
From: BubbaFred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6370

US must get serious on WMD policy By Ralph A Cossa KUALA LUMPUR - On Wednesday, August 6, peace activists from around the world flocked to Hiroshima, Japan, to pray for peace and remember those who died when the first nuclear bomb was dropped on that city 58 years ago. More subdued ceremonies have marked the anniversary of the second, and we all hope last, use of nuclear weapons in anger on August 9, 1945, in Nagasaki. Sandwiched in between these two dates was a "secret" conference in Omaha, Nebraska, where senior US Defense Department officials reportedly met with nuclear-weapons specialists to discuss ways of upgrading America's aging nuclear arsenal. While one can argue that there is never a good time to discuss the use of nuclear weapons, the Pentagon's timing of this event underscores and reinforces the impression around the world of US callousness toward the views and feelings of others. These views have been very much in evidence at this year's annual Asia Pacific Roundtable in Kuala Lumpur. Speaker after speaker, including many who have traditionally been supportive of Washington and still favor a continued US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, condemned US "unilateralism" and "arrogance". While some of these accusations are emotional and do not stand up to the facts - or overlook the reality that all nations, when their interests appear at stake, act unilaterally - the bottom line remains: the administration of US President George W Bush has a serious image problem that it appears intent on exacerbating. Given its "hyperpower" status, many argued, Washington no longer is concerned about what others think. Multilateralism, US-style, means "get on our bandwagon or get out of the way". Washington sees itself as a primary proponent of nuclear non-proliferation. Its current standoff with North Korea is aimed, first and foremost, at stemming the development and potential use or export of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Washington, along with the international community in general, demands that Pyongyang rejoin and honor its commitment to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba says the NPT is "on the verge of collapse", not because of North Korean actions but because the United States "appears to worship nuclear weapons as God". Akiba described US policy as "openly declaring the possibility of a preemptive nuclear first strike". To my knowledge, the United States does not have and has never professed to support a "preemptive nuclear first strike" strategy. Nonetheless, this accusation has increasingly been accepted as fact. After all, the Bush administration's National Security Strategy endorses a strategy of preemption against the use of WMD and the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review (as leaked to the press) reportedly lays out contingencies under which nuclear weapons may be used. While neither talks about "first use", they don't rule it out either. The latest "proof", as cited by Mayor Akiba, is the Bush administration's "resumed research into mini-nukes and other so-called 'usable nuclear weapons'". He is referring to recent congressional legislation approving research on the potential development of smaller nuclear weapons (reversing a 10-year ban on research and development of weapons with a yield of less than five kilotons). Approval actually to produce such weapons was neither sought by the Pentagon nor granted by Congress. The legislation does permit the Pentagon to begin examining, in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's words, "a variety of different ways - conceivably - to develop the ability to reach a deeply buried target". This is the apparent objective of the Omaha meeting. Critics at home and abroad are quick to point out that such actions run contrary to the Bush administration's professed counter-proliferation goals, since they emphasize rather than downplay the potential future importance of nuclear weapons and thus could encourage others also to seek this edge. It's no wonder, critics argue, that North Korea feels compelled to pursue its own nuclear deterrent in the face of this increased US nuclear threat. While experts can easily dismiss such misconceptions, they have a cumulative impact on the minds of friends and potential foes alike about Washington's commitment to the NPT (under which the nuclear-weapons states also have responsibilities) and to the probability or desirability of the future use of nuclear weapons. This hardly serves US non-proliferation or broader national-security interests. Perhaps it's time for the Bush administration to consider a "no first use of weapons of mass destruction" policy. This would emphasize the purely deterrent role that nuclear weapons continue to play in US defense strategy, not just against the use of nuclear weapons by potential adversaries but by their use of chemical or biological weapons (the "poor man's nukes") as well. It recognizes the political reality that the American people would never tolerate the use of nuclear weapons by its government other than in self-defense in response to a WMD strike; and the military reality that, in this age of advanced technology and US weapons superiority, nuclear weapons are not needed either for preemption or to prevail in a conventional conflict. It's time for Washington to return to the moral high road and put the WMD debate into proper perspective. A "no first use of weapons of mass destruction" policy declaration would be a significant step in this direction. atimes.com