 NCM
TV |
- New
California Media - The New America Now
|
|
|
| |
|
An
Alternative to Missile Defense
By Dietrich Fischer, Pacific News Service, June 18, 2001
With few exceptions, President Bush's proposal for a U.S.
nuclear missile defense program met with a very cool reception
in Europe. A long view of the possible consequences makes that
opposition understandable for reasons first suggested, ironically,
by a supporter of such a system. PNS commentator Dietrich Fischer,
a professor at Pace University, New York, is co-director of
TRANSCEND, a peace and development network.
During his trip to Europe, President Bush faced opposition to
his planned missile shield from Russia's President Putin and
from the leaders of France, Germany and the Netherlands.
But one of the strongest arguments against NMD on record comes
from Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan.
Arguing in favor of "star wars," NMD's predecessor, Weinberger
said, "Imagine how dangerous it would be if the Soviet Union
got such a system first. They could launch their missiles without
fear of retaliation."
The same, of course, is true in reverse.
It is doubtful that such a system would ever work reliably,
but a leader who believed -- however incorrectly -- that it
could work would be tempted to strike first.
That is why Russia and China have announced they would have
no choice but to increase their nuclear arsenals sufficiently
to convince any potential opponent that they could penetrate
any possible defense system.
In other words, if the United States embarks on a plan to build
a national missile defense system, a new nuclear arms race would
begin. Since NMD would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
treaty, it could unravel the whole process of arms control.
The principal beneficiaries -- and supporters -- of NMD are
U.S. defense contractors, who hope to make an estimated $60
to $100 billion at taxpayers' expense.
If the nuclear powers break their commitment under the ABM treaty
to eliminate all nuclear weapons, other states will be encouraged
to obtain their own nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan justified
their nuclear weapons programs by rejecting the monopoly of
the established nuclear weapons powers.
And if nuclear weapons proliferate, it is only a matter of time
until "countries of concern" (formerly called rogue nations)
and terrorist groups acquire some.
NMD offers no protection against this, even if it worked perfectly,
because it cannot intercept bombs delivered in a suitcase, on
a truck, or sailboat.
What we need is not a new defense system, but a more open world
in which nuclear weapons can be effectively banned -- as we
have already concluded treaties banning biological and chemical
weapons, with intrusive verification.
The treaty with North Korea negotiated during the Clinton administration,
which allows the United States to verify that North Korea has
abandoned its nuclear weapons and long range missile programs
in return for two nuclear power plants unable to generate nuclear
weapons fuel, is a good example of what we need.
Thorough inspections are needed to prevent nuclear proliferation,
and if we wish to inspect other countries, we must be willing
to open our country to such inspections as well.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can now inspect
only sites that member countries voluntarily place under its
supervision. This would be like a suspected drug smuggler telling
a border guard, "You may check my trunk, but don't open the
glove compartment."
The IAEA must have the power to inspect any suspected nuclear
facilities without advance warning, even in non-member countries,
if we are to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
Many governments today object to such intrusive inspections
as a "violation of their national sovereignty." (President Bush
has opposed stringent verification provisions of the biological
weapons treaty.)
Many airline passengers also protested against having their
luggage searched for guns or explosives, when that policy was
first introduced after a series of fatal hijackings. But most
have come to realize that such inspections enhance their own
security. Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.
Sooner or later, governments will reach the same conclusion.
The question is only whether this will happen before or after
the first terrorist nuclear bomb explodes.
"National sovereignty" is a false issue here, since no country
today has sovereign control over the world's nuclear arsenals.
Giving the IAEA effective authority to prevent the spread of
nuclear weapons, does not mean giving up any control over our
lives. Rather, it gives us additional control -- more than we
could ever achieve at the national level.
Ultimately, we must destroy all nuclear weapons. Some have argued
that we cannot "disinvent" nuclear weapons and will have to
live with them as long as civilization exists. But nobody disinvented
cannibalism -- we simply abhor it. Can't we learn to abhor equally
the thought of incinerating entire cities with nuclear weapons?
|
Back
to Top
| NCM Home | Pacific
News Service
|
 Inter-Ethnic
Media Exchange |
- Acts
of P.A.T.R.O.I.T.ism--Fears
of Terrorism Incite Reactionary
Policy
Asian Week, By Neela Banerjee
and Joyce Nishioka Proceso,
Oct 10
- The
Fatwa of "No"
Outlook India, Mir Ali
Raza, Oct 8
- Japantown
Peace Vigil Shows Unity in
Face of Terrorist, Hate Attacks
Nichi Bei Times, Kenji
G. Taguma, Sep 24
- Hunt,
not Witchhunt, for Terrorists
The Black World Today, By Earl
Ofari Hutchinson, Sep
12
- Japanese
Americans Urge Calm Before
Stereotyping Suspects
Nichi Bei Times, Sep 12
- A
Tale of Two Cities
India Currents, Sep 6
- Grandparents:
America’s Last Line of
Defense?
The Black World Today,
Aug 28
- Remove
Travel Ban on Farrakhan
Final Call, Aug 28
|
|
| |
|
