News Analysis: U.S. general's call for new nuclear weapons raises concerns over arms race
A senior U.S. military official's clamor Tuesday for the development of a new, modern arsenal of nuclear weapons may trigger another international arms race, analysts warned.
"So long as there are other countries in the world that possess enough nuclear weapons to destroy the United States of America and our way of life, we will have to deter those types of countries," said Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, head of the military's Strategic Command.
As a deterrent to attacks from other nations in the 21st century, the U.S. Defense Department should develop an improved nuclear weapon to reduce the number of warheads it keeps on hand, he told reporters.
According to Chilton, the United States' existing warheads inventory is "too big, bigger than they need to be," although the number of nuclear weapons has been significantly reduced.
He estimated that the number would continue to decline to 25 percent of the total during the Cold War by 2012.
As the threat is different from that of the Cold War, the deterrent must also be more diverse, ranging from nuclear warheads to conventional weapons and cyber warfare capabilities, Chilton said.
Analysts said that if the Unites States develops a new arsenal of nuclear or space weapons, other countries will also follow suit, which will possibly lead to a new arms race and a rush by other countries to develop more effective and usable nuclear weapons.
[ ... ]
U.S. President George W. Bush's administration has requested 10million dollars for a development program of new nuclear weapons in its 2009 budget proposal, although Congress turned down a similar request in its previous budget submission.
It is also seeking 100 million dollars for a plant to make nuclear triggers for the new weapons.
The program is controversial in part as it runs counter to the U.S. obligation under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to work toward bringing its stockpile to zero.
The 2002 Moscow Treaty requires that Washington reduce its operationally deployed warheads to 1,700-2,220 by December 2012. In an exchange of data early last year, Russia claimed to have 4,162 strategic warheads and the United States 5,866 in its arsenal.
In January, Yuri Baluyevsky, chief of the general staff of the Russian armed forces, also sent a similar signal to the world, saying Russia may use nuclear weapons for the protection of the country and its allies.
Nuclear States' Double Standards
Most of us learn early in our lives that if we expect rules that we set to be respected, we cannot promulgate the rule and, at the same time, grant ourselves a permanent exception.
The main treaty that deals with nuclear weapons, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has a very different and fundamentally flawed structure.
This treaty specifically permits five states ― China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. ― to retain nuclear weapons, but any other party to the treaty must agree to forgo the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
States that refuse to ratify the treaty, such as Cuba, Pakistan, India and Israel are free to acquire such weapons, and three of them have done so.
Why are states and other entities so eager to retain or acquire nuclear weapons? The motive is the same whether a state already has such weapons or hopes to acquire them. Nuclear weapons are perceived as giving the possessor a huge military advantage.
[ ... ]
Surely nuclear weapons, including the so-called ``low-yield" nuclear weapons, carve out a far more destructive path than all of the weapons previously coming under the regime of a total ban.
Nuclear weapons certainly need to be prohibited, but they must be prohibited for all states and all entities. Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty requires all states party to the treaty ``to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
The International Court of Justice has described this as a binding treaty obligation.
As long as some states, including the U.S. and China, insist on their right to retain nuclear weapons, other states will wish to own such weapons and will work out ways to acquire them, even if it means violating treaty obligations.
India to build thorium-based reactor: Kakodkar
India would build a 300 MW thorium-based Advance Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) that would serve as a platform for developing and demonstrating technologies for largescale thorium utilisation, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar said on Monday.
Power potential from thorium reactors is very large and availability of Accelerator Driven System (ADS) can enable early introduction of thorium on a largescale, he said, while inaugurating a training programme on Energy Security and Management, organised by the National Institute of Advanced Studies here.
N.M. among sites considered for uranium enrichment factory
A company is considering building a $2 billion uranium enrichment factory in southern New Mexico, the same general area where another company already is building one.
The proposed factory would enrich uranium provided by utilities to fuel their commercial nuclear reactors, said Nancy Lang, external communications manager of Areva Inc., based in Bethesda, Md.
Areva Inc., a subsidiary of Paris-based Areva, also is mulling possible sites in Idaho, Ohio, Texas and Washington state, she said Friday.
Iran claiming victory despite sanctions
Despite a new round of UN sanctions over its nuclear activities, Iran still thinks it is ahead. The sanctions, passed by the Security Council on Monday, extend the two previous tranches to tighten the economic and trade squeeze on Iran.
The Security Council wants Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium and to stop construction of a heavy water reactor that could produce plutonium. Highly enriched uranium and plutonium are both key ingredients for a nuclear bomb.
Iran says it is simply exercising its right to enrichment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Embassy calls UN resolution illegal
The Iranian embassy in Paris has profoundly rejected the Security Council’s new sanctions resolution against Tehran, calling it ‘illegal.’
A statement issued by the embassy was referring to the recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency director general which clearly endorsed the full implementation of the Iran-IAEA agreement in clarifying all the remaining ambiguities surrounding Iran’s nuclear program.
“So the issuance of a new UN Security Council resolution against Iran is irrational and lacks legitimacy,” the statement added.
It also criticized the council’s verdict which is aimed to deprive Iran of its legal rights to use nuclear technology for civilian purposes.
It also condemned the initiators’ unfounded move against Iran, saying they have even discredited the image of the Security Council and making the international body a tool of convenience.
A World Free of Nuclear Weapons: An Interview With Nuclear Threat Initiative Co-Chairman Sam Nunn
ACT: START I expires at the end of 2009. How mechanically and diplomatically do you think the two sides can pursue the reductions that you are describing? Is it in the context of the SORT and START processes or through unilateral reciprocal initiatives? How do you see future reductions being pursued?
Nunn: All of the above. I do not think it’s either arms control treaties or things beyond arms control treaties. I think it is both.
It would be folly to allow the START verification provisions to expire. I think reconstructing them would be a whole lot harder than having this administration and the Russians agree on [extending] them.
I also think SORT needs to be fulfilled. When it first came up, I called it a “faith-based treaty.” It expires the same day that the limits take effect. I think that is absurd. The next administration has to do something about that. Obviously, this one will not. The next administration will have to tie verification provisions to SORT.[11]
I think the arms control treaty process is important. Obviously, you want to reach agreements. But the dialogue, the conversations, the people getting to know each other, and the realization of the fears and seeing where the fears coincide are important. That is where I differ so much from this administration. Sure it is frustrating and takes a long time.
We have a lot of things that we can do without treaties. Warning time, for instance, I don’t think lends itself to a treaty approach.
I also would like to see [command and control] updated in light of the huge technological changes, particularly the cyber world. I don’t think we have explored anywhere near adequately the danger of command and control being penetrated by people in the cyber world, whether it’s a third country or a very clever hacker. There are horrors out there when you see the stakes involved. That’s why I go back to my big pet rock. If everyone had the posture where they could not shoot for a week, it would be a different world. That would make nuclear weapons less relevant, and the discussion about how many you need takes on a different flavor. That is in no way in opposition to reducing numbers, but it is saying that reducing numbers is not the be all and end all.
Iran wants world ban on nuclear weapons
IRAN wants to ban all nuclear weapons through an international treaty, the country's foreign minister said at the UN's Conference on Disarmament.
"The time has come to ban and eliminate all nuclear weapons," Manouchehr Mottaki told the conference.
The UN Security Council on Monday slapped another round of sanctions on Iran over its refusal to suspend nuclear enrichment activities, while in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency attempted to convince Tehran to cooperate.
Western states have accused Tehran of pursuing a nuclear program under cover of energy production, a charge it has firmly denied.
Iran's foreign minister said during Tuesday's meeting in Geneva that it is necessary to "start negotiations to reach a convention on the ban of stocks and the production of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction".
During the conference, he questioned the right of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to possess nuclear arms.
"The winners of the Second World War have claimed this right and imposed it on the international community," he said.
"Today, the right of veto and the right to possess nuclear arms has become a monetary exchange to obtain illegitimate rights," he added.
Nuclear dictatorship, mega-terrorism or Britney Spears?
There is a lot of talk about the risks of nuclear proliferation. There is virtually no public discussion anymore about the existence of these weapons, the doctrine development and the urgent need for nuclear abolition.
Media and politicians chase nuclear weapons where there are none. Conveniently, they hardly ever focus on the daily threat we all live under: the malfunctioning or deliberate use of nuclear weapons by those who have by far the greatest number and the most sophisticated weapons: the West.
How ridiculoulsy irrelevant to take all kinds of measures - that invariably reduce respect for democracy, human rights, and individual integrity/privacy - to guard ourselves against small-scale terrorism while turning the blind eye on the nuclear-weapons states who all maintain plans for the destruction of the world go unnoticed!
Since nuclear policies and doctrines by definition involve the deliberate targetting of millions of innocent civilians, it is terrorism: Mega-terrorism and omnicide (the killing of everything). "War" is much too kind a word for it!
You can read the singularly most destabilizing and dangerous-for-the-world doctrine here:
[zfacts.com]
It breaks fundamentally with the nuclear deterrence doctrine - or balance of terror - that has been in operation since 1945.
Recently another piece of madness and irresponsibility was released by five former Defence Chief of Staff from NATO countries - "A New Model-NATO"
[www.project-syndicate.org]
Here is a short and precise comment from the Guardian by Ian Traynor
[www.guardian.co.uk]
Please read these documents and ask yourself whether Iran is the biggest threat to the world! Who has an interest in getting the world to fear Iran instead of Western nuclearism?
Most media people either don't understand the issues or their importance. They abdicate their responsibility to inform the public - public service! Instead they tell us everything about, say, Britney Spears or David Beckham!
And here is the excellent Middle Powers Initiatives argument that it is the duty of NATO to disarm its nuclear weapons and scrap first-strike doctrine
[www.middlepowers.org]
TFF Associate David Krieger outlines how to avoid a nuclear catastrophe
[www.wagingpeace.org]
Read also TFF Associate Michel Chossudovsky's
The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend "The Western Way of Life"
[www.globalresearch.ca]
Western democratic governments never dared to hold a referendum about their doomsday weapons.
Do you know that both Americans and Russians want nuclear abolition - but survey like this
[www.worldpublicopinion.org]
- never hit the headlines. Why?
Have we ever seen an opinion poll that tells us that citizens around the world want to have or be the target of nuclear weapons? No - and the simple reason is that nuclear weapons, not to speak of their use, militates against common sense, ordinary citizens' perception of the good life, decency and ethics and against our human right to a life in peace and freedom.
Britney Spears or nuclear weapons? Choose what is most important for you - it's a free world. And some self-appointed nuclear dictators continue to have the freedom to plan nuclear extinction.
When will the truth about this madness and immoralty dawn upon billions of people?
How much longer shall we let Western democracies practise nuclear dictatorships over the whole world - tacitly supported by media?
How much longer can we boast a free press with nuclerism - these weapons, doctrines, criminality, terrorism and dictatorship - hardly ever mentioned?
TFF
Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research
Transnationella Stiftelsen för Freds- och Framtidsforskning
[www.transnational.org]
No comments:
Post a Comment