TAKE
ACTION ON WAR AGAINST IRAQ
March
21, 2003
Background
on the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
What
has the Bush Administration said about using nuclear
weapons in Iraq?
On Jan. 26, the Los Angeles Times reported that military
planners at the U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha, NE,
and at the Pentagon are creating target lists for
the possible use of nuclear weapons in Iraq. Although
military officials consider such a strike unlikely,
reportedly, Pentagon planners are considering options
for using nuclear weapons. Administration officials
have refused to rule out any military option should
the U.S. or any of its allies be attacked by a chemical
or biological weapon. White House Chief of Staff Andrew
Card commented on the report on a Sunday (Jan. 26)
morning news program, saying, "I'm not going to put
anything on or off the table."
This means war planners are treating nuclear weapons
as just another kind of weapon in their war-fighting
arsenal.
How
drastic is this change in U.S. nuclear force doctrine?
For the past fifty years, U.S. Presidents have correctly
differentiated between nuclear and conventional weapons.
Since nuclear weapons are so devastating, they would
only be used if the U.S. were attacked with nuclear
weapons by another nuclear state.
Through a series of policy documents from the Pentagon
and the White House-"Nuclear Posture Review," "National
Security Strategy," and most recently, "National Strategy
to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" -the Bush Administration
has outlined a new security doctrine for the U.S.,
emphasizing preemptive strikes and the offensive
use of nuclear weapons.
If the United States continues to threaten nuclear
attack or decides to use nuclear weapons, the already
uncertain international world will become even more
chaotic and dangerous. What would happen if nations
like India and Pakistan decide to follow the lead
of the U.S.? Or India and China? Or North Korea and
Japan (which are not currently nuclear weapons states,
but which are on the threshold)?
What
are the dangers of a first-strike nuclear policy?
-
Threatening with nuclear weapons strains our relationships
with our allies.
-
This policy has the potential to undermine nonproliferation
efforts.
-
There are contradictions inherent in the use of
nuclear weapons to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.
Instead of leading to disarmament, threatening
states with nuclear weapons tells non-nuclear
states that nuclear weapons are necessary.
-
This policy may spur non-nuclear nations to move
toward developing nuclear capacity - and re-start
the costly and dangerous arms race.
