The Bush–Putin agenda in Kennebunkport, Maine this weekend should include critical unfinished business of the post-Cold-War era: immediate steps to outlaw nuclear weapons. However, the US is pursuing a different path.

“… [The United States] [b]ehaving as a superpower that seeks perpetual dominance, … that considers itself and its allies as exempt from international law, will not make us more secure. It will only provoke proliferation, just as our invasion of Iraq has not reduced terrorism but has instead created new grievances and new bands of terrorists. By trying to reap maximum benefit from our temporary role as sole superpower, our government is acting like the terrorist we fear, and in the process is making more likely the very things we fear the most: nuclear terror and a new arms race.”

The excerpt above is from an op-ed published in the Saturday/Sunday June 30–July 1, 2007 edition of the Bangor Daily News. My friend Mike Howard and I co-wrote the piece. The full text (as submitted) of the op-ed is below the fold. The piece does not yet appear on line at the newspaper’s site. If it does, I will post an update.

Update: Posted at Bangor Daily News, HERE.

Nuclear primacy is not security

The occasion of the meeting between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Kennebunkport, Maine is a good time to discuss critical unfinished business of the post-Cold-War era concerning the continuing threat of nuclear weapons use.

After September 11, 2001, it is not difficult to recognize the truth of Vice President Dick Cheney’s remark that the death and destruction caused by those attacks “would pale into insignificance compared to what could happen” if terrorists “had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our major cities.”

Yes, but it should be noted that these fearful nuclear consequences our leaders are keen to emphasize apply not just to the United States, but also to everyone else in the world, because the threat to use nuclear weapons still forms the backbone of U.S. foreign policy. This is the essential background for understanding the escalation in tensions between the US and Russia over Bush’s proposal to deploy missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.

The U.S. is pursuing an intimidating posture of nuclear primacy. America still has enough warheads to destroy the world, and the Bush Administration has dramatically increased the budget for new nuclear warheads, despite assurances from the Secretaries of Energy and Defense that the stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable. In the most recent Doctrine For Joint Nuclear Operations, U.S. military leaders describe “new thinking for a new era” where a “broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking diplomatic, political, military, or technical courses of action that would threaten US and allied security.”

The authors are keen to point out that unlike less-destructive chemical and biological weapons, “no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict.” This doctrine could lead to use of nuclear weapons in practically any situation because, as explained in another part of the document, “the U.S. does not make positive statements defining the circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons.”

Actual plans under discussion within the Pentagon have included proposed use of “bunker-buster” nukes against Iran despite the possibility of massive civilian casualties, as reported in 2006 in the New Yorker magazine. The threat of U.S. attack on Iran, ostensibly to prevent its acquisition of nuclear capability, is set starkly against the open secret of Israel’s possession of an advanced nuclear arsenal. Hostilities in Lebanon and Palestine for which Iran indirectly is blamed and in which the U.S. seems to endorse Israel’s strong role raises fears that the violence could possibly escalate beyond all reason. Real progress in averting nuclear proliferation in the Middle East requires a comprehensive solution, including US pressure on Israel to negotiate concerning its nuclear weapons.

Relevant to the tension with Russia, the U.S. has abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to develop Star Wars, a move that appears at first glance as defensive, but that a closer look reveals to be part of a nuclear offensive strategy: an ABM shield is designed to absorb a second strike of remaining missiles from an adversary after a massive U.S. first strike, thus making the latter a more credible threat. These examples indicate why the rest of the world is alarmed by the U.S. nuclear posture, and why Putin sees missile defenses in Europe as an offensive move.

The event that the Vice President provokes us to fear will be possible because of nuclear proliferation, ultimately resulting in a nuke in the hands of a terrorist. Two things need to happen to prevent proliferation: 1. non-nuclear states need to renounce nuclear weapons, and 2. nuclear states need to reduce and eventually eliminate their arsenals. These are not utopian dreams. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which mandates these, has been signed by 188 nations, the exceptions being Israel, India, and Pakistan. (North Korea withdrew in 2003 after being put on the “axis of evil” list.)

A group of analysts led by former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix last year issued a report on weapons of mass destruction stating that, “All states possessing nuclear weapons should commence planning for security without nuclear weapons. They should start preparing for the outlawing of nuclear weapons through joint practical and incremental measures that include definitions, benchmarks and transparency requirements for nuclear disarmament.”

What is needed to achieve these practical steps towards outlawing nuclear terror is our political will. Unfortunately, our government seems intent on another path. Behaving as a superpower that seeks perpetual dominance, and that considers itself and its allies as exempt from international law, will not make us more secure. It will only provoke proliferation, just as our invasion of Iraq has not reduced terrorism but has instead created new grievances and new bands of terrorists. By trying to reap maximum benefit from our temporary role as sole superpower, our government is acting like the terrorist we fear, and in the process is making more likely the very things we fear the most: nuclear terror and a new arms race.

Michael Howard teaches philosophy at the University of Maine
Eric Olson teaches physics at EMCC
Both are members of the Peace and Justice Center of Eastern Maine