Bush's Nuclear Threat
Dangerous New Policy
BY PETER FERENBACH
______________

The Bush administration recently adopted a new, offensive posture toward the use of nuclear weapons, signaling a dramatic escalation in the open-ended "war on terrorism." Critics believe the president's new policies dangerously increase the possibility of nuclear war and will set off a new arms race.

These and other startling plans, contained in the Nuclear Posture Review, were first revealed by the Los Angeles Times on March 9 and have since been confirmed as official policy by the administration.

The Bush policy targets China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria for a potential first strike. The Review spells out U.S. plans "to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations" even against non-nuclear powers.

The new policy is meant to intimidate perceived U.S. foes, especially Iraq, which President Bush openly vows to attack. Coupled with the massive investment in missile defense, it reveals the official ascendancy of an aggressive U.S. military posture advocated by the far right since long before Sept. 11.

FIRST STRIKES

The new nuclear doctrine suggests that the U.S. may undertake pre-emptive strikes. According to the Los Angeles Times, the Review says nuclear weapons could be used in three situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments."
Targeted nations are likely to accelerate weapons programs to deter U.S. attack by ensuring that they can deliver devastating blows to the U.S.-with or without ballistic missiles.

China, for example, says it will increase its nuclear arsenal because the new U.S. strategy mentions possible nuclear interventions in Asia. Such a build-up of Chinese nuclear arms would almost certainly be matched by India and followed by Pakistan. This would present grave new dangers of nuclear war in Asia and in the U.S.

The U.S. is the only country ever to have actually dropped nuclear bombs, causing the death of some 250,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, since then, "U.S. nuclear weapons have been used in the precise way that a gun is used when you point it at someone's head in a direct confrontation, whether or not the trigger is pulled," says former U.S. nuclear planner Daniel Ellsberg. Author Joseph Gerson has documented at least 20 such occasions.

Bush's new plan dangerously blurs the distinction between conventional and nuclear war. The administration's commitment to build smaller and more usable offensive nuclear weapons, which can be used in specific battlefield situations, greatly raises the human and environmental consequences of warfare.

AN OFFENSIVE "DEFENSE"

Key to this aggressive new nuclear approach is the U.S. ability to defend against potential retaliation. That is why President Bush is also bent on creating a missile defense system. A missile defense could never protect against an unexpected all-out attack, but it might be able to intercept missiles fired in retaliation to a U.S. first strike. With missile defense, Washington would be free to use, or threaten to use, its first-strike nuclear weapons to intimidate or devastate others.

However, even a limited shield is still nowhere near deployable, so Bush's new offensive nuclear strategy is actually a high-stakes gamble with the lives of millions of people both at home and abroad.

This new weaponry does not come cheap. For example, it means each California congressional district will spend an average of $47.59 million on nuclear weapons this year, and another $13.9 million on missile defense. The same sums could be used in each district to provide health insurance to 56,994 uninsured children, or hire 1,315 teachers and seriously reduce overcrowding in our schools.

Big defense contractors fuel this massive investment in military power but its purpose is continued U.S. economic and political dominance. Recently Vice President Cheney declared that "the arrangement for the 21st century is most assuredly being shaped right now."

To understand what is meant by this "arrangement," one need only look to history. Fifty years ago, the U.S. architect of post-World War II doctrine, George Kennan, declared "We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population...Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit the U.S. to maintain this position of disparity."

This is the "arrangement" that Bush's dangerous new nuclear posture-and indeed the entire "war on terrorism"-is meant to strengthen.

Peter Ferenbach is the executive director of California Peace Action.