|
16 April 2010 By Rick Rozoff This month has seen the signing of an agreement on
the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II by U.S. and
Russian heads of state Barack Obama and Dmitry
Medvedev in Prague on the 8th and the release of the
new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, both of which are
being widely interpreted as heralding the downgrading
of the role of nuclear weapons in American foreign
policy. In fact the new treaty on the reduction of the
nuclear arsenals of the two nations that account for
90-95 percent of the world’s supply of such weapons,
with a commensurate cutback in the delivery systems
for them, is a quantitative advance in the direction
of eliminating the deadliest and most destructive
weapons ever devised by man, but still leaves 3,100
deployed nuclear weapons in both nations’ quivers and
thousands more in storage. Similarly, the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review
(NPR), in stating for the first time that the U.S.
will not employ nuclear weapons against non-nuclear
states – with two notable (and critically important)
exceptions, which will be examined below – also has
been construed by some observers as another milestone
on the road to a world free from the threat of nuclear
war and in the worst case thermonuclear annihilation. With the two-day, 47-nation Nuclear Security Summit
in Washington, D.C. following so closely on the START
II agreement and the release of the Nuclear Posture
Review, the world press is abuzz with almost
millenarian optimism regarding the prospects for a
planet free of nuclear weapons. American establishment
news agencies and political commentators – half
government ventriloquist dummies and half mock devil’s
advocates – are rightly celebrating the START II and
the Nuclear Security Summit as victories for their
nation. The first allows the U.S. to forge ahead with
programs like international interceptor missile
deployments and Prompt Global Strike [1]; the latter
positions Washington as sole arbiter and main enforcer
in regards to nuclear proliferation worldwide. The only naysayers are American superhawks for whom
anything other than uncontested U.S. strategic
military superiority with the fervent willingness to
use it is an unwarranted concession if not a
treasonous capitulation. The above are often congress persons from districts
which are home to large arms manufacturers’
headquarters and production facilities and others on
the payroll of the military-industrial lobby. When leading officials of the current
administration issue bellicose foreign policy
statements the press often attributes those
pronouncements to pressure from or fear of the
opposition Republican Party, especially in a
congressional election year like 2010. However, the
Democratic administration of President Barack Obama
has retained George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense,
Robert Gates, and has installed Bush-era U.S. European
Command and North Atlantic Treaty Organization top
military commander James Jones as its national
security adviser. It is also not a Republican
administration that requested and has secured an
unprecedented $708 billion dollar military budget for
next year. Regarding international military strategy, except
for which weapon systems are favored over others there
is continuity in the White House that verges on
indistinguishability. To illustrate how little has changed since the
heated days following the attacks in New York City and
Washington, DC on September 11, 2001, on April 11 –
the day before the two-day Nuclear Security Summit in
Washington – President Obama boldly asserted “We know
that organizations like al-Qaida are in the process of
trying to secure nuclear weapons or other weapons of
mass destruction, and would have no compunction at
using them.” Aside from the curious choice of preposition to
accompany “would have no compunction,” the U.S. head
of state evidently has no compunction about claiming
to know the intentions of al-Qaida or about making
such an assertion without revealing how he knows it to
be true. Perhaps it is sufficient simply to assume any
enemy of the “world’s sole military superpower” is
actuated by the most nefarious of designs and has the
ability to carry them out. In the 1700s the French philosopher Montesquieu
wrote of the predatory masters of the jungle that he
who terrorizes also trembles. Establishing
unchallenged dominance based on force means that the
sound of every twig being broken and the rustling of
every leaf trigger a heightened state of vigilance and
the instinct to strike. There is always a threat and
always a prey. Obama added “The central focus of this nuclear
summit is the fact that the single biggest threat to
U.S. security – both short term, medium term and long
term – would be the possibility of a terrorist
organization obtaining a nuclear weapon.” In his
meetings on April 11 with the heads of state of India,
Kazakhstan, Pakistan and South Africa, Obama was
flanked by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
National Security Adviser James Jones and White House
Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, hardly a peace-loving
coterie. (The only substantive agreement to come out
of the meetings had nothing to do with nuclear
proliferation. Instead the U.S. gained the right to
fly troops and military equipment for the war in
Afghanistan over Kazakhstan, which borders both China
and Russia, after first passing over the North Pole.) On the same day the country’s Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
were featured on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” CBS’s “Face
the Nation” and ABC’s “This Week” and “gave interviews
meant to reassert the nation’s military strength.” [2]
In the last-named program (taped on April 9),
Clinton’s comments included: “We’ll be, you know, stronger than anybody in the
world as we always have been with more nuclear weapons
than are needed many times over. And so we do not see
this [the new Nuclear Posture Review] as in any way a
diminishment of what we are able to do.” “I think if you actually read the nuclear posture
review, you would make three conclusions. First – we
intend to maintain a robust nuclear deterrent. Let no
one be mistaken. The United States will defend
ourselves, and defend our partners and allies. We
intend to sustain that nuclear deterrent by
modernizing the existing stockpile. In fact, we have
$5 billion in this year’s budget going into that very
purpose.” [3] Gates touted both facets of the new U.S.
international military strategy, the ability to
deliver rapid, long-range first strikes with
conventional weapons and to then hide behind a
globally expanding missile shield should retaliation
ensue: “We have more robust deterrents today, because
we’ve added to the nuclear deterrent missile defense.
And – and with the phased adaptive approach that the
president has approved, we will have significantly
greater capability to deter the Iranians, because we
will have a significantly greater missile defense. “We’re also developing this conventional prompt
global strike, which really hadn’t gone anywhere in
the – in the Bush administration, but has been
embraced by the new administration. That allows us to
use long range missiles with conventional warheads. So
we have – we have more tools if you will in the
deterrents kit bag than – than we used to.” [4] In her “Face the Nation” appearance Clinton said
“we leave ourselves a lot of room for contingencies”
and Gates stated that if other countries don’t, in
Washington’s estimate, adhere to the stipulations of
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) then “all
bets are off.” Both addressed Iran and North Korea,
the remaining two-thirds of George W. Bush’s “axis of
evil,” as the main targets of their attention. So much for the new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)
reversing the U.S. doctrine of “reserving the right”
(see below) to wage nuclear attacks, even so-called
preemptive nuclear attacks, against non-nuclear
nations. The other key point is Clinton’s use of the
phrase “our partners and allies,” which is an
expression that is repeated like a red thread
throughout the Nuclear Posture Review and the new
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The NPR includes the contention that “In pursuit of
their nuclear ambitions, North Korea and Iran have
violated non-proliferation obligations” – and as such
are not excluded from nuclear strikes – and “as long
as nuclear weapons exist, the United States will
sustain safe, secure, and effective nuclear forces.
These nuclear forces will continue to play an
essential role in deterring potential adversaries and
reassuring allies and partners around the world.” [5] The U.S. “will not use or threaten to use nuclear
weapons against non-nuclear weapons states” only if
the latter “are party to the NPT and in compliance
with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.” “The United States is…not prepared at the present
time to adopt a universal policy that deterring
nuclear attack is the sole purpose of nuclear
weapons,” and “reserves the right to make any
adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by
the evolution and proliferation of the biological
weapons threat and U.S. capacities to counter that
threat.” Just as the U.S. will decide itself which countries
are and are not in compliance with the NPT (whatever
the International Atomic Energy Agency says on the
matter) and which that are not will be subjected to
sanctions and even direct military attacks, so it
“reserves the right” to use nuclear weapons, including
in advance of an attack, against any state that is
accused of developing biological weapons or harboring
non-state actors that are doing so. Precisely the
language of President George W. Bush and Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after September 11, 2001. With the unspoken assumptions added in parentheses,
the NPR statement on biological weapons reads: The
United States reserves the (exclusive, arbitrary,
unilateral) right to make any adjustment in the
(non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear
states) assurance that may be warranted by the
evolution and proliferation of the (real or
hypothetical or contrived) biological weapons threat
and U.S. capacities to counter that threat (as was
done with Iraq in 2003). To demonstrate that Iran and North Korea are not
the only countries that the NPR is developing
contingency plans against, it also mentions that
“Russia remains America’s only peer in the area of
nuclear weapons capabilities,” and “the United States
and China’s Asian neighbors remain concerned about
China’s current military modernization efforts,
including its qualitative and quantitative
modernization of its nuclear arsenal.” Though its main emphasis remains the one that
served as the pretext for the war against Iraq seven
years ago: “In coming years, we must give top priority
to discouraging additional countries from acquiring
nuclear weapons capabilities and stopping terrorist
groups from acquiring nuclear bombs or the materials
to build them.” The occupant of the Oval Office and
the name of his worldwide military campaign –
transformed from the global war on terror to overseas
contingency operations – may have changed, but nothing
else has except the public inclusion of a nuclear
component to the strategy. The next Niger “yellow
cake” fabrication may lead to a far more catastrophic
conflagration. Hillary Clinton reinforced the point on April 11:
“We fear North Korea and Iran, because their behavior
as – the first case, North Korea being – already
having nuclear weapons, and Iran seeking them – is
that they are unpredictable. They have an attitude
toward countries like Israel, like their other
neighbors in the Gulf that makes them a danger.” [6] Gates added on “Face the Nation”: “Because North
Korea and Iran are not in compliance with the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty….All options are on the
table.” [7] On April 12 Russian President Dmitry Medvedev
warned that an attack on Iran would be “the worst
possible scenario,” and “if conflict of that kind
happens, and a strike is performed, then you can
expect anything, including use of nuclear weapons. And
nuclear strikes in the Middle East, this means a
global catastrophe. Many deaths.” [8] On the same day the chief of the Russian General
Staff Nikolai Makarov said that air strikes against
Iran by the U.S. and Israel would be “unacceptable,”
and that “This is a last resort that exists in the
plans of both the United States and Israel.” [9] To insure the ability to deliver just such strikes,
“The NPR concluded that the current alert posture of
U.S. strategic forces with heavy bombers off full-time
alert, nearly all ICBMs on alert, and a significant
number of SSBNs at sea at any given time should be
maintained for the present.” Speaking of the U.S. global missile shield project
in early February, Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy Michele Flournoy said “We believe this approach
will provide reassurance to our allies that the United
States will stand by our security commitments to them
and will help to negate the coercive potential of
regional actors attempting to limit U.S. influence and
actions in key regions.” [10] No nation on earth will be permitted to respond to
American political and military intrusions in its
neighborhood or off its coast. And potential first
strike-related interceptor missile deployments will be
installed under the guise of protecting the U.S.’s
“allies and partners.” The allies and partners in question are first of
all the other 27 members of NATO, which are covered
under the bloc’s Article 5 mutual military assistance
provision and, for the most part secondarily, other
military client states throughout the world. The
partners that Clinton emphasized the Nuclear Posture
Review included as covered by the U.S. nuclear
umbrella and conceivably even to launch nuclear
attacks on behalf of. Possible scenarios for the implementation of this
policy include, with the U.S. intervening on behalf of
the first belligerent, conflicts or confrontations
between: -Israel and Iran, Lebanon and Syria or any
combination of the three. -The Persian Gulf monarchies – Bahrain, Kuwait,
Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates
– and Iran. -South Korea and North Korea. -Japan and North Korea. -Colombia and Venezuela and Ecuador. -Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia and
Abkhazia. -Canada and Russia in the Arctic Circle. -Taiwan and China. -Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno Karabakh.
Armenia hosts a small contingent of Russian
peacekeepers and is a member of the Russian-led
Collective Security Treaty Organization. In a major
conflict between the two South Caucasus countries
Turkey, a NATO member, would be pressured to intervene
on behalf of Azerbaijan. -Moldova and Transdniester. The second also has
Russian troops on its territory and NATO member
Romania would almost certainly enter the fray on
Moldova’s side should a major armed conflict erupt. -A resumption of fighting between Djibouti, where
the U.S. bases its Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of
Africa and approximately 2,000 troops, and Eritrea in
the Horn of Africa, with pressure on American client
Ethiopia to intervene as it did in Somalia in 2006. -A less likely but by no means impossible armed
altercation between Australia, which last year
approved its largest military buildup since World War
II, [11] and one of its neighbors, in the most
dangerous instance Indonesia. Canada is a founding member of NATO and Australia,
Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Georgia, Israel, Japan, Kuwait,
Moldova, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and
the United Arab Emirates are NATO partner states under
the Partnership for Peace, Mediterranean Dialogue,
Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and Contact Country
programs and several of them – Azerbaijan, Georgia,
Israel and Moldova – have individual NATO
partnerships. With the exception of ice-bound Antarctica, the
“allies and partners” rationale would permit
Washington to threaten the use of or to in fact employ
nuclear weapons on every continent. If the realization of what an elastic
interpretation of the Nuclear Posture Review, “with a
lot of room for contingencies” and when “all bets are
off,” portends is not yet present in the U.S. itself,
it is becoming so elsewhere. On April 11 Iran’s
supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei criticized
President Obama for threatening his nation with a
nuclear attack, stating “An example of this is the
recent statement by the US president, who implicitly
threatened the Iranian nation with the use of nuclear
arms.” [12] On the same day it was reported that the Iranian
embassy in Denmark issued a similar condemnation of
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, stating: “The former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh
Rasmussen’s Wednesday article” – “The case for western
missile defence” in The Guardian – “which raised some
issues about Iran, was full of misinterpretations,
ill-intent, and false accusations about Tehran’s
peaceful nuclear and missile activities.” “He, like others who seek any opportunity to spread
their warmongering views, has once again resorted to
preconceptions, lies and deception.” [13] The Iranian
Foreign Ministry has announced plans to raise the
issue in the United Nations Security Council. Rasmussen is the main ringleader of the U.S.’s
major “allies and partners.” The NPR states “Although the risk of nuclear attack
against NATO members is at an historic low, the
presence of U.S. nuclear weapons – combined with
NATO’s unique nuclear sharing arrangements under which
non-nuclear members participate in nuclear planning
and possess specially configured aircraft capable of
delivering nuclear weapons contribute to Alliance
cohesion and provide reassurance to allies and
partners who feel exposed to regional threats.” It also maintains that “Any changes in NATO’s
nuclear posture should only be taken after a thorough
review within and decision by the Alliance. “In Asia and the Middle East where there are no
multilateral alliance structures analogous to NATO the
United States has maintained extended deterrence
through bilateral alliances and security relationships
and through its forward military presence and security
guarantees.” Part of February’s Ballistic Missile Defense Review
policy is to “Deploy new sensors in Europe to improve
cueing for missiles launched at the United States by
Iran or other potential adversaries in the Middle
East,” as well as to “Invest in further development of
the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) for future land-based
deployment as the ICBM threat matures.” [14] It is not indicated when if ever Iran is expected
to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable
of striking the U.S., a patent absurdity. Whether, for
example, it would occur before or after al-Qaida
acquires nuclear weapons according to Washington’s
claims is not specified. The NPR states that “As President Obama has made
clear, today’s most immediate and extreme danger is
nuclear terrorism.” It also contains a pledge to “maintain a safe,
secure, and effective nuclear arsenal to deter attack
on the United States, and on our allies and partners.” “Agile and flexible U.S. military forces with
superior capabilities across a broad spectrum of
potential operations are a vital component of this
broad tool set.” The Ballistic Missile Defense Review also advances
plans to “Pursue a number of new GMD [Ground-Based
Midcourse Defense, supposedly abandoned last September
17] system enhancements, develop next generation
missile defense capabilities, and advance other
hedging strategies including continued development and
assessment of a two-stage ground-based interceptor,”
and to develop “new capabilities such as a land-based
SM-3 system (tentatively called ‘Aegis Ashore’)” and
“increasingly capable PATRIOT batteries for point
defense, the AN/TPY-2 X-band radar for detecting and
tracking ballistic missiles, Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense (THAAD) batteries for area defense,
space-based sensors, and sea-based capabilities such
as the SM-3 Block IA interceptor.” The putative purpose for doing so is because the
“ballistic missile threat is increasing both
quantitatively and qualitatively, and is likely to
continue to do so over the next decade.” Twenty years
after the end of the Cold War. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review outlines
additional plans to: Assure access to space and the use of space assets Expand future long-range strike capabilities Defeat enemy sensors and engagement systems Centralize command of cyber operations The army is to maintain “7 Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense (THAAD) batteries” and the Navy “10–11
aircraft carriers and 10 carrier air wings 84 – 88
large surface combatants, including 21–32 ballistic
missile defense-capable combatants and Aegis Ashore.”
[15] The Nuclear Posture Review parallels the above
plans with the demand for “U.S.-based nuclear weapons
that could be deployed forward quickly to meet
regional contingencies,” and to “Retain the capability
to forward-deploy U.S. nuclear weapons on tactical
fighter-bombers and heavy bombers” in part “to assure
U.S. allies and other security partners that they can
count on America’s security commitments.” Whereas other nations’ military doctrines mention
defending their own homelands, “as a global power, the
strength and influence of the United States are deeply
intertwined with the fate of the broader international
system — a system of alliances, partnerships, and
multinational institutions that our country has helped
build and sustain for more than sixty years.” The Quadrennial Defense Review also states: “Our
deterrent remains grounded in land, air, and naval
forces capable of fighting limited and large-scale
conflicts in environments where anti-access weaponry
and tactics are used, as well as forces prepared to
respond to the full range of challenges posed by state
and non-state groups.” For six decades Washington has built military
alliances around the globe and at an accelerating pace
since the end of the Cold War. “Allies and partners”
are military outposts that will be defended –
preemptively and with nuclear weapons if deemed
necessary – and will be used as springboards for
attacks on other nations. 1) Prompt Global Strike: World Military
Superiority Without Nuclear Weapons http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/../prompt-global-strike-world-military-superiority-without-nuclear-weapons 2) Washington Post, April 12, 2010 http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf 6) ABC News, April 11, 2010 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/../australian-military-buildup-and-the-rise-of-asian-nato 12) Press TV, April 11, 2010 http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/1002BMDR.pdf 15) Quadrennial Defense Review Report http://www.defense.gov/qdr/QDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200700.pdf |
Add Comments