| The threat of unconventional
weapons has been on the lips of politician and pundit
everywhere lately. A renewed sense of urgency has emerged
relating to the spread of dangerous technology to "rogue
states" and their possible use by "terrorists."
Yet, with all the concern that has emerged, not many people
are seriously discussing the threat posed by the most
dangerous "weapons of mass destruction (WMD)"
of all - the existing nuclear arsenals of the world. While
the Cold War nuclear standoff has ended, nuclear weaponry
is again menacing humanity and the earth.
The early 1990s were a decisive time in world history.
The great threat of nuclear confrontation between global
superpowers receded and finally, after 50 years under
the specter of nuclear war, it seemed that the world was
ready for peace and nuclear sanity. Opportunities were
available for both Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill
Clinton to take significant steps toward the elimination
of nuclear weapons. They could have set forth on an ambitious
agenda to remove the threat of nuclear weapons. Yet, the
hopes and achievements of the post-Cold War years caused
complacency rather than resolve. The opportunities awarded
to the world after the fall of the Soviet Union were squandered.
Although the likelihood of a deliberate large-scale nuclear
attack involving the United States is significantly less
than a decade ago, the U.S. national security strategy
is still reliant on nuclear weapons.
The nuclear disarmament opportunities of the 1990s further
eroded in 1998 when India's newly elected government detonated
five nuclear blasts under the Rajasthani desert. In the
same year, Pakistan responded to India by testing nuclear
weapons of its own; Iraq halted the UN weapons inspection
program; and Iran and North Korea tested missiles. The
following year, hope of advancing an aggressive disarmament
agenda disappeared when the U.S. Senate failed to ratify
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
With the attacks of September 11, 2001, a new variable
was added to the already volatile situation. It can no
longer be assumed that states were the only entities capable
of inflicting mass destruction. The possibility of a non-state
actor obtaining a nuclear weapon and detonating it on
the streets of a U.S. city is one of the most frightening
scenarios one can imagine.
We are now at the beginning of a second "nuclear
age." After surviving the first nuclear age by "dumb
luck," the world has fallen into a new and perhaps
more dangerous era under the nuclear threat.
Ironically, as the nuclear threat grows, it has become
increasingly difficult for the disarmament agenda to remain
an issue of concern for policymakers. To many in Washington,
nuclear war has been replaced by terrorism as the most
urgent security concern facing the U.S. Additionally,
many policymakers, including President George W. Bush,
believe that now that the Cold War is over and no military
rival to the United States currently exists, the U.S.
does not need to restrain its power. Arms control is a
method of limiting the power of states through maintaining
a strategic balance of weaponry. Since there is no need
to balance the power in a uni-polar world, arms control
is seen by the Bush Administration as a Cold War tool
that has little, if any, role in the current security
environment.
The attacks of September 11, 2001, transformed the U.S.
sense of security. Many in Congress are now so consumed
by fear of terrorism that they support policies that would
have been unfathomable five years ago. Policies of preemptive
nuclear strikes, new "usable" nuclear weapons,
and resumption of nuclear testing are now openly discussed
in Washington. After 50 years of congressional support
for a global system of nuclear restraint, norms and agreements,
many in Congress and the Administration are rewriting
the rules of international security under the pretense
of fighting terrorism.
The United States finds itself at a crossroads; it stands
at the point between re-nuclearization and disarmament.
Congress will make some extremely important decisions
in the coming years. Congress must choose between a future
that continues to, as Dr. Martin Luther King said, "spiral
down a militaristic stairway into the hell of nuclear
annihilation"1 or a future where problems
are solved through reason, cooperation, and imagination.
1 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "Address
in Acceptance of Nobel Peace Prize." Oslo, Norway,
December 10, 1964.
|
