Proposing an end to America’s Nuclear Arsenal & Gun-Boat Diplomacy

by Bhuwan Thapaliya

We are at a critical juncture in history -- perhaps not as dramatic as that of the Cold War -- but a moment no less crucial. How long can the world avert another nuclear catastrophe after that double-strike by the United States in August 1945? One atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Around 80,000 people died immediately; approximately 200,000 died eventually. Later, a similar-sized bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

On Nov. 7, 1995, the mayor of Nagasaki recalled his memory of the attack in testimony to the International Court of Justice: "Nagasaki became a city of death where not even the sound of insects could be heard. After a while, countless men, women and children began to gather for a drink of water at the banks of nearby Urakami River, their hair and clothing scorched and their burnt skin hanging off in sheets like rags. Begging for help, they died one after another, in the water or in heaps on the banks. Four months after the atomic bombing, 74,000 people were dead, and 75,000 had suffered injuries, that is, two-thirds of the city population had fallen victim to this calamity that came upon Nagasaki like a preview of the Apocalypse."

The hyper-destructive power of nuclear weapons is well known, but given the United States’ growing dependency on nuclear power, it is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons. To make matters worse, The Bush administration has hinted that it is committed to keeping the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a stronghold of its military power.

Today, the United States has deployed approximately 4,500 strategic, offensive nuclear warheads. Russia has roughly 3,800. The strategic forces of Britain, France, and China are considerably smaller, with 200-400 nuclear weapons in each State’s arsenal. The new nuclear states of Pakistan and India have fewer than 100 weapons each. North Korea now claims to have developed nuclear weapons, and U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that Pyongyang has enough fissile material for 2 to 8 bombs.

These weapons are very destructive. The average U.S. warhead has a destructive power 20 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. Of the 8,000 active or operational U.S. warheads, 2,000 are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15 minutes’ warning. After the war in Iraq, The United States is focused, for understandable reasons, on persuading North Korea to rejoin the treaty and on negotiating deeper constraints on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, citing that both Iran and North Korea are unpredictable regimes whose possession of nuclear weapons would be dangerous and might also persuade other countries in their neighborhoods to go nuclear as well.

But the attention of many nations, including some potential new nuclear weapons States, is also on the United States. Keeping such large numbers of weapons, and maintaining them on hair-trigger alert, is a sign that the United States is not seriously working toward the elimination of its arsenal and raises troubling questions as to why any other State should restrain its nuclear ambitions. This puts the Bush administration in a dilemma.

In addition to projecting the deployment of large numbers of strategic nuclear weapons far into the future, the Bush administration is planning an extensive and expensive series of programs to sustain and modernize existing nuclear force and to begin studies for new launch vehicles, as well as new warheads for all of the launch platforms.

Some members of the Bush administration have called for new nuclear weapons that could be used as bunker-busters against underground shelters. The Bush administration has no intention to ask the US Congress to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). It is crystal clear that the Bush administration assumes that nuclear weapons will be part of U.S. military forces for at least the next several decades.

If the United States continues its current nuclear stance, over time, substantial proliferation of nuclear weapons will almost surely follow. Some, or all, of such nations as Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Taiwan will very likely initiate nuclear weapons programs, increasing both the risk of use of the weapons and the diversion of weapons and fissile materials into the hands of rogue states or terrorists.

The United States should lead from the front and not play the game of hide and seek with the world. Its nuclear policy should be overhauled, if it is to enforce its voice in the global arena. Repeatedly chanting the melodramatic mantra "axis of evil" will never give Mr. Bush the mandate to ignite the fervor of global peace. To be taken seriously in future, the US must take a step to eliminate its own nuclear weapons before telling the world to do so.

Furthermore, the United States must no longer rely on nuclear weapons or gun-boat diplomacy as a foreign-policy tool. This policy only endangers the global peace prospect. 

Political
Social
Economics
Religious
Science