EDITORIAL Wisdom needed to leave nuclear madness
behind
It is sad that there has been no
explosion in wisdom in our lifetime comparable to that which we have seen in
knowledge. One of the most striking examples of this imbalance is the nuclear
arms race.
Since the end of the Cold War, humanity has stepped back from the
nuclear brink but has lacked the collective wisdom to leave the madness behind.
Sane intentions to rid the planet of all nuclear weapons have been blocked by
the plans and fears of warriors who control our destinies.
A positive step was taken earlier this month when the Russian
Duma, the lower house of parliament, finally approved the 1993 START II arms
control agreement. START II was signed more than seven years ago by Presidents
Bush and Yeltsin. It will, if implemented, reduce each nations deployed
long-range nuclear warheads from the current level of about 6,000 each to
3,000-3,500 each.
Even after START II, both the United States and Russia will retain
thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, poised for mass attack,
with decision-makers having just minutes to decide whether to launch. Both
countries will also retain a large number of short-range, tactical
nuclear bombs not covered by START.
Duma approval of START II provides a historic opportunity
for President Clinton to conclude a START III deal to secure deeper verifiable
and irreversible reductions of each nations nuclear bombs, said
John Isaacs, president of Council for a Livable World. The U.S. should
lock in the lowest level of nuclear weapons that Russia will accept and
verify, suggested Isaacs. Sadly, when Russia says it is prepared to
mutually and verifiably reduce to 1,000-1,500 long-range weapons, the
Clinton-Gore administration insists that we should not go below 2,500, he
noted.
Isaacs and other arms experts say it is dangerous to continue to
believe that deterring Russia, which is poor and no longer a Cold War enemy,
requires threatening to drop 2,500 nuclear bombs on Russian soil. Each of these
2,500 weapons can destroy an area much greater than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
The president and Congress would have the backing of the public if
they worked together to secure further verifiable nuclear reductions under
START III. A national public opinion survey conducted this month revealed that
67 percent of Americans believe that reduction or elimination of nuclear
weapons should be the goal of U.S. nuclear policy. Four in 10 Americans believe
that the complete elimination of nuclear weapons should be the U.S. policy
goal.
Many Pentagon leaders agree that more progress is needed. In an
interview on 60 Minutes aired earlier this year, the former head of
the U.S. Strategic Command, Gen. Eugene Habiger said ... the fact that we
have not been able to get down to lower and lower levels of nuclear weapons is
troubling to me, and it should be troubling to you.
Critics of the Clinton administrations nuclear weapons
policy, such as Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., believe the United States should
unilaterally reduce the nuclear weapons stockpile instead of keeping it at the
level of the Cold War. We have way in excess of what we need,
Kerrey said recently. We force the Russians to maintain more weapons than
they are able to control. Kerrey said the administration and the public
should be reminded that one U.S. Trident submarines 24
intercontinental-range missiles could deliver 192 warheads, each with 100
kilotons, on some country -- enough to shatter its society.
The United States has 18 Trident submarines, four of which
eventually are to be withdrawn under START II.
For the moment it appears that getting to START II levels will not
be easy. Russias ratification of the agreement may spark the first real
debate in more than a decade over the size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, which
has changed very little since the end of the Cold War. The number of nuclear
warheads deployed on missiles and bombers by Russia and the United States
gradually is dropping from 10,000 to 6,000 on each side, thanks to the START I
agreement, which was signed in 1991 and went into effect in 1994.
During the 1980s, the nuclear freeze movement, the Reagan
administrations military buildup and U.S.-Soviet arms control talks all
ensured that a public debate would take place over Americas nuclear
posture. But since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, fears of nuclear
Armageddon have waned, and the United States has maintained and even begun
upgrading its 6,000 deployed warheads with almost no debate in Congress.
Moscows deployed strategic arsenal, meanwhile, has continued
to decline because of the lack of funds needed to keep its nuclear missile
submarines and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles fully
operational. Even though newly elected President Vladimir Putin has called for
strengthening Russias nuclear forces, many experts believe that Russia is
sliding toward a force of 1,500 operational strategic warheads, the number it
has proposed in preliminary discussions about a START III accord.
Two protocols to the START II arms reduction treaty now throw the
issue back to a U.S. Senate recalcitrant about arms control. The protocols --
agreed to by President Clinton and then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1997
-- must be approved by the Senate before the START II treaty is formally
adopted.
It appears likely that Clinton will delay bringing the two
protocols to the Senate, where he faces a tough fight against Republican
opposition.
The administration still hopes it can achieve a breakthrough in
arms talks with Russia that would amend the ABM Treaty to allow U.S. deployment
of a national missile defense system -- and then bring a broader package to
Congress. This approach is another sign that wisdom remains in short
supply.
National Catholic Reporter, April 28,
2000
|