[A-List] A Self-Vindicating Policy

[Bill Totten]

Building new nuclear weapons creates the threats they are supposed to avert.

by George Monbiot

Published in the Guardian (January 24 2006)

In nuclear politics, every action is justified by the response it provokes. 
The US explains its missile defence programme by claiming that other states 
are developing new weapons systems, which one day it might need to shoot down.
In response, Russia has activated a new weapons system, the Topol-M, designed 
to "penetrate US anti-missile defences" {1}.

Israel, citing the threat from Iran, insists on retaining its nuclear missiles.
Threatened by them (and prompted, among other reasons, by his anti-semitism),
the Iranian president says he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and appears to
be developing a means of doing so. Israel sees his response as vindicating its
nuclear programme. It threatens an air strike, which grants retrospective
validity to Ahmadinejad's designs. And so it goes on. Everyone turns out 
to be right in the end.

Tomorrow the deadline passes for the only objection anyone is likely to be
allowed to make to the latest GBP 100 million of government spending on
Britain's nuclear capability. West Berkshire council is permitted, on planning
grounds, to ask the government for a public inquiry into whether the Orion laser
project at Aldermaston should go ahead. The government is under no obligation to
grant it. No one else has any power to impede the scheme. The Orion programme
seems to be one of those projects whose purpose will be determined after it has
begun, but it appears to have something to do with evading the comprehensive
test ban treaty {2}. It might help British engineers to design a new generation
of bombs without having to test them. If so, it will strengthen the suspicion
that the government is considering not only replacing our existing Trident
missiles, but also building an entirely new class of weapons to accompany them.
In 2002 a spokesman at Aldermaston suggested that the plant might start building
either mini-nukes or nuclear warheads for cruise missiles {3}.

Three weeks ago, the Royal Navy announced that it is spending GBP 125 million
upgrading the Faslane naval base on the River Clyde in Scotland {4}. The base
houses the submarines which carry the UK's Trident missiles. Like the Orion
project, the spending has been approved before parliament or the public has had
a chance to decide whether it is necessary: what it means, in effect, is that
the Trident replacement programme has already begun.

The defence secretary explains that a new missile system is necessary because
"some countries" have not been "complying with their obligations under the
non-proliferation treaty" {5}. In response, therefore, the UK will refuse to
comply with its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. This provides
other countries with their justification for ... well, you've got the general
idea. Last week, France joined the exclusive club of responsible nations 
(the UK {6}, US {7} and North Korea) which have threatened other countries 
with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. What greater incentive could there be for the
rogue states Chirac spoke of to "consider using ... weapons of mass destruction"?
{8}

Unlike the British parliament, the US Congress has been permitted to vote on
such matters, and despite a great deal of bellyaching from the administration,
has bravely sought to block a new nuclear weapons programme. For two years in a
row it has refused to approve the money for George Bush's "robust nuclear earth
penetrator", a mini-nuke which could have reduced the threshold for first use.
But now it seems to have been duped.

Last year it approved initial funding for something called the "reliable
replacement warhead" programme. The administration maintained that this 
was nothing more than the refurbishment of existing nuclear weapons. The
legislators chose to believe it. David Hobson, a Republican who sits on the
House Appropriations Committee, and has led the fight against new weapons, 
was persuaded that "this is not a sneaky way to get a whole new powerful 
warhead type of thing in the future. We're not trying to do separate missions
than those the warheads were designed for today." {9} Ellen Tauscher, a Democrat
who is fiercely opposed to proliferation, insisted "this is about tinkering at
the margins of the existing weapons systems, nothing more" {10} The programme
would concentrate on replacing a few non-nuclear components, such as wires and
electronics, in order to extend their life.

They seemed naive then and they seem more naive today. The US has already 
spent about $60 billion maintaining and refurbishing its weapons under a
separate programme, called "stockpile stewardship". It wasn't easy to see 
why it needed  a new scheme. Even before the reliable replacement warhead
programme had been approved, the outgoing deputy head of the Nuclear National
Security Administration (NNSA) had let slip that a new generation of weapons was 
"not the primary objective, but [it] would be a fortuitous associated event".
[11]

Now the associated event is beginning to look like a primary objective. A couple
of weeks ago, the San Francisco Chronicle interviewed the head of the NNSA,
Linton Brookes. "I don't want to mislead you", he admitted. "I will personally
be very surprised if we can get the advantages we want without redesigning the
physics package". {12}

The "physics package" is the nuclear warhead. He went on to explain that the
warheads "will require new pits" (the "pit" is the plutonium core in which the
reaction begins). "We are going to need to melt them down and recast them". 
The new warheads would be bigger than the old ones. This is beginning to 
look like "a whole new powerful warhead type of thing".

Writing in the online magazine OpenDemocracy a few days ago, the professor of
peace studies Paul Rogers suggested that an early candidate for replacement
under the new programme would be America's Trident missiles. If this is the case,
it "would suit the British very well, with the prospect of close collaboration
and maybe even the sharing of some development costs". {13}

So, without any proper public debate on either side of the Atlantic, both
nations might have begun developing a new nuclear weapons programme which 
could last for forty or fifty years. Thoughout that period, their missiles 
will continue to provide everyone else with an excuse to flout the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty.

When Iran is referred to the UN Security Council, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be
able to turn every accusation it makes back on his accusers. He will insist that
the council's members are asserting a monopoly of ultimate violence; that while
there is as yet no definitive evidence that he is in breach of the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty, no one can doubt that they are. He will point to
America's tacit endorsement of Israel's nuclear status and its overt endorsement
of India's. He will assert that the enforcement of the global nuclear regime
discriminates against Muslim states. And though he is wrong about many things,
he will be right about all that.

This is not to say that the horripilation Iran's nuclear programme inspires is
unjustified. Nor is it to claim that no other state would seek to develop or
maintain nuclear weapons if the official nuclear powers gave theirs up. But 
the refusal of the members of the security council to make any moves towards
disarmament, their threats of pre-emptive bombing and their quiet development of
new weapons systems guarantees the failure of both the UN and the International
Atomic Energy Agency. Nothing could make us less secure than the billions we are
spending in the name of security.

http://www.monbiot.com

References:

1. Fraser Nelson, 26th December 2005. Putin's show of strength triggers fear 
of fresh nuclear arms race. The Scotsman.

2. Ian Sample, 20th January 2006. GBP 100 million laser project will mimic
nuclear explosion. The Guardian.

3. Richard Norton-Taylor, 18th June 2002. MoD plans GBP 2 billion nuclear
expansion. The Guardian.

4. William Tinning and Steven McMinn, 5th January 2006. Faslane to have GBP 125
million facelift. http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/53695.html

5. Richard Norton-Taylor, 2nd November 2005. Britain still needs nuclear weapons,
says Reid. The Guardian.

6. Geoff Hoon, 24th March 2002. The Jonathan Dimbleby Show, ITV 1.

7. Richard Norton-Taylor, 5th October 2005. As the US lowers the nuclear
threshold, debate is stifled. The Guardian.

8. Chirac said: "The leaders of states who use terrorist means against us, as
well as those who would consider using, in one way or another, weapons of mass
destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and
adapted response on our part. The response could be a conventional one. It could
also be of a different kind." From: John Thornhill and Peter Spiegel, 20th
January 2006. The Financial Times.

9. Quoted by James Sterngold, 15th January 2006. Upgrades planned for US nuclear
stockpile. The San Francisco Chronicle.

10. Ibid.

11. Quoted by Daryl G Kimball, May 2005. Replacement Nuclear Warheads? Buyer
Beware. Arms Control Today. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_05/focus.asp

12. Quoted by James Sterngold, ibid.

13. Paul Rogers, 12th January 2006. The United States, nuclear weapons, and Iran.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/Iran_3157.jsp

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/01/24/a-self-vindicating-policy/


Bill Totten http://billtotten.blogspot.com/