THE RETURN OF DR. STRANGELOVE

The following article appears in the March 15, 2002, issue of 
the email Mid-Hudson Activist Newsletter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE RETURN OF DR. STRANGELOVE

By Jack A. Smith

The pro-war national political consensus that emerged after the Sept. 11
attack on the United States has produced one more big dividend for
George W. Bush, in addition to bipartisan backing for his open-ended,
ill-defined wars on terrorism, support for his decision to terminate the
ABM treaty,  and the impending passage of his astronomical defense
budget, among other right-wing initiatives.

Now,  President Bush believes, he is free to ?think the unthinkable? and
actively plan to use nuclear armaments as first-strike weapons in
pursuit of his right-wing definition of America?s interests.  With the
release of the Pentagon?s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) -- shaped by
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Pentagon civilians of
reactionary bent, delivered secretly to Congress in January, and leaked
to the Los Angeles Times March 9 -- Washington is warning foe and friend
alike that nuclear weapons are back in style and George W. Bush is just
the man to pull the trigger.  Bush reiterated his willingness to use
nuclear weapons in a press conference Feb. 13, closely associating his
remarks with renewed threats against Iraq, a country which took no part
in the terror raids.

Washington?s resurrection of nuclear arms as first-strike weapons of
mass destruction may have been unthinkable, but it was also inevitable.
What made nuclear war unthinkable for the U.S. during the Cold War was
not the morally repugnant fact that one bomb could kill millions of
innocent people, and that a few of them could destroy an entire society,
but that any nuclear attack by American forces may have resulted in
massive retaliation and mutually assured destruction from the USSR.  

Now, there?s no Soviet Union to retaliate against nuclear aggression,
and there?s no need to pay the piper for an atrocious misdeed.   So it?s
thinkable.  And if it?s thinkable, why continue to define nuclear
weapons as a defensive last resort?    Why not use them under any
circumstances the White House judges necessary?

During the Vietnam conflict, warhawks complained that the politicians
had ?tied the hands? of the Pentagon by ruling out the use of nuclear
weapons to defeat the liberation struggle.  With his approval of the
NPR, Bush clearly intends to untie any remaining binds, thus fulfilling 
a demand by the ultra-right for 57 years since the obliteration of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There remains a chance that the administration can be forced to
repudiate the new plan and send the Pentagon back to the drawing boards
for another review of nuclear posture.  But it?s going to take a lot
more guts than the Democrats have shown so far; a lot more pressure from
U.S. allies; and, above all, a truly mass antiwar movement in this
country beginning with the April 20 demonstrations scheduled for
Washington (see brief article immediately below).

According to the Pentagon document, the U.S. may now use nuclear weapons
under these circumstances:  

1. Against targets that can withstand non-nuclear attacks, such as
underground installations.   2.  In retaliation not only for a nuclear
attack but also chemical and biological attacks of unspecified dimension
(which could mean, in the absence of any further elaboration, everything
from an envelope of anthrax to a full-blown CB barrage).   3.  ?In the
event of surprising military developments,? which means precisely what
it sounds like -- anything (Sept. 11 was a surprise; Israel?s recent
interdiction of arms allegedly bound for Palestine was a surprise; a
suitcase bomb set off in Washington would be a surprise; the discovery
that a ?rogue state? possessed a weapon that could reach the U.S. would
be another surprise).

Specifically, the U.S. now threatens nuclear retaliation under these
conditions: 1. If there is a war between North and South Korea (the
Pentagon already has thousands of missiles in the south, many with
nuclear warheads, itching to be fired).  2. If there is an armed
conflict between China and its province, the U.S. protectorate of Taiwan
(China is already targeted with sufficient long- and intermediate-range
nuclear missiles  on land and sea to destroy all its biggest cities and
hundreds of millions of its inhabitants; it has a few small bombs of its
own and no adequate delivery system);  3. If Iraq attacks Israel. 4. 
Syria, Libya and Iran were also identified as possible targets,
presumably for whatever reason the U.S. wants.  (Several of the
countries considered potential targets, including China and North Korea,
expressed outrage upon learning of the Pentagon document. )

According to the NPR, ?In setting requirements for nuclear strike
capabilities, distinctions can be made among the contingencies for which
the United States must be prepared.... Contingencies can be categorized
as immediate, potential or unexpected.... North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria
and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in immediate,
potential or unexpected contingencies.  All have long-standing hostility
toward the United States and its security partners; North Korea and Iraq
in particular have been chronic military concerns.  All sponsor or
harbor terrorists and have active? programs to create weapons of mass
destruction.   

Washington?s fabrications to the contrary, none of these countries
possesses nuclear weapons, delivery systems with which to threaten the
United States, or weapons of mass destruction.  To launch a nuclear
attack against any of them would place the United States in violation of
the Non-Proliferation Treaty, wherein the U.S. pledged 24 years ago not
to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.

The Pentagon?s new nuclear posture is based on three assumptions termed
the New Triad.  Assumption one is the possession and willingness to use
an offensive strike force of nuclear and conventional weaponry. 
Assumption two consists of active and passive defenses, such as the
anti-missile system and other defenses.  Assumption three is called ?a
responsive defense infrastructure,? meaning the ability to develop and
produce nuclear weapons and resume the testing of nuclear devices.

?Composed of both non-nuclear systems and nuclear weapons,? the Pentagon
report reveals, ?the strike element of the new triad can provide greater
flexibility in the design and conduct of military campaigns to defeat
opponents decisively.  Non-nuclear strike capabilities may be
particularly useful to limit collateral damage and conflict escalation. 
Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand
non-nuclear attack (for example, deep underground bunkers or bioweapons
facilities).  Nuclear and non-nuclear strike systems can attack an
enemy?s warmaking capabilities and thus contribute to the defeat of the
adversary and the defense of the United States and its security
partners.?

According to William Arkin of Johns Hopkins University writing in the
Los Angeles Times March 10, ?While downgrading the threat from Russia
and publicly emphasizing their commitment to reducing the number of
long-range nuclear weapons, Defense Department strategists promote
tactical and so-called adaptive nuclear capabilities to deal with
contingencies where large nuclear arsenals are not demanded.  They seek
a host of new weapons and support systems, including conventional
military and cyber warfare capabilities integrated with nuclear
warfare.  The end product is a now-familiar post-Afghanistan model --
with nuclear capability added.  It combines precision weapons,
long-range strikes, and special and covert operations.?

Bush?s new plan has come under sharp attack from several allies, some of
the countries now targeted in the Pentagon documents, the international
left  and from expected liberal and radical sources, but as of this
writing there has not been much of  an outcry  from the media or the
Democratic opposition.

The New York Times was one of the critics, headlining its editorial
comment March 12 with the words, America as Nuclear Rogue.  ?Where the
Pentagon review goes very wrong,? the Times advised, ?is in lowering the
threshold for using nuclear weapons and in undermining the effectiveness
of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.... Since the dawn of the nuclear
age, American military planners have had to factor these enormously
destructive weapons into their calculations.  Their behavior has been 
tempered by the belief, shared by most thoughtful Americans, that the
weapons should be used only when the nation?s most basic interest or
national survival is at risk, and that the unrestrained use of nuclear
weapons in war could end life on earth as we know it.  Nuclear weapons
are not just another part of the military arsenal.  They are different,
and lowering the threshold for their use in reckless folly.?

Arkin of Johns Hopkins, a frequent contributor to the liberal Bulletin
of Atomic Scientists, argues: ?What has evolved since last year?s terror
attacks is an integrated, significantly expanded planning doctrine for
nuclear wars.?  He is echoed by John Isaacs, president of the Council
for a Livable World, who said of the NPR, ?This is very, very dangerous
talk .... Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon.?
(end)

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/iZp8OC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/B140lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

"[C]apital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and 
dirt."
--Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Chapter 31

Community email addresses:
  Post message: marxist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subscribe:    marxist-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Unsubscribe:  marxist-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  List owner:   jplst15+@xxxxxxxx

Shortcut URL to this page:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxist

Also take our one-question survey at
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxist/polls 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/