OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jorge_hi_061018_voting__against_nucl.htm
Voting against nuclear war with Iran
By Jorge Hirsch October 18, 2006
The outcome of the November election is likely to determine whether or
not the US goes to war with Iran before President Bush leaves office.
For multiple reasons recounted below such war will with very high
probability include the US use of tactical nuclear weapons. In casting
or not casting a vote in November, each of us will contribute to
determine events of potential consequences immensely larger than local
taxes, illegal immigration or even the Iraq war. Crossing the nuclear
threshold in a war against Iran will trigger a chain reaction that in
weeks, years or decades could lead with high probability to global
nuclear war and widespread destruction of life on the planet.
The Bush administration has radically redefined America's nuclear use
policy: US nuclear weapons are no longer regarded as qualitatively
different from conventional weapons. Many actions of the administration
in recent years strongly suggest that an imminent US nuclear use is
being planned for, and this was confirmed by Bush's explicit refusal to
rule out a US nuclear strike against Iran. We have all been put on
notice. The fact that North Korea is now a nuclear country does not
change the agenda - quite the contrary.
There were fears that the US would use nuclear weapons in the Iraq
attack, which did not materialize, hence some will argue that the
current fears of nuclear use against Iran may not materialize either.
Some will argue that there were many other occasions in the past 60
years where the US appeared to come close to using nuclear weapons and
did not, that the threshold for using nuclear weapons always was and
remains extraordinarily high, and that the US nuclear "saber rattling"
is just trickery to scare our opponents ( "madman theory"). These
arguments are wrong. The US is much closer than it has ever been since
Nagasaki to using nuclear weapons again. This year for the first time
in its history the American Physical Society, representing 40,000
members of the profession that created nuclear weapons, issued a
statement of deep concern on this matter: "The American Physical
Society is deeply concerned about the possible use of nuclear weapons
against non-nuclear-weapon states and for pre-emptive
counter-proliferation purposes".
In the case of Iraq, our adversary was so weak that there was no way a
US nuclear weapon use could have been justified in the eyes of the
world. Iran is different: it possesses missiles that could strike US
forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf as well as Israeli cities, and a
large conventional army. 150,000 US soldiers in Iraq will be at great
risk if war with Iran erupts, and Americans will support a nuclear
strike on Iran once the administration creates a situation where it can
argue that such action will save a large number of American or allies'
lives.
In previous US wars, nuclear use did not occur because it carried an
unacceptably high risk of triggering a nuclear conflict with the Soviet
Union or China. Because North Korea appears to have now a nuclear
deterrent, and because of the possibility that China could get
involved, there is no danger that the US will attack North Korea. In
fact, Bush will use the fact that North Korea has joined the nuclear
club, and charges that he was not "tough enough" on North Korea, as an
argument to "justify" attacking Iran before it achieves that status,
notwithstanding the fact that unlike North Korea Iran has stated no
intention to follow that path nor is there any evidence that it is
doing so. The nuclearization of North Korea only helps the plan to nuke
Iran, which is why the administration did everything it could to
encourage it.
No nuclear country is likely to intervene nor threaten to intervene
when the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran, hence there is no
military deterrent to such use. The US has now achieved vast nuclear
superiority, and is about to demonstrate to the world that its
5-trillion nuclear arsenal is not "unusable".
The US Nuclear Posture
The Bush administration has made sweeping changes in the nuclear
weapons policy of the United States during the past 5 years,
singlehandedly without consulting Congress nor the American people .
Under the name of "New Triad", the key concept is "integration" of
conventional and nuclear forces. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric
stating that it means that some missions previously assigned to nuclear
forces will be taken over by conventional forces. What it really means
is "a seamless web of capabilities": there is no longer a sharp line, a
sharp distinction, between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons.
Why should there be such a sharp line? Because, as a newly set up
website from the Department of Defense kindly explains[1], "weight for
weight, the energy produced by a nuclear explosion is millions of times
more powerful than a conventional explosion". Consequently, it
shouldn't be difficult to understand, even for a Yale C-student, that a
nuclear conflict that gets out of hand will take a million times more
lives than a conventional conflict. The last global conventional
conflict took over 50 million lives.
What is the benefit of making such policy declarations? The US has
never ruled out the use of nuclear weapons, and it carries a cost to
remind other countries of this fact, since it provides an incentive for
others to develop nuclear capability. There is no benefit in openly
announcing such ominous policy changes, unless the intention is to put
them into practice. Just like Bush announced in 2002 that "the United
States will, if necessary, act preemptively" in preparation for the
"preemptive" attack on Iraq.
The aforementioned Department of Defense website on "nuclear matters"
states that "there are a number of arms control agreements restricting
the deployment and use of nuclear weapons, but there is no conventional
or customary international law that prohibits nations from employing
nuclear weapons in armed conflict". That statement defines the "rules"
by which the U.S. government plays. No matter that it ignores (and the
website's list of "arms control agreements" also doesn't mention it)
the "negative security assurance" issued by the US in 1978 and
reaffirmed in 1995 promising not to use nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear-weapon states. Nor that it ignores the 1996 ruling of the
International Court of Justice.
The reason the changes in declaratory policy were made is to gauge
public opinion, and to prepare the public for the implementation of
this policy. Because reaction to these radical statements unfortunately
has been rather muted, the administration will be able to claim that
the American people by and large have embraced the new nuclear doctrine
of "integration" of nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities" and approve
of the use of nuclear weapons when they provide "the most efficient use
of force". The November vote may be your last chance to disagree.
The Rumsfeld "downsizing" transformation
The changes in nuclear doctrine did not occur in a vacuum. They were
accompanied by a strong push by the White House to develop new and more
usable nuclear weapons, and they are intimately tied and go hand in
hand with Rumsfeld's "transformation" of the military . The overarching
goal of this transformation is "downsizing" . What Rumsfeld did as CEO
of Searle, he set out to do for the US military.
As Time Magazine reported in its Aug. 20, 1945 issue right after the
bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "One hundred and twenty-three
planes, each bearing a single atomic bomb, would carry as much
destructive power as all the bombs (2,453,595 tons) dropped by the
Allies on Europe during the war". And this was before hydrogen bombs.
To the extent that the US military will be able to replace conventional
weapons by nuclear weapons to carry out its missions, it will have
achieved the ultimate "downsizing". That in a nutshell is the key to
Rumsfeld's "transformation of the military", everything else is
window-dressing.
The principal vehicle to achieve this transformation is the radical
redefinition of the mission of USSTRATCOM, one of the nine U.S. Unified
Combatant Commands. Before Rumsfeld, STRATCOM's sole mission was
nuclear deterrence and if necessary the use of nuclear weapons. Since
2001, "USSTRATCOM' nuclear focus broadened considerably with the latest
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)". Now it is a "global integrator charged
with the missions of full-spectrum global strike...", and provides "a
range of options, both nuclear and non-nuclear, relevant to the threat
and military operations". And it is in particular "the lead Combatant
Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in
combating weapons of mass destruction". A supporting role will be
played by the expanded USSOCOM, US Special Operations Command,
providing Rumsfeld with convenient "intelligence" and covert operations
capabilities.
The new nuclear doctrine is the software, the new USSTRATCOM is the
hardware, and Rumsfeld is the driver, for the "downsizing" program that
is about to be launched. Brace yourself.
There have been many voices across the political spectrum calling for
Rumsfeld's resignation for the botched Iraq war, yet he "retains the
full confidence" of Bush. Why? Because Rumsfeld cannot be fired until
he demolishes the "nuclear taboo" barrier, by detonating a small
tactical nuclear weapon against a US enemy. The US military is
reluctant to even consider the use of nuclear weapons against Iran,
because it would provoke "an outcry over what would be the first use of
a nuclear weapon in a conflict since Nagasaki"[2]. Only after a small
tactical nuclear weapons strike against Natanz or another Iranian
facility will such a barrier no longer exist for future US nuclear
threats and uses, and Rumsfeld's transformation will be a fait
accompli.
Why is "downsizing" the military so important to the PNAC crowd?
Because the American public has no stomach for a draft nor large losses
of American military personnel. If it becomes possible to wage war "on
the cheap", without loss of American life, and in the process we can
lower the price of oil and spread "liberty" across the world,
opposition will be muted. Public opinion on the Iraq war was not turned
by the enormous number of Iraqi lives lost (of which there isn't even
an effort to keep a count), it is only affected by the number of
American lives lost.
How it will happen
"The decision as to the employment of atomic weapons in the event of
war is to be made by the Chief Executive when he considers such
decision to be required" according to NSC 30 from 1948. According to
the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the chain of command flows from the
President through the Secretary of Defense to the geographic combatant
commanders. If Gen. John Abizaid (CENTCOM commander) or Gen. James
Cartwright (STRATCOM commander) ask authorization from President Bush
to use nuclear weapons, following the guidelines in the Doctrine for
Joint Nuclear Operations, what will Bush's response be? As he often
repeats, "I'm going to be listening to the people that know what
they're talking about, and that's the commanders on the ground in Iraq.
They'll make the decisions". The commanders on the ground will be
driven by what they perceive to be the immediate military necessity,
without regard to the larger issues such as the survival of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Congress will not be asked in advance to authorize the Iran war.
Congress has already declared, in passing H.R.6198, that Iran should be
held accountable "for its threatening behavior" (which merely consists
in Iran's refusal to give up its rights under the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty). The Iran war is likely to start with
selected bombing of a few Iranian facilities. Recall that on October
3rd, 2002, over 5 months before the US invasion of Iraq, we learned
that "Coalition forces this morning struck an Iraqi air defense center
after a coalition plane in the area dropping leaflets was fired upon,
defense officials said". On December 16, 1998, Clinton informed the
American people that "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces
to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by
British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its
neighbors". Neither of these operations, nor many other US military
operations, were done with Congressional authorization.
Bush will threaten Iran with a massive attack if it responds to such a
bombing. Iran will certainly respond, and Bush will proclaim that this
constitutes Iranian "aggression" against the US, and that Iran has
"chosen" war. It will be less farfetched than in the case of Iraq,
where Bush stated shortly before the US invasion "war is upon us
because Saddam Hussein has made that choice" (speech of March 6, 2003),
and as the US was about to attack on March 17, 2003 "Should Saddam
Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every
measure has been taken to avoid war". Once war with Iran has started,
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their hand-picked nuclear advisors will find
plenty of convenient "surprising military developments" to seize on to
"justify" the use of nuclear weapons.
Consequences
The nuclear weapons that the administration is planning to use against
Iran are low yield earth penetrating weapons expected to cause "reduced
collateral damage". Their real purpose is not to destroy facilities
that are too deep underground to be destroyed by conventional weapons:
it is primarily to erase the nuclear taboo, and secondarily to
shock-and-awe Iran into surrender.
Of course the potentially disastrous consequences of this action cannot
be overestimated. Once the US has used its nuclear weapons against a
non-nuclear country signatory of the NPT, the NPT will fall apart. Many
more countries will strive to develop and test nuclear weapons, overtly
or covertly, as North Korea has just done. With no longer a nuclear
taboo many more countries will feel entitled to use their nuclear
weapons in aggression against or to defend against aggression from
nuclear and non-nuclear adversaries. Military conflicts inevitably lead
to escalation, and they usually end only when one side prevails. That
is not how a global nuclear conflict will end.
If the US attacks Iran and does not use nuclear weapons, it will incur
military losses that will vastly outweigh any benefit of such war. If
there is no Iran war, the Bush presidency will be remembered
predominantly for the disastrous Iraq war. Crossing the nuclear
threshold will overshadow all other events of the Bush presidency. To
the (however unlikely) extent that it results in an advantage to
America, Bush's achievement could conceivably be hailed by future
generations. The "rational" choice for the administration is clear.
Like desperate gamblers in a losing streak, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld
have nothing to gain and everything to lose by not attacking Iran with
nuclear weapons.
Why the November vote matters
On November 7th, 33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats will be
contested. There are many reasons why even Republicans may wish that
one or both Houses are won by Democrats, and the prospect of nuclear
war should be a dominant one.
The President can legally order the use of nuclear weapons under any
circumstance without asking Congress. However, Congress could block the
authority of the President to order the use of nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear-weapon countries by passing legislation under Article I,
Sect. 8, Clause 14 of the Constitution to "make rules for the
government and regulation" of the Armed Forces. If Congress passed such
a law (see an example for a bill below [3]), it would in practice also
impede a conventional attack on Iran. Congress may also find other ways
to derail a presidential push towards using nuclear weapons, for
example by demanding that the Administration publicly discloses plans
or preparatory moves such as deployment of nuclear weapons in the
Persian Gulf. Which Congress is more likely to do this, a Republican or
a Democratic one?
Only Democratic congressmembers, however weakly, have questioned the
wisdom of the new US nuclear weapons policies. Not a single Republican
in Congress has, nor have they questioned the fact that the nuclear
option against Iran is "on the table". This is not to say that
Republican candidates would necessarily approve of the use of nuclear
weapons against Iran, in fact many if not most are likely to oppose it.
And some Democratic candidates may be more hawkish than Republicans in
regard to Iran. However, the principle of "party discipline" applies to
both Republicans and Democrats. And the administration that is planning
to use nuclear weapons against Iran is Republican.
No matter how wise, moral, resolute, and independent of Bush a
Republican candidate appears to be, when push comes to shove he/she is
more likely than not to vote the party line. In the current Congress,
as reported by the non-partisan Hill Monitor website, Republican
senators voted for the White House position 92.57% of the time,
Democratic senators only 54.56%. In the House, the respective numbers
are 88.50% and 40.99%. On the October 2002 vote requested by the White
House authorizing the Iraq attack, a single Republican senator opposed
it, versus 21 Democrats; in the House, only 6 Republicans opposed it,
versus 126 Democrats.
A US attack on Iran will lead to the US use of nuclear weapons and will
be disastrous for America. It is the path that Bush, Cheney and
Rumsfeld, with the advice of Kissinger, are hell-bent on pursuing. A
military takeover of government is not likely, and military refusal to
carry out immoral orders is uncertain at best. Congress has a role to
play, perhaps the most important one in its history, and a Republican
Congress is likely to rubberstamp any White House plan on Iran. Voting
Republican in November is voting to wage nuclear war.
-----------------------------------
[1] http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/
[2] "LAST STAND, The military's problem with the President's Iran
policy", by Seymour M. Hersh, New Yorker, Issue of 2006-07-10.
[3] (]http://www.geocities.com/jorgehirsch/nuclear/nuclearbill.html)
PROPOSED BILL
To regulate the use of nuclear weapons by the United States Armed
Forces
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This Act may be cited as the 'Nuclear Weapons Employment Act'
Sec. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE
(a) Findings - Congress finds the following
(1) Employment of nuclear weapons would be an act of extraordinarily
high political consequences, and the belligerent that initiates nuclear
warfare may find itself the target of world condemnation especially if
the opponent is a non-nuclear-weapon state.
(2) The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would be severely
undermined and many non-nuclear nations that are signatories today are
likely to withdraw from it if the United States uses a nuclear weapon
against a non-nuclear weapon state.
(3) Abandonment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by many nations
is likely to lead to widespread nuclear proliferation. This would
severely harm the safety of the world as well as the security interests
of the United States.
(4) A clear declaration by the United States that it will not use
nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states would strengthen the
NPT, provide a clear incentive for non-nuclear-weapon states to remain
non-nuclear, and for nuclear-weapon-states to become non-nuclear-weapon
states.
(5) The Nuclear Posture of the United States adopted in 2001
contemplates the use of nuclear weapons against targets able to
withstand non-nuclear attacks, and the integration of conventional and
nuclear attacks to ensure the most efficient use of force. The National
Security Strategy of 2006 envisions the preemptive use of force. These
policies taken together allow for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons
against non-nuclear states. Such action would be detrimental to the
United States.
(6) The nuclear threshold is a line of no return, and crossing it, even
with a low-yield nuclear weapon causing low casualties, represents
erasing a 60-year-old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, and
would encourage the use of nuclear weapons by others.
(7) Nuclear weapons are a million times more powerful than other
weapons and an escalating nuclear war could lead to the destruction of
civilization.
(b) Purpose - The purpose of this act is:
To affirm Congress' authority and responsibility under Article I, Sect.
8, Clause 14 of the US Constitution to make rules for the regulation of
the use of nuclear weapons by the United States Armed Forces.
Sec. 3. PROHIBITION OF USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AGAINST
NON-NUCLEAR-WEAPON STATES
The United States Armed Forces shall not use nuclear weapons against a
non-nuclear-weapon state.
Sec. 4. REAFFIRMATION OF POTENTIAL USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AGAINST
NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES
Upon Presidential order, the United States Armed Forces may use nuclear
weapons against nuclear weapon states:
(a) In response to a nuclear attack on the United States, its
territories, its armed forces, or an allied nation.
(b) Preemptively if in the judgement of the President a nuclear attack
on the United States, its territories, its armed forces, or an allied
nation is imminent.
Sec. 5. DEFINITION
A nuclear weapon state is either:
(a) A state that has conducted a test with nuclear weapons. As of the
date of this bill, nuclear weapon states under this definition are the
United States, Russia, China, France, England, India, Pakistan and
North Korea.
(b) A state that has declared itself to be a nuclear weapon state.
(c) A state that has been determined to be a nuclear-weapon-state by
the US Congress. Such determination shall be made after legislators
have considered all available evidence presented by the US Government
and other national and international organizations including the
International Atomic Energy Agency, by majority vote of both chambers,
and shall remain in force until revoked by majority vote of both
Chambers.
A non-nuclear-weapon state is a state not included in either of
categories (a), (b), (c). 1
-------------------------
Authors Website: http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/publicservice.html
Authors Bio: Jorge Hirsch is a Professor of Physics at the University
of California at San Diego, a fellow of the American Physical Society,
and organizer of a recent petition, circulated among leading
physicists, opposing the new nuclear weapons policies adopted by the US
in the past 5 years. He is a frequent commentator on Iran and nuclear
weapons.
Back
.
|
