By Linda A. Prussen-Razzano
web
posted July 30, 2001
Just last month, the Federation of American Scientists, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, and the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report
entitled, "Towards True Security: A US Nuclear Posture for the Next
Decade." The purpose of the report was to examine our current post-cold
war posture, compare it to changes in the World Theater, and adjust America's
defense policy to accommodate these changes. Of the nine proposals offered,
four have great merit, three are questionable, and the last two (discussed
below) are highly questionable.
8. Commit to not resume nuclear testing and to ratify the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty.
Ensuring the viability of our nuclear arsenal through periodic testing
is essential. Very few nuclear tests have been conducted over the last
five years, making this kind of commitment counterproductive.
Further, agreeing to yet another treaty will not help enforce those
already in place but under constant violation. While Russia's internal
conflicts have not readily lent it to controlled subterfuge, Russia's
Communist partner, China, has earned top honors in nuclear proliferation.
What it did not glean in dual-use transfers or through direct purchase
from Russia, it reportedly stole from America and Canada. China would
then funnel these technologies to Pakistan, Iran, and other countries.
In June, 1997, the Director of Central Intelligence submitted a report
to Congress advising "that during July-December 1996, 'China was
the most significant supplier of WMD-related goods and technology to
foreign countries.'"
On January 28, 1998, DCI George Tenet testified to the Senate Select
Intelligence Committee that "there is no question that China has
contributed to WMD advances" in Pakistan and Iran.
China's list of treaty violations is extensive, including the MTCR,
the IAEA, the NPT, the CWC, and it's own White Papers. The funds gained
through illegal transfers to other countries allow China to continue
making purchases from Russia. During the Clinton Administration, these
abuses were continuously parsed and excused. In light of the almost
incestuous, monetary relationship between China's proliferation and
Russia's military, America's current posture of viewing China as a "competitor"
instead of "ally" takes these violations into consideration.
9. Recognize that deployment of a US missile defense system that Russia
or China believed could intercept a significant portion of its survivable
long-range missile forces would trigger reactions by these countries
that could result in a net decrease in US security. The United States
should therefore commit to not deploy any missile defense system that
would decrease its overall security in this way.
By far, this is the most questionable recommendation. The CIA and the
CRS have already established China's proliferation to non-friendly nations.
A national missile defense will, by no means, block a full-scale nuclear
assault by an established nuclear power; however, it will act as a deterrent
to a rogue nation, an accidental launch, or terrorist group intent on
causing immediate harm to Americans on American soil. Further, in all
the scenarios listed above, America would be more apt to "absorb"
the impact and spare the planet, than to retaliate in full measure. This
is little consolation for those poor souls living at or near ground zero.
Given China's inability to abide by non-proliferation treaties and Russia's
willingness to provide to a known proliferator, America, in truth, has
no guarantee that either country will not increase their nuclear power
even without a national missile defense. China, with Russia's assistance,
continues to march onward in military empowerment.
On a more personal note, I was ill prepared to die in January of 1995.
Those who were, or are, and have little desire to be protected from a
rogue nuclear weapon, please feel free to place an "X" on a
map marking your address and mail it to the terrorist group of your choice.
No doubt, you'll have more than just eight minutes to enjoy your noble
gesture. If you choose to be a victim, that is your choice.
I choose a fighting chance.
Linda Prussen-Razzano is an advisory board member and frequent contributor
to Rightgrrl and a columnist for The American Partisan.
Other related articles: (open in a new window)
Towards
true insecurity, Part I by Linda A. Prussen-Razzano (July 23, 2001)
Linda A. Prussen-Razzano looks over several proposals that would change
America's nuclear posture in these new days of peace. Some are worthwhile
while others are a bit unrealistic