If we are to believe “Dozer” that the US invaded Iraq out of concern for WMD we must put this into its proper global context. This would be a particular instance of the principle that, if necessary, we must wage preventive war against “rogue states” with “WMD” (a false term in itself, but let’s leave that aside). The logic behind this was stated, at the time, by one of the more odious neo-con hangers on, Charles Krauthammer, who stated “politics has gone cosmic” for “will the world’s most dangerous regimes (or to similar effect-me) use the ultimate knowledge for the ultimate destruction”.

Notice that “Dozer”, Wolfowitz, Krauthammer actually do not believe in this principle. According to United States Strategic Command, which has operational command over US strategic nuclear forces (the only real form of WMD), the US must posture as being “irrational and vindictive” leadership elements must “appear out of control”. The US pursues a counterforce nuclear strategy. It routinely violates international law and wages wars of aggression. Even former Republican arms control diplomat Tom Graham Jr argued that such things as the weaponisation of space increase the threat of large scale accidental nuclear war i.e. “the ultimate destruction”.

Assuming rationality, if we adhere to the principle it follows that we must consider regime change in the United States, a nuclear weapon state posturing as “irrational”, “vindictive” indeed “out of control.” But Dozer, nor Wolfowitz clearly, in the remotest sense advocates this position. Moreover, if we are moral agents it follows that we in Australia, given our adherence to the principle (again assuming rationality), must direct our attention to our support for these US policies. Moral agents first and foremost are morally responsbile for their own actions. The actions of others follow.

It thereby follows that Dozer is neither a moral nor rational agent. What that makes him/her is best left for the reader to judge. That's all we need say on the matter.

Hello Marko,

You have made the next comeback which I invariably come across in this debate- How can the US demand that one country, (let alone a “rogue state”) disarm its WMD when it does not do so itself, and indeed is improving the capabilities of its own nuclear arsenal?

Firstly, you appear to assume that I either have not considered the issue, or do not care, as shown by your closing paragraph. You appear to assume that I have supported the war in Iraq because I am a supporter of the US, rather than a supporter of WMD disarmament. While I admit to the former on a number of issues, I must make it clear that I support the latter over the former.

Of course the US’s own nuclear arsenal undermined its case that Iraq should have disarmed its (non-existent) WMD arsenal, and the same applies to Iran and North Korea. However, this does not mean that until the US disarms its WMD/ nuclear arsenal, we have no right to demand that other states respect the NPT. Do you believe that the UNSC has the right to demand that states do not acquire nuclear weapons? Its own legitimacy is undermined by the same problems- the P5 all possess nuclear arsenals.

In short, the proliferation of nuclear weapons/ WMD must end, as such proliferation is potentially disastrous. All nuclear weapon states, not just the US, should engage in a systematic effort to completely eradicate their nuclear arsenals.

But here’s the catch. Why does a state seek nuclear weapons? There are two main reasons (among others,) and they both reflect a need for protection/ deterrence:

1) It fears the nuclear arsenal of another state/ rival/ enemy.

2) In order to make up for a deficiency in its conventional military capability/ deterrent.

Both reasons reinforce and are reinforced by the other.

The problem is, although an effort to eliminate nuclear weapons/ WMD by all states would solve the first problem, it does not solve the second. How do you convince a state like Russia, which shares a long border with

cont...

the most populous nation in the world, and whose conventional capability is in steady decline, to give up its trump card? Pakistan fears the power of a rapidly modernising and much larger India. Israel perceives itself (quite rightly,) as surrounded by enemies, and geography isn’t exactly on its side.

The US, on the other hand, protected geographically by two large oceans, has the most powerful air force, navy, and army in the world. It has the largest economy in the world, and houses the UN in its largest city. Despite the rapid rise of China. it remains the sole superpower in the world. It would have the most to gain from global nuclear disarmament, because it could still use its massive conventional military advantage, as well as political and economic leverage, to protect its vital national interests.

So I cannot help feel but a little cynical when I see the argument that the US has no right to demand that other states follow the NPT. It has dramatically reduced the size of its Cold War nuclear arsenal. You may counter that it has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world put together, but consider that the US and Russia still store around 30, 000 nuclear warheads each- although “deactivated,” accountability and verification problems have hampered efforts to destroy them for good.

If the US government could be convinced that the rest of the world was serious about complete nuclear disarmament, it would be all too happy to do the same. The states which would prove most troublesome in achieving complete nuclear disarmament are the ones which are currently the loudest whingers about the US’s own nuclear arsenal. And the individuals in the West who shout the loudest about the US’s nuclear arsenal today, would most bitterly resent its conventional military capability in a world without nuclear weapons.

As for regime change in the US, that is quite a simple matter, given that the US is a democracy. Such change will probably occur, quite peacefully, in about a year and a half.

Hi Dozer,

You state that you are in favour of WMD disarmament. Ok, then that means that rather than attacking what you refer to as “the Left” you should rather join it in its attempt to get the West to disarm. That would be your first priority. Nobody is impressed by a wife basher that pours scorn on their neighbour for committing the same crime.

The Washington Post has just reported on 2003 intelligence estimates showing that there would be an increase in terrorism in the region and even what it called “guerilla warfare”. What does this tell us? It tells us that not that the US is unconcerned about terrorism but that combating terrorism is a lower priority than securing power and privilege.

The same applies to nuclear proliferation. For instance, intelligence estimates have argued that ballistic missile defence will lead to an “asian chain reaction” of nuclear proliferation in response. Again, proliferation takes a back seat to procurement contracts for the aerospace industry. Proliferation is not as high a priority as securing power and privilege and if the former contradicts the latter then so be it.

When the world’s leading military power reserves the right to attack anybody it fancies then this will naturally lead potential targets to arm themselves. Evidence indicates that some 90+% of the plutonium reprocessed by North Korea was done so under the watch of Team Bush. If you were as concerned about WMD then you would have marched for peace like hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens.

Marko,

Most neo-Cons and admin officials accepted that terrorism in the region would increase. The assumption was that this would only be on the short to medium term, but in the long run deal with one of its key causes. (mistake).

Although WMD disarmament is a poster issue for the Left, it is by no means the exclusive domain of the Left. Reagan, contrary to his image as painted by the Left, was a passionate advocate of nuclear disarmament. His vision for missile defence/NMD/SDI, and indeed the concept of missile defence itself, has been similarly distorted.

In my thesis I argued specifically that NMD could be the key to reaching nuclear disarmament. To take up your point:

The reason NMD has the potential to lead to an “Asian chain reaction” of nuclear proliferation is because it provides, in theory, a first strike capability- (I’m sure you understand this but for the sake of making my argument-) a nuclear armed state can launch a nuclear strike on its opponent’s nuclear arsenal, destroying, say, 90%. This leaves a Missile Defence shield to mop up the retaliatory strike when the opponent sends over the remaining 10%. Thus, developing NMD will most likely push other nuclear armed states to increase the size and effectiveness, and reduce the vulnerability, of their nuclear arsenals, to reduce the chances of such a first strike succeeding.

But NMD, in itself, doesn’t hurt anybody. The missiles used to destroy nuclear armed ICBM’s carry no explosive, relying simply on the force of impact to destroy a target. (Technical issues still remain, but are often exaggerated.) The reason NMD poses such a proliferation problem is that we live in a world where international stability and security is guaranteed by threats of mutual genocide- the crux of the ABM Treaty was that the USA and USSR would leave their cities vulnerable to annihilation from nuclear attack, precisely to make a nuclear attack unthinkable, indeed, MAD. Such a policy is, at its core, immoral. So, the problem with nuclear weapons is not missile defence. The problem with nuclear weapons is nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, the problem with complete nuclear disarmament is that the technology cannot be unmade, (although expertise in A-bomb making would over time erode.) Any country which chose to build a nuclear arsenal in a nuclear free world could do a lot of damage in a hurry. Similarly, states may be tempted to rebuild nuclear arsenals if a confrontation seemed inevitable. This is one of the key stumbling blocks in reaching WMD disarmament and explains why certain states are dragging their heels. But it is in such a situation that the utility of NMD would come into its own, especially if it is a technology shared throughout the world.

NMD only works against a small nuclear arsenal- any more than from a few dozen to 100 missiles may overwhelm it, depending on which intelligence estimates one reads. But extreme sensitivity would exist to the development of nuclear weapons in a nuclear free world- thus it is highly likely that a “rogue” actor may only be able to develop a very small nuclear arsenal before it is discovered, and the threat would be felt universally. The international community would be much emboldened in confronting a state which developed nuclear weapons, if protected by Missile Defence.

My thesis presented a blueprint to drawing down the size of nuclear arsenals while increasing the capability of Missile Defences. I made the point that unless disarmament momentum was maintained, the process would become destabilised, with or without, but especially with, NMD. I also argued that in order to convince states such as NK and Iran to follow suit, their own security interests must be addressed.

Proponents of nuclear disarmament should view Missile Defence as an opportunity, rather than a threat, (or one link in the military industrial complex which supposedly starts every war.) The US can only be convinced to disarm its nuclear arsenal if it can do so in a way which doesn’t undermine its security or its position. Unfortunately, I get the impression many disarmament advocates care more about criticising the USA than they do about disarmament.