home / subscribe / about us / books / archives / search / links / feedback

New Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively to Subscribers: The Real Scandal at the Times: Why Not Give Jayson Blair a Pulitzer? After all They Gave Them to Safire and Gerth; What About the Framing of Wen Ho Lee? Falling for the Jessica Lynch Fraud? Judy Miller's Missing WMDs? Blair, the Early Years; Meet the Minister of Sleaze: Deputy Interior Secretary Steve Griles; He Still Works for Big Oil and Strip Miners; Uses 90-Year Old Women as Human Shields; The Crash of the American Economy; Smearing Rachel Corrie's Memory; The Origins of Chalabi: Is He a Creature of Israeli Intelligence? Remember, the CounterPunch website is supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide web audience is soaring, with more than 60,000 visitors a day. This is inspiring news, but the work involved also compels us to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! Or Call Toll Free 1-800-840 3683 or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Coming Soon! From Common Courage Press Recent Stories May 29, 2003 Jason Leopold Despite Thin Intelligence Reports, US Plans Overthrow of Iran Regime Ron Jacobs Popular Uprising, Inc. Harry Browne Stakeknife: Britain's Army Spy at the Top of the IRA   May 28, 2003 David Vest DubyaCo.: It's Not So Funny Any More Dave Lindorff My Grandfather's Medal John Stanton America's Dying: Arts and Philosophy Hold the Key Bernard Weiner A PNAC Primer Robert Jensen Texas Dems Set a Standard for the Rest of the Party Ahmad Faruqui The Oil Business of Regime Change: the CIA and Iran Hammond Guthrie Disarming Conundrums Steve Perry What If There's No Such Thing as Al-Qaeda?   May 27, 2003 Kurt Nimmo Condoleezza Rice: Huckstress for Israeli Myths Anthony Gancarski Hillary: a Dem the NeoCons Could Love? Patrick Cockburn Terror, Bush and Joseph Conrad John Chuckman an Interpretation of Bush's Character Kathleen Christison What Sharon Wants, Sharon Gets Jeffrey Blankfort AIPAC Hijacks the Roadmap Steve Perry Trouble in the Hinterlands   May 26, 2003 Franklin C. Spinney Test Anxiety: Star Wars, Punctuated Epistimology and the Triumph of Medievalism Elaine Cassel Supreme Sacrifice Sam Hamod When Trained Killers Return Home Stew Albert The Final Conflict   May 24 / 25, 2003 Gary Leupp The Philosopher Kings: Leo Strauss and the Neo-Cons Uri Avnery The Hannibal Procedure Diane Christian Who's the Real Enemy? "Just Cause" or "Kill the Bastards" Alexander Cockburn Derrida's Double Life William S. Lind Is Saddam Really Out of the Game? William Cook Road to Nowhere David Krieger Bush's War on the Poor: Economic Justice Ilan Pappe Academic Freedom Under Assault in Israel Wayne Madsen American Idle Noah Leavitt Slowing Sowing Justice in the Killing Fields Walt Brasch Americans are Liars Lenni Brenner John Brown and Dutch Bill Mickey Z. Hope, Crosby & Al Qaeda Michael Ortiz Hill Grievous Harm Here and Abroad Adam Engel Towers of Babel Poets' Basement Albert, Guthrie, Alam, Orloski   May 23, 2003 Standard Schaefer Lifting the Sanctions: Who Benefits? Ron Jacobs Long Live People's Park! Michael Greger, MD Return of Mad Cow: US Beef Supply at Risk Elaine Cassel Tigar to Ashcroft: "Secrecy is the Enemy of Democratic Govt." Sam Hamod The Shi'a of Iraq Christopher Greeder After the Layoffs (poem) Steve Perry Bush's Wars Weblog 5/23   May 22, 2003 Mark Gaffney Christian in Name Only Carl Estabrook Republic of Fear Carl Camacho, Jr. Reason for Hope Ben Granby What Rates a Headline from the Middle East? Vanessa Jones Terror Alerts in Australia Mickey Z. Instant Understanding Don Monkerud Snowballs in a Soggy Economy Barry Lando The Nether-Nether World of G.W. Bush Steve Perry Total Information Awareness: Secret Shadow Program?       Hot Stories Cindy Corrie A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter I Can't Hear From Elaine Cassel Civil Liberties Watch Michel Guerrin Embedded Photographer Says: "I Saw Marines Kill Civilians" Uzma Aslam Khan The Unbearably Grim Aftermath of War: What America Says Does Not Go Paul de Rooij Arrogant Propaganda Gore Vidal The Erosion of the American Dream Francis Boyle Impeach Bush: A Draft Resolution Click Here for More Stories.   Subscribe Online Search CounterPunch

May 29, 2003 Bush Nuclear Policy Do as I Say, Not as I Do By MICHELLE CIARROCCA The Bush administration has its foreign policy hands full with each nation in its "Axis of Evil." From the ongoing search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to the appearance of negotiations with North Korea, and the push to declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, President Bush is following through with his promise to make certain these "dangerous regimes and terrorists" can not threaten the U.S. with the world's most destructive weapons. But he's going about it in a way that will actually increase the nuclear threat to the U.S. and the world. Buried in the President's 2004 defense budget are two particularly troubling requests. The first seeks to repeal a 10-year-old ban on the development of smaller, lower-yield nuclear weapons, also known as mini-nukes. The second is a $15.5 million request to conduct research on a new bunker buster bomb called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. The Senate voted 51 to 43 to lift the ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Actual production of the weapons would require the President to obtain congressional authorization. The House is expected to vote on the measure this week. Administration officials contend they are not seeking to build new nuclear weapons, but only studying and researching the options. Speaking at a press conference, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld added, "Many of the things you study, you never pursue." Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a supporter of the ban, replied, "Does anyone really believe that?" The Bush administration's desire to develop a low-yield nuclear weapon stems from the theory that a cold war nuclear weapon is so massive and destructive the U.S. would never actually use one. The thinking goes, a smaller, 5-kiloton nuclear weapon--about a third the size of the nuclear bomb used in Hiroshima--would be more useful in deterring nations such as North Korea. But as Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) rightly noted, "We're moving away from more than five decades of efforts to delegitimize the use of nuclear weapons." As for research into a new bunker-buster nuclear weapon, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a fact sheet outlining the "troubling science" behind the proposed weapons. The scientists note that even a small, low-yield earth-penetrating weapon will create radioactive debris, there is no guarantee that the nuclear blast would successfully destroy chemical or biological weapons, and there are current conventional weapons that could be used as alternatives. The Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review, released in January 2002, was a foreshadowing of a new nuclear era in which the once-termed "weapon of last resort" has turned into a usable, necessary tool in the anti-terror arsenal. As part of the Nuclear Posture Review, the Pentagon expanded the nuclear hit list to include a wide range of potential adversaries, such as North Korea, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, whether or not those nations possess nuclear weapons. The circumstances under which the use of nuclear weapons might be considered has also expanded beyond situations threatening the national survival of the United States to include retaliation for a North Korean attack on South Korea, or simply as a response to "surprising military developments." The review also sanctions the first use of nuclear weapons to "dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends." The Bush administration's nuclear doctrine represents an abrupt departure from the policies of prior administrations, Democratic and Republican alike. How likely are countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Russia, and China--all of which have been targeted in Bush's new nuclear plan--to heed the administration's calls to reduce or renounce their own nuclear arsenals in the face of this new threat from the United States? "I can't believe that I have witnessed in my time on Capitol Hill a more historic debate than what we are undertaking at this moment," said Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL). "We are literally talking about whether or not the United States will initiate a nuclear arms race again. Nothing that I can think of meets this in terms of gravity and its impact on the future of the world." If President Bush were serious about reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons he would focus on preventive measures, such as increasing funds for nonproliferation and threat reduction programs, while also reducing our own massive arsenal. Nonproliferation programs receive about $1.8 billion annually. Compare that to the $41 billion budget for homeland defense, or the $79 billion supplemental for the war in Iraq. Representative John Spratt (D-SC) pointed out the disparity between funding saying the almost $10 billion "ballistic missile defense is a prime example of how the emphasis on counter-proliferation comes at the expense of nonproliferation." The Russian parliament recently ratified the nuclear arms reduction treaty signed by Russian President Putin and President Bush last year. The U.S. Senate approved the treaty in March. The treaty reduces each nation's arsenals of strategic nuclear weapons by two-thirds, to fewer than 2,200 each over the next decade. While the treaty is a worthy and symbolic signal of a new relationship with Russia, much more can and should be done. By taking ten years to make the proposed reductions, allowing both sides to keep thousands of their withdrawn warheads in "reserve" rather than destroying them, and giving either party the right to withdraw from the agreement on just 90 days notice, the Pentagon has preserved its ability to rapidly reverse the Bush administration's proposed reductions in the U.S. arsenal whenever it wants to, even as it continues to seek new types of nuclear weapons. Deeper, verifiable cuts on both sides--to as low as 200 to 500 strategic warheads each rather than the 1,700 to 2,200 allowed in the current proposal--would give Washington and Moscow leverage to begin pressing nuclear-armed states like Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel to eliminate their own arsenals. This move toward multilateral reductions would also make it much easier to get states with nuclear capabilities to agree not to aid nations like Iraq, Iran, or North Korea to develop their own weapons of mass destruction. Whereas Ronald Reagan left office saying that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought, two decades later, the word coming from the Bush administration is that nuclear weapons are here to stay. The recommendations contained in the Nuclear Posture Review and 2004 budget requests are steps backwards, and arguably violations of U.S. commitments to "pursue negotiations in good faith" for the reduction and eventual abolition of nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The only way to protect the American people, and the people of the world, from the threat of nuclear weapons--big and small--is to take determined steps to get rid of them, once and for all. Michelle Ciarrocca is a research associate at the World Policy Institute and writes regularly for Foreign Policy in Focus. She can be reached at: ciarrm01@newschool.edu Today's Features May 28, 2003 David Vest DubyaCo.: It's Not So Funny Any More Dave Lindorff My Grandfather's Medal John Stanton America's Dying: Arts and Philosophy Hold the Key Bernard Weiner A PNAC Primer Robert Jensen Texas Dems Set a Standard for the Rest of the Party Ahmad Faruqui The Oil Business of Regime Change: the CIA and Iran Hammond Guthrie Disarming Conundrums Steve Perry What If There's No Such Thing as Al-Qaeda?   Keep CounterPunch Alive: Make a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online! home / subscribe / about us / books / archives / search / links /