FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style

Photo by Gwydion M. Williams | CC BY 2.0

“U.S. Chases a Saudi Deal” ran the front page headline in the February 21 Wall Street Journal.  The story continued:

The Trump administration is pursuing a deal to sell nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia despite the kingdom’s refusal to accept the most stringent restrictions against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, U.S. officials say.

The Saudis have rejected restrictions on “enriching uranium or reprocessing spent fuel”: steps in building nuclear bombs.  Robert Gleason, author of The Nuclear Terrorist (2014), stresses the ease with which “a nuclear power reactor can become a nuclear bomb-fuel factory.”

Why would the Trump Administration do something so risky?  (I didn’t realize at first how funny that sentence is.)

Back to the WSJ:  “Administration officials consider [the nuclear reactor sale] too important to pass up, especially when the U.S. nuclear industry is on the decline.”  And there you have it.  Profits today, Armageddon tomorrow.  The “U.S. nuclear industry is on the decline.”  Instead of celebrating that fact, and going full speed ahead with development of renewable energy sources, the Trump Administration is dead set on keeping the nuclear industry alive, even if it has to administer a few thousand volts to the corpse.  It’s the same with the dying coal industry.  Lenin boasted that “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”  Lenin would be overjoyed to learn that we in the capitalist world are perfectly capable of hanging ourselves without outside help.

The February 21 Wall Street Journal notes Congress’ growing uneasy over the potential sale, and adds:  “The impending debate has confronted the administration with a dilemma: If it lowers standards in the hope of securing the Saudi deal it will spur criticism about its commitment to fighting proliferation.”

Let’s just say the US history of fighting nuclear proliferation is…inconsistent.  North Korean nukes?  Bad, very bad.  A nuclear-armed North Korea, we are told, is an existential threat which may justify a US attack.  Pakistan?  The Reagan Administration invoked economic sanctions to stop Pakistan from building a bomb.  After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the US needed Pakistan’s help against the Soviets and lifted the sanctions.  With the Soviets’ defeat in Afghanistan, Pakistan’s usefulness to the US came to an end and the US reimposed the sanctions.  Pakistan got the Bomb, anyway, and may later have transferred nuclear technology to North Korea. Nevertheless, Pakistan still has its bombs.  In the 1960s, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations considered, then abandoned, the idea of a preemptive attack on China’s nuclear program.  Saddam Hussein of Iraq never had the bomb, but the US invaded Iraq, anyway.  Sometimes, the US attacks even if a country has abandoned its nuclear program, as Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi discovered.

Then there is Iran.  If the Saudis build a bomb it will be because of their enmity toward Iran.  We can argue about whether Iran is a democracy; Saudi Arabia certainly isn’t, and neither state has a decent record on human rights.  Yet it is Iran which must be kept from developing a bomb at all costs while the US mulls overs a nuclear reactor transfer to the Saudis.

Other fortunate states are in no danger of receiving the treatment the US meted out to Saddam and Gaddafi.  Foremost is Israel with its “strategically opaque” nuclear arsenal.  And consider a remark Trump made while campaigning for president.  Then-candidate Trump said that, much as he hated nuclear proliferation, it might be a good idea if Japan and South Korea and Saudi Arabia obtained nuclear weapons.

Hypocritical enforcement of nonproliferation is bad enough.  Alarmingly, the US has also encouraged proliferation through its boosterism for nuclear power (and, not incidentally, US energy companies).  What we might call US pro-proliferation efforts trace back at least to President Dwight Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech, delivered before the UN General Assembly in 1953.  Eisenhower praised nuclear energy and predicted a future of electrical energy “too cheap to meter.”  Eisenhower promised US assistance and technology to developing countries.  In return, the recipient states would promise to use nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes.  But, as Arianna Rowberry of the Brookings Institution observes:

While well intentioned, the Atoms for Peace program has been criticized for facilitating nuclear proliferation by spreading dual use nuclear technology, i.e. , technologies and materials, such as highly enriched uranium, used in early civilian nuclear programs that can also be used for the production of nuclear weapons.

Rowberry notes that Iran was an early beneficiary of the US Atoms for Peace program.

As for America’s own nukes, they’re just fine, and more will be even better.  The US itself has an estimated 1,750 strategic nuclear warheads, according to the Washington DC-based Arms Control Association.  On December 22, 2017, President Trump tweeted that he wanted the US to “greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.”  Bloomberg speculated that President Trump may have meant nothing more than that he wanted to continue a 2016 proposal from the Obama Administration to spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years on “modernizing” the US nuclear arsenal.  There is more continuity than change in US nuclear policy.

The only sure way to halt nuclear proliferation is to eliminate nuclear weapons.  All nuclear weapons.  The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, signed last summer, aims to do just that.  None of the 56 signatories, however, possess nuclear weapons.  Unless one of the world’s nine nuclear powers accedes to the treaty soon, it may join the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact to outlaw war as another futile utopian scheme to create lasting peace.

For the near future, the best hope of stopping the nuclear reactor sale to Saudi Arabia, is pressure on Congress.  Under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Congress has the power to block any transfer of nuclear technology.  Making sure Congress blocks the sale presents a combined challenge for the antiwar and anti-nuclear movements.  It has been a long time since the antiwar movement, which went into hibernation during the Obama years, had a victory.  Here’s their chance.

More articles by:

Charles Pierson is a lawyer and a member of the Pittsburgh Anti-Drone Warfare Coalition. E-mail him at Chapierson@yahoo.com.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
July 23, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Why Boris Johnson is Even More Dangerous Than Trump
Christopher Ketcham
The American West as Judeo-Christian Artifact
Jack Heyman
Whitewashing American History: the WPA Mural Controversy in San Francisco
David Mattson
Through the Climate Looking Glass into Grizzly Wonderland
David Macaray
Paul Krassner and Me
Thomas Knapp
Peckerwood Populism is About Political Strategy, Not Personal Belief
John Kendall Hawkins
Assange and His Wiki Wicked leaks
Howard Lisnoff
What Has Happened to the U.S. Since the Kids Left Woodstock?
Victor Grossman
“How Could They?” Why Some Americans Were Drawn to the Communist Party in the 1940s
Gary Leupp
Minnesota, White People, Lutherans and Ilhan Omar
Binoy Kampmark
Lunar Narratives: Landing on the Moon, Politics and the Cold War
Richard Ward
Free La Donalda!
July 22, 2019
Michael Hudson
U.S. Economic Warfare and Likely Foreign Defenses
Evaggelos Vallianatos
If Japan Continues Slaughtering Whales, Boycott the 2020 Tokyo Olympics
Mike Garrity
Emergency Alert For the Wild Rockies
Dean Baker
The U.S.-China Trade War: Will Workers Lose?
Jonah Raskin
Paul Krassner, 1932-2019: American Satirist 
David Swanson
U.S. Troops Back in Saudi Arabia: What Could Go Wrong?
Robert Fisk
American Visitors to the Gestapo Museum Draw Their Own Conclusions
John Feffer
Trump’s Send-Them-Back Doctrine
Kenn Orphan – Phil Rockstroh
Landscape of Anguish and Palliatives: Predation, Addiction and LOL Emoticons in the Age of Late Stage Capitalism
Karl Grossman
A Farmworkers Bill of Rights
Gary Leupp
Omar and Trump
Robert Koehler
Fighting Climate Change Means Ending War
Susie Day
Mexicans Invade US, Trump Forced to Go Without Toothbrush
Elliot Sperber
Hey Diddle Diddle, Like Nero We Fiddle
Weekend Edition
July 19, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Rob Urie
The Blob Fought the Squad, and the Squad Won
Miguel A. Cruz-Díaz
It Was Never Just About the Chat: Ruminations on a Puerto Rican Revolution.
Anthony DiMaggio
System Capture 2020: The Role of the Upper-Class in Shaping Democratic Primary Politics
Andrew Levine
South Carolina Speaks for Whom?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Big Man, Pig Man
Bruce E. Levine
The Groundbreaking Public Health Study That Should Change U.S. Society—But Won’t
Evaggelos Vallianatos
How the Trump Administration is Eviscerating the Federal Government
Pete Dolack
All Seemed Possible When the Sandinistas Took Power 40 years Ago
Ramzy Baroud
Who Killed Oscar and Valeria: The Inconvenient History of the Refugee Crisis
Ron Jacobs
Dancing with Dr. Benway
Joseph Natoli
Gaming the Climate
Marshall Auerback
The Numbers are In, and Trump’s Tax Cuts are a Bust
Louisa Willcox
Wild Thoughts About the Wild Gallatin
Kenn Orphan
Stranger Things, Stranger Times
Mike Garrity
Environmentalists and Wilderness are Not the Timber Industry’s Big Problem
Helen Yaffe
Cuban Workers Celebrate Salary Rise From New Economic Measures
Brian Cloughley
What You Don’t Want to be in Trump’s America
David Underhill
The Inequality of Equal Pay
David Macaray
Adventures in Script-Writing
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail