Home >> United States & Canada >> Foreign Policy & Military

     Email   Print 

America's Catastrophic Nuclear Administration

Bhuwan Thapaliya - 10/17/2005

We are living at a critical juncture of the human history-perhaps not as dramatic as that of the Cold War catastrophe, but a moment no less crucial laced by the threats of the nuclear turmoil and the weapons of the mass destruction. The only question that has been recurring again and again is, "How long can the world avert another nuclear catastrophe after that double strike by the United States in August 1945? "

One atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Around 80,000 people died immediately; approximately 200,000 died eventually. Later, a similar size bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

On Nov. 7, 1995, the mayor of Nagasaki recalled his memory of the attack in testimony to the International Court of Justice: Nagasaki became a city of death where not even the sound of insects could be heard. After a while, countless men, women and children began to gather for a drink of water at the banks of nearby Urakami River, their hair and clothing scorched and their burnt skin hanging off in sheets like rags.

Begging for help they died one after another in the water or in heaps on the banks. Four months after the atomic bombing, 74,000 people were dead, and 75,000 had suffered injuries, that is, two-thirds of the city population had fallen victim to this calamity that came upon Nagasaki like a preview of the Apocalypse.

The hyper destructive power of the nuclear weapons is well known, but given the United States' growing dependency on the nuclear power, is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons.

To make the matter worse, The Bush administration has hinted that it is committed to keeping the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a stronghold of its military power.

However, the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) officially recognizes five nations as possessing nuclear weapons. These are the US, the first to acquire nuclear capability in 1945, Russia (1949), the UK (1952), France (1960) and China (1964).

The Arms Control Association (ACA), a US weapons research organization, estimates the number of strategic warheads held by these states to be about 6,000 for the US, 5,000 for Russia, 300 for China, 350 for France and under 200 for the UK, according to a report in BBC News online edition ("Nuclear Weapons: Who has what?" 11 Feb, 2005)

The new nuclear states of Pakistan and India have fewer than 100 weapons each. North Korea now claims to have developed nuclear weapons, and U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that Pyongyang has enough fissile material for 2-8 bombs.

As information about nuclear arsenals is secret, these are only estimates about their nuclear weapons. But there is no denying the fact that these weapons are very destructive.

"The average U.S. warhead has a destructive power 20 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. Of the 8,000 active or operational U.S. warheads, 2,000 are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15 minutes' warning, " according to, Robert McNamara, the former US defence secretary.

After the war in Iraq, The United States is focused, for logical reasons, on persuading North Korea to rejoin the treaty and on negotiating deeper constraints on Iran's nuclear ambitions citing that both Iran and North Korea are unpredictable regimes whose possession of nuclear weapons would be dangerous in its own right and might also persuade other countries in their neighborhoods to go nuclear as well.

But the attention of many nations, including some potential new nuclear weapons states, is also on the United States. "Keeping such large numbers of weapons, and maintaining them on hair-trigger alert, is potent signs that the United States is not seriously working toward the elimination of its arsenal and raises troubling questions as to why any other state should restrain its nuclear ambitions," said Robert McNamara.

He further said that, "In addition to projecting the deployment of large numbers of strategic nuclear weapons far into the future, the Bush administration is planning an extensive and expensive series of programs to sustain and modernize the existing nuclear force and to begin studies for new launch vehicles, as well as new warheads for all of the launch platforms."

Whatsoever, some members of the Bush administration have called for new nuclear weapons that could be used as bunker busters against underground shelters. The Bush administration has no intention to ask congress to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). It is crystal clear that the Bush administration assumes that nuclear weapons will be part of U.S. military forces for at least the next several decades.

If the United States continues its current nuclear stance, over time, substantial proliferation of nuclear weapons will almost surely follow. Some, or all, of such nations as Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Taiwan will very likely initiate nuclear weapons programs, increasing both the risk of use of the weapons and the diversion of weapons and fissile materials into the hands of rogue states or terrorists.

The United States should lead from the front and not play the game of hide and seek with the world. Its nuclear policy should be overhauled, if it is to enforce its voice in the global arena.

It must learn a lesson from countries like Ukraine, which renounced the nuclear system they inherited on their territory in the soviet era; Argentina and Brazil who dropped the nuclear capability they were developing after negotiating a non-nuclear pact between themselves and South Africa, which dismantled its nuclear weapons after the collapse of the apartheid regime.

Repeatedly chanting the melodramatic mantra "axis of evil" will never give Mr. Bush the mandate to ignite the fervor towards the global peace. To be taken even half seriously in future, He must take a step to eliminate his own nuclear weapons before telling the world to do so.

Furthermore, The United States must no longer rely on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. This policy would endanger the global peace prospect and would put the world in a further catastrophic dilemma.

Critics also question the wisdom of developing such weapons and say, "The United States is the only country to have ever dropped an atomic bomb- the world's fears are not irrational."

Thus, The United States must move promptly toward the elimination-or near elimination-of all its own nuclear weapons and encourage others to do the same.

Finally, When Soviet Union collapsed; the United States was given the opportunity to bring about a permanent world peace through the development of an international program of disarmament and arms control.

So, it should honor the Non-Proliferation Treaty and move toward a more secure world in which no nation can threaten the ultimate horror of atomic war.

After all, this has been a major goal of the United Nations since its establishment in 1945.