Risks of the American-Russian Military Strategies

Weapons of mass destruction are twentieth-century inventions. There is nothing new, of course, about mass destruction. From ancient times a military campaign often meant the massacre of tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians. Military researchers produced weapons that could deliver poison gas, germs, and nuclear explosions with artillery, aerial bombs, and later missiles paving the way to what we now have as weapons of mass destruction.

Then emerged the US and the USSR, by virtue of their ability to develop the above weapons catapulted them to superpower status. Their rivalry resulted in the era known as the “Cold War,” a period between the end of World War II and 1990, in which arms and security continued to play a defining role. During the Cold War, suspicion and insecurity run rampant. The Cold War found expressions in the continued development in military arms and nuclear capability. Global arsenals peaked during the Cold War decades, when both the NATO nations and the Warsaw Pact perfected and produced tens of thousands of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Humanity brazens out serious and immediate threats from the global existence of thousands of nuclear weapons and chemical weapons. We in addition countenance the possibility that some nation or group still has or soon could have biological weapons. A wide assortment of delivery mechanisms for these weapons exists, including ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, aircraft, artillery, ships, trucks, and envelopes. There is also now a growing recognition of the added danger that terrorist organizations could kill thousands, not just with traditional mass destruction.

In January 1992, for example, the member states of the U.N. Security Council declared that the spread of weapons of mass destruction constituted a “threat to international peace and security.”

There are two related proliferation risks today: that more nations will acquire these weapons and that sub national or terrorist groups might acquire or use them. Much concentration was given to the first risk and until recently when there arose the glaring threats from suspected programs of a few “rogue states”. Post 9/11 events shifted attention to the threat of terrorists’ use of weapons of mass destruction, but the tension in South Asia, serves to illustrate that the other side of the coin is the real potential for catastrophe.

In line with this, Dr. Hans Blix former chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency chaired a commission of experts known as the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission to look into the latent threats posed by deadly weapons of mass destruction to the civilization of our day.This commission unlike previous ones, is spear heading the global monitoring campaign against nuclear, biological and chemical weapon proliferation through its pragmatic recommendations that will serve as the roadmap in ridding our world off dangerous weapons, and as such deserves unqualified support by the world community.

The WMDC in its report have made numerous recommendations but among them is the primary emphasis on the need for all states that possess nuclear weapons to commence planning for security without nuclear weapons. Fundamental to this effort should be the carry-over of the same policies by the UN, and other international organizations as well as individual states to pursue right now- efforts to resolve various international conflicts; encourage democratization and reduce economic inequalities.

In an era when there is increasing interest in unilateral approaches to security provisions, it is imperative to spot out that monetary and alliance factors have not, in themselves, been adequate barriers to proliferation. No individual country’s security interest is unilaterally guaranteed on the mere possession of weapons of mass destruction in its arsenal.

Else, there would not be global insecurity and its attendant clarion call by both nuclear states and non-nuclear states alike for non-proliferation. The open secret is that even the nuclear haves still feel insecure of the ugly existence of these evils. Regrettably the nuclear-haves have failed to live up to their commitment of global disarmament.

Consequently, we now have a second and third wave of proliferators much to the dislike of these nuclear giants. George Bush was quoted as saying “The grave threat from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons has not gone away with the Cold War. It has evolved into many separate threats, some of them harder to see and harder to answer.”1 The world community need not be told about the need to return to the initial bargain, upon which the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was born; pursuing policies of disarmament by the nuclear haves and non-proliferation by the non- nuclear states parties to the NPT in fulfillment of commitments under article VI of the NPT {GC(42)/ RES/19, adopted 25/09/98}2. The US should play the leading role by abandoning every form of “double standard” by ushering in a favorable rule based international order. The presence of nuclear weapons even by organized states dares catastrophe as shown by the recent revelations of a complex nuclear black market syndicate networked in virtually all the five continents. At the centre of this controversy is A.K. Khan a Pakistani nuclear scientist. We must not be reminded that Pakistan belongs to the second group of proliferators. These same NSG are the possible source of leakages of nuclear information badly needed by fanatic non-state actors. America and her allies should be reminded that their war on terrorism will not yield any positive impact if they fail to address the problem posed by the supply side of the equation. Contrary to popular expectation, some analyst predicted that the demise of the USSR would induce the US to roll back her nuclear ammunition and focus on consolidating the norm against nuclear use.

As a prelude to the envisaged nuclear free world, the International Atomic Energy Agency should be the sole and legal custodian of the right to carry out independent and competent inspection and verification of accusations and counter accusations of possession of nuclear armament. Findings of such inspections should be tabled before the UN Security Council, it is at this level that the UN’s credibility of been a neutral arbiter can be put to test; bearing in mind that its success largely hinges on the sustainability of the on going sweeping reforms in the UN.

The absence of a standing secretariat to oversee the implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty accounts for the less than desirable results achieved decades after the coming into force of this treaty. Therefore, the recommendation calling for the creation of a permanent secretariat for the NPT deserves financial, legal and technical support from the government of Ghana and her friends in the UN. Its advantages includes among other things, the precise prescription and role definition of both the UN and the IAEA in matters of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Some countries have deliberately abstained from being Parties to the NPT and CTBT for reasons best known to them. The government of Ghana should articulate the promotion of multilateralism as providing the international framework for shaping the relationship between disarmament, development and security, based on interdependence among nations and mutuality.

Of particulate concern is the inability of the United States and the Soviet Union to come to a workable roadmap towards attaining full nuclear disarmament. More than 27,000 nuclear weapons are still maintained.4 Ninety five percent of these weapons are in the US and Russia, and more than 16,000 are operationally deployed. A report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace explains: “The figure of 6000 accountable warheads uses specific accounting rules agreed to under the START treaty. Both nations will retain thousands of additional tactical and reserve weapons. According to the bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, many if not most of the US warheads removed from the active stockpile will be placed in storage rather than dismantled. Unquestionably, the two nuclear superpowers still hold ample nuclear weaponry in their arsenals to destroy the entire world population several times over! Maintaining such a large number of dangerous weapons invites yet another threat the accidental launching of nuclear missiles.

Accusations and counter accusations have characterized the disarmament scene. The Bush administration has abstained from or rejected several major treaties, including the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, the START II and III treaties, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the draft compliance protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention. This analysis raises fundamental questions-There is a difference between knowing exactly what you want done and how it should be done and allowing someone to make their own decisions and do it their way.

There is no better time to implement the long envisaged nuclear weapon free zones across the world than now. South Africa under the leadership of ex President Mandela took the bold step of renouncing his country’s stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Preceding the above was a similar step by some former Soviet States in destroying nuclear weapons of the former USSR in their territorial areas. Both initiatives deserve applause.

The only long term solution to the Middle East crisis as recommended by the WMDC is the creation of Nuclear-free states in that region. Iran’s proliferation cannot be treated in isolation with Israel’s continues stockpiling of armament. In the case of Iran, analysts believe her nuclear ambitions are motivated by well-known suspicion of insecurity from particularly Israel’s clandestine nuclear program and to some extend Iraq as well. This opinion is shared by most states in that region. It is against this background that Libya’s official news agency reportedly re-echoed Col. Qathafi’s call on the need for the Arab world to acquire nuclear weapons to counter Israel’s nuclear domination in the Middle East. This is the only panacea to the polarization in that region. Similarly, if reform elements continue to make progress in Iran and if the international community led by the U.S will pursue active diplomacy; an advance in resolving the proliferation deadlock is not farfetched. In many ways, the South Asian programs represent the most difficult challenge, both for the risks of regional war they present and their ripple effect on other Asian states.

The experience of the past is presenting a clarion call on states engaged in the production of fissile for weapons to desist from this act. This has evolved into a new danger of the possible acquisition of these fissile materials by fanatic non-state actors to carry out attacks on humanity. With sufficient quantity of fissile uranium or plutonium, terror organizations having modern grade uranium would have a good chance of setting off an explosion simply by dropping one-half of it onto the other half. According to Peace Magazine “three kilograms would be sufficient.” This is almost the same amount of weapons usable nuclear material as was confiscated from smugglers in 1994 in the Czech Republic. Nuclear waste can become another form of nuclear armament. The lethal combination of radioactive waste and conventional explosives is a major source of concern. Since 1 January 1993, there has been 162 confirmed incidents involving illicit trafficking and other related unauthorized activities involving nuclear and other radioactive materials, of the 662 confirmed incidents, 196 incidents, 196 incidents involved other nuclear materials, mainly radioactive sources, 24 incidents involved both nuclear and other radioactive materials, and 5 others involved other radioactive materials.

Russia and the US should once again be called upon to resolve to take their nuclear weapons off high alert. US nuclear forces have been controlled by a “launch on warning” strategy. US warheads stand ready to be launched while Russian warheads are in flight. No more than 15 minutes can elapse, under, the policy, from the time of first warning of Russian attack and the launching of US missiles.

This hair trigger alert presents the danger of an accidental missile launch caused by a false warning. The U.S. News and World Report has it that “In more than one instance real launch orders have been transmitted by mistake during American nuclear training exercises.” Similarly, a Norwegian research rocket triggered a false alarm in 1995, resulting in President Yeltsin embarking on processes of activating the launch codes of nuclear missiles warnings.

Most of Russia’s early warning satellites have stopped functioning or wandered out of their assigned orbits. Therefore as a retired US vice admiral stated several years ago, “the chance of a preemptive strike or a missile launch because of misunderstanding, misplaced authority or accident, is as great today as any time in the past.”

The nuclear states in justifying their possession of such arms in the supreme interest of their individual national sovereignties, has triggered grumblings within some quarters. A case in point is the American inclination to act simply in terms of doing their own thing, no matter what others think, is not steady with the responsibilities of a sole superpower, not to mention the UN Charter.

To assert that what people think, believe, and act upon is of no consequence is a position, which, for any potential proliferators is untenable. The current nuclear charged global atmosphere coupled with the daily political and diplomatic wrangling between members of the nuclear club is a good recipe for a nuclear hostility. To discourage further proliferation the security concerns of non-nuclear states needs to be guaranteed by the existing nuclear states. Non-nuclear states will not be motivated to develop such armament if they are assured of not being present or future targets of nuclear weapons. Diplomacy should be seen as credible alternatives to military action in the resolution of global crisis.

Alliance security arrangements, such as the United States’ promise to extend a “nuclear umbrella” over Europe and Japan, unquestionably made it easier for a number of industrial nations to abandon their nuclear weapon programs. In the case of North Korea, there can never be any sustainable progress in impressing on her to abandon her nuclear ambitions if she incessantly feels threatened by international political and diplomatic isolation.

Until all countries join and implement the NPT, the dream of a peaceful world will remain but a fleeting illusion always to be pursued but never achieved. Our responsibility is to banish from this generation the injustices that have disfigured the outlook of the past decades. We owe an obligation to humanity and posterity to ensure continuity and preservation of every form of life, the environment, and respect for human dignity.

Risks of the American-Russian Military Strategies have 2424 words, post on ezinearticles.com at July 3, 2009. This is cached page on Health Breaking News. If you want remove this page, please contact us.