Valkyrie
14th June 2002, 06:02
Last month he signs the disarmament treaty. Today he breaks the ABM treaty. His power is unchecked and out of control.
US Buries ABM Treaty, Bush Praises Missile Defense
By Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States formally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on Thursday and President Bush called for an aggressive push to build missile defenses against "terrorists" and "rogue" states who could work together to try to destroy U.S. civilization.
The 1972 treaty served as a bedrock of U.S.-Soviet nuclear deterrence by essentially barring either side from building missile defenses, leaving each vulnerable to the other's arsenal and therefore with little incentive to attack because of the likely massive retaliation.
Bush on Dec. 13 announced his decision to pull out of the treaty in six months, having derided it as a Cold War relic and warned of new threats from what he has called rogue states or terrorists that might attack the United States.
In a sign of Bush's determination to push ahead with a missile defense system, the Pentagon is set to break ground this week at Fort Greely, Alaska, on the previously prohibited construction of six underground silos for missile interceptors.
"As the events of Sept. 11 made clear, we no longer live in the Cold War world for which the ABM Treaty was designed," Bush said in a written statement marking the formal U.S. withdrawal from the 30-year-old treaty.
"We now face new threats from terrorists who seek to destroy our civilization by any means available to rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles," he added. "Defending the American people against these threats is my highest priority as commander in chief."
The term "rogue states" dates to the Clinton administration and is used to denote countries viewed by the United States as a threat, generally including Iran, Iraq and North Korea -- the three nations that Bush has called an "axis of evil."
The U.S. president's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty was initially opposed by Russia, China and European nations who argued it could undermine nuclear deterrence and spur an arms race, but criticism has since died down.
Bush made clear he would aggressively pursue a defense system against enemy missiles despite questions about how long it would take to develop one, how effective such a system would actually be and how many billions of dollars it would cost.
"With the treaty now behind us, our task is to develop and deploy effective defenses against limited missile attacks," he said. "I am committed to deploying a missile defense system as soon as possible to protect the American people and our deployed forces against the growing missile threats we face."
The president also called on Congress to fully fund his $7.8 billion budget request for missile defense for the U.S. fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, 2002.
TREATY SIGNED BY NIXON AND BREZHNEV
In burying the ABM Treaty, Bush noted the dramatic progress that the United States and Russia have made since the Soviet Union's collapse, including an agreement struck last month to slash their deployed strategic warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 each over 10 years from the current level of 5,000 to 6,000 each.
The ABM treaty was signed in Moscow by President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on May 26, 1972, and entered into force the following October. It barred the nations from putting in place systems capable of defending their entire territories from intercontinental ballistic missile attacks.
It also banned development, testing or deployment of mobile land-based, sea-based, air-based or space-based antiballistic missile systems.
Buoyed by four successful missile tests in a row, senior Pentagon officials have said they are on schedule to deploy a rudimentary missile shield in Alaska by the fall of 2004.
The Pentagon said later Thursday it had carried out a successful test over the Pacific of a sea-based missile designed to knock out medium-range incoming warheads in mid-flight.
A statement said a Raytheon -made Standard Missile 3, fired from the cruiser USS Lake Erie, struck an Aries ballistic missile target that had been fired eight minutes earlier from Kauai, Hawaii.
The system is part of efforts by the Bush administration to develop a missile defense that includes weapons based on land and at sea. Tracking satellites and air-based lasers are also part of the plan.
A small group of U.S. House of Representatives Democrats made a last-minute stab at preserving the ABM pact, filing a lawsuit on Tuesday alleging Bush failed to consult Congress before ordering a unilateral withdrawal from the treaty.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the lawsuit was "highly likely heading toward dismissal," saying the president had the right to end treaties as long as their termination was in accordance with the treaty's provisions.
06/14/02 00:29
Perils of Bush's Nuclear Policy
William D. Hartung, AlterNet
June 13, 2002
Viewed on June 13, 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the annals of the nuclear age, this week is historic for two reasons.
June 12 was the twentieth anniversary of the million-person disarmament march in New York's Central Park. The march helped turn the tide in an era of perpetual, spiraling arms race, creating the impetus for major reductions in nuclear weapons.
The next day, June 13, marked the official US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.
The two events have sparked contradictory responses.
On Wednesday in Washington, the Heritage Foundation hosted a "celebration" of the imminent demise of the ABM Treaty featuring John Bolton, the Bush administration's virulently anti-arms control Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs.
Later that day in Manhattan, Peace Action and the Nation magazine sponsored a rally to commemorate the 1982 Central Park disarmament demonstration and to promote an "Urgent Call" for verifiable nuclear arms reductions.
The convergence of these historic events and the ongoing conflict between the nuclear-armed states of India and Pakistan raises an obvious question: are we on the right track to reduce nuclear dangers in the decades to come, or are we on the verge of a new global arms race?
We already know President George W. Bush's answer.
Bush recently touted the loophole-laden new strategic arms agreement with Russia as a historic step that will "liquidate the legacy of the Cold War." Administration officials argue that the Pentagon's new freedom to pursue a multi-tiered missile defense system will protect Americans from nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, whether launched by a rogue-state or accidentally by an established nuclear-weapon state. These new-age nuclear conservatives also insist that the Bush White House is carrying on the unfinished legacy of Ronald Reagan, who called for an ambitious missile defense shield and deep nuclear reductions.
Unfortunately, these comforting views of the administration's nuclear policy are a gross distortion of recent history and current realities.
It's true that Ronald Reagan rode into Washington like the ultimate nuclear cowboy, joking that "the bombing will start in five minutes." But by his second term, it was clear that he was committed to the abolition of nuclear weapons. Indeed, if he wasn't so taken with the notion of an impenetrable missile shield, Reagan might have overruled his top aides and agreed to a plan presented by Mikhail Gorbachev at the 1986 Reykjavik summit to eliminate all US and Soviet nuclear weapons.
As it was, Reagan negotiated two major arms reduction accords, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces agreement and the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and he endlessly reminded Gorbachev that when it comes to arms reductions, nations must "trust but verify."
In stark contrast to Reagan's record of supporting verifiable arms reductions -- which was clearly shaped by a vibrant anti-nuclear movement and the historic changes in Moscow -- the Bush administration is committed to a policy of nuclear unilateralism disguised as arms control.
Even after 10 years, last month's Bush-Putin accord will leave both sides with massive nuclear overkill capability arsenals in the range of 1,700 to 2,200 deployed nuclear warheads each. More critically, the new agreement doesn't require either side to destroy the weapons removed from active deployment, leaving the fate of thousands of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons unresolved.
Worst of all, the new US nuclear posture review emphasizes developing "usable" lower-yield weapons and expanding the number of scenarios under which we might use or threaten to use nuclear arms. This is a clear endorsement of the idea that these ultimate terror weapons have legitimate uses -- a dangerously hypocritical stance to adopt at a time when the White House is trying to convince other countries to forego or cut nuclear arsenals to reduce chances that they might end up in the hands of terrorists.
If President Bush truly wants to fulfill Ronald Reagan's legacy, he should agree to the prompt destruction of the thousands of nuclear weapons taken out of deployment under the Bush-Putin accord. He should also move quickly to broker a deal to destroy all tactical nuclear weapons on both sides, and to revive plans to cap the nuclear arsenals of states like Iraq and North Korea through verifiable diplomatic initiatives, rather than scattershot military threats.
That would be a nuclear policy worth bragging about.
William D. Hartung is a Senior Research Fellow at the World Policy Institute and the author of "About Face," an analysis of the Bush administration's nuclear policy. This article originally appeared in GlobalBeat.org.
US Buries ABM Treaty, Bush Praises Missile Defense
By Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States formally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on Thursday and President Bush called for an aggressive push to build missile defenses against "terrorists" and "rogue" states who could work together to try to destroy U.S. civilization.
The 1972 treaty served as a bedrock of U.S.-Soviet nuclear deterrence by essentially barring either side from building missile defenses, leaving each vulnerable to the other's arsenal and therefore with little incentive to attack because of the likely massive retaliation.
Bush on Dec. 13 announced his decision to pull out of the treaty in six months, having derided it as a Cold War relic and warned of new threats from what he has called rogue states or terrorists that might attack the United States.
In a sign of Bush's determination to push ahead with a missile defense system, the Pentagon is set to break ground this week at Fort Greely, Alaska, on the previously prohibited construction of six underground silos for missile interceptors.
"As the events of Sept. 11 made clear, we no longer live in the Cold War world for which the ABM Treaty was designed," Bush said in a written statement marking the formal U.S. withdrawal from the 30-year-old treaty.
"We now face new threats from terrorists who seek to destroy our civilization by any means available to rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles," he added. "Defending the American people against these threats is my highest priority as commander in chief."
The term "rogue states" dates to the Clinton administration and is used to denote countries viewed by the United States as a threat, generally including Iran, Iraq and North Korea -- the three nations that Bush has called an "axis of evil."
The U.S. president's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty was initially opposed by Russia, China and European nations who argued it could undermine nuclear deterrence and spur an arms race, but criticism has since died down.
Bush made clear he would aggressively pursue a defense system against enemy missiles despite questions about how long it would take to develop one, how effective such a system would actually be and how many billions of dollars it would cost.
"With the treaty now behind us, our task is to develop and deploy effective defenses against limited missile attacks," he said. "I am committed to deploying a missile defense system as soon as possible to protect the American people and our deployed forces against the growing missile threats we face."
The president also called on Congress to fully fund his $7.8 billion budget request for missile defense for the U.S. fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, 2002.
TREATY SIGNED BY NIXON AND BREZHNEV
In burying the ABM Treaty, Bush noted the dramatic progress that the United States and Russia have made since the Soviet Union's collapse, including an agreement struck last month to slash their deployed strategic warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 each over 10 years from the current level of 5,000 to 6,000 each.
The ABM treaty was signed in Moscow by President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on May 26, 1972, and entered into force the following October. It barred the nations from putting in place systems capable of defending their entire territories from intercontinental ballistic missile attacks.
It also banned development, testing or deployment of mobile land-based, sea-based, air-based or space-based antiballistic missile systems.
Buoyed by four successful missile tests in a row, senior Pentagon officials have said they are on schedule to deploy a rudimentary missile shield in Alaska by the fall of 2004.
The Pentagon said later Thursday it had carried out a successful test over the Pacific of a sea-based missile designed to knock out medium-range incoming warheads in mid-flight.
A statement said a Raytheon -made Standard Missile 3, fired from the cruiser USS Lake Erie, struck an Aries ballistic missile target that had been fired eight minutes earlier from Kauai, Hawaii.
The system is part of efforts by the Bush administration to develop a missile defense that includes weapons based on land and at sea. Tracking satellites and air-based lasers are also part of the plan.
A small group of U.S. House of Representatives Democrats made a last-minute stab at preserving the ABM pact, filing a lawsuit on Tuesday alleging Bush failed to consult Congress before ordering a unilateral withdrawal from the treaty.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the lawsuit was "highly likely heading toward dismissal," saying the president had the right to end treaties as long as their termination was in accordance with the treaty's provisions.
06/14/02 00:29
Perils of Bush's Nuclear Policy
William D. Hartung, AlterNet
June 13, 2002
Viewed on June 13, 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the annals of the nuclear age, this week is historic for two reasons.
June 12 was the twentieth anniversary of the million-person disarmament march in New York's Central Park. The march helped turn the tide in an era of perpetual, spiraling arms race, creating the impetus for major reductions in nuclear weapons.
The next day, June 13, marked the official US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.
The two events have sparked contradictory responses.
On Wednesday in Washington, the Heritage Foundation hosted a "celebration" of the imminent demise of the ABM Treaty featuring John Bolton, the Bush administration's virulently anti-arms control Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs.
Later that day in Manhattan, Peace Action and the Nation magazine sponsored a rally to commemorate the 1982 Central Park disarmament demonstration and to promote an "Urgent Call" for verifiable nuclear arms reductions.
The convergence of these historic events and the ongoing conflict between the nuclear-armed states of India and Pakistan raises an obvious question: are we on the right track to reduce nuclear dangers in the decades to come, or are we on the verge of a new global arms race?
We already know President George W. Bush's answer.
Bush recently touted the loophole-laden new strategic arms agreement with Russia as a historic step that will "liquidate the legacy of the Cold War." Administration officials argue that the Pentagon's new freedom to pursue a multi-tiered missile defense system will protect Americans from nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, whether launched by a rogue-state or accidentally by an established nuclear-weapon state. These new-age nuclear conservatives also insist that the Bush White House is carrying on the unfinished legacy of Ronald Reagan, who called for an ambitious missile defense shield and deep nuclear reductions.
Unfortunately, these comforting views of the administration's nuclear policy are a gross distortion of recent history and current realities.
It's true that Ronald Reagan rode into Washington like the ultimate nuclear cowboy, joking that "the bombing will start in five minutes." But by his second term, it was clear that he was committed to the abolition of nuclear weapons. Indeed, if he wasn't so taken with the notion of an impenetrable missile shield, Reagan might have overruled his top aides and agreed to a plan presented by Mikhail Gorbachev at the 1986 Reykjavik summit to eliminate all US and Soviet nuclear weapons.
As it was, Reagan negotiated two major arms reduction accords, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces agreement and the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and he endlessly reminded Gorbachev that when it comes to arms reductions, nations must "trust but verify."
In stark contrast to Reagan's record of supporting verifiable arms reductions -- which was clearly shaped by a vibrant anti-nuclear movement and the historic changes in Moscow -- the Bush administration is committed to a policy of nuclear unilateralism disguised as arms control.
Even after 10 years, last month's Bush-Putin accord will leave both sides with massive nuclear overkill capability arsenals in the range of 1,700 to 2,200 deployed nuclear warheads each. More critically, the new agreement doesn't require either side to destroy the weapons removed from active deployment, leaving the fate of thousands of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons unresolved.
Worst of all, the new US nuclear posture review emphasizes developing "usable" lower-yield weapons and expanding the number of scenarios under which we might use or threaten to use nuclear arms. This is a clear endorsement of the idea that these ultimate terror weapons have legitimate uses -- a dangerously hypocritical stance to adopt at a time when the White House is trying to convince other countries to forego or cut nuclear arsenals to reduce chances that they might end up in the hands of terrorists.
If President Bush truly wants to fulfill Ronald Reagan's legacy, he should agree to the prompt destruction of the thousands of nuclear weapons taken out of deployment under the Bush-Putin accord. He should also move quickly to broker a deal to destroy all tactical nuclear weapons on both sides, and to revive plans to cap the nuclear arsenals of states like Iraq and North Korea through verifiable diplomatic initiatives, rather than scattershot military threats.
That would be a nuclear policy worth bragging about.
William D. Hartung is a Senior Research Fellow at the World Policy Institute and the author of "About Face," an analysis of the Bush administration's nuclear policy. This article originally appeared in GlobalBeat.org.