U.S. under fire at nuclear arms control meeting

I think we need more nukes. We don't have enough. Especially now that our major concern are terrorists, who hide among the civilian population. The need to have one nuke per terrorist out there.

We just don't have enough right now.

 

Where was John Bolton? Is he still the State Department's Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security? Where was Condi when John took a pre-Memorial Day vacation?

US Nuclear Hypocrisy: Bad for the US, Bad for the World
(link)
By David Krieger

Every five years the parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty meet in a review conference to further the non-proliferation and disarmament goals of the treaty. This year the conference ended in a spectacular failure with no final document and no agreement on moving forward. For the first ten days of the conference, the US resisted agreement on an agenda that made any reference to past commitments.

The failure of the treaty conference is overwhelmingly attributable to the nuclear policies of the Bush administration, which has disavowed previous US nuclear disarmament commitments under the treaty. The Bush administration does not seem to grasp the hypocrisy of pressing other nations to forego their nuclear options, while failing to fulfill its own obligations under the disarmament provisions of the treaty.

The treaty is crumbling under the double standards of American policy, and may not be able to recover from the rigid "do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do" positions of the Bush administration. These policies are viewed by most of the world as high-level nuclear hypocrisy.

Paul Meyer, the head of Canada's delegation to the treaty conference, reflected on the conference, "The vast majority of states have to be acknowledged, but we did not get that kind of diplomacy from the US." Former UK Foreign Minister Robin Cook also singled out the Bush administration in explaining the failure of the conference. "How strange," he wrote, "that no delegation should have worked harder to frustrate agreement on what needs to be done than the representatives of George Bush."

What the US did at the treaty conference was to point the finger at Iran and North Korea, while refusing to discuss or even acknowledge its own failure to meet its obligations under the treaty. Five years ago, at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the parties to the treaty, including the US, agreed to 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament. Under the Bush administration, nearly all of these obligations have been disavowed.

Although President Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996, the Bush administration does not support it and refused to allow ratification of this treaty, which is part of the 13 Practical Steps, to even be discussed at the 2005 review conference. The parties to the treaty are aware that the Bush administration is seeking funding from Congress to continue work on new earth penetrating nuclear weapons ("bunker busters"), while telling other nations not to develop nuclear arms.

They are also aware that the Bush administration has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to pursue a destabilizing missile defense program, and has not supported a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, although the US had agreed to support these treaties in the 13 Practical Steps.

The failure of this treaty conference makes nuclear proliferation more likely, including proliferation to terrorist organizations that cannot be deterred from using the weapons. The fault for this failure does not lie with other governments as the Bush administration would have us believe. It does not lie with Egypt for seeking consideration of previous promises to achieve a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.

Nor does the fault lie with Iran for seeking to enrich uranium for its nuclear energy program, as is done by many other states, including the US, under the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would no doubt be preferable to have the enrichment of uranium and the separation of plutonium, both of which can be used for nuclear weapons programs, done under strict international controls, but this requires a change in the treaty that must be applicable to all parties, not just to those singled out by the US.

Nor can the fault be said to lie with those states that, having given up their option to develop nuclear weapons, sought renewed commitments from the nuclear weapons states not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states. It is hard to imagine a more reasonable request. Yet the US has refused to relinquish the option of first use of nuclear weapons, even against non-nuclear weapons states.

The fault for the failure of the treaty conference lies clearly with the Bush administration, which must take full responsibility for undermining the security of every American by its double standards and nuclear hypocrisy.

The American people must understand the full magnitude of the Bush administration's failure at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. This may not happen because the administration has been so remarkably successful in spinning the news to suit its unilateralist, militarist and triumphalist worldviews.

As Americans, we can not afford to wait until we experience an American Hiroshima before we wake up to the very real dangers posed by US nuclear policies. We must demand the reversal of these policies and the resumption of constructive engagement with the rest of the world.

 

Actually, Defence spending in the U.S. is not that big compared to the entitlement spending. Defense spending uses up about 19% of the federal budget. About 42% of the budget is spent on SS/Medicare and Medicaid. Remember, things like GPS come from Defense spending from which the whole world benefits.

Also, because the U.S. spends so much on defense, it means other countries don't have to. For example, Canada and Mexico have no worries because of thier proximity to the U.S. not to mention the U.S. involvment in NATO means that EU countries can spend far less on their own Defense because they know that an attack on any one of those countries is, by default, an attack on the U.S.

People also say that we don't need nuclear weapons today because the main "enemy" of the U.S. is terrorism. If a terrorists snuck a atomic bomb into New York and detonated it there would be no "state" to retaliate against. However, that assumes that the world will always be like it is today. The rapid fall of the Soviet Empire shows how quickly the geo-political climate of the world can change. Not to mention, the downsizing of our intelligence agencies because we thought we didn't need them anymore (with regard to the cold war) proved very costly on 9/11. Who's to say that in the future we won't need those nukes as a deterrent against some other nuclear power (like China). Remember, the main funcion of nuclear weapons is to act as a deterent against hostility against the U.S. I.e. You attack us with nuclear weapons and your country will cease to exist. There is NO WAY that another country can remove the ability for the U.S. to retaliate. To me, that's a good thing.

Finally, I don't see any value in "fairness" with regard to who has nuclear weapons. I would be perfectly okay with only the U.S. having them.

 

A lot of people underestimate the importance of the US military in this global economy. As 111 stated, U.S. is spending on the military so our friends don't have to spend as much. Also much of the world economy relies on the vast shiping network (oil, container), and its the U.S. bluewater navy that provides the security for much of the shipping lanes. Without the shipping lane being open and safe, the world trade would pretty much collapse.

Being the only superpower means others will look to you for security/aid/leadership, and maintaining a capable military is a must.

 

I agree with deepblue and chase to an extent that the US military serves a valuable function for World stability but I also think in the long run its not a good thing for the US to shoulder such a burden.

We're saddled with dealing with all sorts of demands on our military because many nations have atrophied and in the language of Dr. Phil become Co-Dependent on the US. So while Europe may diplomatically and rhetorically oppose us they've become so dependent on US capability they can't even handle problems in their own backyards without having the US take the lead.

So while military spending isn't a biggest part of our budget it is a large part. What's worse is we're funding so much of budget on borrowing from other countries. So indirectly the Japanese are paying for our protection by buying our bonds but so are the Chinese. We're in the bizzare position where our military keeps the peace yet our economy is dependent upon maintaining credit from those countries we guard or even oppose.

 

With regard to the numbers.... personally I feel that SS is just a welfare program. If you got out of it what you put into it (plus interest) I might feel differently but you HAVE to pay into it (therefore it is a tax) and how much you get depends on your need (therefore it is welfare). So I have no problems lumping SS in with the rest. I'm the first to admit, however, that that is just my opinion. Not to mention that the Government "borrows" money from SS to help with the "other, normal" budget.

As far as how would I feel if I weren't American.... as discussed by other people in this thread so many other countries benefit from a strong America that it's just ignorance talking with regard to foreign people hating a strong America.

After WWII when Nato kicked in and the U.S. was putting missile and army bases in Europe you had lots of protests by "peace loving" people who wanted the U.S. to just GET OUT (this was during the late 70's and 80's). The protests were populated mostly by young people who didn't experience WWII first hand. You really didn't see or hear from the people who experienced invasion and occupation by a foreign governmnet. The older people understood the need for strong deterrence.

I was on a bike ride with two other guys that I didn't really know (it was a club ride and we were the only three that showed up and I was new to the club). Once guy was from Germany and the other guy was American (this was in Texas near Houston). The American had travelled a lot including to Russia and he went on and on about how the Russians were never really a threat and that all the military build ups during the Cold War were just a waste of time. He knew because he had talked with Russian citizens personally. The German guy, on the other hand, felt totally different. He said his parents were scared to death of an invasion by the Soviet Union and were glad the Americans were stationed in Germany. It was very interesting to hear the German's point of view.

When times are good (especially when times have been pretty good for a while) you get generations of people who don't remember what it was like during WWII. They want peace but they don't understand the cost of peace (eternal vigilance). They seem to think that all problems can be "worked out" not understanding that there are people who will stop at nothing to see their agendas through (Hitler and Stalin are great examples). There is no negotiating with those kinds of people and because those kinds of people will always exist you have to make sure that they can never, ever get the upper hand.

I agree with Sishir with regard to the fact that it's a weird and (IMO) unfair burden America has placed on itself with regard to securing most of the Western world. I'm not really sure what the solution is but would like to hear ideas.

 

charge

 

Agreed, even as the French claiming wanting a multi-polar world, they can't even begin to start taking a fraction of the U.S. obligations around the world. Not with their 10% unemployment rate, in fact most of the western europe economy are not in good shape.

As for Chinese, they need the shipping lanes to be open so Made in China toys,electronics can be sold in Walmarts. I suspect the chinese are smart enough to understand that they need the U.S. as much as we need them to finance our debt. Although the level of borrowing is somewhat alarming, but Japanese and Chinese are holding so much U.S. treasury and U.S. backed securities they will stand to lose much if U.S. economy falters. (be interesting to see if the Chinese floats their yuan).

My point is few people on the BBS actually have any in depth understand the global economy/politics. Much easier to shout the rhetorics "stopp spending more on defense than most of the WORLD COMBINED! and take care of the environment".

 

My point is few people on the BBS actually have any in depth understand the global economy/politics. Much easier to shout the rhetorics "stopp spending more on defense than most of the WORLD COMBINED! and take care of the environment". deepblue

BTW, speak for yourself when it comes to lack or knowlege about things.


I know. Don't worry our little heads about it. Too complex for regular US citizens. Just trust it all to Big Papa George Bush II. He will do the right thing.

The unconscious elitism of the conservos peaks through at times.

This approach might work for you, the ditto heads and the folks who let their TV evangelists think for them. Doesn't work for the rest of us; nor is it compatible with democracy.

 

I kind of think the "superciliousness" description should more accurately be placed on your second post:

That statement exudes "the trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior".

 

This thread was somehow hijacked onto US military spending, which is another matter definitely worth debating. But right now the top concern for US should be the nuclear threats - one of the very few things both Kerry and Bush agreed upon in the presidential debate, and why US has not done a good job (or has no intention of) on nuclear nonproliferation.

 

Let's keep it on topic, when did I say to trust it all to Bush?

We are debating the military spending which mc mark brought up, do you have any SUBSTANCE to add?

 

did you have a second bottle? i may not be an expert on the subject, and i didn't sleep at a holiday inn express last night, but i'm fairly certain "snubbing our noses at the international community" wasn't on W's list of reasons for w/drawing from the NPT.

 

I don't think it's a matter of "snubbing our noses at the international community". It's about doing what the Pentagon thinks will protect this nation and what needs to be done to protect other, peripheral, things that directly or indirectly affect this nation (like the free flow of oil). It's one thing to try and play nice but when they (the "international community") wants you to do something that is in their interests but what if what is in their interest is not in ours?

I think that France's posturing as an opposite power to the U.S. (both politically and economically) is clear evidence that the E.U. doesn't have the best interests of the U.S. at heart and just because something is good for them, doesn't mean it's good for the U.S. They are going to call you names but you've got to deal with it (ironically while protecting their soverenty with our military power). If France (and the E.U.) was sincere about doing "what's best for the world" they would assume their burden with regard to military power. But, as I mention below, they can't afford to do so plus they are not always alligned with the U.S. with regard to what needs to be done or not.

Here's an idea: The U.S. should pull out of NATO and let the E.U. defend itself. Their economies would crumble (they're not doing so good right now as it is) if they had to boost military spending. Actually they wouldn't boost military spending and when someone (like Milocovich?) decided to come calling they would be powerless to defend themselves without the U.S.

(I'm just kidding about pulling out of NATO, BTW.)