Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: ABM

  • Treaties Don’t Belong to Presidents

    New Haven– President Bush has told the Russians that he will withdraw from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which gives both countries the right to terminate on six months’ notice. But does the president have the constitutional authority to exercise this power without first obtaining Congressional consent?

    Presidents don’t have the power to enter into treaties unilaterally. This requires the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, and once a treaty enters into force, the Constitution makes it part of the “supreme law of the land” just like a statute.

    Presidents can’t terminate statutes they don’t like. They must persuade both houses of Congress to join in a repeal. Should the termination of treaties operate any differently?

    The question first came up in 1798. As war intensified in Europe, America found itself in an entangling alliance with the French under treaties made during our own revolution. But President John Adams did not terminate these treaties unilaterally. He signed an act of Congress to “Declare the Treaties Heretofore Concluded with France No Longer Obligatory on the United States.”

    The next case was in 1846. As the country struggled to define its northern boundary with Canada, President James Polk specifically asked Congress for authority to withdraw from the Oregon Territory Treaty with Great Britain, and Congress obliged with a joint resolution. Cooperation of the legislative and executive branches remained the norm, despite some exceptions, during the next 125 years.

    The big change occurred in 1978, when Jimmy Carter unilaterally terminated our mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. Senator Barry Goldwater responded with a lawsuit, asking the Supreme Court to maintain the traditional system of checks and balances. The court declined to make a decision on the merits of the case. In an opinion by Justice William Rehnquist, four justices called the issue a political question inappropriate for judicial resolution. Two others refused to go this far but joined the majority for other reasons. So by a vote of 6 to 3, the court dismissed the case.

    Seven new justices have since joined the court, and there is no predicting how a new case would turn out. Only one thing is clear. In dismissing Senator Goldwater’s complaint, the court did not endorse the doctrine of presidential unilateralism. Justice Rehnquist expressly left the matter for resolution “by the executive and legislative branches.” The ball is now in Congress’s court. How should it respond?

    First and foremost, by recognizing the seriousness of this matter. If President Bush is allowed to terminate the ABM treaty, what is to stop future presidents from unilaterally taking America out of NATO or the United Nations?

    The question is not whether such steps are wise, but how democratically they should be taken. America does not enter into treaties lightly. They are solemn commitments made after wide-ranging democratic debate. Unilateral action by the president does not measure up to this standard.

    Unilateralism might have seemed more plausible during the cold war. The popular imagination was full of apocalyptic scenarios under which the nation’s fate hinged on emergency action by the president alone. These decisions did not typically involve the termination of treaties. But with the president’s finger poised on the nuclear button, it might have seemed unrealistic for constitutional scholars to insist on a fundamental difference between the executive power to implement our foreign policy commitments and the power to terminate them.

    The world now looks very different. America’s adversaries may inveigh against its hegemony, but for America’s friends, the crucial question is how this country will exercise its dominance. Will its power be wielded by a single man ˜ unchecked by the nation’s international obligations or the control of Congress? Or will that power be exercised under the democratic rule of law?

    Barry Goldwater’s warning is even more relevant today than 20 years ago. The question is whether Republicans will heed his warning against “a dangerous precedent for executive usurpation of Congress’s historically and constitutionally based powers.” Several leading senators signed this statement that appeared in Senator Goldwater’s brief ˜ including Orrin Hatch, JesseHelms and Strom Thurmond, who are still serving. They should defend Congress’s power today, as they did in the Carter era.

    If they join with Democrats in raising the constitutional issue, they will help establish a precedent that will endure long after the ABM treaty is forgotten. Congress should proceed with a joint resolution declaring that Mr. Bush cannot terminate treaty obligations on his own. And if the president proceeds unilaterally, Congress should take further steps to defend its role in foreign policy.

    We need not suppose that the president will respond by embarking on a collision course with Congress. His father, for example, took a different approach to constitutionally sensitive issues. When members of Congress went to court to challenge the constitutionality of the Persian Gulf war, President George H. W. Bush did not proceed unilaterally. To his great credit, he requested and received support from both houses of Congress before making war against Saddam Hussein. This decision stands as one precedent for the democratic control of foreign policy in the post-cold war era. We are now in the process of creating another.

    *Bruce Ackerman is Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale Law School and co-author of “Is Nafta Constitutional?”

  • Ballistic Missile Defense will Diminish Our Security

    Ballistic missile defense is a fraud on the American people. Those who promote missile defense promise something they cannot deliver — security from a nuclear attack. The truth is that deployment of missile defenses will make the United States and the rest of the world even less secure than they are today.

    Will a national missile defense work if deployed? It is very doubtful. We know that most tests of the system have failed, and that these failures have occurred when the testers knew in advance when a missile would be launched, from where it would be launched, and where it would be aimed. Given all this information, one would think it would be relatively easy to have successful tests. In a real world situation, none of this information would be available in advance.

    Additionally, in the real world an attacker would plan for the defensive system and release decoys along with the real warheads in order to confuse and confound the defensive system. This would make it even more difficult for a national missile defense system to be successful.

    The biggest problem with a national missile defense, however, is that potential “rogue” state attackers those the system is designed to protect against probably wouldn’t consider attacking the United States with ballistic missiles. It would be foolish for them to do so since a missile attack comes with a return address and the US would be able to respond with overwhelming force.

    If a “rogue” state wanted to attack the United States with a weapon of mass destruction, it would be far easier and safer for that country to deliver the weapon by means of ship, van or backpack. By attacking in this way, there would be no return address for the US to retaliate against. This would also be the most likely means by which terrorists could attack American cities.

    In addition to being ineffective to protect the US against potential “rogue” state attackers, missile defenses are threatening to Russia and China. These countries believe that deployment of missile defenses, even if ineffective, will put the US in the position to initiate a first-strike attack against them and then use the defensive system to knock down any of their missiles that survived the US attack.

    US deployment of missile defenses will further increase tensions with Russia and China and make an accidental nuclear war more likely. At one point, US officials even suggested to the Russians that they could assure themselves against a US attack by keeping Russian missiles on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on warning. This is very dangerous. US defense officials should be working with Russians to take all nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. Failure to do so is irresponsible at best.

    US deployment of a National Missile Defense will throw more than 35 years of arms control efforts into disarray. It will violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties. It will be destabilizing to global security, and make the world a more dangerous place. That is why most countries, including US allies, are not enthusiastic about US plans for ballistic missile defenses.

    In sum, US ballistic missile defenses would be ineffective, destabilizing and dangerous. And yet, the US government appears willing to spend another $100 billion or perhaps even much more to deploy such systems. One can only wonder at this “spend now, think later” approach to national security.

    The alternative solution to increasing national and global security is US leadership toward a nuclear weapons free world. As recently as May 2000, the US, along with other nuclear weapons states, promised an “unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” We call for the US to take this promise seriously and to convene at the earliest possible time a meeting of all nuclear weapons states to move forward together in fulfilling their promises by developing an agreed-upon plan for the phased and verified elimination of all nuclear weapons from the planet.

    *David Krieger, an attorney and political scientist, is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Concerned Student Writes to President Bush

    Dear President Bush,

    My Name is Nelly Martinez. I am a student at Mount San Antonio College. Right now I am researching nuclear arms. Recently, a disturbing article came out about this particular subject in the Los Angeles Times. After researching and learning about the power of our nuclear arsenal, I was shocked and amazed at why we need such disastrous weapons. Maybe someone can help explain my misconceptions.

    In my mind, I believe the issue of having the most weapons is an issue of who has the bigger toy, or the bigger muscles. What about the opinions of the ordinary American citizens who do not have knowledge about nuclear issues? What about those who decide to just ignore the subject and place this issue in the back of their heads? It was a relief to hear that there is a treaty banning the testing of nuclear weapons. If one Trident submarine has enough firepower to wipe out the Northern Hemisphere and cause devastating effects, why do we need any more of such submarines? How can anyone want to destroy the life of other innocent human beings?

    There is no doubt that my life, the life of my family (whom I love and cherish with all my heart) and the life of future generations will be affected by a nuclear war. The fact is no one would survive a nuclear war. Isn’t that enough to get through the minds of the people in charge of these weapons? In my opinion, whoever decides to make more nuclear weapons is worse than Hitler. Such actions could result in a World Holocaust and it is doubtful that mankind could survive a nuclear winter.

    Please do not forget about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But also, do not forget about the past in general so that we can learn from our mistakes. I know that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are nothing in comparison to the capability we have now. I also know that if another country should strike the US with a nuclear weapon, we would without a doubt retaliate. This process of striking and reciprocating a nuclear attack could continue until mankind itself would be wiped out. I do support the Constitution’s “Right to Bear Arms,” but how far must we go?

    Here is a hypothetical example: We the Americans are up against the “enemy” standing in a pool of gas, representing our world, one side has 16,000 matches ready to ignite the other side has 30,000 matches. Who will win? One match alone (The firepower in one Trident sub) will do the job.

    I am here to plea for some kind of answer to my questions because I love my life, my country, my people and other people as well. I truly want my children’s children to live after I am gone from this earth. My dream is to live until I am old and not be vaporized by a nuclear bomb. Please Mr. President, help us keep peace with other countries and obey the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Once we violate this Treaty the United States has made with Russia, both countries will start making more unnecessary nuclear weapons.

    Sincerely,

    Nelly Martinez A Concerned Student and Citizen

  • U.S. and Russian Nuclear Defense Strategies are Fatally Flawed – They Can’t be Used Without Self-Destruction

    Nuclear Defense Strategies – The nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, left-over from the Cold War, present the world with its greatest danger. These two arsenals have 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. The nuclear defense strategies for Russia and the U.S. are similar. Within minutes upon receiving instruction to fire, either one or both countries can launch thousands of missiles. These strategies are fatally flawed because launching thousands of nuclear weapons could destroy all countries including themselves.

     

    Global Danger – In a study made by the World Health Organization, they found that a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could kill one billion people outright. In addition, it could produce a Nuclear Winter that would probably kill an additional one billion people. It is possible that more than two billion people, one-third of all the humans on Earth, would be destroyed almost immediately in the aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. The rest of humanity would be reduced to prolonged agony and barbarism. These findings are from a study chaired by Sune K. Bergstrom (the 1982 Nobel laureate in Physiology and Medicine) nearly 20 years ago. (1)

     

    Subsequent studies have had similar findings. Professor Alan Robock says, “Everything from purely mathematical models to forest fire studies shows that even a small nuclear war would devastate the earth. (2)

     

    Rich Small’s work, financed by the Defense Nuclear Agency, suggests that burning cities would produce a particularly troublesome variety of smoke. The smoke of forest fires is bad enough. But the industrial targets of cities are likely to produce a rolling, black smoke, a denser shield against incoming sunlight.(3)

     

    The late Dr. Carl Sagan and his associates in their studies found that a nuclear explosive force equal to 100 million tons of dynamite could create a global nuclear winter. (4) The U.S. and Russia each have on alert a nuclear explosive power more than 10 times greater than that needed to create a nuclear winter.

     

    Nuclear explosions with temperatures of 3,000 to 4,000 degrees centigrade at ground zero could start giant flash fires leaving large cities and forests burning with no one to fight them. Nuclear explosions can also lift an enormous quantity of fine soil particles into the atmosphere, creating more than l00,000 tons of fine, dense, dust for every megaton exploded on a surface. (5) This dust would add to the darkness and cold.

     

    Explosive Power Compared – Nuclear weapons are far more powerful than is generally realized.

     

    *The terrorist bomb that was detonated outside an office building in Oklahoma City in 1995 killed 168 people. This fertilizer and fuel bomb weighted 3 and 1/2 tons. (6)

     

    * A small nuclear warhead, that one person can lift can have an explosive power equal to 40,000 tons of dynamite, or 8,000 trucks each carrying 5 tons of dynamite, or 3 Hiroshima size bombs

     

    *One average size U.S. strategic nuclear warhead has an explosive force equal to 50,000 trucks each carrying 5 tons of dynamite.

     

    *If 1,000 of the average size 0U.S. warheads were used they could produce an explosive force equal to 50 million trucks each carrying 5 tons of dynamite.

     

    *One average size Russian strategic nuclear warhead has an explosive power equal to 40,000 trucks each carrying 5 tons of dynamite. (7)

     

    Leader’s Concern – General Lee Butler (USAF), former head of the US Strategic Command, said, “… twenty nuclear weapons would suffice to destroy the twelve largest Russian cities with a total population of twenty-five million people and therefore that arsenals in the hundreds, much less in the thousands, can serve no meaningful strategic objective.” (8) Twenty nuclear warheads is less than one percent of the nuclear weapons that the U.S. has set for hair-trigger release.

     

    Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, says there was no long-range war plan. Neither Russia nor the U.S. wanted to get behind. Each side strove to build the greatest number of nuclear weapons. More importantly, he said, the totals far exceeded the requirements of any conceivable war plan. (9)

     

    Accidental Nuclear War – There have been at least three times in the past that the U.S. and Russia almost launched to false warnings. Each time they came within less than 10 minutes of launching before learning the warnings were false.

     

    * In l979, a U.S. training tape showing a massive attack was accidentally played.

     

    * In l983, a Soviet satellite mistakenly signaled the launch of a U.S. missile.

     

    * In 1995, Russia almost launched its missiles because a Norwegian rocket studying the northern lights was mistakenly taken as the start of a nuclear attack. (10)

     

    False warnings are a fact of life. For example, during an 18-month period in 1979-80 the U.S. had 147 false alarms in its strategic warning system. (11)

     

    Casper Weinberger, when he was President Reagan’s Defense Secretary, said that since an anti-ballistic missile defense could require decisions within seconds there would be no time for White House approval. Hitting a missile having a head start and going thousands of miles per hour does not allow much time to assess whether a warning is false or not. (12) Do we want computers determining our fate?

     

    Action – All countries with nuclear weapons need to assess what would be the consequences of their use, including possibility of self-destruction. Reporting these findings to the public could help build a better understanding of the need to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

     

    General Butler has said the world can immediately and inexpensively improve security by taking nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. (13)

     

    Reference and Notes

     

    1. Sagan, Carl. The Nuclear Winter, Council for a Livable World Education, Boston, MA, 1983.

     

    2. Robock, Alan. “New models confirm nuclear winter,’ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, September 1989, pp.32-35.. .

     

    3. Blum, Deborah, Scientists try to predict nuclear future from forest fires, The Sacramento Bee. Nov. 28, 1987.

     

    4. Sagan, Op. Cit.

     

    5. Ibid.

     

    6. Hamilton, Arnold. “McVeigh forgoes 2 final appeals,“ Contra Coast Times, June 8, 2001.

     

    7. Norris, Robert S. and Arkin, William. “U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile,”’ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/Aug. 96.

     

    8. Butler, Lee. Talk at the University of Pittsburgh , May13, 1999.

     

    9. McNamara, Robert. Blundering Into Disaster, Pantheon Books, New, York, 1986.

     

    10. Babst, Dean. “Preventing An Accidental Armageddon,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Feb., 2000.

     

    11. Hart, Senator Gary and Goldwater, Senator Barry, Recent False Alerts from the Nation’s Missile Attack Warning System, a report to the Senate Armed Forces, 9 October, 1980, pp. 4 & 5.

     

    12. Strategic Defense and Anti-Satellite Weapons, hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 25, 1984, pp. 69-74.

     

    13. Schell, Jonathan, “The Gift Of Time,” The Nation, Feb. 8, 1998, p. 58.

  • National Missile Defense Jeopardizes Foreign Relations

    Arguably the most important issue regarding US foreign policy is the decision to deploy a National Missile Defense system (NMD). There is a general bipartisan agreement to engage a system of some kind, although when and to what extent (meaning size and complexity), are issues of continuing debate.

    Depending on the Bush administration’s decision, the consequences could be dire, ranging from a mere increase in anti-American sentiment to a full-blown arms race like that of the Cold War years. Thus, the most critical factor to be considered is the extent to which this decision will affect US international relations. In particular, the US has come a long way in improving relations with Russia. To upset this progress would jeopardize years of diplomatic efforts. Additionally, China and France have voiced strong opposition to NMD deployment.

    The current administration has proposed a massive NMD with land, sea, and space-based components. The possibility of an internationally accepted US defense system of this type is unfortunately very unlikely. Furthermore, as a world superpower, the United States also has a responsibility to lead by example. But the willingness of the present administration to advocate deployment of a NMD and thereby risk violation of international obligations sends the wrong message to the rest of the world.

    Continued U.S. commitments to arms reduction is of critical importance to maintaining positive international relations. The deployment of a NMD system could significantly affect the status of two of the most important treaties signed by both the United States and Russia ? the USSR at the time the treaties were signed ? in the history of nuclear disarmament: the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) and the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The disregard for these treaties is inconsistent with our responsibilities, and will not allow us to legitimately hold other countries to their obligations.

    The sole purpose of the ABM Treaty is to limit missile defense deployment. Some argue that provisions of the 29-year-old document are outdated and, as Henry A. Kissinger claims, do not address the “new national security environment, one that was not even considered, let alone anticipated when the ABM treaty was signed.” By that same logic, one could dispute the validity of the 225-year-old United States Constitution, a concept unthinkable to those who ironically share Kissinger’s view.

    While the ABM Treaty would be altogether disregarded in the case of a comprehensive missile defense, the Non-Proliferation Treaty would be undermined by a failure of the U.S. to consider the potential results of NMD deployment. The focus of this treaty is on the reduction of nuclear weapons, but a large-scale defense system would result in other nuclear powers feeling threatened in their capabilities of deterrence, thus triggering further weapons proliferation.

    Unfortunately, adherence to the commitments outlined in the ABM and NPT treaties is apparently not of utmost concern to US policy makers. Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen has gone so far as to suggest complete withdrawal from the ABM Treaty if agreements between the US and Russia on its modification cannot be attained. This kid of attitude is not only reckless, it does not contribute to improving post-Cold War relations with our former adversaries.

    While some Third World countries have access to nuclear warheads and the ballistic missiles capable of delivering them, the threat of attack is not significant enough to risk the deterioration of our relations with the rest of the world. In addition, diplomacy has been shown to have desirable outcomes when applied to arms reduction. The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program between the US and Russia has helped Russia disable more than 4,900 nuclear warheads at cost of $3.2 billion to the US from 1992 to 2000.

    Without a doubt, the most serious current threat is that of individual rather than state-sponsored terrorist attacks. No missile defense system of any kind could protect American citizens from terrorists using delivery systems other than ballistic missiles. The recent attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and closer to home, the World Trade Center bombing are grim reminders of that possibility.

    On the international level, a policy of non-deployment of a NMD could help preserve years of improving relations with Russia achieved since the end of the Cold War. Regression to previous tensions and animosities could create much more of a threat than that which currently exists.

    Russia warned that during the Reagan years it had developed “programs to counteract asymmetrically” US missile defense systems, and should we continue to insist on deployment, Russia could “take them up again.” China has threatened to increase its arsenal at any cost to counter our defenses and urges the US to cease NMD plans. Otherwise, Chinese officials warn, “we’ll be ready.”

    By discontinuing NMD testing and development, we will avoid anti-American sentiment that could potentially spark future conflicts posing a much greater threat to US security than that which is currently perceived.

    As much as we have a responsibility to defend our nation, we also have a responsibility to stand by the promises we made under international treaties. In this age of globalization, we cannot afford the isolationist attitude that would be the result of ignoring international obligations and the concerns of those in the global community.

    In conclusion, the Bush administration should consider the impacts of the proposed National Missile Defense system and question whether it is worth the risk of jeopardizing US foreign relations and possibly the future security of our nation.

    *John Ginder is a senior at UCSB majoring in global studies with an emphasis in socioeconomics and politics. This piece appeared in the Voices section of the Santa Barbara News-Press, Sunday, April 29, 2001.

  • U.S. Missile Defense Compromises Global Security

    BEIJING- Every state has the right to security and each government has the obligation to protect its nationals. But how to exercise this right and acquire security in its real sense is a question worth serious deliberation.

    As globalization progresses, countries are becoming increasingly interdependent. This is as true in the security area as it is economically.

    Security is mutual and indivisible. No country can exist in isolation, nor can it resolve all the security issues it faces single-handedly. True security is based on global security and on the extensivecooperation of the international community.

    A military edge cannot guarantee security. Unilateralism will only lead to greater insecurity.

    The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles is a complex problem that can be tackled only through global cooperation. Setting up a national missile defense system would not contribute to solving this problem, but only further aggravate it.

    Since the end of the Cold War, the international community has made considerable progress in nonproliferation. It is therefore neither wise nor advisable to build a so-called missile defense system, whose effect is questionable, at the expense of the international arms control and nonproliferation system after so many years’ efforts, including those of the United States.

    Some people describe the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as part of the “Cold War mentality” and hold that it should be discarded. This view is neither fair nor just. Like all the other arms control treaties, the ABM treaty reflects the interdependent relationship among contracting parties in security matters. This relationship did not disappear with the end of the Cold War, but rather is becoming even stronger in the era of globalization. The ABM treaty is effective. It is not outdated.

    Just as the ABM Treaty cannot be viewed in isolation, neither can a U.S. missile defense program. Offense and defense are always indivisible. Enhanced defensive capabilities, to a large degree, mean improved offensive capabilities as well.

    This is particularly true for the United States, the only superpower. The United States possesses the biggest nuclear arsenal and the most sophisticated conventional weapons in the world, and it pursues a deterrence policy based on first use of nuclear weapons. A missile defense will severely impede the nuclear disarmament process and render any U.S. initiative on the reduction of offensive nuclear weapons meaningless.

    People cannot but ask what on earth is the real intention behind U.S. insistence on developing a missile defense system in defiance of the international community. Is it really to defend against the missile threat from the few so-called “problem states,” or for greater military advantage over other big countries?

    Recently there has been relaxation of tensions in the Asia-Pacific region. All parties should cherish this hard-won state of affairs and create conditions for continued relaxation. Theater missile defense would only add complex and confrontational factors to the detriment of regional stability.

    Some in the United States clamorously advocate incorporating Taiwan into the U.S. theater missile defense system or providing anti-missile weapons or technologies to Taiwan. This is a most dangerous tendency. If the United States chose to do so, it would put Taiwan under the American umbrella of military protection and restore, de facto, the U.S.-Taiwan military alliance. It would surely inflate the arrogance of the forces for Taiwan’s independence, jeopardize stability in the Taiwan Straits, endanger the peaceful reunification of China and lead to serious regression in China-U.S. relations.

    China has no intention of threatening U.S. security, nor does it seek such capabilities. China has always exercised great restraint in the development of nuclear arms. China has always pursued a policy of no first use, and keeps a small but effective nuclear force only for the purpose of containing other countries’ possible nuclear attacks. This policy will remain unchanged.

    China and the United States shoulder common responsibility for maintaining world peace and security. A cooperative and constructive relationship between China and the United States will have a crucial impact on world stability.

    China and the United States have long engaged in fruitful cooperation over nonproliferation. China is ready to continue on this path. But we also look forward to serious and pragmatic dialogue with the Bush administration on missile defense and related issues.

    *Tang Jiaxuan is the Foreign Minister of China. He contributed this comment to the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, Friday, March 30, 2001