 |
Marching Toward Apocalypse
|
|
|
||
|
One of the leading conservative hawks on Iraq, Charles Krauthammer, wrote in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq that, "before our eyes in a flash, politics has gone cosmic. The question before us is very large and very simple: can, and will, the civilized part of humanity disarm the barbarians who would use the ultimate knowledge for the ultimate destruction?" For Krauthammer to frame the issue of rogue states and weapons of mass destruction in such an apocalyptic manner is entirely justified. If dangerous rogue states were to acquire the ultimate means of destruction, coupled with an international order characterised by might makes right, then our own extinction as a species becomes a distinct possibility. As the philosopher and antiwar campaigner, Bertrand Russell, stated, this would be "rather a pity." As such it is a worthy question to ask: which rogue state poses the greatest threat to global security? Unfortunately for the hawks, the answer to this question is rather unflattering. Consider a key planning document drawn up by United States Strategic Command, a Clinton-era document mind you, which oversees America's vast nuclear weapons arsenal. This document states, "because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the US may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially 'out of control' can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing doubts within the minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be a part of the national persona we project to all adversaries." Moreover, the US reserves the right of first use of nuclear weapons, even against an adversary armed only with conventional weapons. As the recent Pentagon nuclear posture review stipulated, the US may use nuclear weapons if its conventional military forces face defeat on distant battlefields. If one were to have the temerity to defend oneself successfully from American attack then instant annihilation awaits. If you happen to be a potential target of such an irrational nuclear armed state what responses are open to you? The answer to that question is pretty obvious: acquire weapons of mass destruction yourself. Precisely the reason why states such as North Korea have an abiding interest in weapons of mass destruction. It should be noted that this is well known to policy makers in Washington. For instance Donald Rumsfeld himself wrote in a congressional report during the Clinton years that, "for those seeking to thwart the projection of US power, the capability to combine ballistic missiles with weapons of mass destruction provides a strategic counter to US conventional and information based military superiority." The US is also going along with plans to militarize space. The militarization of space is meant to give Washington, according to Rumsfeld, "space control" so that it may "project power in, through and from space." This directly threatens Russia and China's nuclear early warning system. Threatening these warning systems greatly increases the chances of a large scale accidental nuclear exchange. A part of this space programme is National Missile Defence. A National Intelligence report concluded that a National Missile Defence system would lead to Russia and China increasing the size and scope of its nuclear forces in order to strengthen their deterrents. As China increases its nuclear arsenal, so would India. As India expands its nuclear arsenal, so would Pakistan. Israel may do likewise, which may prompt Iran to enter the race. The US, in waging a preventative (not pre-emptive) war against Iraq, has effectively torn up the entire fabric of international law. Middle powers such as Australia have a keen interest in the health of international law. The US, like any rogue state, reserves the right to wage offensive war whenever and however it feels like. Yet this rogue state has thousands of nuclear weapons, which it chooses to brandish in an irrational and vindictive way. Moreover, Washington's nuclear unilateralism has resulted in the US scuttling existing strategic arms control regimes, which is what one would expect of a global rogue state posing a clear and present threat to global security. As we have noted the US is creating strong incentives for vertical nuclear proliferation, that is, arms racing amongst existing nuclear powers, just as it is creating incentives for further horizontal proliferation, that is, proliferation amongst non-nuclear powers. Furthermore, as a rogue state that stresses the right to act irrationally and vindictively, as well as to wage preventative war, the US threatens to effectively create a system of multiple overlapping nuclear arsenals where strategic command and control systems would be tightly coupled. As the expert on nuclear command and control, Paul Bracken, has observed that tight coupling greatly increases the chances for technical error as a small perturbation in the system may lead to mutual accidental launch. As Bracken stated, "in the world in which people live, power grids fail, trains derail, bridges and dams fall down, DC-10 engines fall off, and nuclear power plants come close to meltdown. These things don't happen often, but they do occur." Writing in 1988 he goes on, "a 1965 power failure in the American Northeast was traced to a single inexpensive switch. It was said repeatedly after 1965 that such a cascading power blackout could never occur again, since the freak accident had been carefully considered in new designs based on the lessons of 1965. But it did happen again, in 1977, in New York." A sobering thought in these times. Of course Bracken was writing of a simple linear system of coupling between the Soviet Union and the US. What we are seeing now is the onset of a system of multiple, overlapping command and control systems, in a world order increasingly characterised by global vertical and horizontal proliferation. This is very similar to the interacting strategic systems that helped to usher in a catastrophe in 1914. A small perturbation in such a system may indeed lead to a cascading blackout, one that would be permanent for Homo sapiens this time around. It is for good reason that even the people of Canada regard the US as the greatest threat to global peace and security, not to mention the Europeans. The world's leading rouge state can only be successfully deterred from within, by its own population, in what strategic analysts have long called "self deterrence." The millions of people who marched for peace during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq represent the "civilized part of humanity" and they are determined to prevent the "barbarians from using the ultimate knowledge for the ultimate destruction." Unlike Krauthammer, they seek to disarm all the barbarians, including the biggest of them all. The prospects for continued human survival largely depend on the success of these popular movements.
Marko Beljac PhD student at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
|