PressEthic

A New York Times article, dated September 11, reported that:

"The Pentagon is preparing new guidelines governing the use of nuclear weapons that foresee possible pre-emptive strikes against terrorist groups or nations planning to use unconventional weapons against the United States."

The article goes on to say:

"The scenarios for a possible attack described in the draft include one in which an enemy is using "or intending to use" unconventional weapons against the United States, its allies or civilian populations."

I find the implications of this proposal, whether it gets approved or not, incredibly disturbing. The idea that it's okay to use nuclear weapons in the event that another nation "intends" (thus implying the information is not confirmed) to use unconventional weapons is ludicrous -- especially in light of the Bush government's embarrassment over the phantom WMDs in Iraq. Clearly military intelligence is not fail-proof, so the idea of relying on similar sources of information to make a decision about something as terrifying as a nuclear attack is most disconcerting.

Moreover, in the big picture, justifying the possibility of a pre-emptive strike is a move away from the ideals of nuclear disarmament and, in general, trying to make the world a safer place. The idea is not to be increasingly trigger-happy.

Walter Cronkite talks about the continuing threat of nuclear arms in this article , making several points that hit home, such as the fact that this is the "60th year of the Nuclear Age [and] we still have 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world." What's more, he points out the hypocrisy of the world's most heavily nuclear armed country (the US) trying to preach to other nations about disarmament when they aren't doing it themselves. This is a point that is taken further in Rick Ruffin's piece from The Korea Times .

Of course, the US isn't the only offender in the breakdown of nuclear disarmament. India and Pakistan both became Nuclear Weapon States in 1998 and neither is doing much to curb themselves either. This makes the South Asian subcontinent fairly unsafe given the historic rivalry between the countries.

The point really isn't which part of the world is more or less safe than another (in fact, that point is moot given the reach of nuclear weapons). The point is that there seems to be no end to the danger if countries are still writing proposals like this recent one from the Pentagon.

As Cronkite says towards the end of his article:

"The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – the hibakusha – have continually warned, "Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot coexist.""