Overstating the obvious

The new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) released by the US has alarmed pacifists across the world. The document has raised the spectre of the use of nuclear arsenals in case of a conflict. According to experts, a nuclear posture review specifies a country’s attitude toward nuclear weapons and their use.

In previous posture reviews, nuclear weapons were largely regarded as unusable, except as a form of retaliation for a nuclear attack. The assumption was that no one would use these weapons. But this perception seems to be changing.

Global experts have expressed their deep concerns over this review. Some have described it as reckless and threatening. According to Dr Paul Craig Roberts, “the new US nuclear posture is a reckless, irresponsible, and destabilising departure from the previous attitude toward nuclear weapons. The use of even a small part of [America’s] existing arsenal …would be sufficient to destroy life on earth. Yet, the posture review calls for more weapons, speaks of nuclear weapons as ‘usable’ and justifies their use in first strikes, even against countries that do not have nuclear weapons”.

Many critics believe that the review is full of contradictions as it reflects a desire to eliminate nuclear arms while expressing a gargantuan appetite for these weapons of annihilation.

The executive summary of this review corroborates what the critics say. As per the summary says, “The president [has] made [it] clear that his first priority is to protect the [US along with its] allies and partners. He also emphasised both the long-term goal of eliminating nucl ear weapons and the requirement that the [US] have modern, flexible and resilient nuclear capabilities that are safe and secure until such a time as nuclear weapons can prudently be eliminated from the world”.

This is akin to saying that you want to kill people but don’t believe in spilling human blood. The word ‘flexible’ can in common parlance be interpreted as something that is easy to use. Does this mean that the US may resort to the use of nuclear arms? Even a tactical nuclear arm could kill, according to some estimates, around 70,000 people.

The question is: has America made any efforts to eliminate these arms? This does not appear to be the case. On the contrary, its policy of attacking and dismantling the state structure of Yugoslavia; bombing Afghanistan ruthlessly; triggering chaos in Iraq; sowing the seeds of fragmentation in Libya; and sending parts of Syria into the stone age has prompted many states to consider acquiring nuclear technology to ensure the survival of the fittest. Despite the fact that the threat to use force is against international law and all the norms of the civilised world, US President Trump continues to brag about his destructive theory of ‘fire and fury’.

The NPR has heaped praise on the US for reducing the nuclear stockpile by over 85 percent since the height of the cold war. The review suggests that the US hasn’t deployed any new nuclear capabilities for over two decades. Amid the aura of mystery that surrounds nuclear arms and their upgradation, it is difficult to buy into this argument. If the UK has been making efforts to upgrade its lethal arms of mass destruction, many of us are not prepared to believe that the US isn’t doing the same thing.

The review exaggerates the extent of the nuclear threat faced by the US. No country has deployed nuclear warheads close to the American borders. It isn’t the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The world does not possess over 30,000 nuclear warheads as it did during the cold war. Russia is no longer making consistent efforts to turn Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America to ‘red’. China is no longer a champion of a violent proletarian revolution. So why are American policymakers magnifying the extent of this threat?

The NPR claims that the US now faces a far more diverse and advanced environment of a nuclear threat than ever before, with considerable dynamism in the development of potential adversaries and the deployment programmes for nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

No power on earth is encircling America. The situation is the other way round. The US and its allies have been encircling Russia and China. In fact, Moscow rightly feels betrayed. After all, it was America who offered verbal assurances that no Nato expansion would be carried out. But today, the US-led military alliance is close to the border of Putin’s country and a number of former communist states in Europe and the Baltic region have joined Nato, threatening Russia’s security.

The US never faced any large-scale attack by any country. And even then, it did not allow any European power to maintain a foothold in Latin America. Why should Russia, which was virtually destroyed more than once by foreign aggressors, not worry about an ever-expanding Nato that has been accused of invading a number of countries since the demise of the Soviet Union? The western border of Moscow is not the only region that has witnessed the strong presence of America and its allies. The deployment of US forces in Syria and Afghanistan also pose a challenge to Russia and China’s security.

A number of US officials have issued a diverse menu of statements that suggest Washington considers Moscow and China as its arch-enemies. Various reports that have been released by many American think tanks also give the same impression. But this nuclear posture review sanctimoniously states that: “the US does not wish to regard either Russia or China as an adversary and seeks stable relations with both [countries]. We have long sought a dialogue with China to enhance our understanding of our respective nuclear policies, doctrine, and capabilities; to improve transparency; and to help manage the risks of miscalculation and misperception”.

The question is: how many nuclear disarmament initiatives has the US offered since the end of the cold war? Does the national missile defence system reflect the desire of the US to rid the world of nuclear and other lethal weapons? Does the formula of a change in regime create a sense of security among states, including Russia and China? Or, does it prompt them to take measures against a possible US intervention within their own borders or in the states where their vital interests could be jeopardised?

The review talks about preventing proliferation and denying terrorists access to finished weapons, materials or expertise. But many believe that by clandestinely supporting terrorists in Syria, the US has singlehandedly strengthened these non-state actors. We could argue that it was Bashar al-Assad and his Russian allies that are accusing Washington of supporting Isis. But in Afghanistan, it is an American ally that has made similar claims.

The most frightening part of the NPR needs no explanation. It states that: “The [US] would only consider the [use] of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend [its] vital interests [as well as the vital interests of] its allies and partners. Nevertheless, if deterrence fails, [America] will strive to end any conflict at the lowest level of damage possible and on the best achievable terms for the [US and its] allies and partners”.

In the past, the US believed in using such lethal arms to retaliate a nuclear attack. But this new logic is bound to create fears and apprehensions and result in the extensive militarisation of the world.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

Email: egalitarianism444@ gmail.com