Hiroshima Memo: The Contradiction of U.S. Nuclear Policy
Apr. 30, 2008
by Akira Tashiro, Executive Director of the Hiroshima Peace Media Center
“Do as I say, not as I do.” This is the sort of attitude I felt from the Bush administration and the nuclear establishment when I visited Los Alamos National Laboratory (New Mexico) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (California), the two largest research and development centers for nuclear weapons in the U.S., in the fall of 2006. These nuclear facilities were set to compete in the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, designed to replace the entire existing stock of nuclear warheads with new weapons over a period of about 30 years, starting in 2012.
At a public briefing held at New Mexico State University, a scientist in charge of the RRW program at the Los Alamos National Laboratory championed the advantages of the new-generation weapons to the public: “These new warheads will be safer and less expensive”; “If they fell into the hands of terrorists, they would be hard to detonate”; “Nuclear tests would not be necessary”; and similar justifications.
At the same time the U.S. leadership strongly criticizes the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials to other countries, they shut their eyes to the nuclear development that continues in their own nation. This sort of double standard maintained by the U.S. in regard to nuclear weapons is no longer acceptable to the rest of the world. Such a policy has provided an excuse for Russia and China to strengthen their nuclear capability; enabled India, Pakistan, and Israel, which have not ratified the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to obtain nuclear weapons; and induced North Korea and Iran to pursue their own nuclear arsenal.
U.S. groups and citizens who are active in the anti-nuclear movement have long pointed out this contradiction in their nation's nuclear policy. In fact, voices against the development of new weapons were raised among the local people who attended the briefing at New Mexico State University: “Article 6 of the NPT clearly stipulates that signatories make efforts in good faith toward nuclear abolition. As one of the signatories, producing new weapons would violate our commitment to the treaty” and “In the international community, America is considered a hypocrite due to its nuclear policy and the Iraq War.”
These people, who are calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, would like to demonstrate America's moral core--and restore the world's trust--by leading the campaign for nuclear disarmament. However, changing U.S. nuclear policy is a large challenge and this was exemplified by the briefing, where no common ground could be found for the opposing viewpoints of the scientists engaged in nuclear weapons development and the anti-nuclear advocates. To effect change, wider public support in the U.S. is needed.
Such support, surprisingly, has now come from very unexpected quarters. Four senior U.S. officials, including two former Secretaries of States, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, issued two opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal regarding the abolition of nuclear weapons, the first one in January 2007 and the second in January of this year. Since Mr. Kissinger and the other figures have been seen as “warriors” of the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., their views have had a significant impact on Capitol Hill and in other political circles.
Former Senator Sam Nunn is one of the four and he provided the following testimony to Congress in March 2007: “If Congress gives a green light to this [RRW] program in our current world environment, I believe that this will be: misunderstood by our allies; exploited by our adversaries; and complicate our work to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons.” Due to the Democratic Party winning majorities in both houses of Congress in the midterm elections held in Fall 2006 and the lobbying efforts of anti-nuclear groups, the FY 2008 (October 2007 to September 2008) budget for the RRW research, which had been set at approximately 90 million dollars (about 9.45 billion yen) was frozen completely in the House of Representatives. The Bush administration, however, has not abandoned its intention to fund this program and is demanding that a budget be restored for FY 2009.
Some American scientists who were directly involved in the development of nuclear weapons during the Cold War have pointed out that the existing arsenal of nuclear warheads could remain reliable for the next 50 or more years. If so, why are new warheads needed?
One reason for this continuing nuclear development is the attempt to protect the vested interests of nuclear-related facilities. Unless they produce new types of weapons, the very mission of these facilities is undermined and they will no longer have such ready access to government funds. And along with weapons makers, advantages can also be gained by military enterprises, politicians, and bureaucrats. To break this stubborn grip of the nuclear establishment--which has solidified over many years--and ensure movement toward nuclear disarmament, strong leadership from a newly-elected president, backing from the congress, and support from the American public and the world's people are essential.
Many Americans might be quick to dismiss the notion of disarmament by contending that “The abolition of nuclear weapons is a fantasy.” However, if the U.S. continues to unilaterally develop and possess nuclear weapons, how can it truly prevent these weapons from spreading to other countries or from falling into the hands of terrorists? The arguments by Mr. Kissinger and the other senior officials make clear that current U.S. nuclear policy, rather, is the “fantasy.”
“Do as I say, not as I do.” This is the sort of attitude I felt from the Bush administration and the nuclear establishment when I visited Los Alamos National Laboratory (New Mexico) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (California), the two largest research and development centers for nuclear weapons in the U.S., in the fall of 2006. These nuclear facilities were set to compete in the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, designed to replace the entire existing stock of nuclear warheads with new weapons over a period of about 30 years, starting in 2012.
At a public briefing held at New Mexico State University, a scientist in charge of the RRW program at the Los Alamos National Laboratory championed the advantages of the new-generation weapons to the public: “These new warheads will be safer and less expensive”; “If they fell into the hands of terrorists, they would be hard to detonate”; “Nuclear tests would not be necessary”; and similar justifications.
At the same time the U.S. leadership strongly criticizes the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials to other countries, they shut their eyes to the nuclear development that continues in their own nation. This sort of double standard maintained by the U.S. in regard to nuclear weapons is no longer acceptable to the rest of the world. Such a policy has provided an excuse for Russia and China to strengthen their nuclear capability; enabled India, Pakistan, and Israel, which have not ratified the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to obtain nuclear weapons; and induced North Korea and Iran to pursue their own nuclear arsenal.
U.S. groups and citizens who are active in the anti-nuclear movement have long pointed out this contradiction in their nation's nuclear policy. In fact, voices against the development of new weapons were raised among the local people who attended the briefing at New Mexico State University: “Article 6 of the NPT clearly stipulates that signatories make efforts in good faith toward nuclear abolition. As one of the signatories, producing new weapons would violate our commitment to the treaty” and “In the international community, America is considered a hypocrite due to its nuclear policy and the Iraq War.”
These people, who are calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, would like to demonstrate America's moral core--and restore the world's trust--by leading the campaign for nuclear disarmament. However, changing U.S. nuclear policy is a large challenge and this was exemplified by the briefing, where no common ground could be found for the opposing viewpoints of the scientists engaged in nuclear weapons development and the anti-nuclear advocates. To effect change, wider public support in the U.S. is needed.
Such support, surprisingly, has now come from very unexpected quarters. Four senior U.S. officials, including two former Secretaries of States, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, issued two opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal regarding the abolition of nuclear weapons, the first one in January 2007 and the second in January of this year. Since Mr. Kissinger and the other figures have been seen as “warriors” of the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., their views have had a significant impact on Capitol Hill and in other political circles.
Former Senator Sam Nunn is one of the four and he provided the following testimony to Congress in March 2007: “If Congress gives a green light to this [RRW] program in our current world environment, I believe that this will be: misunderstood by our allies; exploited by our adversaries; and complicate our work to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons.” Due to the Democratic Party winning majorities in both houses of Congress in the midterm elections held in Fall 2006 and the lobbying efforts of anti-nuclear groups, the FY 2008 (October 2007 to September 2008) budget for the RRW research, which had been set at approximately 90 million dollars (about 9.45 billion yen) was frozen completely in the House of Representatives. The Bush administration, however, has not abandoned its intention to fund this program and is demanding that a budget be restored for FY 2009.
Some American scientists who were directly involved in the development of nuclear weapons during the Cold War have pointed out that the existing arsenal of nuclear warheads could remain reliable for the next 50 or more years. If so, why are new warheads needed?
One reason for this continuing nuclear development is the attempt to protect the vested interests of nuclear-related facilities. Unless they produce new types of weapons, the very mission of these facilities is undermined and they will no longer have such ready access to government funds. And along with weapons makers, advantages can also be gained by military enterprises, politicians, and bureaucrats. To break this stubborn grip of the nuclear establishment--which has solidified over many years--and ensure movement toward nuclear disarmament, strong leadership from a newly-elected president, backing from the congress, and support from the American public and the world's people are essential.
Many Americans might be quick to dismiss the notion of disarmament by contending that “The abolition of nuclear weapons is a fantasy.” However, if the U.S. continues to unilaterally develop and possess nuclear weapons, how can it truly prevent these weapons from spreading to other countries or from falling into the hands of terrorists? The arguments by Mr. Kissinger and the other senior officials make clear that current U.S. nuclear policy, rather, is the “fantasy.”
