|
Faith
Perspective
 A
variety of religious organizations have offered their views
and raised concerns about the Nuclear Posture Review. They
are summarized here with linkages to fuller statements.
Holy See
Although the Holy See hasn't issued an official statement
on the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, remarks by Monsignor Francis
Chullikat, deputy head of a Holy See delegation to the United
Nations, to the 2002 NPT Preparatory Committee touched on
issues related to the NPR. Excerpts from his speech entitled
There
Has Been Regregression are as follows:
Even more serious than the lack of progress [in nuclear
disarmament] is the overt determination of some nuclear
weapon states to maintain nuclear weapons in a critical
role in their military doctrines.
My Delegation is deeply concerned about the old posture
of nuclear deterrence that is evolving into the possibility
of use in new strategies.
There can be no moral acceptance of military doctrines
that embody the permanence of nuclear weapons.
U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops
In a May 2002 Statement
on New Nuclear Treaty and U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy,
the Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory, president, U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops, indicated:
Much deeper, more irreversible cuts, in both strategic
and tactical weapons, are both possible and necessary.
We oppose the continued readiness of the United States
to use nuclear weapons, especially against non-nuclear threats,
and the potential development of new weapons for this purpose.
Interfaith
Committee for Nuclear Disarmament
Representatives of 25 religious organizations that participate
in the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament wrote
[underline] a letter to President Bush [end underlining] [http://www.zero-nukes.org/religiousstatements.html#march152002]
in March 2002 to express six concerns about the Nuclear Posture
Review.
- Reductions. We commend the NPR commitment to reduce
strategic nuclear weapons to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads along
with the Russia commitment to reduce theirs to 1,500. .
. . We ask that standing down of these warheads and their
delivery vehicles be completed by 2004.
- Warhead reserve and the terrorist threat. The reduction
in strategic weapons is compromised by the NPR plan to keep
an estimated 1,500 warheads in an active reserve with their
delivery systems intact for uploading. If the United States
keeps so many warheads in reserve, Russia is likely to do
the same. The more warheads that Russia has in reserve the
greater the risk of some of them falling into the hands
of terrorist organizations.
- Mutual assured destruction. The approximately 3,500
strategic warheads in active deployment and reserve are
of sufficient magnitude to cover hundreds of targets in
Russia, as they now do under the single integrated operational
plan (SIOP). Thus, in actuality the MAD doctrine prevails.
- De-alerting. Not only is MAD continuing but also
the practice of keeping large numbers of missiles on hair-trigger
alert. . . .True friends do not keep nuclear weapons on
hair-trigger alert targeted at each other. Therefore, we
call for zero alert.
- Expanded role. . . . The Nuclear Posture Review
speaks of . . . immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies
involving North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya. The
NPR indicates that nuclear weapons could be employed against
targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack or in retaliation
for use of biological or chemical weapons. . . . We are
greatly disturbed that your administration wants to expand
rather than contract the role of nuclear weapons in the
21st century.
- Testing. . . . While we welcome reaffirmation of
your commitment to a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing,
we are bothered by the NPR's call for the Department of
Energy to reduce the time it would take to resume testing.
. . .This is compounded by the NPR's indication that the
current nuclear force is projected to remain until 2020
and that in the meantime the Department of Defense will
"study alternatives for follow-ons" for nuclear
delivery systems. Preparation to resume testing appears
to be part of this scheme. This sounds like a commitment
to nuclear weapons forever. We find this objectionable.
Accordingly, the signers of the letter to President Bush
asked him to
send the Nuclear Posture Review back to the drawing boards
and have the Pentagon planners come up with a plan that
will truly end the MAD doctrine and will steadily reduce
the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. military and foreign
policy. We propose that nuclear disarmament objectives be
incorporated into the Nuclear Posture Review in accordance
to the U.S. obligation under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT).
Mennonite Central
Committee
In a Washington Comment on "The
news behind the nuclear news", J. Daryl Byler, director
of the Mennonite Central Committee Washington Office, notes:
The administration recently conducted a major review of
U.S. nuclear policy. Its 56-page classified report -- leaked
to several major newspapers -- calls for a new generation
of miniature nuclear weapons and suggests that the United
States may need to resume nuclear testing in order to produce
them.
The report also says that the United States should be prepared
to launch pre-emptive nuclear attacks to destroy stockpiles
of chemical and biological weapons.
Byler contrasts this new policy with Mennonite policy
statements:
A 1979 Mennonite Church General Assembly statement says:
"Modern militarism . . . tempts the nations to assume
the power of God. With their devastating arsenals of nuclear
weapons, nations today hold destructive power over every
living cell on earth."
Two years later, another Assembly statement - which could
well have been written in 2002 - says, "We . . . feel
called at this time to a particular witness against nuclear
weapons because of the enormous consequences of decisions
confronting world leaders regarding [their] testing, production,
and deployment . . ."
Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.)
The Washington Office, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has
offered its analysis of [underline] "The
New U.S. Nuclear Posture Review". This report indicates:
The NPR is more than an inventory of nuclear and conventional
arsenals. It is a compilation of current nuclear capabilities,
post-Cold War nuclear strategy, and the military imperative
to prepare for a world envisioned by Strangelovian nuclear-war
planners. It covers every circumstance in which the President
might wish to use nuclear weapons.
In accordance with this construct, the Review has called
for developing a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery
systems, which has undermined all efforts toward nuclear
disarmament and nonproliferation.
| The NPR outlined three situations for which the U.S.
would use nuclear forces: |
|
Nuclear weapons could be deployed against targets
able to withstand non-nuclear attack,
In retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological
or chemical weapons, and
In the event of surprising military developments.
|
Under these circumstances, the NPR named Russia, China,
Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea as countries that
the United States would most likely use nuclear weapons
against. In the event of surprising military developments,
the report recommends that the Pentagon be prepared to use
nuclear weapons against hostile regimes or terrorist groups
that might suddenly acquire unknown weapons.
The NPR has also drafted contingency plans in case of military
confrontation and mirrored nuclear weapons development in
the future. These plans outline possible U.S. military intervention
in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in an attack from North Korea
on the south, or a hostile takeover of Taiwan by China.
Of the seven countries, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North
Korea are non-nuclear parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty. The Treaty was first signed in 1972 in hopes of
keeping nuclear weapons from spreading across the world.
The five nuclear states (the U.S., Britain, the Soviet Union,
China and France) had pledged never to use nuclear weapon
against non-nuclear countries that were parties to the treaty,
except in the case of an attack in alliance with a nuclear
state. This pledge and the treaty were reaffirmed in April
1995, in connection with a U.N. Security Council resolution.
The United States has avoided the use of nuclear weapons
in times of crisis. But the NPR directed by the administration
is inconsistent with the commitment to build a secure world
through nuclear reduction and disarmament. . . .
The Review also calls for developing low-yield, tactical
nuclear weapons to be used against hardened or deeply buried
targets (HDBTs). Developing "usable" weapons is
a significant change in U.S. policy that could seriously
hamper U.S. non-proliferation efforts by encouraging other
states to pursue similar capabilities. Moreover, even the
use of "small" nuclear weapons will invite retaliation
against the U.S. with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.
Development of new nuclear warheads would require testing
before deployment. The Review contains provisions that would
lift the self-imposed moratorium on U.S. nuclear testing.
Although the Review does not explicitly advocate lifting
the moratorium, it proposed a plan that would enable resumption
of testing if the President decided such tests are needed.
United Church of
Christ
In a March 2002 Action Alert on Continue Nuclear Disarmament
[linkage to be added], the Justice and Witness Ministries,
United Church of Christ indicated:
General Synods 14 and 17 called for the reduction and ultimate
elimination
of nuclear weapons, for a "no first strike" policy,
for unilateral
initiatives to freeze the testing, development and deployment
of nuclear
weapons, and for the withdrawal of all short-range nuclear
weapon from
Europe.
Although the Cold War is over, the 2002 Nuclear Posture
Review returns to the Cold War position of sustaining enough
nuclear weapons on high alert status so that any nation
which attacks the United States could be totally destroyed.
To make matters worse, the Review lays the groundwork for
justifying the use of nuclear weapons against nations involved
in terrorism against the United States or its allies. At
a time when Russia is actively reducing its nuclear arsenal
with our financial assistance, when China is not engaged
in a nuclear build up, and when terrorist threats come from
groups or nations with limited strategic capacity, the report
of the Nuclear Posture Review may be fairly characterized
as moving from peace-making to threatening and bullying
behavior.
The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review represents the wrong direction
to take if the goal is to radically reduce nuclear weapons
in the world.
United
Methodist Council of Bishops
In May 2002 the United Methodist Council of Bishops adopted
a resolution on "In
the Aftermath of 9-11" in which they stated:
Whereas, we now witness: (a) the potential development
and testing of new nuclear weapons; (b) the cancellation
of the ABM agreement, and (c) the threatened utilization
of first strike nuclear weapons, and
Whereas, under the heading of "war against terrorism,"
ethical restraint has been compromised;
Therefore, the bishops resolved to seek an audience with
President Bush to share their concerns and to seek ecumenical
and interfaith venues to express and embody the values, principles
and positions of the United Methodist Church.
Methodists
United for Peace with Justice
In an article on "Nuclear
Posture Review: A Flawed Proposal", Howard W. Hallman,
chair, Methodists United for Peace with Justice, identifies
four major flaws in the NPR.
Reductions Insufficient. On the positive side the
Nuclear Posture Review offers the goal of 1,700 to 2,200
operationally deployed strategic warheads for the United
States by 2012. . . . [But] the Nuclear Posture Review reveals
an intent to preserve the delivery vehicles and warheads
for possible redeployment. This goes against the principle
of irreversibility that the United States agreed to during
the 2000 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT).
MAD Continues. [Although President Bush and other
administration officials speak of moving away from the doctrine
of mutual assured destruction (MAD)], their words... are
contradicted by the level of the nuclear force to remain
deployed and held in reserve. . . . Because Russia retains
the capability of launching a massive attack on the United
States, the U.S. must maintain a counter capability. This
means that mutual assured destruction remains in effect
between two nations now said to be friends. The only way
to end the MAD doctrine is to substantially reduce capability
far below the numbers considered in the Nuclear Posture
Review, perhaps to fewer than 200 or 100, and eventually
to zero.
Expanded Role. The Nuclear Posture Review . . .
indicates that nuclear strike capability should be available
for various contingencies. It specifies: "North Korea,
Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya are among the countries that
could be involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected
contingencies." The NPR also indicates that nuclear
weapons should be used to deter attack by biological and
chemical weapons. It adds that nuclear weapons could be
employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack,
such as, deep underground bunkers and bio-weapon facilities.
When asked about this at a news conference, President Bush
explained, "We've got all options on the table."
This is a dangerous approach. The expanded role for nuclear
weapons suggests greater legitimacy and encourages other
nations to respond in kind. Moreover, it is immoral, for
all options should not be on the table. Genocide is not
a legitimate option. Slaughter of the innocent is not an
acceptable option.
Testing and New Weapon Development. The desire
to expand the role of nuclear weapons leads the Nuclear
Posture Review to give consideration to return to nuclear
weapon testing and development of new nuclear weapons. .
. . The NPR indicates that the current nuclear force is
projected to remain until 2020 or longer. Meanwhile the
Department of Defense will study alternatives for follow-ons.
This could include a new intercontinental ballistic missile
(ICBM) to be operational in 2020, a new SLBM (submarine-launched
ballistic missile) and a new SSBN (ballistic missile submarine)
in 2030, and a new heavy bomber in 2040 as well as new warheads
for all of them.
Thus, the Bush Administration assumes that nuclear weapons
will be part of U.S. military forces for at least the next
50 years. This is clearly in conflict with the goal of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
|
On
January 8, 2002 the U.S. Department of Defense sent to Congress
a secret report on its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). Mandated
by Congress, the NPR lays out the direction for American nuclear
forces for the next ten years and beyond.
