EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in
Chief  Timothy Kudo
Managing Editor
 Michael Falcone
Viewpoint Editor
 Cuauhtemoc Ortega
Staff Representatives
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao
 Kelly Rayburn
Editorial Board Assistants
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao
  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors. Â Â All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases. Â Â The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes. Â Â When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898
On Saturday, the Los Angeles Times reported on a secret policy
review completed earlier this year by the Bush administration
regarding the United States’ creation and use of nuclear
weapons. The Nuclear Posture Review, as the document is called,
explicitly names Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, China and
Russia as possible foes the United States may have to take nuclear
action against in the future. The report also indicates the need
for developing mini-nukes that can be used on the battlefield for
such actions as destroying bunkers.
This action could ultimately violate the 1968 Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, which states that no nuclear action can be
taken against non-nuclear capable nations ““ a category into
which Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya fall as far as most international
organizations know. Extending nuclear capability beyond threats and
actually violating the treaty would have dangerous effects on both
American and global security.
Throughout the Cold War, nuclear threats were mainly used for
political leverage, and ultimately both the Soviets and Americans
recognized the undesirability of mutually assured destruction. But
the creation of mini-nukes, whose smaller scale does not translate
into total destruction, disrupts the current deterrence policy.
Nations are now hesitant to use nuclear weapons because of their
large-scale implications, but if those implications are minimized,
nations will be more likely to use them. For example, if instead of
completely annihilating Iraq a nation could isolate and demolish
parts of Baghdad, the attractiveness of nuclear force
increases.
The inevitable hostility the identified nations will feel in
being labeled potential threats will undoubtedly manifest itself in
conflict, whether through violent or diplomatic means in the short
or long-term future. The most likely ““ and most financially
costly ““ scenario will be an arms race. But this time it
won’t be against just one nation, but seven ““ many of
which can form alliances. History teaches us of the burden the
price of “defense” like this brings. The United States
has spent at least $5.5 trillion dollars since 1940 on nuclear
weapons and weapons-related programs.
Also distressing is the presence of Russia and China on the
list, when those countries have recently been making an effort to
cooperate with the United States. Russia has openly offered
assistance in the war on terrorism, and China chose not to act
after discovering that the United States was recently spying on its
presidential aircraft. The news of their “threatening”
status according to NPR could lead to a stagnation in this
cooperative relationship, especially in regards to Taiwan and
Tibet, and President Bush’s pursuit of the U.S. strategic
missile defense system.
While it is understandable that the government must prepare for
dire circumstances, extending nuclear capability seems
unnecessarily redundant and dangerous. If we can already destroy
the world fifteen times over with nuclear weapons and invade and
destroy many countries through traditional weaponry, we can pretty
much rest assured nations will fear launching massive attacks on
us. And those who would attack the U.S. regardless are unlikely to
be deterred by smaller nuclear weapons anyway ““ their
objective is to harm the U.S. even if they know retaliation will
occur; this was the case with al-Qaeda. We already know the
far-reaching negative effects of nuclear power on the environment
and inhabitants; increasing the likelihood that any type of nuclear
use, even in an isolated area, is irresponsible, especially when
strategic bombing and special forces (not to mention diplomacy) can
also get the job done.
The lessons learned in the Cold War should not be hastily
discarded. Mutually assured destruction will never benefit anyone,
and if President Bush thinks otherwise, his administration could be
responsible for initiating the most destructive and irreconcilable
level of hostility and violence the world has ever known.