By Peijean Tsai
Daily Bruin Contributor
No one has used nuclear weapons since the Truman administration
dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945, but recent
events have caused some to fear that there will be nuclear warfare
in the near future.
On Saturday, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Pentagon is
preparing contingency plans to consider the use of nuclear weapons
against any nations considered a threat to the United States.
Chancellor Albert Carnesale, a former nuclear arms adviser to
the president and to the head of the CIA, said that the
unintentional leakage of the report could have two effects on the
safety of this country.
First, the report could act as an enhanced deterrent against
potentially threatening nations, he said.
“Though (the report) does not say we will actually use
nuclear weapons, it gives more credibility that we could,”
Carnesale said.
Secondly, the report could negatively affect the safety of the
U.S. Because the United States is talking about using nuclear
weapons, other countries will try to acquire nuclear weapons as
well.
The document, known as the “nuclear posture review,”
specifically named seven nations as targets of U.S. nuclear action:
China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria.
Russia is a leading holder of nuclear arms, Carnesale said, but
Libya and Syria have no nuclear weapons.
These two nations were put on the list because they could be
potentially dangerous to the United States if they were to acquire
nuclear warheads in the future, Carnesale said.
He added that the only way the United States can influence other
countries to reduce their number of nuclear weapons is to scale
down its own supply. In addition, he added, rhetoric such as that
in the document should be reduced.
In contrast, UCLA professor Kenneth Schultz, who teaches a class
called “Politics of American Foreign Policy,” said that
the leakage will have little effect on the weapon production by
other countries.
Other nations will not increase their number of nuclear weapons
in response to U.S. rhetoric, he said.
“They would produce them regardless,” he said.
Schultz said the content of the document was unusual because it
targeted specific nations like Syria and Libya who do not currently
have nuclear weapons.
“The specific targeting of non-nuclear powers implies we
would use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear attacks,” he
said. “Nuclear weapons should only be used as a last
resort.”
Carnesale agreed that there should never be any “first
use” of nuclear weapons. This would mean that the United
States could use nuclear warfare against another country even if
another nation did not first attack the United States with nuclear
weapons.
Bethelwel Wilson, a fourth-year political science student,
believes the Bush administration is taking an opportunistic
approach to foreign policy, using the attacks of Sept. 11 as a
reason to upgrade weapons and military forces with nuclear
strategy.
Wilson said the document is representative of the Bush
administration, which tends to be more assertive militarily than
previous administrations like former President Bill
Clinton’s, which he said instigated a more diplomatic
approach to foreign policy.
Carnesale, however, mentioned one situation where it would be
appropriate for the United States to use nuclear weapons: to
retaliate against a sizeable attack of chemical or biological
warfare.
Despite the release of this document and its content, Carnesale
said the United States will likely not include nuclear warfare on
its defense agenda.
The United States has overwhelming, non-nuclear superiority, he
said, citing the strength of U.S. military forces, advanced
technology and equipment, and the biggest defense budget in the
world.
According to a February report by the Center for Defense, an
independent military research organization, the U.S. spent over
$396 billion on its 2001 military budget, more than 250 percent the
amount spent by the seven nations named in the document
combined.
With reports from Daily Bruin wire services.