US Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Today, I thought I'd address an issue that not very many people are aware of, the United States' proliferation of nuclear weapons. Over the past three weeks, I have been researching this topic for a scholarship award in which I am to write a speech addressing the U.S. president, Congress, and the American populous. During my research, I found out that President Bush along with Congress made provisions to allow the United States to produce nuclear weapons, primarily low-yield conventional nuclear bunker-buster bombs. Two important bills passed for the 2004 Fiscal Year by Congress making way for the construction of these weapons are the Defense Authorization Bill, and the Energy and Water Apportions Bill.

It is apparent that in order to create more nuclear weapons, facilities must be opened in order to actually produce weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. For this reason, the U.S. has opted to reopen the Los Alamos plant in New Mexico, which will be the only place in America that could produce weapons-grade plutonium. The plutonium produced at this plant would be used towards creating the low-yield conventional nuclear weapons.

While it is within the US' right to defend itself as it sees fit, there are some serious consequences that come with this new shift in U.S. foreign policy. These concerns are best brought out in two Congressional resolutions, Senate Resolution 76, and House Resolution 291. H.R. 291, the longest and most detailed of the two highlights five major points that explain the various downsides to the change in foreign policy:

1) It is contrary to fundamental requirements of international law, because the UN Charter does not permit preventive war.

2) It is counter productive, because US reliance on nuclear weapons encourages other states to acquire them, ultimately increasing the likelihood that a nuclear weapon will be used against the US.

3) It is antithetical to the United States' obligation under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

4) It is dangerous, because the assertion of the US right to engage in preventive war encourages other states to assert the same right.

5) It is also immoral, because they place a threat of mass destruction and the assertion of a right to initiate war, at the core of US foreign policy.

What is not mentioned, however, is the fact that this undermines the purpose of the START II treaty, which was created for the purpose of reducing nuclear arms world wide, whilst setting up nations for a total and complete disarmament of weapons of mass destruction within the next 10-20 years. By continuing on on the path the U.S. is on at the present time, it is increasing the liklihood that other nations such as Iran and North Korea will accelerate their nuclear weapoons programs. This presents another diplomatic program, because these nations will retort that if the United States has the right to build nuclear weapons, then they have the same right. Although these nations would use that as an excuse to create such weapons, I am in total agreeance. All nations have the right to protect themselves by any means necessary from any and all enemies. It is not fair that the US be able to break binding and permanent international laws by creating such weapons and forcefully allowing other nations to refrain from proliferating them in the same manner that the US is. In this instance, the United States would be categorized as the aggressor because it is taking on a policy of justifying pre-emptive conventional nuclear weapon strikes on all nations that threaten US interests at home and abroad. The use of these weapons on a conventional level is also morally wrong and additionally would have serious environmental repercussions, such as contaminated land, contaminated natural resources, and possible permanent damage to the atmosphere.

For decades the US has pressed, pressured, and threatened nations to stop pursuit, procurement, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, however, the US goes behind the world's back and secretly plans to create more nuclear weapons, adding to the tremendous number that the US already has. This is what I like to call "hypocritical foreign policy", as the US isnt practicing what it has been for so long preaching. How do you expect to gain the respect, trust, and cooperation of the entire international commuunity if we do something that we have for so long been protesting against?

My Thoughts On The North Korea Conflict

Well, this is my first article on my site. Originally I was going to write an introductory article that basically reintroduces myself, but I deceided against it. There’s too much to know about me, therefore im skipping that and jumping right into my "post", if you will.

Many days have gone by since North Korea announced that it had nuclear weapons, or at least the plutonium and uranium to produce such weapons (the Pl and U-238 would be refined, enriched, and weapons-grade naturally). Since I first received the news about this, I have constantly wondered what will be done if in fact North Korea were to obtain a working nuclear or thermonuclear weapon (I doubt it would be thermonuclear since the physic and such is more complicated). What worries me most are the missile tests being carried out by NK. It is estimated that one of their medium range STRATEGIC missiles, or MRBM's, for short, has the capability of delivering a conventional warhead targeted at Washington D.C. This, along with their announcement that they will be able to create at least 3 nuclear devices within the time span of a year is highly unsettling. What is frustrating is that President Bush and his administration are not giving this crisis the top priority that it demands. Even after the fall of Iraq and the capture of Saadam Hussein, he has not made much effort to tend to this matter properly. Sure he is gathering a coalition of Asian nations such as Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea to try to "negotiate" with North Korea, but do you really think that North Korea will listen. Kim Chong-il is a stubborn hardliner that wont give in to demands. I believe that he thinks that just because he may have one or two tactical nukes that that gives him power. The guy is a lunatic. The only real way to deal with this is to use force.

When talking about the use of force against North Korea, I believe there are a few options and paths to take in dealing with this situation:

1) Utilize international diplomacy. Get the United Nations involved. Forget using the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) because they really have little power over the use, control, and distribution of nuclear materials. With the UN, you get the entire international community on your side, thus putting more and more diplomatic pressure on them. North Korea would be stupid to try to ignore or defy the UN.

2) Cease providing aid to North Korea. Despite a treaty signed in the mid 80's to early 90's, North Korea has intentionally and deliberately broken key restrictions and provisions of the treaty, thus in a way making it null and void, but for the sake of the people, we still provide them with energy and food. If you really want to pressure NK, you must stop the aid, primarily the energy aid. Without power, the country cant run, the economy suffers, and they cant progress. But once you stop that aid, you must back up that action by making sure they don’t continue to receive aid, and you accomplish that by placing US and UN sanctions on North Korea, while the effects may not be immediate, sooner or later, North Korea would be forced to negotiate. The down side is that it would hurt the Korean citizens, but its something that would in the long run be both effective and successful.

3) Another option, which is a bit on the radical and drastic side is the assassination if the communist premier, or attempt a coup de etat. That would permanently remove the premier from government in one way or another. I believe that the United States is too afraid to do such a thing. Personally i think that if he is causing so much trouble and is unwilling to make peace and cooperate, then we are justified to taking him out of this world, especially when thousands or maybe even millions of lives are at risk. One powerful man is a minute price to pay for the safety, security, and preservation of countless innocent civilian lives.

4) The final option is a very last resort. When all else fails, the use of deadly force by an international coalition of nations led by the United States should be authorized with the approval of the United Nations Security Council and/or the UN General Assembly to ensure that an invasion is legal by international law. This is also a very last resort because if the Korean war in the 1950's taught us anything, defeating them will not be easy. While they have an army as big as if not larger than the former Iraqi army, they have modern weaponry that would be very formidable against United States military forces. Not only that, the numbers of men needed to sustain such a campaign that could have the potential to last for years, and turn out like the Vietnam war of the 60's and 70's would be ridiculous. A national draft may be needed to supply the adequate amounts of men needed to fight a very tough modern communist military.

I believe the best option would be #2 which calls for the stoppage of aid to North Korea. This will "starve" the nation and force them to the negotiation table. It would also allow the IAEA a chance to set up a system to control radio active materials produced in Korean nuclear power plants, or they could get rid of the entire nuclear power program, which may or may not be the best thing to do since nuclear power is clean and a source of great energy. Taking out such plants would not only hurt the government, but the people as well as they go about with no electricity.

This is just my two cents on the situation. Many of you I know would beg to differ in some of the things I mentioned, primarily some of my options, however if you would like to make a comment or share your viewpoint on the issue, please e-mail me at kaimoni_sutton@hotmail.com.