Nuclear Arms and the American Military Empire
Nuclear Arms and the American Military Empire
By John M. Swomley,
Professor Emeritus of Christian Social Ethics, St. Paul School of Theology
I believe President G. W. Bush is the most dangerous President in American history. This is no exaggeration, no unwarranted hyperbole. Bush is now embarked on a program of world domination with plans, heretofore unthinkable, for the deliberate use of nuclear weapons. He not only withdrew the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in June 2002, but has recently asked Congress to lift a 10-year ban on research, development, and production of smaller nuclear weapons of less than five kilotons. The Senate has already, by a vote of 51 to 43, agreed to this proposal.1
Nuclear weapons, even if they are smaller than those of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, will not only kill on impact, but raise immense radioactive dust, with the terrible results of slow, agonizing death from radiation. There is an assumption, in using smaller nuclear weapons, that there can be accurate precision bombing such as was claimed in the bombing of Iraq. What was not reported by officials is that although those bombs rarely missed a target by more than 13 feet, when the bomb blew up it sent high-speed shrapnel flying as far as a mile, causing many civilian casualties. The additional power of a nuclear bomb, together with the dispersal of radioactivity, is sure to produce infinitely more harm.
When Bush released his “Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction” in countries deemed a threat to the United States, he declared that the U.S. “reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force, including through resort to all our options.” That includes “both conventional and nuclear response” even “in appropriate cases, through pre-emptive measures.”2
The small nuclear weapons proposed would not be a substitute for any of the massive stockpile the U.S. now possesses. There are 500 nuclear missiles deployed at three Air Force bases in Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming, which can be launched on short notice. As of mid-2003, there were also 16 operational nuclear-powered ballistic submarines that carry 384 ballistic missiles with as many as 2,880 nuclear warheads. Eight of these are in the Atlantic and four in the Pacific. There are also long-range bombers deployed in Missouri that carry earth-penetrating nuclear bombs.3 These weapons are already developed. However, the Navy is constantly updating its striking force. In October 2003 the Navy will begin deployment of a new Re-targeting System for its offensive strike platform.4
According to one analyst, Bill Donahue, the United States is spending an estimated $5.8 billion on nuclear weapons this year and “in 2002 President Bush cued the Los Alamos National Laboratories to begin developing ‘Earth Penetrator’ mini-nukes” even before seeking permission from Congress.5
“The B-61 bomb is perhaps the most versatile and abundant nuclear weapon in the U.S. stockpile” according to the “Nuclear Notebook” in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. That Notebook said, “Approximately 150 B61s are deployed with U.S. Air Force units in Britain, Germany, and Turkey and held in U.S. custody for use by NATO allied air force wings and squadrons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.” It is “the only remaining nuclear weapon deployed outside U.S. borders except for missile warheads on patrolling nuclear-powered ballistic-missile subs.” 6
However, “a serious flaw in the concept of nuclear earth-penetrating weapons, even those with relatively low yields, is that they cannot penetrate deeply enough to contain a nuclear explosion and its deadly radioactive fallout. If used in an urban environment, such a weapon would cause thousands of casualties.”7
It is therefore essential for Americans to note a classified (secret) Pentagon report leaked to the press on March 9, 2002, under one headline: “U.S. Prepares for Wider Options on Nuclear Arms.” It said, “The Bush Administration has directed the military to prepare plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries.” They were “China, Russia, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Libya.”8
However, the first country targeted for action was Iraq. The war there was waged on the justification that it had or has nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. It is now obvious that there were hidden reasons.
If Iraq is only the first of other countries targeted for action, there are certain facts and assumptions that flow from U.S. control there. One is that the U.S. will control the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to China, Japan, Korea and most other countries. The second is that the Pentagon has announced it will maintain four long-term military bases in Iraq.
Third, The Bush Administration will not foster genuine democracy in Iraq; it will only permit a regime under U.S. influence and control, as it has in other countries, notably South Korea, Haiti, and Afghanistan. As a New York Times report indicated,
“The United States is planning a long term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq…[this relationship] will grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project U.S. influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.”9
Fifty-seven years after World War II, the U.S. still maintains occupation forces in Germany, Japan, South Korea and other countries. In South Korea it has steadily maintained 37,000 combat troops at 96 bases occupying 65,500 acres. It controls South Korea’s armed force of 670,000 troops, 460 combat aircraft, 44 destroyers and frigates, and four attack submarines, which regularly
conduct maneuvers in the air space and coastal waters around North Korea. The occupation of Japan still continues with eight major U.S. bases. In Japan’s island of Okinawa, U.S. bases occupy 20% of the land. There are also bases in Guam, and Taiwan. Australia is also integrated into the American military system with various U.S. stations from which U.S. submarines and vessels can control the Indian Ocean and South Pacific.
In addition the U.S. has ten bases in seven European countries and sends military training missions to the armed forces of 110 countries. Most Americans do not know the real results of the war against Afghanistan or its inclusion in the American Empire. There is a U.S. air base near Bishtek, the capital of Kyrgistan, just north of Afghanistan. It will hold 3,000 troops. There are military bases in Uzbekistan and Pakistan; there are also bases in Afghanistan.
In the Mideast the U.S. now has bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, along with the four now established in Iraq.
With the possible exception of the former British Empire, this pattern of overseas bases establishes the United States as the largest imperial power in history. It is an empire which U.S. taxpayers have to maintain, along with the present federal debt: Six trillion, three hundred ninety-nine billion, nine hundred million, seventy-five thousand dollars. Actually, it is higher than that, but the federal debt limit is $6.4 trillion.10
The building of this empire has taken place over years in which the U.S. military-industrial complex has profited from huge arms sales and the building of these bases. The collapse of the Soviet Union ought to have been a signal to disarm and strengthen the United Nations for a world at peace. Instead, the problem we face now is one which Al Gore described as a new doctrine that destroys “the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, in favor of the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.”
Endnotes 1 New York Times, May 21, 2003.
2 National Security Strategy Paper, September 20, 2002.
3 “Nuclear Notebook,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May-June, 2003.
4 Ibid.
5 Bill Donahue, “Fear and Fallout in Los Alamos,” Mother Jones, May-June,
2003.
6 “Nuclear Notebook,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May-June, 2003.
7 ”Nuclear Notebook,” January-February, 2003.
8 Kansas City Star, March 9, 2003, from Los Angeles Times.
9 New York Times, April 20, 2003.
10 Jerry Heaster column, Kansas City Star, April 25, 2003.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
