James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction with training & analysis

Edging Ever Closer to A Nuclear Death

By Steve Andreasen and Dennis Gormley

An op-ed for the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
March 29, 2006 © Minneapolis Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

"The world was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his execution."
John F. Kennedy, State of the Union Address, Jan. 11, 1962

President Bush recently reaffirmed his support for the doctrine of "preemption" -- more accurately, "preventive war" -- the right to initiate hostilities with or without an imminent threat. The president's public flogging of America's right to "not stand idly by as grave dangers materialize" has sparked similar declarations by other nations. Together with the administration's studied disinterest in -- and active sabotage of -- agreements to limit the spread of weapons and technologies, one can see an alarming trend, where nations are acquiring increasingly capable offensive nuclear and missile capabilities and moving closer to lowering the threshold between peace and war.

Copycats to America's preemption doctrine continue to sprout. Six months after America invaded Iraq, President Vladimir Putin said Russia retained the right to launch preemptive strikes to defend its interests. Around that time, Israel cited the U.S. preemption policy when it attacked what it said was a terrorist training camp inside Syria. Taiwanese military analysts have also discussed the possibility of instituting "preventive self-defense" strikes; and a Japanese Defense Agency panel report has stipulated a requirement for launching preemptive strikes. Also in Asia, North Korea reiterated last week that "Preemptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States."

Coincident with this global scramble to adopt preemption doctrines has been the shedding of agreements to constrain nuclear arms and ballistic missiles. Here again, the Bush administration has led the charge. After withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the administration negotiated a treaty with Russia to "limit" long-range offensive nuclear arms: It expires the same day its proposed ceilings enter into force in 2012. Moreover, the administration appears content to allow the 1991 U.S. -- Russian START I Treaty on nuclear weapons to expire in 2009. Accordingly, we are a few years from the complete deregulation of the system of nuclear constraints between the world's largest nuclear powers.

Additionally, President Bush has proposed carving out an exception to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) permitting assistance to India's civilian nuclear program without any meaningful constraints on India's nuclear weapons activities -- a stunning example of abandoned principle and squandered leverage. The agreement with India, if approved by Congress, would signal a more permissive approach to nuclear proliferation.

On top of this, ballistic and cruise missiles -- which can arrive at their targets in minutes or hours -- are appearing in increasing numbers. China now deploys over 700 ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan, while India and Pakistan have initiated a ballistic missile arms race. In addition, a small but growing club of nations now possess land-attack cruise missiles, which in many places can fly undetected -- perfect for a preemptive attack.

Is there anything that can be done to delay or reverse these trends? The answer is "yes" -- but only if America takes the lead in constraining both itself and others.

First, the administration should support extending the START I Treaty with its unique verification provisions beyond 2009, and -- with Moscow -- remove all nuclear weapons on long-range ballistic missiles from "hair-trigger" alert. Congress can help maintain a firewall against the proliferation and use of ballistic missiles by refusing to go along with the administration's ill-considered proposal to make long-range ballistic missiles more "usable" weapons in the war on terrorism by arming some Trident D-5 nuclear missiles with conventional warheads.

Second, Congress should also revise the nuclear deal with India and insist New Delhi agree to meaningful constraints on its nuclear weapons program as the price for civil nuclear technology. Ceasing all production of fissile material for weapons and signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- two steps already taken by all five NPT nuclear weapon states -- is the minimum that should be required.

Third, the administration should push to strengthen the Missile Technology Control Regime so that limitations are placed on cruise missiles -- which are rapidly becoming the "first strike" weapon of choice in many volatile regions. Moreover, the administration's religious zeal for building a national missile defense against ballistic missiles has left us virtually defenseless against cruise missiles; we need a more evenhanded approach.

Finally, while it is too late to put the "preemption / preventive war" genie back in the bottle, it is in our interest to speak softly about preemption and ensure it is understood as a last resort. More visibly, America should take steps to strengthen the capability of the United Nations and other institutions to forestall any need to conduct another preventive war.

We have stepped inside the prison that President Kennedy warned us about; let's try to escape before it's too late.

Steve Andreasen, director for defense policy and arms control on the National Security Council from 1993 to 2001, teaches at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. Dennis Gormley is a senior fellow at the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies.