Saturday
04Jun2005
Nuclear proliferation
Saturday, June 4, 2005 at 11:43AM
It seems that both the US and the UK will replace their current arsenal with next-generation ICBM's, and in the case of the US a possible "bunker-buster" nuclear delivery system.
What sort of message does this send out to Iran and N. Korea? "We will make ourselves stronger, increasing our hegemony, and undermining your sovereignty. You will stay weak."
Robert McNamara appeared on BBC R4 yesterday and was heavily critical of the Bush administration’s policy with Korea. He claimed that for all the sabre rattling and rhetoric being spouted by the Whitehouse it does not mean a jot. N. Korea has thousands of weapons aimed at Seoul and US troops stationed in the region. Bush allowed the Korean issue to disappear off the radar and is now without a policy to deal with the rogue state.
Back to proliferation…
The USAF has requested licence to build weapons that would operate above the earth’s atmosphere, designed to take out enemy satellites to ensure US dominance of space in the advent of conflict. This threatens to break out into another arms-race as the Russians and Chinese would have to ensure some protection/retaliation capability.
The reason the US has avoided this avenue before now is their dependence on its communication web; the US would be affected more than any potential foe by a communication blackout. Paradoxically Rumsfeld of course is concerned with the whacky ideology of the Star Wars programme, even though its relevance and feasibility are in question. Iraq has proven there is no substitute for troops on the ground.
The future conflict theatres are likely to be further ‘rogue states’, this means that the traditional infantry unit will become increasingly important (as regional stability will be more relevant that invasion), and America is struggling to maintain troop levels as Niall Ferguson pointed out in the New York Times last month: -
So why the investment in space programmes and nuclear weapons?
It appears that throughout the eighties the Americans had their fingers crossed when they championed the cause of non-proliferation (suckering the world into concurrence). This is the sort of leadership we have in the US now: always war, never dialogue.
Still what should we expect from a president who’s Daddy’s an arms dealer?
What sort of message does this send out to Iran and N. Korea? "We will make ourselves stronger, increasing our hegemony, and undermining your sovereignty. You will stay weak."
Robert McNamara appeared on BBC R4 yesterday and was heavily critical of the Bush administration’s policy with Korea. He claimed that for all the sabre rattling and rhetoric being spouted by the Whitehouse it does not mean a jot. N. Korea has thousands of weapons aimed at Seoul and US troops stationed in the region. Bush allowed the Korean issue to disappear off the radar and is now without a policy to deal with the rogue state.
Back to proliferation…
The USAF has requested licence to build weapons that would operate above the earth’s atmosphere, designed to take out enemy satellites to ensure US dominance of space in the advent of conflict. This threatens to break out into another arms-race as the Russians and Chinese would have to ensure some protection/retaliation capability.
The reason the US has avoided this avenue before now is their dependence on its communication web; the US would be affected more than any potential foe by a communication blackout. Paradoxically Rumsfeld of course is concerned with the whacky ideology of the Star Wars programme, even though its relevance and feasibility are in question. Iraq has proven there is no substitute for troops on the ground.
The future conflict theatres are likely to be further ‘rogue states’, this means that the traditional infantry unit will become increasingly important (as regional stability will be more relevant that invasion), and America is struggling to maintain troop levels as Niall Ferguson pointed out in the New York Times last month: -
‘So could today's all-volunteer force somehow be expanded to double (at least) the troops available? That too seems unlikely. Indeed, the current system is already showing alarming signs of stress and strain as more and more is asked of the "weekend warriors" of the reserves and National Guard, who account for roughly two-fifths of the force in Iraq. In December, the Army National Guard acknowledged that it had fallen 30 percent below its recruiting goals in the preceding two months. Many members of the Individual Ready Reserve have been contesting the Army's right to call them up.’
So why the investment in space programmes and nuclear weapons?
It appears that throughout the eighties the Americans had their fingers crossed when they championed the cause of non-proliferation (suckering the world into concurrence). This is the sort of leadership we have in the US now: always war, never dialogue.
Still what should we expect from a president who’s Daddy’s an arms dealer?
Reader Comments