About
Academics
Multisport
Photography
Writing
Home

 

What nation owns the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, has used them against civilian populations, and has a current military policy in place that specifically calls for their use again, listing seven countries as targets?

Since first developing the atomic bomb and dropping it on two Japanese cities (no 'smart bomb' guiding systems were available in the middle of the twentieth century), the United States has maintained a stockpile of more than 10,000 nuclear warheads at a cost of over $30 billion a year in past decades. Earlier this year, the Pentagon prepared a classified report that specifically mentioned China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria as potential recipients of US nuclear technology (delivered via airborne missiles) in three types of situations including use against targets that conventional weapons fail to penetrate. Washington no longer recognizes deterrence as the only use for its nuclear arsenal, but reserves the right for offensive attacks.

Moreover, President George W. Bush requested a $48 billion increase in military spending for next year, in his own words, "…the largest increase in a generation," resulting in a rise in military spending to two trillion dollars over the next five years. If this is not egregious enough, the hawks dictating the current administration's policies want to see an even faster increase in government largess for the defense industry. With the government going into the red, such military spending is becoming more than a simple drag on domestic needs in favor of corporate welfare for military contractors (including Vice President Cheney's former company, Halliburton.) The offensive stance of the largest military power in the history of the world poses a serious threat to the global community.

No dominating military power has ever failed to put its hegemony to use in world conquest. From Alexander the Great to the Roman Emperors, to Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin, profligate military buildups have been undertaken not for defense, but for conquest.

Mere defense could never justify outrageous military expenditures. After all, according to chief negotiator of the Salt II treaty, Paul Warnke, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and Richard Garwin of the Council on Foreign Relations and an important contributor to the first hydrogen bomb, simply keeping around a couple hundred warheads would be adequate for defending against any conceivable threat. And any rational thinker understands the futility of a conventional military machine against terrorist hijackers armed with box cutters.

Instead of arming itself with more weapons of mass destruction and plans for using them, it would make sense for a democracy truly interested in international justice and building a safer world to work for and not against the establishment of a world court to hold individuals, organizations, and states accountable for acts of terrorism. It would make sense to work multilaterally with the world community, rather than as an insular nation in a mutually dependent world. However, as quoted in the New York Times (4/4/02), "From nuclear testing and proliferation accords to the land mines ban to agreements on climate change or protecting the rights of women and children, over the last decade Washington has moved steadily away from accepting treaties that would be binding on the United States."

As the lone superpower, the US is going it alone. And the next military conquest is Iraq.

Somewhere along the way while studying the principles of democracy, I picked up the strange idea that democratic societies such as the US respected the boundaries of other sovereign nations and did not engage in offensive conquests to topple governments. Maybe it was something that Thomas Jefferson said, "If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest." But I had also at one time confused the US with those countries where the president is elected directly by the people and the winner of the popular vote actually takes office.

Rather than a participatory democracy, the United States has evolved into a military democracy. And in keeping with the pattern of great military powers in history, it is looking to use that power offensively. But in order to carry out an otherwise unpopular strategy, a leader in a democracy must first sell his plans, starting with a buildup of rhetoric and then the establishment of a PR office to market the war to citizens and allies, such as the case with Iraq.

As consumers can see, however, this is not an ingenious product, nor a quick fix solution to current problems, real or alleged, that face the world. There is no justification for a democracy to accept a policy of launching an unprovoked, premeditated attack on another sovereign nation because it finds the regime disagreeable. Only by working within established systems of the international community can long lasting solutions be found.

The primary regime change that we need to focus on is the one in Washington, before the downward spiral of runaway militarism destroys the foundations of democracy. In the words of George W. Bush, "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger." The would-be emperors have their weapons and PR staff, but citizens still have their votes and a say in how our country's resources can be put to better use.

Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."