Should
Iran or Syria Have to Forgo their Nuclear or Chemical Weapons Programs?
The
Politics behind the Crusade against WMD
Written
by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, 30 November, 2013
Copyright © Dr. Seshadri Kumar. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer: All the opinions expressed in this article are
the opinions of Dr. Seshadri Kumar alone and should not be construed to mean
the opinions of any other person or organization, unless explicitly stated
otherwise in the article.
*********************************
Abstract
In
recent months, there has been much concern in the world regarding a potential
war between the USA and Syria over the issue of chemical weapons being used in
Syria’s two-year-old civil war. The US
declared that the violation allegedly committed by Bashar Assad’s forces was so
egregious that nothing short of war would suffice as a suitable punishment. At the last minute, an intervention by
Russia, promising to end Syria’s chemical weapons program, has (for now) halted
plans by Washington to punitively bomb Syria.
The underlying
basis for both actions – the US threat to attack Syria as well as the Nobel
prize for OPCW – was the unwritten premise that chemical weapons are morally
reprehensible in a way that conventional weapons are not, and that killing
people using chemical weapons is somehow more horrific than killing them by
conventional weapons. Whether chemical
weapons are truly an utterly unacceptable thing, as they were claimed to be,
did not invite any serious debate. It is
today taken as an axiom, and has been ever since the CWC was signed in 1997
and, even before that, since the Geneva
Protocol was
signed in 1925.
More
recently, after much sabre-rattling by the United States over the Iranian
nuclear program, the US and Iran appear to have reached an agreement that
limits Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful uses.
This has been hailed as a great achievement by the Obama administration
and a move towards lasting world peace.
However, what is taken as an axiom is the idea that Iran did not have
the right to nuclear weapons in the first place, and this axiomatic faith also
goes back a long way – to the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970.
This
article shows why such an axiomatic faith in the greater evil of weapons of
mass destruction relative to conventional weapons is baseless, and shows that
the reasons for developed nations’ complete intolerance to chemical weapons and
other “weapons of mass destruction” have nothing to do whatsoever with their
concern for human lives, humanitarianism, or world peace, but have everything
to do with the maintenance of their own superiority in conventional weapons.
Introduction
As in the Iranian case, the possibility of war between the
US and Syria was spoken about extensively in the international media. As in the case with Iran, the discussion
focused, not on whether declaring war against a country for potentially
possessing weapons of mass destruction was right or wrong, but whether the said
countries actually did possess the weapons of mass destruction and whether (in
the case of Syria) they actually used the said weapons. It was taken for granted that Syria had no
right to have or use these weapons.
These incidents also bring to mind the debates that occurred
at the time the US was contemplating invading Iraq in 2003. At the time, the US administration claimed
that Iraq, under President Saddam Hussein, had
been clandestinely accumulating stocks of weapons of mass destruction. President
Bush’s address to the American people, announcing the commencement
of hostilities, characterized it in these words: “our mission is clear, to
disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.”
President Bush also mentioned that “The people of the United States and
our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that
threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
After the war was over and Iraq had been occupied, the US was unable to
find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Several of the US’ allies opposed the war
before it started on the grounds that there were no proven stocks of WMD in
Iraq; that the whole war was being waged simply on suspicion. The public outcry in the United States, after
the war, was one of being cheated into rushing into a war. People were outraged that the country had
been led into a war over the lie of weapons of mass destruction. As Jeff
Flake, Republican Senator from Arizona, said recently, “In
anyone's candid moments, they will tell you (that) were it not for the WMD, we
wouldn't have authorized use of force there.”
In other words, it was the suspected presence of WMD that
triggered the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
No one asked the more fundamental question: Why doesn’t Iraq have the
right to have these weapons? That was
taken an as axiom – that no countries (excepting a favoured few) should possess
such weapons.
Each of these incidents reveals how much care has been taken
by the powers-that-be to “frame” the debate surrounding these events in ways
that suit them well. What is framing? Entman (1993) defines “to frame” as “to select some aspects of a perceived reality
and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote
a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation,
and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (italics in the original).
In the case of weapons of mass destruction, there are many
aspects involved in the debate – should any countries that want them have
them? If so, can everyone have
them? If not, who should and who should
not? What should be the determinant that
qualifies some countries to possess WMD and disqualifies others from possessing
them? If someone should not, what should
be the penalty against that country if they do possess them?
The debate in the international media, for several decades
now, has been narrowly framed only on the last aspect mentioned, viz., “if
someone should not possess weapons of mass destruction, what should be the
penalty if they do possess them?” The
other important questions: who has the right to possess these weapons; and what
rationale divides the haves from the have-nots; have been conveniently left out
of the frame.
In the remainder of this article, I broaden the frame of
discussion and debate to ask exactly these questions and then try to answer
them.
Syria
and The Argument Against Chemical Weapons
In
response, President Obama announced that “Failing to respond
to this outrageous attack would increase the risk that chemical weapons could
be used again, that they would fall into the hands of terrorists who might use
them against us, and it would send a horrible signal to other nations that
there would be no consequences for their use of these weapons...all of which
would pose a serious threat to our national security.”
This
would be followed by many other pronouncements on the utter unacceptability of
the use of chemical weapons, leading further to the announcement of the inevitability
of war with Syria. That disastrous
situation was averted only because Russia made an offer to guarantee the
disarmament of Syria’s chemical weapons programs.
But
Obama’s September standoff was not the first time he had made strong statements
on the unacceptability of the use of chemical weapons by Syria or other
countries. A timeline of the Syrian conflict showcases the several statements made by
the US President in this context:
August 20, 2012:
"A
red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving
around or being utilized," Obama said. "That would change my
calculus. That would change my equation."
December 3, 2012:
"The use of chemical weapons
is and would be totally unacceptable," Obama said. "And if you make
the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences, and you
will be held accountable."
August 28, 2013:
"We
want the Assad regime to understand that by using chemical weapons on a large
scale against your own people...you are not only breaking international norms
and standards of decency, but you’re also creating a situation where U.S.
national interests are affected, and that needs to stop," Obama said.
Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that "the accusations of Damascus
using chemical weapons put forth by the USA are not backed by credible
facts."
President
Obama said, "I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line when
governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical
weapons is abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when
countries are engaged in war.” Obama was
referring to the CWC.
John
Kerry’s statement on the Syrian chemical weapons situation:
“What we saw in Syria last week
should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let
me be clear. The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women
and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity.
By any standard, it is inexcusable.”
...
“As
a father, I can’t get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead
child, wailing while chaos swirled around him, the images of entire families
dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound, bodies
contorting in spasms, human suffering that we can never ignore or forget.”
...
“But
make no mistake: President Obama believes there must be accountability for
those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most
vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more
serious scrutiny.”
“US Secretary of State John Kerry has accused Syrian
government forces of killing 1,429 people in a chemical weapons attack in
Damascus last week.”
“Mr Kerry said the dead included 426 children, and described
the attack as an ‘inconceivable horror’.”
The US Congress passed a resolution authorizing the US to
resort to military force in order “to deter
Syria’s use of such weapons in order to protect the national security interests
of the United States and to protect United States allies and partners against
the use of such weapons.”
Analysis: The Rationale Against Chemical Weapons
From the aforementioned, the
rationale expressed by the US can be partitioned into the following main
concerns:
1.
Usage of
chemical weapons breaks international norms.
2.
US national
interests are affected.
3.
Chemical
weapons cause indescribable suffering and are inhuman weapons.
The first point is
undeniable. The Chemical Weapons
Convention went into effect in 1997, and 190 nations are party to it. Using chemical weapons is clearly a
contravention of international law. What
are important to understand is why such a treaty exists in the first place and
whether the treaty is consonant with the principles of fairness and equality. This will be addressed below.
The second point needs some
clarification and discussion, and such discussion follows later in this
article. For now, it suffices to say
that this is the main reason why the CWC was signed in the first place – to
protect US, Russian, British, French, and Chinese national interests, and the
national interests of other powerful, developed countries.
The third point is often taken as
an axiom in mainstream media discussions of the topic, even though (as will be
seen below), there is nothing to indicate that chemical weapons are much worse
in inflicting human suffering than any other kind of weapon. In the next section I elaborate on this in
detail, because often this is the emotional wrench that helps convince the
common people that chemical weapons are an unambiguous evil.
The Suffering from Chemical Weapons
Chemical weapons are of two main
types – nerve agents, such as Sarin and VX, and blister
agents, such as mustard gas. Today VX
and Sarin are probably the best-known chemical weapons, so it is illustrative
to consider how they act on humans. I
quote from the Wikipedia page on Sarin: “Even at very low concentrations, sarin can be
fatal. Death may follow in one minute after direct ingestion of a lethal dose
unless antidotes, typically atropine and pralidoxime, are quickly administered.” From the same site, “Initial symptoms
following exposure to sarin are a runny nose, tightness in the chest and
constriction of the pupils. Soon after, the victim has difficulty breathing and
experiences nausea and drooling. As the victim continues to lose control of
bodily functions, the victim vomits, defecates and urinates. This phase is
followed by twitching and jerking. Ultimately, the victim becomes comatose and
suffocates in a series of convulsive spasms.”
This description sounds rather
painful, and it contributes to the twisted bodies and faces of the victims that
are paraded on TV to explain why chemical weapons are so horrible. But consider the very first line in the
quoted text: “death may follow in one minute.”
So, while the body twists, jerks, vomits, urinates, and defecates, all
of it is over in 1 minute. Lethal doses
of VX gas work with similar efficiency.
These agents work so efficiently because they are potent nerve agents –
they act by paralyzing the body’s muscles, including those of the lungs and
heart, and death follows rapidly.
Compare this with death that
accompanies conventional weapons. Let us
think of a regular bomb that is dropped from an airplane in a war. It will cause an explosion, and death is
merciful for those who are in the immediate radius of the explosion. But the bulk of the sufferers from a bomb are
those that are far enough from it to escape immediate death, but near enough
it to be perhaps burned partly, to lose
their arms or legs, to have shrapnel piercing their bodies, and who suffer in unbelievable agony as they lie
on a battlefield, uncared for, with a fatal injury that will take hours or even
days to fully kill them. Compare the
1-minute death from a Sarin or a VX attack with the several hours it may take
someone whose leg has been blown off because of a bomb that has been dropped
from the skies, or whose entire skin has been burned in a cruise
missile attack, and who
lies in a hospital, suffering from indescribable pain as doctors attempt to slow down the infection that is taking over his
body and will definitely kill him – but in a matter of
days or weeks, during which the pain he experiences is a travesty of human existence.
Compare the 1-minute death from a
chemical weapon with the lifelong amputation and agony of a person who has lost both his legs in a landmine blast, or who is maimed after being hurt by a cluster bomb. Both these types of munitions have been
recognized as savage and cruel, and many nations have agreed to stop using them
– but not the US and several other countries.
Any which way one wants to view
the issue, chemical weapons do not cause more suffering than
conventional weapons. The only exception
seems to be mustard gas, which is not usually a lethal chemical weapon, but an
incapacitating one. Mustard gas attacks
can leave the victim with lifelong suffering; but then, a person who has 70%
burns on his body might suffer the rest of life as well, while simply trying to
live.
The “Weapons of Mass Destruction” Bogey
This is one of the cleverest
propaganda tricks that have been effectively used by developed countries – one
that illustrates all the tricks mentioned by Herman and Chomsky in their landmark book, “Manufacturing Consent.” The claim
has been made that chemical weapons are “weapons of mass destruction,” though
what this means in fact has never been made clear. The sheer symbolism of the phrase “weapons of
mass destruction,” especially when that phrase is combined with “chemical,
biological, and nuclear” immediately connotes to the layman the picture of the
ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and so one is left with the impression that
chemical weapons cause such massive destruction in a single attack that
conventional weapons simply cannot match up to them in the scale of death and
destruction. They are, therefore, evil,
and must therefore be banned.
Does this hype match up to the
reality? Let us take some examples,
starting with the latest – the chemical weapons attack in Syria.
1.
The chemical
weapons attack that took place in Syria is supposed to have, by the US
Secretary of State’s own admission, killed 1429 people (as quoted above). In contrast, the civil war that has lasted for the last two years in Syria has killed upwards of 100,000 people. All this killing has been achieved by
employing conventional weapons.
2.
Let us
broaden the scope of the discussion and include nuclear weapons as well, since
they are the most well-known WMD. I have
already alluded to the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the second
World War. But how many deaths did these
nuclear attacks cause? The best estimates of the number of deaths in Hiroshima are about 66,000 and those of
Nagasaki are about 39,000. Other
estimates vary, but the order of magnitude is about right. For instance, Wikipedia estimates the number of deaths in
Hiroshima “within the first two to four months” at between 90,000-166,000. This takes
into account those who had been slowly poisoned by the radiation from the
bombs. In contrast, consider the number
of immediate
casualties of just one conventional bombing raid on Tokyo, on the night of March
9, 1945 – painful, miserable deaths of people blasted and slowly burned to
death in the infamous “firebombing of Tokyo”
-
which are estimated at around 100,000. Can we sanely argue that nuclear weapons are
definitively “weapons of mass destruction” and conventional weapons are not?
3.
Continuing
with the World War II theme, the firebombing of Tokyo was an art perfected by
American generals after much practice in Europe, where Dresden was firebombed in two days in February 1945, killing a total of
27,000 people. Prior to this, the Allies
honed their skills when they bombed Hamburg in July 1943, killing 42,600 civilians and wounding
37,000. Surely this is the work of a
“weapon of mass destruction”? I would
agree. Perhaps we should outlaw planes
and bombs. That would truly be
reasonable.
4.
Coming to
more modern times, the United States has had a lot of dictators as good friends
in various countries around the globe, and has been very instrumental in
helping these friends consolidate their rule, no matter the cost in human
lives, so long as US national interest is preserved (i.e., regimes friendly to
the United States and opposed to the USSR).
Consider, for example, the US-assisted invasion by Indonesia of East
Timor under General Suharto, a war and subsequent occupation that cost about
200,000 lives since 1975 –
all achieved without the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The US,
Netherlands, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, and West Germany all aided
Indonesia militarily in this savage attack against an almost defenceless people. The US provided C-47 and C-130 transport aircraft; destroyer escorts and landing craft; OV-10 Bronco
aircraft for counter-insurgency operation;
and military training; in all, spending more than $250 million between 1975 and
1979 under the Jimmy Carter (winner of
the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize) administration to help Indonesia in this bloody mission. Indonesia was an important ally of the US,
and could never launch such an attack without a green signal from the US; and indeed,
this has been confirmed. The UK spent
more than £ 1 million on training Indonesian military personnel, and many
senior members of Indonesia’s military were trained in the UK. So clearly, the deaths of hundreds of
thousands are acceptable so long as “WMD” are not used.
5.
The United
States ran a clandestine operation, starting in 1975, called Operation Condor that was
designed to support right-wing governments throughout South America and repress
opposition to Washington-friendly governments, using terror. The different countries that were targeted in
this operation were Chile, Paraguay, Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil,
Ecuador, and Peru. The US provided
military aid and technical support to the participant military regimes, and
contributed to the deaths of at least 60,000 people.
6.
The Guatemalan Civil War was supported by the United States in order to
foist US-friendly generals as rulers of the small Central American
country. This civil war, which lasted
from 1960 to 1996, and led to 700,000 people who died or went missing in this
period, was actively sponsored by the US through the CIA. The CIA trained the Guatemalan military and
paramilitary forces on “the
tactic of intimidating, kidnapping, or assassinating carefully selected members
of the opposition in a manner that will reap the maximum psychological
benefit,” the objective being, “to frighten everyone from collaborating with
the guerrilla movement”; conducted
training sessions on “contra-subversion” tactics and “how to manage factors of
power” to “fortify democracy”; provided instruction in “direct action
destruction patrols” and “helicopter assault tactics”; and provided “secret
training in the finer points of assassination,” among others. The US was also generous with military
equipment, including Bell UH-1 Helicopters; Jet-Ranger Helicopters; A-37
Counterinsurgency aircraft; laser-aimed sights for automatic rifles; grenade
launchers; transport planes; T-37 trainer aircraft; M-16 assault rifles; and
training to use all this equipment, including advanced training by American
green berets.
7.
No
discussion of modern casualties in war would be complete without mentioning Vietnam. The US was
one of the two major players in Vietnam since the defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu, the other being the North
Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh. The
Vietnam War was a horrendously violent war in which chemical agents such as Agent Orange (unquestionably a chemical weapon) were freely
used to defoliate the dense Vietnamese jungle.
Although most American media focuses on the loss of American lives in
the Vietnam war, which amount to around 60,000, the real catastrophe was for
the Vietnamese, who lost between 800,000 and 3.1 million people in
the war.
This was a direct result of intense use of conventional weapons by the
American military – carpet bombing of jungles, villages, and urban areas. The war also cost the
lives of about 200,000-300,000 Cambodians, and up to 200,000 Laotians.
The war included notable events such as Operation Rolling Thunder, which launched more than three quarters of a
million tons of missiles, rockets, and bombs between 1965 and 1968. In comparison, only about half a million tons
of bombs were dropped in the entire Pacific theatre of the Second World War. This single operation cost the lives of about
90,000 Vietnamese, according to CIA estimates, of whom 72,000 were
civilians. The Vietnam war also included
operations such as Commando Hunt, in which more than 20,000 people were killed just in a single, 5-month
period.
8.
The 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, which resulted in the deaths of half a million soldiers
and an equal number of civilians (not including victims of chemical
attacks), was sustained in large part because of conventional arms sales from
several countries to Iraq, notably Russia, the US, France, Spain, and
China. The US and Germany also actively sold chemical and biological weapons to
Iraq, including anthrax, botulin, and cyanide, and helped them with
technical assistance in deploying chemical weapons for maximum effect. The US
also helped Iraq financially with billions of dollars in credit and with
loosening restrictions on arms sales to Iraq.
President Reagan had decided that Iraq could not be allowed to lose the war.
From the Wikipedia page on the Iran-Iraq war, I quote the following, which
shows the complicity of the west in the chemical weapons program of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war:
“According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was
obtained from firms in many countries, including
the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and
France. A report stated that Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West
and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi
chemical weapons factories. Declassified CIA documents show that the
United States was providing reconnaissance intelligence to Iraq around 1987–88
which was then used to launch chemical weapon attacks on Iranian troops and
that CIA fully knew that chemical weapons would be deployed and sarin attacks
followed.”
From the same wiki source, here’s how America defended Iraq when it was caught
using chemical weapons in Iran:
“On 21 March 1986, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration
stating that "members are
profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that
chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against
Iranian troops, and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued
use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925,
which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons." The United States was
the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement. A mission to the region in 1988 found evidence
of the use of chemical weapons, and was condemned in Security Council
Resolution 612.”
What Saddam Hussein did with those WMDs, with active US support, is well-known, but in the context of this
article, it might be worth recalling some of those horrors:
a.
It is estimated that about 100,000 people in Iran died or were severely incapacitated as a
result of Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iran, with the
active help of the US.
c.
In June
1987, Iraqi aircraft dropped mustard gas bombs on Sardasht, Iran. Out of a population of 20,000, 25% are still
suffering severe illnesses today.
d.
In March
1988, Iraqi forces attacked the town of Halabja, a Kurd-populated area, with poison gas, killing
5000 immediately or shortly thereafter, and severely injuring 10,000 more. This is the largest chemical weapons attack
against a civilian population in history, and it had the full support of the
US, which even refused to endorse a UN resolution condemning Iraq for the use
of chemical weapons.
One can go on and on, for the
world’s experience with violent wars is immense, but one thing is clear – that
the west does not really care about people getting killed. It is only too ready to allow, perpetrate and
perpetuate killing, both of military personnel as well as civilians, but
only on its terms. It even does
not mind the use of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical or nuclear weapons,
as
long as its allies or the US itself are the countries using those weapons. The US and other western countries also have
no qualms about inflicting extreme suffering and pain on their adversaries, so
long as such actions support their national interest.
As the most recent example, the
Syrian Civil war, shows, the US is not impelled to take up arms because of the
deaths of more than 100,000 people in Syria’s civil war, but feels the need to
go to war over fewer than 1500 deaths from a chemical weapons attack. Compare the approximately 1500 deaths from
the chemical weapons attack in Syria (no matter who was responsible) with the
figures laid out above, that run into the millions. If the west, particularly the US, was indeed
horrified by death, surely it would not have allowed so many deaths? Why, then, does the US react with such
feigned horror when faced with 1500 deaths when it itself has been complicit in
the deaths of millions and when the same Syrian civil war has resulted in the
deaths of 100 times the number of dead in the chemical weapons attack?
Even when one considers nuclear
weapons, which can truly kill on a mass scale, it should be noted that the
capacity of nuclear weapons to kill is not substantially more than that of
conventional weapons. As already noted,
the firebombing of Tokyo in 1945 caused 100,000 casualties; the number of dead
in Hiroshima was estimated at about 140,000; and that in Nagasaki was estimated
at about 80,000. These are large
numbers, but note that the numbers killed in a single operation are comparable,
irrespective of the type of weapon used.
The only class of weapons among
the WMD that should be truly banned from the world in the current world
scenario – and the only class that deserves the title – is the class of
biological weapons. Biological weapons
are a double-edged sword, for the slightest bit of carelessness can cause the
stored weapons to leak out into the country it is being produced in. Although modern advances in genetic
engineering can make it possible for biological offensive weapons to be manufactured
in an extremely targeted way, the fact that the process leaves absolutely no
room for error makes it too much of a risk for any country to pursue this
technology without fear. The slightest
leak from a bioweapons can release a bacterial or viral strain of unequalled
potency into the general population, an outbreak that has the potential to wipe
out mankind. It is for this reason that
both the UK and the Warsaw Pact brought forth proposals to the UN in 1968 to
ban the production of biological offensive weapons, and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention was signed in 1972. In
2011 it had 165 signatories. It is to be
hoped that, in the interests of self-preservation, no country will be foolish
enough to use biological weapons in the future, for the weapon can easily
recoil on its master. For the rest of
this article, therefore, I will not discuss biological weapons, and the term
WMD will herein refer only to nuclear and chemical weapons.
From the foregoing, it should clear
that the reason for the US, Russia, China, the UK, France, and other developed
countries to oppose nuclear and chemical weapons is neither the numbers that
these weapons can kill, nor any more pain in the deaths that they cause. Even the very term, “Weapons of Mass
Destruction,” is a misnomer, for it suggests that these weapons kill far more
people than conventional weapons do, whereas the truth is that even nuclear
weapons only match what conventional weapons can do, and chemical weapons kill
far fewer people than conventional weapons do.
What, then, is the reason that
the US was willing to go to war with Syria and Iran for possessing chemical and
nuclear weapons respectively? Why was
the OPCW awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for helping contain the spread of
chemical weapons?
The Real Reason for Banning WMD
The real reason why the west
fears chemical and nuclear weapons is that chemical and nuclear weapons remedy the
asymmetry in warfare that exists today.
Developed countries, such as the
US, Russia, France, China, and the UK have large, technologically-advanced
defense forces. To take the US as the
main example, no other country today can match the US’ conventional military
might. This military might is based on
the prosperity of the US; as a result, lesser-developed countries do not stand
a chance of developing the kind of weaponry that a US, Russia, or France
have. To illustrate, a stealth fighter like
the F-117A costs about $111 million per aircraft; each B-2 bomber is worth $737 million; the M1-A1 Abrams
tank costs about $8.6 million each; the new Gerald Ford class of American supercarriers costs
$9 billion each, and costs $7 million each day it runs; and a cruise missile, hundreds of which may be launched in any given war, costs anywhere between $570,000 and $1.45 million each. It is very
hard, if not impossible, for lesser-developed countries to match this simply
because they don’t have the money to develop or buy such weapons.
But bring nonconventional weapons
into the picture, and this traditional asymmetry is broken. Even if one bomb carrying VX or sarin manages
to hit an American base out of hundreds launched, it renders the Americans
helpless. All the armour of the M1
Abrams tanks cannot insulate its crew from the dangerous chemicals contained in
the chemical bomb. It is impossible to
have an army dressed entirely in chemical suits – in many climates, such as the
desert, such uniforms would be suffocating and many would die of heat
exhaustion. Were a plane to be able to
launch a suicide mission against a $9 billion aircraft carrier and manage to
launch its chemical payload even at the cost of being shot, the entire crew of
the aircraft carrier becomes ineffective because of the potency of the chemical
weapon. The US soldier may be an “army
of one” because of the superior equipment that he carries relative to other
soldiers in other armies around the world, but he, too, is human, and will be
incapacitated if he encounters droplets of VX.
In short, chemical weapons are an equalizer, the
poor man’s weapon, and threaten to upset the applecart of conventional military
dominance.
Because of their efficiency in killing, they
neutralize the superiority of conventional weapons. To prevent this from happening, the US is
keen to stop the production and proliferation of such weapons by third-world
countries. In this effort, the US is supported
by other countries which are also dependent on their conventional military
superiority for their dominant position in the world – countries such as
Russia, China, the UK, and France.
The same thing is true with nuclear weapons.
The US has
enough nuclear weapons in its stockpile to destroy the world several times
over. But it vehemently opposes the
thought of other countries having their own nuclear arsenal. When India exploded a nuclear bomb in 1996
and announced itself as a nuclear state, the announcement was greeted with an
instant embargo of India. Pakistan,
which followed suit, faced the same treatment.
Why?
In the event that a third-world
country were to engage in an armed conflict with the US, and if that country
also possessed nuclear weapons, the US could easily “defeat” its enemy, if
defeat were to be measured in the number of lives lost. Given that the US could launch tactical
nuclear weapons on a couple dozen of the most important cities and military
bases of its enemy, victory is guaranteed for the US. But if its enemy were to succeed in getting
just one
nuclear bomb to land on US soil, the US could not handle the impact. Americans are extraordinarily sensitive to
their own people dying in war, so much so that a single person dying often
plays on American television for weeks.
Imagine the impact of 100,000 Americans dying because of a single
tactical nuclear weapons landing on a major US city. Even if the American military succeeded in
wiping out its enemy off the map, the end result would be a defeat for the US
because America cannot handle this kind of death count. Even an attack like 9/11, which killed around
3000 Americans, shook the US; an attack like Hiroshima would be devastating if
it were to happen on US soil.
So America wants to control the
battlefield and make it one that it can easily win in, and easily keep its own
casualties to a minimum. This is true as
well of Russia, China, France, and the UK.
Chemical and nuclear weapons threaten their ability to control the
outcome of a war, and so they must be removed from the control of all potential
adversaries.
Nuclear weapons are expensive and
require sophisticated technology. But
chemical weapons are cheap to produce, and so are easy for poorer nations to
make in large quantities. This being the
case, the US believes it is justifiable to even go to war if any trace of
chemical weapons in a potential adversary are detected, to safeguard America’s national interest.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the
anti-Iran Campaign
One of the most hypocritical
agreements ever enacted on the world stage was the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that came into force in 1970 and was extended
indefinitely in 1995. The NPT requires
all “nuclear” states to commit to the non-proliferation of nuclear arms
technology – in other words, to agree not to share nuclear arms technology to
other countries; and it required non-nuclear states to agree to never try to
acquire nuclear weapons. In return, the
nuclear states would help the non-nuclear states with technology transfer on
peaceful uses of nuclear technology.
In addition, there is no sign of
one of the pillars of the NPT, disarmament, taking place. The current world nuclear powers have more
than 20,000 warheads, enough to destroy the whole world several times over, and
the major powers have all resisted further reduction, except when it is
warranted by economic or technical reasons (e.g., warheads are old and obsolete
and new versions are available anyway.
So a decision to scrap an old, worthless missile that might not perform
properly today, 30 years after it was built, is often celebrated as a
“disarmament” initiative.)
The fact is that the US, Russia,
France, and other nuclear states realize that a nuclear bomb is a powerful
deterrent, and so they will never disarm.
The hypocrisy is that they enjoy the security that the nuclear weapon
option gives them – anyone attacking them has to be prepared for a nuclear
retaliation and hence will think many times over about it – but do not wish to
allow other nations to enjoy the same security.
Intellectuals may argue that
everyone having nuclear bombs cannot make the world a safer place, but if the
countries that are screaming loudest about it, viz., the five major nuclear
powers (and most of the intellectuals who argue this line originate from those
countries), truly believed it, then they would have completely disarmed by
now. That they have not is a measure of
the hollowness of their argument.
For these reasons, India has
always refused to sign the NPT, believing it to be discriminatory. It has pursued a nuclear weapons program for
the same reason that the US has pursued one – to protect itself by giving
itself a deterrent against someone who might attack it. India has sufficient reason to fear attacks
from its neighbours, having fought several wars with Pakistan and China since
independence.
Iran is pursuing a nuclear
weapons program for the same reason. They
fear attacks from Israel, a formidable enemy as well as an undeclared but known
nuclear power, as well as from their Sunni enemies like Saudi Arabia and,
naturally, they seek to protect themselves.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. It is perfectly within Iran’s rights to do
so. What Washington has done in the past
few months and years is act the typical bully.
They have bullied Iran into giving up its nuclear program. It is an intellectually dishonest move by the
US, Russia, and the other great powers, but it is a move that they have taken
in their national interest.
National interest is not the same as fairness. US
Presidents, Secretaries of State, and spokespersons often talk about doing
something in their national interest as though such a consideration matters to
the rest of the world; they need to recognize that the rest of the world really
doesn’t care a whit about the US’ national interest. What they care about is fairness. As an illustration, I myself would like to
walk the streets armed with a Smith and Wesson 500 pistol, an M16 assault
rifle, and a hand grenade, all of which I can use to terrorize everyone
around me to give me whatever I want without payment, and it would be in my
personal interest that no one else be allowed to carry any arms
whatsoever. So my personal interest is
guaranteed, but this arrangement is certainly not fair!
I can understand the allure of
the “national interest” argument. Indians
recognize how much trouble Pakistan is giving India through their help to and
active connivance with Kashmiri terrorists, using even their own regular military
to carry out attacks against India.
Unfortunately for India, Pakistan is also a nuclear state, but if India
had its druthers, India would be a nuclear state and Pakistan would not be
allowed to become a nuclear state because of India’s “national interest.” That would end the cross-border terrorism in
a hurry.
So while the US position (and the
position of other great powers) is understandable, it is not acceptable because
it is unfair. And it is about time that
the great powers realized this. While
the rest of the world cannot do much to stop the bullies, at least they can
call them on their hypocrisy and prevent them from moralizing and sermonizing
to the rest of the world.
World Stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction
For all the talk about how WMD
are so evil, the big powers have the biggest stockpiles of these weapons. There has been some progress made in the
destruction of chemical weapon stockpiles.
Of the 9 countries known to have had stockpiles of chemical weapons –
the US, Russia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Japan, Albania, South Korea, and India – only India, South Korea, and Albania have destroyed
their stockpiles within the deadline specified. As late as
2010, the Russians still had almost half their total stocks (40,000 tons) of
chemical weapons intact. The Americans had destroyed about 90% of their
stocks of about 31,000 tons by 2012, but
estimate it will take another decade to destroy the remaining 3000 tons of
their stocks.
But nuclear weapons are an
altogether different matter. The world has an estimated total 17,300 nuclear
weapons, of which the US has 7,700 and Russia 8,500. The actual
number of warheads might be much higher than this because of creative accounting
of the number of warheads – many warheads are simply separated from their
missiles and then put down as inactive, even
though they can be reassembled in a matter of days. Based on a proper accounting, Russia has
16,000 active warheads and the US has 10,104 active warheads, for a world total
of 26,854. This illustrates the extreme
reluctance of the big powers to truly disarm their nuclear capabilities. This being the case, viz., that a country
having more than 10,000 nuclear missiles does not feel safe in fully
dismantling a fraction of its total missiles, it is ironic that they should
expect that countries that do not have any nuclear weapons should feel safe
without them. If a nation having
thousands of nuclear weapons still feels the utility of more nuclear weapons as
a deterrent against nuclear aggression, surely the same can be said for the
nuclear have-nots?
In fact, the Cold War has shown that the existence of more than one
country having huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons is almost a guarantee that
none will ever be used in practice. This
line of thought, known as Mutually-Assured Destruction (MAD), is based on the idea that if one country
uses nuclear weapons against another, the other could retaliate with equal
force and thus both countries would be completely destroyed – and so, to
prevent such an eventuality, neither
country ever uses the nuclear stockpile they possess. The US and the former USSR (and now Russia)
have proved to the world that having tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in a
country’s stockpile actually ensures safety from nuclear attacks. It should also be noted that the only time
nuclear weapons were actually used in war was in 1945, during World War II,
when the US was the sole country in the world with nuclear weapons; once other
countries, notably the USSR, also acquired the technology in 1948, it became
too dangerous for the US to ever consider using them again for fear of
retaliation.
It is, therefore, very
interesting that the only country in the world that has ever used nuclear
weapons against another country, the USA, should lecture other countries and
tell them that they should not develop nuclear weapons. It is meaningless for the US to use the
argument that the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was because of “extenuating
circumstances” – war is always an extenuating circumstance. The fact is that had the nuclear bomb not
been used against Japan and a ground war prosecuted against it instead, an
estimated 100,000 US soldiers would have died.
The use of the atom bomb, therefore, was an efficient (as far as the US
was concerned) way for the US to end the war.
It was in the US’ national interest.
There is no reason to think that,
if another similar extenuating circumstance arose in the future, and the US had
no fear of a retaliatory attack of the same nature and magnitude, the US would
not use nuclear weapons. For example, if
a well-armed Islamic nation was committed to terrorism against the US, and
could not be defeated by conventional means by the US, would America forgo the
option of using nuclear weapons? In 1945
the extenuating circumstance was the possibility of seeing 100,000 servicemen
dead on the battlefield; in the 21st century it could be the
prospect of seeing 10,000 Americans die in a terrorist attack. As already mentioned, Jacques
Chirac has already confirmed that, in such an eventuality, France would not
be averse to using its nuclear weapons.
The only protection, therefore,
for any country in a world where some countries have nuclear weapons is to
possess the same weapons themselves.
The Terrorism Argument
One of the most emotive angles in
favour of non-proliferation of WMD is the terrorism angle. The argument is posited that if a terrorist
organization were to get their hands on a WMD, then they could cause
chaos. Maybe they would detonate a
nuclear bomb in a big city like Mumbai, Paris, New York, Moscow or Rio. Or, if a terrorist were to get his hands on
sarin or VX, millions might die in an attack on a major city.
The argument then further goes to
say that in a world where a lot of countries possess WMD, terrorists could
easily lay their hands on these weapons, and everyone in the world would be at
risk. This would be true simply because
there are so many sources of these weapons, as opposed to the current weapons
regime where only 7-8 countries possess such weapons.
Nuclear weapons are a slightly
different story. The raw materials for
nuclear weapons are hard to get, and making a nuclear bomb is a highly nontrivial job. An example
of the difficulty of obtaining nuclear technology is illustrated by the example
of Pakistan, who begged, borrowed, and stole in order to build its bomb. The suggestion then is that one could steal a
nuclear bomb from a country that has it, but these are very high-tech weapons
that not everyone can detonate in a proper and planned way. It requires highly
experienced and trained personnel. In addition, nuclear weapons are very
expensive, which makes it hard for any but the best-funded terrorists to obtain
them easily.
So the real danger from a
terrorist is the risk of a chemical weapon or a biological weapon attack, since
those can be easily engineered; but because they are easy to engineer, they can
be done independently of any national program on chemical or biological
weapons. In other words, terrorists do
not need to steal chemical or biological weapons from any state; they can
easily make these weapons themselves.
Conclusions
Weapons of Mass Destruction are a
bogey that has been spread effectively by western media to control other
countries from obtaining equalizing technology on the battlefield. While the motivations on why great powers have
chosen to demonize these weapons can be understood, one must resist their
attempts to try to take the moral high ground on this issue. There is no moral high ground. Killing is wrong. The attempt to deny other countries the use
of chemical and nuclear weapons is simply a power grab – an attempt by the
major powers to preserve and defend their superiority in conventional weapons. The widespread possession of such weapons
does not cause any more death and suffering than the use of conventional
weapons – it merely makes the world an equal place, and perhaps, might end war
as we know it because everyone can equally hurt everyone else.
It is difficult, of course, to
compare means of death. All death is a
tragedy, and the true vision of peace is to find a way to end all war. But for someone to try to pretend that some
forms of warfare are worse than others in the interests of furthering their own
hegemony betrays a high level of cynicism that others must guard against.
Nobody wants to use any of these
weapons against an adversary – as, indeed, no sane country wants war and the
inevitable tragedy of death that accompanies war. But no country would want to be bullied by
some countries who do have these weapons and who, in order to achieve their
objectives, make threatening statements like “all options are on the table”
whenever some other country follows a course of action that is contrary to
their wishes.
If, in order to achieve
independence of thought and action, it is necessary for a country to develop
its own chemical or nuclear weapon arsenal, it is a worthwhile endeavour in
that country’s “national interest,” just as the US sees it fit in its national
interest to maintain stockpiles of chemical and nuclear weapons.
References (Not Already Hyperlinked)
Entman, R.M., “Framing: Towards
clarification of a fractured paradigm,” J. Communication, 43 (4), pp. 51-58,
1993.
