Office of Research | Issue Focus | Foreign Media Reaction |
|
|
|
KEY FINDINGS ** U.S. press reports on the Pentagon's
"Nuclear Posture Review" have provoked widespread concern and a good
deal of confusion in foreign media outlets. ** USG claims notwithstanding, nearly all
editorialists contend the report signals a marked shift in nuclear weapons
doctrine from deterrence to "pre-emption" and even battlefield
use. ** Only a couple of European editorials concur
with the administration's position that "nothing in the document"
indicates an about-face in nuclear strategy. ** Critics warned that the NPR "lowers the
nuclear threshold" by setting out new contingencies for weapons use,
expanding the list of targeted countries, and proposing new tactical nukes. ** Analysts in Europe and China called on the
U.S. to "clarify" its thinking and provide "an official and more
clear-cut explanation" of its nuclear policy. MAJOR THEMES NPR a corollary to 'axis of evil' speech. Many writers judged the "shift" in
nuclear policy to be part and parcel of "America's new military
assertiveness." Bolstered by the
"rout" in Afghanistan and possessed of a post-9/11 "self-righteous"
zeal, the U.S., they asserted, was prepared to use its military
might--including its nuclear arsenal--to "underpin world order." By linking WMD to terrorism, Bush's
"axis of evil" speech was seen as providing ballast for the
Pentagon's conclusions, particularly on "pre-emptively" striking
chem/bio weapons stashes. 'Madness' or 'perfect sense.' The notion that the NPR evinces
"irresponsible" and "crazy" thinking extended beyond
predictable philippics from Greek, Pakistani and DPRK outlets to mainstream
media elsewhere. The vast majority of
writers insisted that the report threatens to turn the nuclear nonproliferation
regime on its head, "breaking the taboo" against weapons use and
triggering an arms race. This sentiment
was strongest in centrist/left-leaning European, Australian and Canadian
dailies, and in the S. Korean and Chinese/Hong Kong press. Russian papers, while displeased, were
relatively subdued. A small minority,
mostly conservative European, Canadian and Australian papers, dismissed the
"overblown" rhetoric as alarmist and held that the U.S.'
"retooling" its posture makes "perfect sense" in the
"post-9/11 environment." COMMENTARY HIGHLIGHTS --
Paris's left-of-center Le Monde: "The Pentagon's study suggests a
total change in America's nuclear doctrine....
It normalizes the idea of using a weapon initially intended as a
deterrent...erasing the boundary between conventional and nuclear
weapons." -- The
liberal Sydney Morning Herald:
"The report...reverses decades of American military
thinking.... It also indicated just how
far the Bush administration is prepared to go to entrench America's role as the
self-appointed global policeman that its military power affords." --
Seoul's conservative Chosun Ilbo and Segye Ilbo: "The NPR
represents a considerable departure from the U.S. policy of 'negative security
assurances'" and "a clear breach" of Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty commitments. EDITOR:
Katherine L. Starr EDITOR'S NOTE: This report is based on 63
reports from 31 countries, March 10-15.
Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent
date. EUROPE BRITAIN:
"President Bush And The Bomb" An editorial in the independent Financial
Times stated (3/11): "The U.S.
administration is determined to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.... That is both necessary
and understandable. Such weapons, in
the hands of rogue states such as Iraq or North Korea, would pose an unacceptable
threat not only to America, but even more immediately to neighbouring states
and other U.S. allies. But Washington
must ensure that its own policies do not encourage rather that discourage such
proliferation. Such a concern is the
main worry aroused by the latest [NPR]....
The implication is that the U.S. may be and should be prepared to use
nuclear weapons in a first strike against a country that does not itself
necessarily possess them. Such a
redefinition of U.S. policy would amount to a disturbing departure from the
longstanding U.S. position: that it would not use a nuclear device against a
non-nuclear state that has signed the [NPT].
The reassurance was given precisely in order to persuade the maximum
number of countries to sign the treaty.
By suggesting that they could still face nuclear attack, even if they
have no nuclear weapons, the Pentagon could merely be giving them an incentive
to develop their own dreadful weapons to retaliate. Clarification of U.S. thinking is needed, not least to reconcile
the often dissonant views from the Pentagon and the State Department.... The prospect of several Middle Eastern
countries being nuclear targets is likely to cause grave concern, even to
America's closest allies.... Possessing
awesome power brings with it an awesome responsibility to exercise
restraint. That is the message Bush
needs to preach just now" "America¡¦s New Posture" The independent Economist had this piece
on its online Global Agenda (3/11):
"'Let¡¦s Nuke ¡¦Em All': The front-page headline, over a 'report' of
the Pentagon¡¦s [NPR] by the Mirror, a mass-circulation British
newspaper, makes up in shock value what it lacks in accuracy. But it does encapsulate a sense of unease
felt even among some of America¡¦s staunchest allies about the possible next
steps in President George Bush¡¦s 'war against terrorism.'... There are at least three reasons why the
[NPR] the Nuclear Posture Review...has caused nail-biting among some of
America¡¦s allies (let alone its enemies).
First, in listing seven countries against which America might have to
use nuclear weapons, it includes two--Syria and Libya--that are not known to be
pursuing nuclear-weapons programmes, though they are suspected of developing
other [WMD]. America, like other
nuclear powers, has pledged not to mount a nuclear attack against any country
that has no nuclear arms. This has been
seen as an important underpinning of the [NPT].... Second, in its description of some specific contingencies, the
Review was bound to offend two declared nuclear powers, Russia and China, and
to imply America might be more ready to use nuclear weapons than had been
thought. As possible sparks for a
nuclear war, it listed, for example, an Iraqi attack on its neighbours or on
Israel, a North Korean invasion of South Korea, and a confrontation with China
over Taiwan. America has never formally
followed a 'no-first-use' policy...but in the past, it has relied mainly on its
capacity for massive retaliation. The
Review gave the impression...that America might in some circumstances
contemplate pre-emptive nuclear attacks.
Third, the Review envisages the development of new, tactical nuclear
weapons with smaller warheads, which might, for example, be used to penetrate
fortified underground bunkers. This gives
rise to the worry that the distinction between conventional and nuclear warfare
would be blurred, leading to a lower threshold for a nuclear attack, and thus
to the undermining of the global nonproliferation regime. "Most of the worries raised overseas by the
Review are overblown. It describes, as
American spokesmen put it, 'a posture not a policy'--the sort of contingency
planning that any armed forces are obliged to conduct.... The main purpose of America¡¦s huge nuclear
arsenal remains that of deterrence....
[Bush's speech on 3/11] stressed the growing threat of 'terror armed
with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.'
Hence America¡¦s determination to prevent terrorists from acting in
consort with the governments of 'axis of evil' countries with access to
[WMD]. In that context, the leaking of
the [NPR] may not be wholly a matter of regret to the Pentagon. The more likely America¡¦s foes think its
nuclear weapons are to be used, the greater their power to deter." FRANCE: "Mr. Bush And
The Bomb" Left-of-center Le Monde's editorial
argued (3/13): "To reassure
ourselves we will say...that military planners...must imagine the worst and the
means to deal with it. We shall also
note that America's military institutions have every reason to be traumatized. They were not able to prevent September 11;
they were not able to think the 'unthinkable;' they failed in their mission to
protect the nation. We also know that the
Pentagon's work method is to always revise its plans.... Nevertheless, the information reported by
the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times on the secret
sections of the Pentagon's report is scary....
The Pentagon's study suggests a total change in America's nuclear
doctrine.... If it were adopted, it
would be 'irresponsible madness,' to quote the New York Times editorial,
for several reasons. This doctrine
destroys the principle of nonproliferation....
In suggesting the use of nuclear weapons in a first strike, it
normalizes the idea of using a weapon intended initially as a deterrent. In so doing, the Pentagon standardizes
nuclear weapons...erasing the boundary between conventional and nuclear
weapons.... What is being encouraged is
nuclear proliferation. The Pentagon's
report is worthy of a nation in the grip of panic. It is not worthy of a power conscious of its
responsibilities. And this is
frightening." "The New Nuclear Threat" Jean-Paul Pierot held in communist L'Humanite
(3/13): "With (America's) revised
nuclear doctrine, a very dangerous step has been made.... In every circumstance, the American
administration in general and the Bush administration in particular likes to
show that it does not respect the rules and regulations which are applicable to
others. But with the announcement that
the U.S. is ready to use nuclear weapons, especially against nations that have
none, Washington is putting the world in terrible danger.... The very singular lessons which George Bush
has drawn from September 11 could lead the world into a new era of war." "The Pentagon's Latest Strategy" Dominique Bromberger commented on government-run
France Inter radio (3/12): "The
standardization of nuclear weapons and their use carry extremely dangerous
consequences. It is essential for the
U.S. president to quickly shed a light on his real intentions and bring
guarantees to the rest of the world." "Bush's Nuclear Doctrine" Pierre Rousselin opined in right-of-center Le
Figaro (3/11): "President
Bush's post-September 11 doctrine is taking shape and it is upsetting (the
world's) geostrategy. The war against
terrorism is such a priority that nuclear weapons have been enrolled at the
service of America's newest world strategy....
The Bush doctrine...stipulates that any threat, real or probable, must
be eliminated. Whether it is al-Qaida
fighters...or weapons of mass destruction....
The objective having been defined, the rest is secondary: such as signed
international agreements or the position of allies.... The nuclear doctrine, as the ultimate
recourse for the nation's security, has been redefined.... The obsession with the 'axis of evil' is
back, but this time George Bush is not playing with words. He is ready for just about anything in order
to fight those who one day might acquire biological, chemical or nuclear
weapons.... We can understand, but we
cannot condone. The new U.S. strategy
seems to be implying submission from its allies. Without being consulted, how can we accept nuclear weapons
becoming battleground weapons?" GERMANY:
"Play With Bombs" Josef Joffe judged in center-left, weekly Die
Zeit of Hamburg (3/14): "The
well-meaning interpretation of the publication of the 'Nuclear Posture Review'
is that a threat scenario is being built up: 'Look, we are getting
serious.' The interpretation that is
not so well meaning is: The Pentagon
forgets in which world it pursues policies.
It has become a routine matter not to consult the Europeans. But if not only 'rogue states' such as Iraq
appear on the list but also Russia and China, then we wonder whether the
planners in Washington are able to think beyond the walls of the
Pentagon.... What of nonproliferation
policy if have-nots are threatened with nuclear weapons? The [NPR] has the effect of a sting:
[Have-nots] are called upon to get the nuclear bomb to pay back the United
States in its own coin. Poor Colin
Powell, he must now appease many nations in the world saying that it was only a
mind game, no strategy. But those who
sow the seeds of horror should not be surprised at the diplomatic damage." "Good And Bad Weapons" Washington correspondent Malte Lehming declared
in centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (3/12): "The 'Nuclear Posture Review' provides no evidence that U.S.
scruples about using nuclear weapons have lessened. That means that suspicions and fears are exaggerated. But the paper confirms two other
assumptions. First, the Bush
administration differentiates clearly between its own, good and useful
arsenals...and the bad and dangerous weapons of countries such as Iraq and
North Korea. Second, the United States
is deliberately pursuing a policy of intimidation in order to implement its
interest on a global scale. Dangerous
concepts are part of this strategy.
Maybe the U.S. administration was not really annoyed at the fact that
the paper was leaked to the press right now.
At the six-month memorial service of September 11...intimidation is not
bad." "Nuclear Gaming" Washington correspondent Wolfgang Koydl wrote on
the front page of center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich
(3/11): "Mini-nuclear weapons
exist thus far only on Pentagon drawing boards. Not only are these weapons new, but so is the policy that is
behind it: For America, such nuclear
weapons no longer serve solely as a deterrent, but, as a last resort, they are
also to be used against enemies. For
the first time, the Pentagon mentioned seven states against which U.S. forces
would use nuclear weapons.... The
principle of 'mutually assured destruction' that prevailed during the times of
the superpower confrontation, has now been replaced by the principle of a
unilaterally guaranteed destruction.
This new policy fits the conviction of the Bush administration that the
old arms control mechanisms that were developed during the Cold War, are now
obsolete. Another promise obviously no
longer fits the political landscape either.
And that is the promise that was made by all classical nuclear powers,
including the United States, that no state should be attacked with nuclear
weapons that does not have nuclear weapons and that has signed the [NPT]. According to the new policy, the United
States would no longer show consideration for this principle." "Ticking Bonzai Bomb" Left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau had
this to say (3/11): "According to
the perverse deterrence logic of the Cold War, the use of nuclear weapons was
to be prevented by threatening each other with mutual annihilation. But if U.S. military planners now had the
say, the obsolete balance of terror is to be replaced by a new doctrine that
makes nuclear weapons the tactical toy of generals. The Pentagon is now planning to develop nuclear bonzai bombs that
can be precisely guided onto targets, cause less 'collateral damage,' and even
destroy bunkers.... With all possible
means, the United States is striving for absolute security that does not
exist. In the anti-terror fight,
nuclear weapons are useless as a deterrent.
The hijacked airplanes would have hit the World Trade Center even if
Osama bin Laden had to expect nuclear retaliation. So-called 'rogue states' are risking their destruction anyway in
view of the conventional superiority of the U.S. military superpower." ITALY:
"Bush's Order To The Pentagon: 'Ready To Use Nuclear Weapons'" Vittorio Zucconi filed from Washington in
left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (3/10): "George Bush's new 'nuclear boutique'
is opening up, where a tailored nuclear war is possible, authorized and
encouraged. The new American doctrine
on nuclear war...[does] not contain any political or moral reflections on the
possible unilateral use of nuclear weapons by the United States, the end of the
Hiroshima taboo or the consequences that that could have. This is not the task of technicians or
strategists, but of politicians and diplomats who will now have to explain to
the Russian, the Chinese, the Syrian or the Libyan governments what they mean
with this new doctrine that includes them among the possible 'plausible
targets.'" "Six Months Of Hopes Without Peace¡¦ Boris Biancheri opined in centrist, influential La
Stampa (3/11): ¡¦The world, which for a moment seemed to be united, has now
split.... What Bush¡¦s three ¡¦Evil
Axis¡¦ countries have in common exactly may be clear to him, but is still
unclear to the Europeans. And
additional lists, according to which Washington has identified countries of
potential nuclear threat, including Russia, but not Pakistan or India--if
confirmed, would make Washington's plans even more obscure.¡¦ RUSSIA: "Russia
Forgives U.S. Nuclear Threat" Reformist, business-oriented Kommersant
(3/14) front-paged this comment by Boris Volkhonsky: "Admittedly, Moscow wants no row, fearful it may wreck prospects
for an important document on arms control.
Given the sorry plight of the Russian army, the accord may be an answer
to its problems. Nipping it in the bud
would be unforgivable." "Serious Differences Still There" Yelena Aleksandrova stated in the official
parliamentary Parlamentskaya Gazeta (3/14): "Moscow and Washington
still have serious differences on the issue of security and stability in the
world. The United States hungers for
absolute global hegemony. This is
apparent also in its approach to the new agreement on arms control the two
countries have been working on to prepare for signing during President Bush's
visit to Russia next May." "Restrained Reaction" Georgiy Bovt said in the reformist Izvestiya
(3/14): "Seeing the expressly restrained
reaction of the Russian leadership to certain actions by the Americans--they
might have had Moscow fly off the handle in the past--leads one to conclude
that both sides are steadfast about wanting the upcoming summit to be a
success." "Russians Worried" Yuriy Golotyuk said in the reformist Vremya
Novostei (3/12): "Sergey Ivanov said yesterday that he was expecting
explanations from his U.S. colleague Donald Rumsfeld (on the Pentagon's
report). Well, the chief of the
Pentagon can just as well baffle his Russian counterpart by asking for his
opinion about, say, the level of the combat readiness of Russia's strategic
nuclear forces, which our military has since Cold War times been known to gauge
by the number of warheads that can reach the United States in the event of an
exchange of nuclear strikes.... Russian
military officials, speaking privately, are concerned not so much about the
contents of the report as the timing of the leak. They believe that 'we are being provoked just as Russia has virtually
started reducing its nuclear arsenal unilaterally on a scale that is without
precedent.'" "U.S. Diplomacy Conflicts With Pentagon's
Plans" Reformist business-oriented Kommersant
printed this by Anton Chernykh (3/11):
"The Pentagon, in a secret report on the United States' new nuclear
doctrine, mentions Russia among countries that may be targeted for a nuclear
attack. It is not for the first time in
Russo-American relations that Washington's diplomatic efforts are at variance
with the Pentagon's plans." AUSTRIA:
"Much Ado About Nothing" Security affairs writer Burkhard Bischof
commented in centrist Die Presse (3/13): "Everything the U.S. thinks, plans or does these days, can
be used against it. Besides, who cares
about the facts, we're talking about America.
The point is, though, that the U.S. and some other countries as well
have been working on the development of tactical 'mini-nukes' for
decades.... Nuclear weapons are mainly
designed to serve as a deterrent, a concept that worked very well during the
entire Cold War. That's what the
[NPR]...is really all about. Russia and
China--both on the U.S.' list of possible new targets--know that very
well. Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and
North Korea are all working on the development of [WMD] of their own, so
they're being given a warning of what's in store for them, should they be
fooling around with ABC weapons.... As
usual: Much ado about nothing. However,
if the commotion intimidates those countries who are trying to lay their hands
on some of the nastier weapons, at least it's good for something." DENMARK:
"Mistaken U.S. Nuclear Strategy" Left-wing Information judged (3/12): "U.S. military strategists [who have
allegedly advocated the use of nuclear weapons against enemy targets] seem to
have a twisted and unrealistic view of the world we are living in. They appear to have wildly exaggerated the
threat posed by some states. The risk
is that the Pentagon's fears of a catastrophic attack on the U.S. could become
a self-fulfilling prophesy unless America shows restraint in its war against
terror." GREECE: "From
Hiroshima To The Nuclear Nightmare" Writing in popular, influential and
anti-American Eleftherotypia political editor Nikos Kiaos said
(3/14): "In Wild West movies the
sheriff was a tool of the society and functioned on a specific mandate, in an
organized framework--as organized such a society could be. The contemporary sheriff, however, as
expressed by George Bush, not only acts curbing the rudimentary framework of
international law, but also imposes his will in the name of his own interests. Starting from undisputed pain, he obscenely
exploits world sympathy and support to impose his own law, the law of the
powerful. This is arrogance and
fascism." "Nuclear Specter" The lead editorial in influential independent Kathimerini
stated (3/12): "The Los Angeles
Times report that the U.S. is developing new nuclear weapons for possible
use in a number of countries caused serious concern in Europe, the Arab states
and the rest of the world. Although the
end of the Cold War did not bring a more stable world, humanity had hoped that
it had at least eliminated the nightmare of a nuclear war.... Such plans, however, mark the dawn of a new
era where the possibility of some sort of nuclear warfare is more likely, as it
has legitimized [them] for a far lower level of conflict than that of the total
war in the days of the U.S.-USSR confrontation." "Madness" The lead editorial in top-circulation,
influential pro-government Ta Nea said (3/11): "The disclosure that the U.S. is preparing scenarios for the
use of nuclear weapons against seven countries confirms that the sole
superpower is following an extremely dangerous path in its effort to strike the
'powers of evil.'... Instead of
exploiting its political and military hegemony in order to promote peace
initiatives and stop bloodshed like the one in the Middle East, the U.S.
returns to the logic of a final blow against peoples and countries that it
classifies among its enemies. The
return of nuclear nightmare displays the inability of the U.S. to convince
peoples about the correctness of its views or efficiently manage the power in
its hands." "Tears For Peace" The lead editorial in popular, influential and
anti-American Eleftherotypia claimed (3/11): "President Bush had tears in his eyes during the funeral of
two U.S. soldiers who died in Afghanistan.
How sincere were these tears at a time when U.S. media disclosed that
the U.S. is prepared to use nuclear weapons for a number of occasions? This is a nightmarish plan of sick brains
with little interest in the future of the planet.... A nuclear attack will not remain unanswered by countries with
nuclear capabilities.... This brings a
drastic change in U.S. policy for the use of nuclear weapons; until now it was
that nuclear weapons would be used only in case of a nuclear attack or in
outstanding cases during a war. Now the
U.S. will be able to attack whenever it feels its domination threatened. The only thing they did not foresee is
whether there will be a U.S. president left after the attacks to shed
tears." IRELAND:
"Reviewing The Nuclear Option" The leading centrist Irish Times
editorialized (3/13): "The
Pentagon's [NPR]...makes two major changes to the contingencies in which U.S.
nuclear weapons might be used. While
previously they would be deployed only against a nuclear armed state or a state
in a nuclear alliance, there is now provision to use them against non-nuclear
states, even if they have signed the [NPT]....
Secondly, the review opens up the question of developing new nuclear
weapons for use against deep bunkers in these states. Both would lower the nuclear threshold and
blur the categorical distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons that
has stabilised international relations by giving potential nuclear states an
incentive not to develop them. Taken
together, these developments herald a much more uncertain and dangerous
world." THE NETHERLANDS: "Another Disastrous Message From Washington" Centrist Haagsche Courant commented
(3/12): "Since Bush's accession,
the Atlantic relationships have changed drastically. Surprising American measures, which convey especially that
Washington could care less about the rest of the world in general and about the
European allies in particular, follow in close order. To take only the last few weeks: through his support to his
antiquated steel industry he has unleashed a trade war with Europe, and there
has been serious consideration to develop a strategy of lies for foreign policy
in order to deceive friend and foe.
Alongside this, there is the continuous threat of bombing
Baghdad.... The past weekend a new
disastrous message came from Washington.
The U.S. will put together a plan for a lighter nuclear
armament.... It concerns a new
generation of nuclear weapons which are much more precise and will allow fewer
civilian casualties. That sounds a bit
positive, but it does lower the nuclear threshold and it will no doubt bring
about a new arms race." NORWAY: "The New Old
Nuclear Strategy Of The U.S." In the newspaper-of-record Aftenposten
(3/15), Kjell Dragnes commented:
"The reassessment... increases the danger for a nuclear war critics
say. That is a far too easy a
conclusion to draw. The opposite may
just as well be the case.... Nothing of
the document that has so far become public, gives signs of any about-face in
the U.S. nuclear strategy, a strategy that however has gone through several
reassessments in the almost 57 years of the existence of the nuclear
weapons. Should an about-face be the
case, it will be the fact that President Bush is prepared to continue the
disarmament.... For nuclear weapons to
be credible as a means for deterrence they must also be available for use and there
has to be enough of them. What the
Pentagon is now doing, is returning to the 'flexible response' strategy from
the 60s and 70s.... Nuclear weapons did
not prevent terrorists from attacking the U.S.
They were never meant to, either.
The nuclear weapons have a different role to play. They are to discourage countries and
regimes. Also Saddam Hussein." ROMANIA:
"A New Role For Nuclear Weapons" Business-oriented Ziarul Financiar
editorialized (3/12): "The Bush
administration aims not only at developing new types of nuclear weapons, but
also at expanding the list of situations in which nuclear weapons could be
used. The Bush administration seems to
have found a new role for nuclear weapons, which will be used against any
country in the 'evil axis,' or countries which cause trouble." SLOVENIA:
"Wisdom And Foolishness" Boris Jausovec opined in left-of-center
independent Vecer (3/12):
"In the six months after black Tuesday, the Bush Administration has
done so many foolish things, drawn so many simplified conclusions, and made so
many overhasty statements that an increasing number of people and countries
have begun to speculate that the United States itself--with its exaggerated war
against terrorism--may have become the major threat to world security.... Powell...tried to calm things down...by
calling the secret plan about seven countries [as possible targets for nuclear
weapons] 'just wise military planning.'
Thank you for such wisdom, which verges on madness. Disarmament experts are of the opinion that
nuclear plans of this kind may destabilize the world." SPAIN:
"Exaggerated Nuclear Response" Conservative ABC opined (3/10): "If it keeps its unilateral fervor, the
superpower will find it difficult to maintain the international support for the
just anti-terrorist cause. The distrust
toward everything that is not American, along with some signs of a certain
arrogance, in addition to the condescension it sometimes inflicts on the EU,
are opening a breach in its solid alliance with Europe and heightening
suspension in the rest of the world.
The nuclear warning is one more sign of the U.S.' regressive foreign
policy and its mistaken zeal for keeping to in itself." TURKEY:
"Have The Americans Gone Crazy?" Semih Idiz complained in tabloid Star (3/12): "Regardless of one's definition of the
feelings of vengeance or justice, no civilized country has the luxury of acting
totally irresponsibly or irrationally....
Based on reports in the American press, we realize that certain
countries are listed in the category of 'those nuclear weapons might be used
against,' and they are China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya and
Syria. There are even references to the
production of nuclear weapons to be used with 'limited effects' against these
countries in the fight against terrorism....
Americans have every right to be furious after 9/11, yet this does not
give them the right to do irrational things and turn the whole world into a
more dangerous place than it already is now.
Today the main goal is not to produce new nuclear weapons, but to ban
and eliminate the existing ones completely." EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC AUSTRALIA:
"Bush
Waves Stick At Hussein" Roy Eccleston, Washington correspondent for the
national conservative Australian observed (3/15): "Bush yesterday warned Iraq and any
other nation that developed nuclear, chemical or germ weapons that the U.S. was
prepared to use its nuclear arsenal to defend itself and its allies.... Bush's words were more aggressive than those
of...Colin Powell or...Donald Rumsfeld, who have both sought to downplay the
Nuclear Posture Review." "U.S. Ready To Apply Lessons Of Cold
War" Foreign editor Greg Sheridan had this op-ed in
the national conservative Australian (3/14): "The war on terror has already moved through several
decisive stages. In his 'axis of evil'
address, Bush redefined the strategic paradigm away from the Cold War doctrine
of deterrence to a new doctrine of pre-emption. Deterrence only works against a rational state, not against
terrorist groups and suicide bombers.
The axis of evil speech, derided by liberal commentators, will emerge as
a key-defining document of the new era....
As many commentators noted at the time, Iran, Iraq and North Korea
shared in common not so much sponsorship of terrorism as possession or pursuit
of [WMD]." "America's Dangerous Nuclear Game" Andy Butfoy, lecturer in international relations
at Monash University had this op-ed in the liberal Age (3/14):
"Reports that Washington has Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria
and China on a nuclear target list come as no surprise to strategic
analysts. United States thinking on
nuclear war is being driven by a predictable convergence between old Cold War
habits and contemporary concerns over rogue states. Overlaying this is a mix of lingering U.S. triumphalism after the
collapse of the Soviet Union, together with the anxiety and self-righteousness
that emerged after the terrorist strikes against Washington and New
York.... U.S. nuclear planning might be
more acceptable if it were paralleled by a more constructive approach to
multilateral diplomacy. After all,
perhaps it makes sense to have a well-armed superpower prepared to underpin
world order. But, given U.S. unilateralism, we now have to ask: Who's world order, and run according to what
principles?" "Bush's Nuclear Escalation" The liberal Sydney Morning Herald
editorialized (3/12): "A secret
Pentagon report which reveals plans for a 'first-strike' nuclear arsenal
reverses decades of American military thinking which effectively defined
nuclear warheads as weapons of last resort.
It also indicates just how far the Bush administration is prepared to go
to entrench America's role as the self-appointed global policeman that its
military power affords.... The Bush
administration appears indifferent, however, to both international criticism
and concerns. Instead, buoyed by its
military rout in Afghanistan, Washington seems determined to move further away
from multilateralism and 'international citizenship' and to pursue a strategic
and diplomatic agenda shaped by self-interest." CHINA:
"The United States: Nuclear Hoodlum" Ren Minjun and Guo Siren commented in the Global
Times (Huanqiu Shibao, 3/14):
"If the nuke report revealed by the U.S media is true, it means
that the United States will give up its promises, changing the policy of using
nuclear weapons only as the last resort, and lowering its nuclear threshold by
using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. This U.S. decision is likely to trigger an even larger-scaled
nuclear war." "State Prompts U.S. To Explain Nuke
Report" Shao Zongwei commented in the official
English-language China Daily (3/13):
"China is waiting for an official and more clear-cut explanation
from the U.S. on the possible use of nuclear weapons against China and six
other countries, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi said. Regarding China's stance on anti-terrorism,
Sun made it clear that China would like to continue its exchange and
cooperation with other countries, including the U.S., in the fight against
terrorism." "U.S. Seeks Absolute Military
Superiority" Official Beijing China Daily commented
(3/13): "The [NPR] indicates that
U.S. nuclear strategy is oriented towards maintaining absolute military
superiority around the world.... The
proclaimed transition from a 'threats-based' to a 'capabilities-based' strategy
is nothing more than a pretext for further arms buildup.... In essence, the emphasis on the capability
to deal with many potential opponents exaggerates the threats the U.S.
faces.... The new U.S. strategy is a 'full-spectrum'
strategy of military deterrence, oriented at all possible future foes as well
as an excuse for the establishment of all-round military
superiority." "FM: China Poses No Threat To World
Peace" China Daily news and Xinhua commented in the
official English-language China Daily (3/12): "China is 'deeply shocked' at the U.S. Defense Department's
report that includes China in a list of seven countries that would be subjected
to a U.S. nuclear attack under an emergency, according to Foreign Ministry
spokesman Sun Yuxi. Sun said that China
is a peace-loving nation that does not pose a threat to any country. He added that China has all along advocated
the comprehensive ban and complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapon states should commit
themselves to the unconditional no-first-use of nuclear weapons, and promise
not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons on nuclear weapon-free countries
and regions, said Sun." HONG KONG & MACAU SARS: "U.S. Nuclear Weapons Strategy And
Taiwan Strait" The independent Chinese-language Hong Kong
Economic Journal wrote in an editorial (3/14): "The U.S. 'Nuclear Posture Review' is just a report
submitted to the Congress, and not an official strategy of the U.S.
administration. However, this document
reflects the strategic rationale of the Bush administration after the September
11 attacks. This document will have a
significant impact on the global strategic situation. It will also affect the U.S.' China strategy, including its
Taiwan strategy.... The U.S. has always
adopted a policy of strategic ambiguity towards Taiwan. If war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, the
U.S. has never stated clearly whether and in what way it would join the
fighting. If the suggestions in the
[NPR] are accepted by the U.S. administration, it means that the U.S. thinks
that strategic ambiguity is not threatening enough and it must make clear the
possibility of launching nuclear attacks to check any fighting in the Taiwan
Strait." "U.S. Nuclear Plan Is A Strategy Of
Disaster" Pro-PRC Chinese-language Macau Daily News
had this editorial (3/13): "The
U.S. Los Angeles Times reported on March 9 that the U.S. military has
drafted a contingency plan to launch nuclear attacks on at least seven
countries on orders from the White House....
This incident shows that the strongest nuclear power...is the most
irresponsible country on the issue of using nuclear weapons. The U.S. easily talks about things like
launching nuclear attacks against other countries in the interest of its
hegemonic strategy, putting the world under nuclear threat. Many countries will, of course, feel angry
and uneasy about the report.... The
most ridiculous thing is that China, because of its nuclear forces and
developing strategic objectives, is listed as a country that could be involved
in an immediate or potential contingency.
What hegemonic logic this is!" "Who Is Threatening Whom Today" Shih Chun-yu declared in PRC-owned Ta Kung Pao (3/13): "The U.S. possesses the world's largest
and most advanced nuclear arsenal, which is being constantly developed and
updated.... Yet the U.S. is not only a
producer and keeper of weapons of mass destruction, it is prepared to launch
nuclear strikes against the seven countries.
Therefore, it should be said that the U.S. has constituted a substantive
nuclear threat to these countries and the world." "Dealing With U.S. Hegemony" The independent Chinese-language Ming Pao
Daily News remarked in an editorial (3/11): "It can be seen that the U.S. is still in a state of grief
and indignation. Encountering such a
heavy blow, the U.S. did not learn the lesson of treasuring peace more. On the contrary, it is making active
preparations for war. It is ready to
pay any price to eradicate its enemy.
Recently, U.S. media revealed that the Defense Department is planning to
use small-scale nuclear weapons to tackle seven countries, including
China. In face of the hegemonic U.S.,
the best plan for China is to hide its capacities and bide its time, as well as
to rouse itself for vigorous efforts to make the country prosperous." NORTH KOREA:
"U.S. Reckless Nuclear War Scenario" Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency
(KCNA) carried this commentary (3/13):
"This indicates that the Bush administration is working in real
earnest to prepare a dangerous nuclear war to bring nuclear disasters to our
planet and humankind.... The U.S.
nuclear war scenario is an inhuman plan to spark a global nuclear arms race and
bring the political and military situation in the world including the Korean
peninsula to an extreme pitch of tension....
U.S. administrations, taking into consideration the world public opinion,
have stressed that the U.S. nuclear weapons are a war deterrent force while
advocating their nuclear policy. In the
current report the Bush administration made a policy switchover from its
criminal plan to make a nuclear strike on any target of specific countries
anytime according to its unilateral judgement to a 'realistic' policy, free
from the past cumbersome diplomatic commitments to nuclear weapons. The DPRK will not remain a passive onlooker
to the Bush administration's inclusion of the DPRK in the seven countries,
targets of U.S. nuclear attack, but take a strong countermeasure against
it. The present political and military
situation where the U.S. is openly threatening the DPRK with nuclear weapons
proves once again how just it was when it exerted tremendous efforts to
increase its capacity for self-defence.
If the U.S. intends to mount a nuclear attack on any part of the DPRK
just as it did on Hiroshima, it is grossly mistaken. A nuclear war to be imposed by the U.S. nuclear fanatics upon the
DPRK would mean their ruin in nuclear disaster." PHILIPPINES:
"Will Bush Nuke 'Em?" Teddy Casino, head of the left-leaning militant
group "Bayan" ("Bagong Alyansang Makabayan" or New
Nationalist Alliance), wrote in his column in the independent Business World
(3/15): "If you can't lick 'em,
nuke 'em. This appears to be the
thinking in official Washington nowadays.... The New York Times
reported...that the Pentagon's Nuclear Policy Review had cited the need for new
nuclear arms that could destroy underground complexes, including stores of
chemical and biological arms. Among the
targets were the 'axis of evil'--Iraq, Iran, North Korea, including Syria and
Libya--all viewed as rouge nations by America and now suspected of harboring
al-Qaeda cells and other terrorist networks.... The Pentagon report indicates an emerging thinking that says
nuclear weapons should be used not simply to deter attacks but (also) as part
of the arsenal...for use in regular combat.
The review has bolstered fears that the U.S. government may be dragging
the American public and the whole world into new and more dangerous dimensions
of war..... Some say the Pentagon
review is just part of the Bush administration's propaganda...to scare its
enemies from launching any attack...but many are not convinced. With Bush's war rhetoric becoming more
strident, reports of a 'shadow government' being put up and now nuclear weapons
being designed for combat, many are starting to doubt whether America is really
fighting terrorism or creating it in a scale never before imagined." SINGAPORE:
"Bad News From U.S." The pro-government Straits Times opined
(3/12): "To give credit where it
is due, it is only the U.S. that has the wherewithal to make a definite global
point today. Other countries must be
grateful to it therefore, when it uses its power to protect the world from
terrorism, which is a truly global threat....
However, gratitude must be balanced by concern when its power is
transformed into a sense of self-entitlement, a mentality which implies that it
has an indisputable right to be No 1 in the world forever. The notion that the U.S. can dictate
international outcomes in its self-interest, without playing sufficient
attention to the interests and views of other world players, raises the
prospects of U.S. domination, if not hegemony, in international affairs. The
truth is that international relations have entered a phase of coalition
politics in which even the U.S. must not take other countries for granted. The
possible occasions on which it could contemplate the use of nuclear weapons are
undoubtedly serious, but putting out a nuclear hate-list of countries in
advance is unlikely to make the world a safer place for everyone. Instead, those countries may take an
interest in making the world less safe for America." SOUTH KOREA:
¡¦Guarding Against U.S. Nuclear Axis¡¦ Senior reporter Kim Young-hie wrote in
independent Joong-Ang Ilbo (3/13):
¡¦The [NPR]...calls for a preemptive nuclear attack against countries
accused of developing weapons of mass destruction and cites the need for
precision small-scale nuclear arms to destroy underground complexes, including
stores of chemical and biological arms.
The list of seven potential target nations includes North Korea and
Russia. This is quite scary and worrisome....
The ROKG should verify whether the U.S. has actually changed its nuclear
strategy and if necessary, raise objections in a clear and assertive
manner.... It is understandable for the
Bush administration, which is waging a war on terror, to press North Korea,
Iran and Iraq hard by defining them as an ¡¦axis of evil.¡¦ However, U.S. indication of its intent to
rule ¡¦axis of evil¡¦ countries with its own ¡¦nuclear axis'...will backfire on
U.S. efforts to resolve problems in the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East.¡¦ ¡¦U.S. Nuclear Policy Worrisome¡¦ Conservative Chosun Ilbo editorialized
(3/12): ¡¦The U.S. Nuclear Posture
Review calls for the designation of seven countries, among them North Korea and
Iraq, as potential targets for U.S. nuclear attacks and for the development of
more sophisticated small-scale nuclear weapons. This represents a considerable departure from the U.S. policy of
¡¦negative security assurance,¡¦ whereby the U.S. would not use nuclear weapons
against non-nuclear states, and raises the possibility of the U.S. using
nuclear weapons in actual combat....
Since nuclear weapons can unleash an uncontrollable disaster upon the
world, the U.S. should refrain from lowering its nuclear threshold. If the U.S. starts to develop new,
small-scale nuclear weapons, it will further encourage the proliferation of
such weapons.¡¦ ¡¦Repercussions Of U.S. Nuclear Report¡¦ Independent Joong-Ang Ilbo editorialized
(3/12): ¡¦The world is reeling from a
Pentagon report...because the report signals a dangerous shift in U.S.
strategic ideology in the wake of September 11.... In particular, North Korea¡¦s inclusion in a list of potential
target countries for U.S. nuclear attacks has resulted in mounting concern that
a conventional military conflict on the Korean Peninsula might escalate into a
nuclear war. The NPR showcases
one-sided American thinking that its nuclear arsenal is good, while those of
other countries are evil, and that the U.S. can spread fear about nuclear war
around the world in order to protect its own national security.... But the strategic considerations of the NPR
will not guarantee U.S. security and will only sour the relationship between
the U.S. and its allies.¡¦ ¡¦Concerns Over New U.S. Nuclear Policy¡¦ Moderate Hankook Ilbo editorialized
(3/12): ¡¦The NPR suggests that the U.S. develop smaller nuclear weapons...and
expand the number of potential target nations in the event of a nuclear
war.... However, the report, by opening
up the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against countries that attack
the U.S. or its allies, may greatly undermine the [NPT].... Humanity has avoided using nuclear weapons
during the past 50 years, and undoubtedly, the nuclear strategy of the U.S. has
played an important role toward this end.
In this regard, a change in U.S strategy is highly dangerous. We hope Washington will recognize the perils
of unilaterally changing nuclear policy and take a rational approach to this
issue.¡¦ ¡¦Highly Dangerous U.S. ¡¦Nuclear Posture¡¦¡¦ Pro-government Hankyoreh editorialized (3/12): ¡¦Is the U.S. trying to drive the 21st
century into a nuclear war? We cannot help but feel surprised and angered by
the [NPR].... The rationale behind this
change, according to the NPR, is the new global security situation after
September 11. At a time when all
countries except Russia and China still do not possess nuclear weapons and are
parties to the [NPT], we cannot help but wonder who truly is proliferating
nuclear weapons and thereby threatening world peace¡¦ The U.S. must withdraw its
dangerous NPR, which could thrust the world into a nuclear arms race.¡¦ ¡¦Dangerous U.S. Nuclear Plan¡¦ Conservative Segye Ilbo editorialized
(3/12): ¡¦The U.S. has persuaded countries such as North Korea and Iraq to join
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), with the pledge that the U.S. would
not use nuclear weapons against them.
That the U.S. has included these non-nuclear states as potential targets
in the event of preemptive nuclear attacks is a clear breach of that earlier
promise.¡¦ VIETNAM: "From Threats
To Actions?" Hong Ky wrote in Vietnam People's Army daily Quan
Doi Nhan Dan (3/14): "There
has been a fundamental change in the nuclear policy of the U.S. From being an instrument of strategic
threat, nuclear weapons have become part of a plan in which the U.S. is ready
to use the weapons for various cases....
The world is facing a possible nuclear attack initiated by the
U.S.... That the U.S.' plan to use
nuclear weapons on its own initiative was disclosed right after the U.S.
government considered Iraq, Iran and the DPRK as elements of an 'axis of evil'
make many worry that the U.S. may unilaterally launch nuclear attacks on a
number of countries when it thinks its strategic interests are at threatened,
or worse, it can use nuclear weapons for other reasons.... Many disarmament experts say that the new US
nuclear policy will in fact annul the 1970 [NPT]. The conscience of humankind does not allows tragedies like the
ones in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to happen again. Vietnamese people and peace-loving people in the world demand
that the disarmament process must be carried out fully and comprehensively,
beginning with nuclear weapons. All
calculations to use nuclear weapons as an instrument to threat or to attack
other nations must be uncovered, strongly condemned and prevented." SOUTH ASIA INDIA:
"Naked Nukes!" The Kashmiri Daily commented (3/13):
"The taboo on the nuclear weapons is off.
Though the U.S. has spoken of the use being limited to three cases,
those are no more than the priorities that usually determine the order of
deployment of different weaponry during battle. Like the choice of antibiotics against infection, it is always a
graded approach. You normally do not
use more force than is needed; if a battalion can do the trick, there is no
need to mobilize the brigade. But the
brigade is always ready to take off, should the earlier contingents fail. Now
nukes would be ready for launch." PAKISTAN:
"Nuke 'Em!" According to the Peshawar-based independent Frontier
Post (3/11): Aggressive militarism,
including a Dr. Strangelove kind of dementia, characterizes the U.S. posture in
modern times. Given the
impermissibility by any canons of war, peace, morality or humanity of the use
of nuclear weapons, it is alarming in the extreme that the arrogance of
Washington since the comparatively easy victory over the Taliban and Al-Qaeda
in Afghanistan has so emboldened the hawks in the American establishment that
they have thrown all restraint and caution to the winds and are talking about
this kind of insanity. The world is a
much more dangerous place as a result of the U.S. ascending to the position of
sole superpower." "U.S. Contingency Plan: The World Stands On
Verge Of Great Destruction" An editorial in sensationalist, Urdu Khabrain
contended (3/11): "The American
leadership must review its policies and soften its attitude. No matter how big a superpower the U.S. is,
it cannot take on the whole world." "Nothing Is Unexpected From The U.S." An editorial in Karachi-based right-wing
pro-Islamic unity, Urdu Jasarat claimed (3/11): As far as the Muslim countries are
concerned, there is no doubt that the U.S. could use atomic bombs against
them. The illegitimate existence of
Israel is necessary for the U.S. and the Western world. Therefore, if the Arab-Israel conflict
accelerates, then there is all likelihood that the U.S. will use the nuclear
option in the Middle East." MIDDLE EAST EGYPT:
"Rather Astonishing That Arab States On Target List" Contributor and former ambassador Ahmad El Molla
wrote in leading pro-government Al Ahram (3/14): "It is rather astonishing that among
those targeted countries there are three Arab countries and one Islamic
country and all are peaceful countries
and do not produce nuclear weapons. So
on what basis did the U.S. put them on the list of the targeted countries to be
attacked by nuclear weapons. The clear
answer is that in America¡¦s point of view these countries could be a source of
threat in the future to Israel." MOROCCO: "Bush's Bombs" Government-coaltion, French-language Liberation observed
(3/13): "The world is really
worried after the revelations made by the U.S. media regarding the new U.S.
nuclear strategy.... For the first time
in history we have learned about possible U.S. nuclear attacks against
countries. This may push the countries
that have no nuclear weapons to start thinking about making or acquiring
them." WESTERN HEMISPHERE ARGENTINA:
"The 'Nuke Bomb' Option: Homage To Victims Of Terrorism" Carlos Escude, international analyst and
academic, wrote in business Buenos Aires Economico (3/12): "These are times for 'Churchill', not
'Chamberlain.'... The U.S. president's
decision to extend the possible use of an atomic bomb to non-nuclear powers that
export terrorism is a correct first step against countries harboring
terrorists.... What Islamic terrorists
invented--suicide attacks--is the equivalent to an atomic bomb and can only be
defeated with an atomic bomb.... These
are times for a 'Churchill' and for a small Hiroshima--a 2 kiloton bomb in
Gaza--without which history will lead us to a bigger holocaust in the future, a
holocaust that will make Japan's tragedy appear very much smaller in
comparison." CANADA:
"Why Playing With Nuclear Strategy Is Really Dumb" Washington correspondent Paul Knox commented in
the leading Globe and Mail (3/13):
"Nuclear weapons aren't pretty, but the danger they entailed was
considerably defused through arms control treaties.... The United States has already abandoned the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Regardless of how far the Pentagon's new thinking is developed, we have
entered a new period of nuclear uncertainty.
Military planners around the globe will be scrambling to assimilate the
NPR's implications. A lot has changed
since 1945, when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but one truism
remains intact: Nuclear weapons that exist are more likely to be used than
nuclear weapons that don't exist. We
were fortunate to get out of the Cold War alive. How far will they push our luck this time?" "Necessary Nukes" The conservative National Post opined
(3/13): "The primary
responsibility of a nuclear superpower entrusted with policing the world is to
ensure that troublemakers do not question its willingness to destroy them if
push comes to shove. Retaining this
credibility is the animating spirit behind the Pentagon's new [NPR].... While the nuclear arsenals and strategies of
the Soviet Union and the United States reflected the structure of the Cold
War...today's nuclear doctrine must mirror the underlying reality of the
post-Sept. 11 environment. Force
structure must be re-tooled to allow the Pentagon to respond flexibly, rapidly
and credibly to threats of a different order and magnitude from those once
presented by the Soviet Union. Indeed,
the entire mentality of fighting a nuclear war has altered in the past
decade. Nuclear theory was previously
built on the assumption that a potential attacker must know that a first strike
would be followed by overwhelming retaliation in order to preserve
credibility.... It makes perfect sense
that, as outlined in the [NPR], pinpoint theatre nuclear missiles designed for
'full spectrum' response in a variety of situations should be developed to
supplement the intercontinental behemoths currently in use. It also makes sense that U.S. responses to
certain warlike acts--such as a North Korean attack on South Korea or an Iraqi
launch of chemical warheads against Israel--should be spelled out clearly to
divest troublemakers ahead of time of the excuse of ambiguity. This [NPR], therefore, is a welcome
revelation. As its revolutionary
conventional performance in the Afghan war has also demonstrated, the Pentagon
is well ahead of its critics, many of whom are still fighting the Cold War's
rhetorical battles." ¡¦Rethink The Unthinkable¡¦ Under the subheading, ¡¦The idea of waging
nuclear war is taking flight in Washington. Canada must protest,¡¦ former chair
of the UN Disarmament Committee Douglas Roche said in the leading Globe and
Mail (3/12): "Nuclear weapons
are back on the front pages, with news of a Bush administration policy
document...which projects the role of nuclear weapons into the future--not as
deterrents, but for the purpose of waging wars.... The document also breaks a
commitment. In 2000, the United States
joined the other nuclear-weapons states in making an ¡¦unequivocal undertaking
to accomplish the total elimination¡¦ of their nuclear arsenals.... The Bush administration
has offered cuts in the nuclear weapons the United States deploys, but is
reinforcing its maintenance of core stocks and planning the development of new
ones. By rejecting the [CTBT], it is
holding open the door to resumed nuclear testing. This has greatly worried many non-nuclear weapons countries and
has already led to charges that the United States is acting in bad
faith.... The shift in U.S. policy has
immense implications for Canada and the other members of NATO. NATO has traditionally presented its nuclear
doctrine as one of deterrence, not war....
Because of its military strength and commanding position as the world's
lone superpower, the United States occupies the central position when it comes
to making progress on nuclear disarmament." CHILE:
"A Very Dangerous Report" In its prime-time newscast, privately owned
Chilevisi=n (3/11) included a segment with international commentator Libardo
Buitrago, who stated: "The U.S.
has increased its Defense budget and one wonders, if the U.S. is the mega
superpower of the world, who is the enemy?
And a very dangerous Pentagon report characterizes the enemy as Russia,
China and the countries of the axis of evil.
But it is mistaken, because those countries did not attack the U.S. Osama Bin Laden attacked the U.S. and he did
not attack the U.S. with a nuclear weapon....
The White House is at war but it is mistaking both the objective, and
the results." NICARAGUA:
"A More Dangerous World" Right, pro-liberal party La Trinchera
published this editorial from Spanish daily El Pais (3/13): "If the U.S. lowers its threshold on
the use of nuclear weapons it will only lead to the proliferation of
them.... The most powerful country in
the world should lead by example and announce a reduction of its nuclear
weapons.... Bush's unilateral
sentiments have surfaced with the attacks on 9/11, he has lost the opportunity
to make the world more balanced.... He
needs to understand that the dream of total security is unattainable." ## |
This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. |
IIP Home | Issue Focus Home |