But while the U.S. government grouses about this "shot heard 'round the world" and vows to sanction India for its actions, clearly this government cannot claim any moral high ground in the area of nuclear arms. The U.S. maintains an enormous nuclear arsenal, and remains (to date) the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in warfare.
Truth is, the U.S. doesn't reject nuclear weapons at all; they are the authoritarian's dream - a very big stick one can wave around if threatened. They are (or were) seen as the Ultimate Weapon. What the U.S. rejects is other nations having nuclear weapons, particularly Third World nations.
In the twisted logic that invariably accompanies authoritarians everywhere, the rules that apply to thee don't apply to me. While it's okay for the U.S. to have nukes, and, to a lesser extent, it's okay for the European nations to have nuclear weapons, it's not okay for the Unternations to have them, because, well, they're just not as responsible as the U.S., I guess. Or perhaps these other nations aren't as benevolent and good-intentioned as the U.S. thinks itself is.
Back when the atom bomb first appeared, at the end of WWII, the U.S. government (and some of the world's top scientists) pondered what to do with its new toy. There were serious proposals to stop producing nuclear weapons altogether. Sadly, this line of thinking never really got serious consideration, and when the USSR became the second nuclear nation, the arms race was born, and civilians were forced to accept nuclear proliferation as a normal part of living. We have lived in the shadow of nuclear war for 50 years.
The nuclear industry has sought to sugar-coat its deadly product with sustained PR efforts, and vigorous efforts at marketing (the latest blitz is food irradiation; somehow I don't feel safer thinking about food getting pummeled with radiation). But at the core of it all, the nuclear "industry" is about nuclear bombs, and about getting most of us to simply accept them as a "fact of life."
In fact, decades ago, when scientists found that, because of manifold nuclear tests (a soft term used for detonations), it was seen that everyone born was contaminated with radioactive elements, the government went into spin overdrive to keep people in the dark about these dangers. One notorious instances was that it was found that human breast milk contained radioactive elements, courtesy of these detonations, so the government instituted a massive campaign to promote bottle feeding instead of breast feeding. The government's priorities were clear in this-if it was a choice between radiation-free child development or nuclear weapons, obviously an alternative had to be found for radiation-free food for children!
The sane course of action regarding the current nuclear situation is for the U.S. to lead the way in giving its nuclear arsenal to the United Nations, with the caveat that no single nation can have the authority to order these weapons launched. The UN is simply the only truly international forum out there; contrary to the paranoids who see it as the next world government, and is the only reasonably safe place to put the nukes (btw, folks - the U.S. is the existing world government; there's your New World Order for you!)
If the U.S. did this, it would be in the position of providing some moral leadership regarding the nuclear question, and would allow for genuine criticism of India's recent moves. And if the U.S. did this, it would be a strong persuader to the other nuclear powers to renounce their arsenals as well. This is how true disarmament works - someone has to lead; to take that first step back from the brink.
For all the talk about global leadership, I guarantee those in power in the U.S. government haven't the moral courage or integrity to renounce their nuclear playthings. And in so doing, these ethical amputees will ensure that there is an eventual nuclear war, somewhere (and remember, given the enormous destructiveness of nukes these days, coupled with populations concentrated in cities, a single nuclear attack could kill many millions of people in an eyeblink). The failure to act with resolution and courage now will doom millions (or more) somewhere down the line.
The U.S. failed to show this courage 50 years ago, but to some extent, that could be chalked up to simple ignorance-policymakers back then truly didn't understand the enormity of the nuclear question; they just thought they were big bombs, and they thought that more was better (the old military paradigm at work).
But today, leaders don't have that excuse. We know what nuclear weapons can do, and why this must be averted at all costs. But of course this kind of thinking is far beyond the acceptable range allowed in the media (don't forget, two of the three networks are controlled by huge multinationals involved in the nuclear AND arms trade; so don't expect them to cover the issue anytime soon).
What they'll focus on is economic sanctions, which won't do too much to stop nuclear proliferation; perhaps, some brain trust will focus on more funding for SDI, as an "alternative" to disarmament. And that's the real kicker of it all-there really can't be any alternative to disarmament, where nuclear weapons are concerned. There is either a world with nuclear weapons (and thus always threatened by nuclear annihilation), or there is a world without them.
Dave Neal
5/18/98