After Americans endured four excruciating days of uncertainty about the future, pressure was put on the American government to insure that such a close call never happened again and, in an effort to do so, several treaties were signed and conventions adopted. Although the crisis ended peacefully, the United States did not escape unscathed as Americans began to question their safety and the idea of the being an untouchable nation no longer prevailed; the United States would constantly have to do be on the defensive and build greater political safeguards.
For the next two decades these tactics would hold sufficient until Christmas 1991 when the unthinkable occurred, the Soviet Union Collapsed. Thousands of weapons of mass destruction stock pilled from the Cold War as well as the knowledge and expertise behind them would now potentially be left on the open market. Prior to the collapse, only five countries possessed the knowledge and technology to produce nuclear weapons, and only a slightly larger number for chemical weapons. Countries lacking the technological or financial resources would now be able to jumpstart their nuclear and chemical weapons programs overnight. This posed a new threat to the United States, the threat of proliferation of weapons and knowledge to potentially non-allied states. To address this concern the United State to expand its role of protecting itself against the threat of weapons of mass destruction to include policing the flow and knowledge of weapons of mass destruction around the world.
This policy too would hold for about a decade until an attack on New York in the early hours of the morning of September 11, 2001 in which two airline planes were sent crashing into the sides of the Twin Towers, toppling them both. The attack, reported as being the work of terrorist, would establish yet again a new threat for the United States. Though no actual “Weapons of Mass Destruction” were used, it became apparent that there were individuals, groups and/or states that were looking to hurt the United States, as such attempting to acquire and using weapons of mass destruction seemed like their next logical step. In response to this, the United States took its most aggressive stance ever against weapons of mass destruction issuing preemptive strikes, targeting not only terrorist groups, but any state potentially harboring them and any state illegally in potential possession of weapons of mass destruction.
In addition to this the United States sanctioned reviews of its policy, objectives, and security concerns regarding weapons of mass destruction revamping any area that could potentially be considered weak or insufficient. The culmination of these changes in conjunction with the United States’ new aggressive stance that has again sent message to the rest of the world that has left virtually no country unaffected. As such, this has become the focus of our research and objective of our study; to identify the current policy, global objectives, and security concerns of the United States regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction and how they have impacted other countries and groups; specifically, North Korea, India/Pakistan, Iran, Iraq. Through close examination of U.S. policy and case studies of United States interaction with the countries in question, we look to reveal these policies, objectives and concerns while calling attention to the ethical question surrounding them. For example, are the U.S.’s actions ethical? Is it ethical for the U.S. to decide who may or may not possess weapons of mass destruction while possessing them itself? These are but a few of the ethical question that should be considered in review of this report.
We consider first the U.S.’s current policy and strategy regarding weapons of mass destruction. As of recently as 2002, the United States outlines three “pillars” in its National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, these are; Counterproliferation To Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction Use, Strengthened Nonproliferation To Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation, and Consequence Management To Respond to Weapons of Mass Destruction Use.
Under the first pillar, the pillar of counterproliferation, the U.S. by far establishes its most aggressive stance, relying on the principle that a strong offense makes a strong defense. Within this doctrine, the U.S. uses its strength and intelligence to deter potential threats, flexing its military prowess and its uncanny ability to gain inside information. The goal of counterproliferation is quite simple, effective response in the event that a hostile state manages to obtain or develop weapons of mass destruction, achieving this goal, however, is quit a bit more complex. To simplify the matter counterproliferation is divided into three steps, the first step being interdiction; the idea here being to actively prevent hostile or potentially hostile states from obtaining weapons of mass destruction or weapon of mass destruction capabilities. Fulfilling this objective includes intercepting weapons of mass destruction before their delivery to a hostile state, capturing and prosecuting individuals disseminating information that could enhance a hostile state’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
In the event that these efforts fail and a hostile state obtains weapons of mass destruction the U.S. moves to the second step of counterproliferation which is deterrence. In this step the U.S. tries to deter an attack by a hostile state through the threat of retaliation. Essentially, the U.S. tries to make it such that no state or group would think twice about using weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. because the cost of the U.S.’s response to the attacking state or group would be so much greater that it would not even be worth it. This is evident from the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction where it is stated that “The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force-including through resort to all our options-to the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies”(3). For some hostile states, however, this threat may still not be great enough to persuade against using weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. With the recent surge of suicide bombings around the world it has become evident that there are individuals willing to give there lives for the sake of their cause, and if these individuals no longer value their own lives than why should they care about the repercussions of their actions?
Keeping this in mind, should deterrence prove to be ineffective the U.S. moves to the third step of counterproliferation which is defense and mitigation. This step speaks almost exclusively to the U.S. military who’s objective is not only to assist deployed forces and allied states victims of Weapons Mass Destruction, but more importantly to defend against weapons of mass destruction. A good example of this is the controversial “Star Wars” system missile shield. In addition to these objectives, defense and mitigation also calls for “preemptive measures” which is basically a euphemism for preemptive strike. Preemptive strikes epitomize the principle of a strong offense makes a strong defense and has only recently been adopted by the United States as a viable measure for counterproliferation.
In addition to all these measures, to insure the continued success of couterproliferation, in 1994 the Counterproliferation Program Review Committee (CPRC) was formed. Headed by the Secretary of Defense the committee also includes the Secretary of Energy, the Director of Central Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff. The committees objective as defined in last years Report on Activities and Programs for CP and NBC Terrorism; “..to address shortfalls in capabilities to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction”(1). If anything though, for the most part counterproliferation serves a secondary function; in the event that all modes through political channels fail, unless of course the political channels are nonexistent to begin with. The first real method of prevention is nonproliferation, which oddly enough, is the second pillar under U.S. policy.
Nonproliferation as mode to combat weapons of mass destruction proliferation and use differs from counterproliferation in that its purpose is to eliminate even the possibility of a hostile state or group ever obtaining weapons of mass destruction or knowledge of them. Furthermore it much less aggressive than counterproliferation in that it relies primarily on diplomacy; it is a battle fought in the political arena rather than on the battle field.
Through diplomatic talks and political accords the U.S. tries to works with other nations, allied or not, to discourage proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the dissemination of information regarding them to hostile nations. In addition to this, the U.S. also tries to encourage proliferant states to end their weapons of mass destruction programs. To accomplish this, the U.S. uses an array of political tools. One of which are treaties and conventions. By actively promoting and participating in multi-nation agreements, The U.S. looks to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction by encouraging nations to act responsibly and by holding them accountable for their actions. Three of the chief agreements the U.S is currently apart of are the the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and the Biological Weapons Convention(BWC).
In briefly summary of these three agreements, they all differ slightly in their approaches but their intentions are similar. For instance, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, signed in 1970 by 188 countries divides its participants into two categories; those who posses nuclear weapons or “nuclear-weapon states” and those without or “non-nuclear-weapon states”. Under this accord the nuclear-weapon states (such as the U.S.) agree to pursue complete disarmament while non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to pursue development or possession of nuclear weapons; the initiative being to stunt the flow and production of nuclear weapons. The Chemical Weapons Convention, signed in 1993 by 140+ countries, takes a more hard-line approach by banning all development, production or even possession of chemical weapons under international law. In addition, to observe compliance of these measures an international commission known as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was formed. The last convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, signed in 1972, is similar to the Chemical Weapons Convention in its diction prohibiting research, manufacturing and stockpiling, the only difference being that it is in regards to biological weapons. As a point of interest in regards to this issue, it should be noted that the U.S. made it policy in 1969, prior to the conception of the Biological Weapons Convention, never to use biological weapons under any circumstance.
These are but a few examples of accords that the U.S. currently participates in. In addition to these threat reduction agreements, the U.S. also participates in a number of threat reduction coalitions. These coalitions serve several functions including raising funds to support threat reduction programs and insuring the security of weapons of mass destruction currently in possession of allied states. An example of such coalitions is the G-8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Though the U.S. does participate in number of these multi-nation threat reduction programs and partnerships it should be pointed out that it still has its own agenda. As stated in the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction “Consistent with other policy priorities, we(the U.S.) will also promote new agreements and arrangements that serve our(the U.S.’s) nonproliferation goals”(pg. 4).
In the event that both nonproliferation and counterproliferation fail to achieve their goals of prevention, the U.S. relies on its third and final pillar, consequence management. Should weapons of mass destruction be used on U.S. soil, against U.S. troops abroad, or against U.S. allies the U.S. must be fully prepared to mitigate the aftermath. Currently, these efforts are deployed through two U.S agencies; domestically by the Office of Homeland Security and abroad by the National Security Council’s Office of Combating Terrorism. In the U.S. the Office of Homeland security works with states and local governments to insure preparedness. As of recent, with the string of Anthrax attacks by mail across the country there has been a greater demand for stockpiling of vaccines and antidotes in the event of a biological of chemical attack. This is but a single example of a goal the Office of Homeland Security would work to coordinate. The Office of Combating Terrorism acts in a similar fashion only with foreign governments.
This effectively concludes the examination of the U.S.’s policy regarding weapons of mass destruction. From this point on the duration of this report is conducted via case studies. Through examination of case by case scenarios of the U.S.’s relation with each of the five countries in question(North Korea, India/Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq) the U.S.’s current policy, global objectives, and security concerns regarding weapons of mass destruction and how they impacted these countries will further be revealed.
VI. Conclusion
Taking in consideration the U.S.’s history, policy, and interaction with other countries regarding weapons of mass destruction as a whole, what can be gathered from all this? If anything is certain it is that weapons of mass destruction are, and will continue to prevail, among us. Furthermore, the U.S. has and will continue to play both sides of the fence; both as a country possessing weapons of mass destruction and as one trying to limit other countries from obtaining them, striking a dangerous balance. The question of whether or not weapons of mass destruction are right or wrong is no longer relevant; they exist and will continue to exist for some time. What it is relevant, however, is how to deal with them. Because of the U.S.’s unique position in the world and its superpower status, how it deals with this issue will ultimately impact the rest of the world and provoke positive or negative results. There is no book of ethical behavior in regards to weapons of mass destruction. That is why it is imperative to question the ethics of the U.S.’s policy, global objectives and security concerns regarding weapons of mass destruction as they affected other countries and groups so to learn from mistakes made. To recap from the case studies conducted some of the areas that should be questioned are;
Insert ethical questions in italicized format.
Ultimately, though they might uphold peace, weapons of mass destruction are instruments of death and destruction. All those who posses them are instrumentalist in a lethal symphony, and the Untied States, as it stands, is the conductor.
