Nuclear policy should not be taken lightly
Campus Times
March 15, 2002
While campaigning for President in 2000, George W. Bush stressed his
urgency of cutting the number of nuclear weapons in the world. One year
and 55 days later we hear word of secret outlines for the American nuclear
policy and America's plans to develop nuclear weapons, which would be better
suited to strike targets in Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, Syria
and Libya.
The new Pentagon report, which contains some unclassified and secret
information, came out last Friday. The report indicates the Pentagon's position
on nuclear weapons is that these weapons of mass destruction are highly
important to the United States arsenal. It describes weapons that could
be used to destroy underground bunkers, which may contain biological and
chemical weapons abroad. It states the urgency of developing intelligence
and targeting systems for nuclear strikes. It also claims that the United
States may need to institute nuclear testing again.
From 1951 to the present, 67,500 nuclear missiles and 6,000 different
types of nuclear weapons have been stockpiled in the U.S., and still we
are designing and developing more of them.
In the wake of Sept. 11 I understand the urgency to feel safe doing
everyday activities such as flying, yet is building weapons of mass destruction
and plotting possible targets really the way to ensure our security? To
date our biggest threat has not been the deployment of nuclear weapons on
American soil, but rather box cutters and inefficient security personnel.
You could blame that act of mass destruction on the American public and
our obliviousness.
You could blame it on the Clinton Administration's way of handling U.S.
embassies getting bombed in different countries around the world; or you
could blame it on Bush seniors' inability to secure peace in the Middle
East when we entered the Gulf War in 1994. You could point the finger whichever
way you please, but either way you look at it, throwing around our plans
concerning nuclear weapons really has no relevance in protecting us. If
anything, it is putting us more at risk. It is telling our "enemies"
that nuclear warfare is a possibility and in return they are moving forward
on their plans to develop their own nuclear arsenal. It has made us more
of a target for angry "terrorist countries" around the world.
Not only is the development of nuclear weapons putting us at risk but
it is also costing us an arm and a leg. Last calculations raise the bill
to $5.8 trillion; $35 billion of that is paid by American tax payers; $2.5
billion of that goes to testing the weapons; $225 million went to pay for
lawsuits of radiation exposure under the Exposure and Compensation Act of
1990. These dollar amounts were not spent to help the poor, fight crime,
or reduce our nations homeless population; instead it has gone to a false
sense of security.
It seems to me that instead of developing more nuclear weapons, America,
being the nation with the highest number of nuclear weapons and the only
nation in the world to have ever used one, we need to lead a worldwide campaign
to halt the use and development of nuclear arms. We have talked for years
of the importance of ridding the world of nuclear weapons yet we refuse
to practice what we preach. Let the terrorism of Sept. 11 be an example.
America is not exempt from attacks upon our soil. We may be the most powerful
nation in the world, but we are not the most respected.
Amanda Stutevoss, a junior television broadcasting/journalism major,
is sports editor of the Campus Times. She can be reached by e-mail
at astute4@aol.com.
