It is apparent that in order to create more nuclear weapons, facilities must be opened in order to actually produce weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. For this reason, the U.S. has opted to reopen the Los Alamos plant in New Mexico, which will be the only place in America that could produce weapons-grade plutonium. The plutonium produced at this plant would be used towards creating the low-yield conventional nuclear weapons.
While it is within the US' right to defend itself as it sees fit, there are some serious consequences that come with this new shift in U.S. foreign policy. These concerns are best brought out in two Congressional resolutions, Senate Resolution 76, and House Resolution 291. H.R. 291, the longest and most detailed of the two highlights five major points that explain the various downsides to the change in foreign policy:
1) It is contrary to fundamental requirements of international law, because the UN Charter does not permit preventive war.
2) It is counter productive, because US reliance on nuclear weapons encourages other states to acquire them, ultimately increasing the likelihood that a nuclear weapon will be used against the US.
3) It is antithetical to the United States' obligation under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
4) It is dangerous, because the assertion of the US right to engage in preventive war encourages other states to assert the same right.
5) It is also immoral, because they place a threat of mass destruction and the assertion of a right to initiate war, at the core of US foreign policy.
What is not mentioned, however, is the fact that this undermines the purpose of the START II treaty, which was created for the purpose of reducing nuclear arms world wide, whilst setting up nations for a total and complete disarmament of weapons of mass destruction within the next 10-20 years. By continuing on the path the U.S. is on at the present time, it is increasing the likelihood that other nations such as Iran and North Korea will accelerate their nuclear weapons programs. This presents another diplomatic program, because these nations will retort that if the United States has the right to build nuclear weapons, then they have the same right. Although these nations would use that as an excuse to create such weapons, I am in total agreeance. All nations have the right to protect themselves by any means necessary from any and all enemies. It is not fair that the US be able to break binding and permanent international laws by creating such weapons and forcefully allowing other nations to refrain from proliferating them in the same manner that the US is. In this instance, the United States would be categorized as the aggressor because it is taking on a policy of justifying pre-emptive conventional nuclear weapon strikes on all nations that threaten US interests at home and abroad. The use of these weapons on a conventional level is also morally wrong and additionally would have serious environmental repercussions, such as contaminated land, contaminated natural resources, and possible permanent damage to the atmosphere.
For decades the US has pressed, pressured, and threatened nations to stop pursuit, procurement, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, however, the US goes behind the worlds back and secretly plans to create more nuclear weapons, adding to the tremendous number that the US already has. This is what I like to call "hypocritical foreign policy", as the US isn’t practicing what it has been for so long preaching. How do you expect to gain the respect, trust, and cooperation of the entire international community if we do something that we have for so long been protesting against?
« return.