Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been put in a precarious situation as a superpower.
Do we flex our muscles as peacekeepers and defenders of democratic justice as we’ve done in the Balkans and Kuwait? Or do we promote negotiations as the Clinton administration tried to do in Northern Ireland and the Middle East? Or should we train foreign soldiers to maintain stability in other countries as we’ve done in Central and South America?

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain, the United States no longer has a clear and present danger of one specific country being the enemy, no doubt a serious blow to the military-industrial complex of powerful corporations that profited from the mega-billion-dollar budgets of the Cold War days.

In the 1990s, thanks to steady diplomacy between the world’s superpowers, it seemed peace might just be winning over aggression. Former communist countries were being considered as welcome candidates into NATO, strategic talks between American and Russian counterparts promised a reduction of nuclear weapons and strengthened trade relations, and the threat of nuclear war became less imminent.

But now it seems as though all bets are off with the Bush administration.

Bush and his military advisers want a stronger military that will be able to face potential threats from “rogue” nations, terrorists and pesky dictators of the 21st century. Plans are in the works to refurbish older nuclear warheads, produce even more weapons to stake out territory in space and to set up a missile defense system that would protect our nation from a nuclear attack.

These plans, bold as they might sound to a pro-military electorate that put Bush in office, are full of flaws.

If the idea of developing a missile defense system hasn’t already ostracized us from our European allies and aggravated Russia and China into forging a new alliance to offset American supremacy, can’t we at least acknowledge the huge expense it will take to deploy the satellites and rockets? The National Missile Defense system carries a price tag of $100 million per missile test. Just this year alone, the overall missile defense project will get $4.7 billion. Cost estimates just to deploy the North American portion of the system are up to $60 billion. (As a teacher, I can think of plenty of other places where a billion dollars could go.)

Finding the money to pay for missile defense could stir up a major debate within the military. Earlier this month Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he is awaiting a comprehensive review of the U.S. military to see where potential cuts could be made in order to pay for missile defense. There’s talk of trimming the size of the military and closing bases.

And even if missile defense becomes a priority, early tests, so far, have raised enough doubt that it might not even work. Missing one incoming nuclear missile could still be catastrophic. It will take a decade or more before the system could even be properly deployed. Meanwhile, wouldn’t terrorist groups and anti-American organizations put more of their resources into cheaper biological weapons and computer hackers who could dismantle military technology at the ground level?

Developing a missile defense system also broadcasts to the world that we have a weakness. More than that, it shows our uneasiness as a superpower to spend billions at a time on weapons at a time when we are in a strategic position to promote peace. It also goes against the intent of previous peace treaties and good will gestures that aimed to reduce tensions and set a good example among a growing number of nuclear nations.

True, we do need to be wary of the enemy and a strong military presence can deter our enemies from thinking twice about provoking this nation and its military. But we already have plenty of firepower. There are nuclear bombs today that have 100,000 times the power of the bomb that fell on Hiroshima. Do we really need as many as 9,600 nuclear bombs that are currently estimated to be in our arsenal? A few dozen carefully targeted nuclear bombs could obliterate any country we were threatened by. Do we really need thousands?

American missile silos are now being dismantled in the Midwest as part of the Strategic Arms Reduction treaties of 1991 and 1993, but the United States still maintains a huge number of nuclear weapons. Attempts to put nuclear weapons in space and set up a missile defense system will only escalate another arms race and perpetuate a foreign policy of aggression rather than one of peace and diplomacy.

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to witness the current debate over nuclear proliferation firsthand by attending a peace rally just outside the Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., where nuclear bombs have been produced since World War II. About 250 marchers took a stand against further nuclear proliferation and celebrated peace with music, songs, crafts, dancing, educational booths and even a puppet show. The protest, organized by the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance (OREPA), was held on Sunday, Aug. 5, to mark the 56th anniversary of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

The Oak Ridge rally was the culmination of a long peace walk led by two Buddhist monks from Atlanta, Ga. - Denise Laffan and Konomo Utsumi of the Nipponzan Myohoji-Atlanta Dojo. The monks had marched along with several others from Atlanta to Oak Ridge in a peace walk that ended with a mile-long march down the main boulevard in Oak Ridge from Bissell Park to the Y-12 entrance. Peace walkers carried banners and signs with slogans like “Stop the New Arms Race.” About a dozen colorful banners were made by one group. Each banner had the word “peace” in a different language.
Some carried flowers. Others carried paper peace cranes. It was a diverse group - hippies, college students, church groups, families with baby strollers, middle-aged folks, senior citizens. One group came all the way from Michigan.

Occasionally, a car would drive by and honk in support of the march. Other drivers rode by yelling obscenities or launching a middle finger. After an afternoon of sharing information and rallying for peace, the demonstrators arranged into four separate groups and walked over to the property line of the Y-12 plant. Twenty-five protesters peacefully crossed over the line and onto federal property and were promptly arrested by police for trespassing, a misdemeanor offense. Among the cross-over protesters at the main entrance were several senior citizens. OREPA organizes twice-a-year peace rallies and Sunday vigils outside Y-12 and vows to continue peaceful protests until it is shut down.

In a town that grew up around the Y-12 plant, there are understandably many in favor of keeping the site up and running for years to come. After all, it’s home to about 5,400 jobs. OREPA wants it to become a clean-up site rather than a place where more nuclear waste is produced. Over the past several decades, toxic levels of nuclear waste has seeped into the soil of Oak Ridge yards, and the creek running past the Y-12 entrance is highly contaminated. OREPA contends that the U.S. is violating international law and ignoring nuclear nonproliferation treaties by continuing to produce bombs at Y-12.

Right now, Y-12 serves as a key site for upgrading the nation’s nuclear arsenal. Warheads are dismantled and refurbished to give them a longer shelf life - an extra 100 years. And more construction projects are being planned so Y-12 can also be the place where the next generation of nuclear weapons - smaller, mini-nukes - can be built. Additional facilities could cost an estimated $4 billion, according to the Department of Energy.

Rather than refurbish old warheads and test more weapons, why can’t the United States government see the benefit of further reducing our nuclear stockpile? While this nation stands strong, why can’t our leaders see that we have a responsibility to promote peace instead of brute force?

(Beadle is a teacher and writer living in Waynesville.)

 

Back to Top
The Smoky Mountain News