The U.S. will continue to threaten retaliation, including nuclear
retaliation to deter aggression against it, and its allies, according to the
report. The Pentagon is making it clear that it reserves the right to use the
nuclear threat even in the event of conventional attack against its forces, it
is pouring cold water over international expectations that Washington’ may
agree to undertake commitments on a nuclear “no first-use”.
This should serve as caution to those in India who are pleased by
occasional statement from visiting liberal arms contorl experts, that they
favour American adoption of nuclear elimination as at least a long-term
goal.
In the joint statement issued by the prime Minister.
Mr.Narasimha Rao, and the U.S. President, Mr. Bill Clinton, in May
1994, in Washington, there was a vague reference to the long term
abolition of mass destruction weapons. But despite enormous pressure
from arms control groups, Mr. Clinton refused to reiterate that goal in a
speech to make the 25th anniversary of the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty.
Mr. Perry concedes that with the end of the Cold War with
Moscow, ‘We need less deterrence” and a smaller nuclear force. But be
insists that Washington must hedge against a possible reversal of political
course in Moscow, and have the ability to reconstitute a large nuclear
arsenal.
The pentagon is worried that a possible “significant shift i
Russian Governments into the hands of arch-conservatives could restore
the strategic nuclear threat to the U.S., literally, overnight.” Given the instability and uncertainty, Pentagon demands that the U.S. “must
maintain nuclear weapons necessary to deter any possible threat or to
respond to aggression, should deterrence fail,”
Pentagon calls for “an affordable hedge in which the approved
force structure could support weapons levels greater than those called
under START II, should major geostrategic changes demand it.” The
Second Strategic Arms Reduction Agreement (START II) calls for a
ceiling on U.S, nuclear forces, around 3,500 warheads.
The current American nuclear doctrine believes it needs a sizable
nuclear force, not only to protect itself but a number of allies who depend
on the extension of the American nuclear umbrella. The Pentagon notes
that “maintaining U.S, nuclear commitments with NATO, and retaining he
ability to deploy nuclear capabilities to meet various regional
contingencies, continues to be an important means for deterring
aggression, protecting and promoting U.S. interests, reassuring allies and
friends, and preventing proliferation, “Without an effective U.S. nuclear
umbrella, the Pentagon implies, some of its allies such as Germany and
Japan may be tempted to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.
Reiterating the commitment to extend deterrence to its allies, the
Pentagon states that “although nuclear capabilities are now a far small part
of the routine U.S. international presence, they remain an important
element in the army of military capabilities that the U.S. can bring to
bear, either independently or in concert with allies, to deter war, or should
deterrence fail, to defeat aggression.”
The Pentagon cites the proliferation threat from the third world as
another justification for maintaining a strong nuclear arsenal. The
Pentagon notes that “the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other
weapons of mass destruction, rather than the nuclear arsenal of a hostile
superpower, poses the greatest security risk,”
The Pentagon reject the argument that the U.S. should undertake
radical nuclear disarmament to convince non-aligned State to abide by the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. According to the annual report, the
motion that “nations are motivated by U.S. nuclear forces in making
decisions about acquiring nuclear weapons, is simply not valid.” Potential
proliferators “are more likely to be driven by concerns about neighbours’
capabilities or the desire for prestige or regional hegemony than the
decisions America makes on its nuclear arsenal.” Joining the current debate on the NPT, the Pentagon
recommended that “extending the NPT indefinitely will, therefore, do far
more to improve individual nations’ security than would a further decline
in superpower weapon stocks.”
