Can Limited Nuclear Warfare Be an Ethical and Humane Policy for a Government - Article Example

Limited Nuclear Warfare The right of sovereign nations to test, stockpile and deploy nuclear weapons has been the subject of much debate, treaties and resolutions since 1945 when the United States dropped ‘the bomb’ on Japan, an event which ended the lives of hundreds of thousands along with the Second World War. Today, five nations – the U.S., United Kingdom, Russia, China and France – are officially recognised as possessing nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India have tested nuclear weapons and it is not known if Israel possesses nuclear weapon capability. Recently, North Korea and Iran have made newsworthy overtures regarding nuclear weapon developments. Though the stockpiling of such weapons has been justified by many countries, notably the U.S., as being a deterrent for war, the many negative consequences associated with the use of nuclear weaponry even in a limited capacity has been loudly trumpeted by politicians, scientists, scholars and the majority of the world’s citizens alike. However, this common viewpoint should be reconsidered to a degree according to some military officials and politicians whose chief responsibility is protecting the nation. Many (in the U.S.) believe that the U.S. should use specific, relatively light-impact nuclear weapons on selected targets, for example caves along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. Its use, they argue, however counterintuitive it may seem, would ultimately be considered an ethical and moral act because the innocent lives this tactic would save outweighs the negative outcome of collateral damage brought by its use. The term ‘limited nuclear war’ is ambiguous at best and considered an oxymoron by some who are confused by the concept of combining ‘nuclear bomb’ and ‘limited use’ together within the same phrase. The guiding principles of force used in a ‘limited war’ can be described as “the ‘minimum necessary’ and ‘the maximum feasible’” (Brown, 1988: 177). ‘Limited nuclear war’ may describe a conflict restricted to a specific geographic region, a conflict that does not require all of the weaponry at hand or may refer to a conflict in which all weapons are used but on a limited number of particular targets. However, as challenging as this indistinct term is to define, it is a much easier task than implementing a limited nuclear war to a satisfactory resolution. The term, popularized during the Nixon administration was, according to then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, “an act of policy, not of necessity” (Ward, 2003). President Eisenhower warned during a 1956 speech, “with nuclear weapons, we are rapidly getting to the point that no war can be won.” He went on to say that “although conventional wars can be fought to exhaustion and surrender, nuclear war can come close to destruction of the enemy and suicide” (Drell & Goody, 2005). Limited nuclear use is not designed to win wars but to achieve specific military objectives which neither destroy the bulk of the enemy nor create a likely suicide scenario, at least in theory. The concept of limited nuclear engagements began circulating in the 1970’s and developed further within the military hierarchy but the taboo subject was seldom discussed openly among both private and public sectors until the September 11 attacks. The reasoning for the use following Sept. 11 is obvious to some who argue that because the U.S. is involved in a non-traditional war against an unpredictable and fanatical adversary, they must be eliminated by any means possible including the limited use of limited power nuclear weapons. As evidenced in Afghanistan and Iraq, targets located underground cannot be destroyed with conventional weaponry. The U.S. has in its arsenal nuclear weapons, a.k.a. ‘Bunker Busters’ designed to penetrate deep into the earth so as to annihilate nuclear, biological and chemical weapons caches stored in underground bunkers. Just as the stockpiles of multi-warhead nuclear stockpiles served as an effective deterrent during the Cold War, this latest generation of nuclear devices are a potential deterrent for today’s enemy, a worldwide network of terrorists and other guerrilla organizations. “Our willingness to go beyond deterrence to a more pro-active strategy of nuclear use might just end up achieving what we wanted in the beginning: successful deterrence of further aggression and terror against us, now and in the future” (Ward, 2003). The use of nuclear weapons in a limited capacity, targeting specific terrorist havens and storage facilities, would make a big impact on the terrorist organizations in both a physical and psychological context. The unintended effect of nuclear weapon usage such as radiation poisoning and damage to nearby structures is minimal in relation to a more potent bomb. However, bombs such as the ‘bunker buster’ are an effective weapon against an enemy that would kill many thousands of innocent American lives. Using limited nuclear weapons is not necessarily an immoral act but not using them may be. “If nuclear weapons had made war too devastating to be an instrument of policy to omit, how could the challenge of war be met? The objective of ‘limited war’ was to meet this challenge, to find ways in which force could be used to meet aggression without threatening global devastation” (Brown, 1988: 164). Opponents to the usage of limited nuclear weapons, and there are many to be sure, argue that the potential dangers of employing nuclear weapons exceed those of conventional armaments therefore less desirable to use. Conventional warfare is destructive enough and adding nuclear weapons to the equation would only worsen a bad situation. Even ‘nuclear-lite’ weapons carry a massive destructive power and, given that every bomb hit its intended target, the collateral effects both immediate and long-lasting cannot justify its use. An off-target ‘nuke’ could potentially start a world war. The reality of the battlefield must be considered when debating the use of limited nuclear weapons. The decision to deploy nuclear bombs would likely be made during an ongoing military engagement when emotions and adrenaline are at their peak. The stressful, confusing conditions present in battle at times hinder the ability to make consistent, rational and judicious decisions. This fact of war combined with untimely or inaccurate intelligence could lead to nuclear ‘accidents’ which conjure many horrific scenarios to mind. Believing that a limited nuclear strike could become a necessary tool in this era of terrorism and that this unproven technique would be successful in attaining its intended goal is to put full trust in not simply the lucidity of both the moral and strategic judgment of the soldiers and commanders in the field in addition to the politicians in Washington D.C. As they say in Crawford, Texas, ‘that’s a high fence to climb.’ The vague quality of ‘limited warfare’ is another potential problem. One person’s definition could include a ‘limited’ nuclear strike of a populous city, a clear violation of the moral and ethical standards of most people and the minority opinion may the one making that decision. The result could be catastrophic for the victims as well as the region and the collective psyche of the nation who caused the destruction. Germans for example, still have to cope with the national shame of the Holocaust. Military engagements are fraught with imprecise and unpredictable events, seldom precisely regulated. Introducing nuclear weapons escalates the engagement but does nothing to make the situation less volatile thereby only acting to exacerbate an already tense and dangerous conflict. “The theory of controlled escalation ignores the crudity of the military instrument and seriously underplays the psychological pressure on each belligerent to misread his enemy’s moves and to misjudge his own” (Garnett, 1987: 206). It is unlikely that anyone could provide a reasonable argument demonstrating that using nuclear weapons on any scale could be sustained in a limited form. Nuclear weapons are immensely destructive whether large or small and even restrained use would inflict great harm to people and property. “Radiation released from each step in the nuclear weapons production cycle causes cancer, congenital defects, mental retardation, immune destruction, cancer, stillbirths and other health problems” (“Effects”, 2005). Retaliation would likely be quick and harsh from either the nation that suffered the nuclear attack or its allies. Utilizing this potent and greatly feared weapon would evoke the strongest of emotions that would endure for many years following the nuclear attack thus endangering the security of many future generations of people of the aggressive nation. Some citizens of the Middle East despise America to the point of using suicide bombs to ‘voice’ their displeasure with U.S. policies. A nuclear attack on Muslim holy lands albeit ‘limited’ and possibly justified if it, for example, targeting Osama bin Laden, would hardly be a positive step in winning their ‘hearts and minds.’ The U.S. could expect an intensification of hatred and escalated terrorism attempts on its soil for possibly hundreds of years to come. The world at-large may forgive a nation that retaliated with nuclear weapons after being attacked by the same but first-use would be rightfully widely condemned. “Given the appalling consequences of even the most limited use of nuclear weapons and the total impossibility for both sides of any guarantee against unlimited escalation, there must be the gravest doubt about the wisdom of a policy which asserts the effectiveness of any first use of nuclear weapons by either side” (Bundy et al, 1982). The potential negative consequences of using limited nuclear weapons simply outweigh any possible benefit. If the world’s lone superpower decided to use a ‘low-yield’ nuclear device such as a ‘bunker buster,’ all attempts to justify this action would be summarily rejected by a world that is one, terrified by the prospect of nuclear arms being deployed and two, has already lost confidence that the U.S. would employ rational and reasonable thought in its foreign involvements. In addition, if the U.S. used nuclear weapons, regardless of the size, it would encourage the production of nuclear weapons in nations that had no previous ambition to acquire them. “If the United States, the strongest nation in the world, concluded that it could not protect its vital interests without relying on a newly developed nuclear weapon, it would be a clear signal to other nations that nuclear weapons are necessary for their security purposes too” (Drell & Gooby, 2005). The use of a nuclear weapon would encourage instead of discourage other nations to develop such weapons thus subverting years of political efforts to reduce the number of nuclear devices worldwide. A nation has the moral obligation to defend itself and its people. However, the type and measure of this defense should be held to a moral standard which the use of nuclear weapons will never attain even in response to an unprovoked attack. Nuclear weapons are only used for offensive purposes. The majority opinion regarding limited nuclear weapons is that this use will undoubtedly produce collateral damages to an unknown extent, contaminate water and soil, cause lasting political and psychological damage and possibly lead to WWIII. Works Cited Brown, Robin. “Limited War.” Warfare in the Twentieth Century. Colin McInnes & G.D. Sheffield, (eds). London: Unwin Hyman, 1988. Bundy, McGeorge; Kennan, George F.; McNamara, Robert S. and Smith, Gerard C. “Nuclear Weapons and the Atlantic Alliance.” Foreign Affairs. (Spring 1982). Drell, Sidney D. & Goodby, James E. “What Are Nuclear Weapons For?” Recommendations For Restructuring U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces An Arms Control Association Report. (April 2005). May 20, 2007 “(The) Effects of Nuclear Weapons.” Friends of the Earth. (2005). May 20, 2007 Read More