The bomb and Iraq
If a worldwide referendum were held tomorrow, there's little doubt an overwhelming majority of 5.3 billion people would vote for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. The question arises, why can't humanity rid itself of this scourge? Nuclear weapons have never served any useful purpose and, with the end of the Cold War, even the most skilled militarist propagandists have difficulty making a case for their continued existence. Who or what is preventing humanity from ridding itself of a threat to its very existence?
Some clues are provided by the recent threats of US President George Bush to renew bombing of Iraq unless it hands over facilities which might be used to produce nuclear weapons. Bush's attempt to stand over Iraq might have some shred of credibility if the USA was in the process of getting rid of its own nuclear weapons, if it had made any serious attempt to grasp the opportunity offered by Mikhail Gorbachev several years ago when he declared his belief in the possibility of ridding the world of nuclear weapons by the year 2000.
Far from taking a stand for a world free of nuclear terror, all the US is saying is that it, and its allies or powers it is too large to stand over, should continue to form a nuclear oligarchy. They should be the controllers of terror, and we should trust them. Bush's threats to Iraq amount to nothing more than an attempt by the United States, acting for itself and the other nuclear powers, to keep control of the technology necessary to develop nuclear weaponry. But is there any reason to believe that the US is a responsible keeper of the nuclear seal? More importantly, can there be such a thing?
The US government is, after all, the only power ever to have used nuclear weapons in war. It has initiated every new stage in the development of more destructive weapons, and it has threatened and discussed the use of nuclear weapons far more often than any other government. The fact is, there can be no responsible control of weapons capable of ending humanity's existence. The only responsible course is complete elimination of all nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, what of Iraq? Even judging by evidence from conservative US sources, it seems Bush's claims against Iraq stretch the truth well beyond its farthest limits. Iraq has some nuclear technology, but it is antiquated, probably incomplete and much of it is inoperative. What is the real US agenda? Is it simply to maintain pressure for a change of government in Iraq? Is it to establish the "principle" that the USA will decide which governments should have nuclear weapons? If that is the case, which state will be next to feel the hand of the world cop on its shoulder? Will it be North Korea? A recent spate of articles in the world media give good reason to believe that it might be.
If there is to be credible, worldwide control of nuclear weaponry, it must begin with real steps towards nuclear disarmament by the main nuclear powers. Then there would be a real case for strict, impartial, international supervision of institutions capable of developing nuclear weaponry. But until that happens, an ever-increasing number of states will be tempted to try to crack the nuclear oligarchy, and the e no moral case for preventing them. Their only argument will be naked force, as in the case of Iraq, and that is a dangerously slender thread on which to hang humanity's survival.