Bush-Putin’s storage agreement: a safer world?
iago | 25.05.2002 02:32
The word ”disarmament” has a new meaning: that no a-bombs ble completely removed, no new disarmamentagreements and continued development of nuclear weapons
Bush and Putin signed Friday a “disarmament agreement” which implies that the US and Russia must cut down their number of nuclear warheads to a third of todays number within ten years (read the text of the agreement here). The agreement is said to be the largest disarmament of nuclear weapons ever.
Bush wanted to enter into this agreement with just a handshake. Fortunately (?) Putin insisted to have it in writing, and also to have it ratified by the Russian Duma and the American Congress
The agreement has been called “a new chapter in the US-Russia relations”, “a new era”, “an amazing agreement” and so on
At the same time Russia and the US have signed a joint declaration on among other things free trade, pipelines from the Caspian sea and cooperation in the “war against terrorism”…and of course democracy and peace and stuff (See US-Russia Joint Declaration and Bush’s comments at the press conference)
Bush used the opportunity to praise Putin for han part in the “war against terrorism” and said that together they would win the war against the “coldbloodes killers”
Is the world going to be a safer place with this “disarmament agreement”?
I don’t think so.
Even though the agreement was made in order to make the world a better place and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent terrorists in acquiring them, democracy, peace and all that, it seems – not surprisingly – that the real purpose of the deal (which in reality is nothing but a “storage agreement”) is different from what we are told.
Russia wanted a deal where the nuclear weapons be destroyed. USA didn’t want this, they wanted the weapons to be stored instead of destroyed. The reason: to have to possibility to redeploy them some time in the future.
In other words: No nuclear weapons are disappearing – they’re just being moved
And in Russias case, the moving will make it even easier to steal them! Something the USA is fully aware of, but still they prefer this instead of having them destroyed (and are at the same time bold enough to say the deal was made to prevent terrorists getting at nuclear weapons)
This ”disarmament deal” can be the last. According to officials in the Bush administration there will be no more disarmament deals with Russia; the reason for this being “changed economic circumstances” and “the end of the cold war”.
The nuclear weapons are staying.
And the development of new and ”better” nuclear weapons will still continue
The US has withdrawn from the ABM-treaty and wants to build a missile shield (obviously because of strictly defensive reasons – via “full spectrum dominance). A move that has sparked protests the world over, and a move that might restart the arms-race. Definitely not a good idea if one is striving for peace, democracy and so on.
The US takes advantage of all the loopholes it can find, and has plans on developing mini-nukes (so-called ”Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator”). Yet another brilliant idea that is not going to contribute to world safety and peace.
- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist on “mini-nukes”
- Chossudovsky:”Tactical nuclear weapons against Afghanistan?”
Pentagon will the next five years spend more than 30 billion dollars to upgrade USAs nuclear weapons. Still another great idea
Can we trust US’s assurances?
http://www.thenation.com/failsafe/index.mhtml?bid=2&pid=64
Is the world any safer?
I’m afraid not.
This ”disarmament deal” that is celebrated as the entrance to a ”new era” is nothing to celebrate! What has been agreed upon is that no nuclear weapons will be destroyed, the only difference is that more of them will be stored in insecure conditions. The US says this is the last disarmament deal with Russia. The US want to continue to develop the missile shield, they will develop mini-nukes that are easier to use, they’ve withdrawn from the agreement that they will not attack non-nuclear countries with nuclear weapons, they’ve declared war agains almost anyone who doesn’t agree with Bush and it’s administration, the openly say they want to go to war against more countries, they oppose the international criminal court (read about US’s “Invasion of the Hague Act” here), etc etc
Nope! I’m not celebrating!
Bush wanted to enter into this agreement with just a handshake. Fortunately (?) Putin insisted to have it in writing, and also to have it ratified by the Russian Duma and the American Congress
The agreement has been called “a new chapter in the US-Russia relations”, “a new era”, “an amazing agreement” and so on
At the same time Russia and the US have signed a joint declaration on among other things free trade, pipelines from the Caspian sea and cooperation in the “war against terrorism”…and of course democracy and peace and stuff (See US-Russia Joint Declaration and Bush’s comments at the press conference)
Bush used the opportunity to praise Putin for han part in the “war against terrorism” and said that together they would win the war against the “coldbloodes killers”
Is the world going to be a safer place with this “disarmament agreement”?
I don’t think so.
Even though the agreement was made in order to make the world a better place and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent terrorists in acquiring them, democracy, peace and all that, it seems – not surprisingly – that the real purpose of the deal (which in reality is nothing but a “storage agreement”) is different from what we are told.
Russia wanted a deal where the nuclear weapons be destroyed. USA didn’t want this, they wanted the weapons to be stored instead of destroyed. The reason: to have to possibility to redeploy them some time in the future.
In other words: No nuclear weapons are disappearing – they’re just being moved
And in Russias case, the moving will make it even easier to steal them! Something the USA is fully aware of, but still they prefer this instead of having them destroyed (and are at the same time bold enough to say the deal was made to prevent terrorists getting at nuclear weapons)
This ”disarmament deal” can be the last. According to officials in the Bush administration there will be no more disarmament deals with Russia; the reason for this being “changed economic circumstances” and “the end of the cold war”.
The nuclear weapons are staying.
And the development of new and ”better” nuclear weapons will still continue
The US has withdrawn from the ABM-treaty and wants to build a missile shield (obviously because of strictly defensive reasons – via “full spectrum dominance). A move that has sparked protests the world over, and a move that might restart the arms-race. Definitely not a good idea if one is striving for peace, democracy and so on.
The US takes advantage of all the loopholes it can find, and has plans on developing mini-nukes (so-called ”Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator”). Yet another brilliant idea that is not going to contribute to world safety and peace.
- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist on “mini-nukes”
- Chossudovsky:”Tactical nuclear weapons against Afghanistan?”
Pentagon will the next five years spend more than 30 billion dollars to upgrade USAs nuclear weapons. Still another great idea
Can we trust US’s assurances?
http://www.thenation.com/failsafe/index.mhtml?bid=2&pid=64
Is the world any safer?
I’m afraid not.
This ”disarmament deal” that is celebrated as the entrance to a ”new era” is nothing to celebrate! What has been agreed upon is that no nuclear weapons will be destroyed, the only difference is that more of them will be stored in insecure conditions. The US says this is the last disarmament deal with Russia. The US want to continue to develop the missile shield, they will develop mini-nukes that are easier to use, they’ve withdrawn from the agreement that they will not attack non-nuclear countries with nuclear weapons, they’ve declared war agains almost anyone who doesn’t agree with Bush and it’s administration, the openly say they want to go to war against more countries, they oppose the international criminal court (read about US’s “Invasion of the Hague Act” here), etc etc
Nope! I’m not celebrating!
iago
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Old Hat
25.05.2002 10:11
Ahead
ABM Treaty R.I.P.
25.05.2002 10:24
As Chomsky noted, the world should be in a state of collective hysteria about the ex-Soviet nuclear arsenal, now scattered among numerous completely skint and unstable regimes (including Russia). But this sham agreement follows a pattern long established by Bush. One of the first things he did on gaining power was to cut US funds for decommisioning and securely storing Eastern Bloc nukes. This agreement means there'll be more of the things lying around - not a good idea when the troops guarding them don't get paid for months on end, and the military can't pay their electricity bills.
I don't know much about Russia politics but it looks like Putin is shafting the people and selling out to the US. America gets to keep its warheads for later redeployment AND gets to develop "Star Wars" - which is surely an offensive weapon, "we zap you but you can't hit back" - together with a cluster of military bases right on Russias doorstep. Meanwhile plans proceed to turn Russia into a nuclear waste dump, breathing new life into atomic power in the West. Great, more plutonium flying around to tempt the likes of bin Laden!
If it's true that Star Wars requires UK based facilities then I hope the opposition here is massive.
Auntie Beeb