Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation


Nuclear Nightmare:

Bush Nuclear Policy and War On Iraq

by John Steinbach

www.globalresearch.ca      22  February 2003

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/STE302A.html

“The most ambitious(damage limiting) strategy dictates a first strike capability against an enemy’s strategic offensive forces which seeks to destroy as much of his megatonnage as possible before it can be brought into play. An enemy’s residual retaliation, assumed to be directed against urban-industrial targets, would be blunted still further by a combination of active & passive defenses...” (Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld from 1978 Nuclear Posture Review)1

“Not since the dawn of the nuclear age at the end of World War II has the danger of nuclear war been greater.”2 - (Richard Falk)

“As the Bush administration relentlessly injects itself into conflicts around the world in the name of eradicating terror, rather than bringing peace, it only fans the flames of hatred. If this is allowed to continue, it may carry us to nuclear war, and to the annihilation of humankind.”3
- Haruko Moritaki, Hiroshima

Since the controversial election4 which resulted in the judicial installation of President George W.Bush, his extremist foreign policy team of nuclear hard-liners has propelled the world toward a nuclear precipice. Continuing and accelerating existing nuclear war-fighting policies, Bush has radically lowered the threshold to the actual use of nuclear weapons. The present confluence of international developments, including 9-11, the Bush Nuclear Posture Review(NPR), political instability in the Middle East and South Asia, the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty(ABM), and especially the impending total war against Iraq, makes the prospect of nuclear war terrifyingly possible.

The primary purpose of nuclear weapons has never been about deterrence or mutually assured destruction (MAD), but rather to serve as a coercive foreign policy instrument designed and intended for actual war fighting.5 Nuclear weapons designed to back up military intervention and enforce geopolitical dictates are seen by Pentagon war planners as the backbone of war-fighting strategy, and in this capacity have been used at least 27 times between 1945 and 1998.6 Daniel Ellsberg, former RAND Corporation nuclear war planner wrote; “Again and again, generally in secret from the American public, nuclear weapons have been used: ...in the precise way that a gun is used when you point it at someone's head in a direct confrontation, whether or not the trigger is pulled.”7 Presently possessing the strongest military and dominating the most powerful economic empire in world history, the U.S. will use any military force necessary, including the use of nuclear weapons, to expand, consolidate and maintain control.

According to William Arkin, “One year after President Bush labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea the ‘axis of evil,’ the United States is thinking about the unthinkable: It is preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iraq.”8 As Bush prepares public opinion for the invasion of Iraq, the overthrow and/or assassination of Saddam Hussein, and the possible use of nuclear weapons, once again, the rational fear and anger of a mobilized public may be the only truly effective force against the mass-murder psycho-pathology of nuclear weapons. In his memoirs, Nixon claimed that the only reason he refrained from using nuclear weapons in autumn 1969 to “end” the Viet Nam war was the October 15 Mobilization which brought hundreds of thousands of protesters to the nation’s capital: “On October 14, I knew for sure that my (nuclear) ultimatum failed.”9

Dubya’s Excellent Nuclear Adventure

“The end of the Cold War marked a return to historical patterns repressed or obscured by the U.S.-Soviet confrontation.”10 The new strategic emphasis became access to resources and human rights, echoing imperialist propaganda from a century earlier. The specter of nuclear war was increasingly threatened against non-nuclear nations like Iran, Iraq, Libya and North Korea. When President Clinton issued PDD-60 in 1997, the Washington Post reported, “"general planning for potential nuclear strikes against other nations that have... 'prospective access' to nuclear weapons and that are now or may eventually become hostile to the United States. A separate official described these countries as 'rogue States,' specifically listed in the directive as possible targets in the event of regional conflicts or crises."11

Rather than a radical departure from established U.S. policy, the George W. Bush Administration’s nuclear strategy actually represents a continuity of policies developed during the Gulf by his father and further advanced by Clinton.12 The Bush Nuclear Posture Review(NPR)13 exposed by investigative journalist William Arkin in the Los Angeles Times, “...myopically ignores the political, moral and military implications- short-term and long -of crossing the nuclear threshold,” and indicates that Bush officials “are looking for nuclear weapons that could play a role in the kinds of challenges the U.S. faces with Al Quaeda.”14 The NPR calls for contingency plans to nuke Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya, and proposes the development of new nuclear weapons to destroy buried bunkers and reduce collateral damage. The NPR “is understood to identify three circumstances in which nuclear weapons could be used: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack; in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; and ‘in the event of surprising military developments’.”15 The plan further blurs the already fuzzy distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons by calling for integration of “new non nuclear strategic capabilities” into nuclear-war plans, and for “incorporation of ‘nuclear capability’ into many conventional systems under development.”16

George W. Bush made ‘national missile defense’ a cornerstone of his campaign platform, and with Donald Rumsfeld in charge of the Pentagon, and with the Democratic opposition’s abject acquiescence, this costly17 first strike weapon will destabilize the nuclear standoff making nuclear war more likely. Prior to 9-11 it was widely understood that National Missile Defense(NMD), ‘Star Wars’ revisited, was dead on arrival in the Democratically controlled Senate. However in the wake of the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon Bush, by arguing “national security” and the fraudulent concept of ‘rogue nuclear states’,18 was able to ram through a massive increase in the “Defense” budget, including billions for an antiballistic missile system. (The current Pentagon budget now exceeds total expenditures of the next 25 largest militaries combined.19 ) Although the workability of such a system is highly questionable, the point is not whether such a system will work, but, rather, the perception that it might work. Russia, and especially China have both vehemently opposed NMD, and the Chinese threaten to modernize their archaic and feeble ICBM arsenal in order to maintain deterrence. Japans largest circulation daily newspaper, Yomiuri Shimbun, reported that China tested a multiple warhead missile in December, undoubtedly a response to NMD.20

The compelling logic of the futility of antiballistic missile defense- since no conceivable ABM system can stop a massive first strike, the only rational purpose for such a system is for “mopping up” after your own first strike- led Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger to negotiate the first ABM treaty in 1972.21 Admiral Eugene Carroll with the Center for Defense Information said, “Missile defense sends a signal to the rest of the world, ‘we will hide behind our nuclear weapon shield and you can’t do anything about it. We will use nuclear weapons when and if we choose.’ We’ve even said publicly that we will use them against non-nuclear states. Then we build what we say is a National Missile Defense System to make certain that we don’t suffer the consequences of our policies and actions.”22 NMD should be seen as an integral component of the Pentagon’s ongoing plans to dominate the Earth through the militarization of space.

Rumsfeld Doctrine

Of all the Bush foreign policy team, Donald Rumsfeld is perhaps the most dangerous. Tellingly, Henry Kissinger called him ‘The most ruthless man he has ever known.’23 While Gerald Ford’s Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld championed larger military budgets and advocated a return to U.S. nuclear superiority. He was responsible for initiating the B-1 Strategic Stealth Bomber, the Trident Submarine and the MX Missile, all first strike weapons.24 While Kissinger was in Moscow negotiating the SALT 2 treaty, Rumsfeld went behind Kissinger’s back and persuaded the Joint Chiefs of Staff to kill the treaty.

After leaving Government for the corporate boardroom, Rumsfeld continued to maintain a high profile as a nuclear hawk, especially his advocacy of missile defense.(In 1998 he received the ‘Keeper of the Flame Award’ from the Center for Security Policy, the ‘nerve center of the Star Wars lobby.’25 The 1998 Congressionally mandated Rumsfeld Commission predictably found that the U.S. faced a ballistic missile threat from “rogue states” within five years; a finding radically at odds with the CIA’s own estimates. In 2001, shortly before he became Defense Secretary, Rumsfeld chaired another commission on U.S. satellite security which implied “active... anti-satellite weapons(ASATs), including ones in space (for) ‘protective measures’.”26

In a little reported but crucially important January 31, 2002 speech to the American Military University presaging the current war drive against Iraq, Rumsfeld introduced a new doctrine of “strategic dominance,” dubbed the “Rumsfeld Doctrine.”27 “According to this concept, the US must always be able to assess its adversaries' military capabilities and to reduce their ability to react through the planned destruction of its enemy's industrial, military, and political infrastructures.”28 Rumsfeld called for fighting four major wars simultaneously in addition to eradicating ‘terrorism’. He said the 2003 Pentagon budget should include money to protect satellites(weapons in space, a long time favorite of his) and buy a new generation of earth-penetrating (nuclear)bombs that ''could make obsolete the deep underground facilities where terrorists hide and terrorist states conceal their weapons of mass destruction capabilities.''29 To achieve these goals, he proposed a massive increase in military spending, and deployment of a ‘Star Wars’ missile defense system. Coupled with the emphasis on nuclear war fighting and new nuclear weapons development, the ‘Rumsfeld Doctrine’ is a recipe for certain disaster.

Conforming to the Rumsfeld Doctrine, the New York Times reports that the Pentagon is proposing a new nuclear command structure which would “harness in one entity the nation's missile warning network and the new national missile-defense system now breaking ground, as well as the country's ability to plan and launch offensive strikes with nuclear and conventional weapons.” “ The command would fit neatly into the Bush administration's new doctrine of preemptive action against states and terrorist groups that are trying to develop weapons of mass destruction, officials said.”30 The new organization would merge the U.S. Space Command31 , Star Wars, and the U.S. Strategic Command. Rumsfeld has already briefed Bush about the plan and his “top aides” say it is certain to be approved.32 According to Bill Arkin, “On Dec. 11, (2002) the Defense secretary sent Bush a memorandum asking for authority to place Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) commander, in charge of the full range of "strategic" warfare options to combat terrorist states and organizations. The memo, obtained by The(Los Angeles) Times, recommended assigning all responsibilities for dealing with foreign weapons of mass destruction, including ‘global strike; integrated missile defense; [and] information operations’ to STRATCOM.”33 This chilling newest development in the history of U.S. nuclear war-fighting strategy is the logical conclusion of over a half century of first strike planning, and unambiguously exposes the real purpose of ‘National Missile Defense’- the ability to threaten to dominate all rungs of the ‘escalation ladder’, including a strategic first strike.

Potential Nuclear Weapons Use

Any actual use of nuclear weapons will almost certainly follow a carefully scripted propaganda campaign, followed by one of a litany of rationalizations- ‘saving American lives’, ‘destroying a nuclear/chemical/biological weapons bunker’, ‘protecting Israel’, ‘responding to use of weapons of mass destruction(real or fabricated)’, etc.. The current highly visible nuclear threats, in conjunction with the calculated demonization of Iraq and the so called “rogue states”, can be seen as part of a strategy by Bush to reshape public opinion in support of using nuclear weapons. With the American public(and worldwide) strongly favoring nuclear disarmament, this would seem at first glance a difficult if not impossible task.34 However, a Gallup Poll done during the Gulf War in 1991 showing 45% public support for the use of nuclear weapons to “save American lives” should give pause to those who believe that public opinion would never support U.S. use of nuclear weapons.35 The U.S. political leadership, especially under a reactionary, quasi-caretaker government like Bush, will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Iraq or any other opponent if they calculate that the end justifies the means.

In the likely event that the Pentagon is ordered to wage total war against Iraq, leading to the overthrow and assumed assassination of Saddam Hussein and “war crimes” trials for the senior Iraqi leadership, several factors may come into play, any one of which could lead to nuclear war. A desperate, beleaguered Iraqi leadership could order attacks with biological or chemical weapons(whatever limited ability they may have) against U.S. forces, Israel, or the Gulf States, leading to retaliation with nuclear weapons. The Pentagon might use nuclear weapons against Iraqi ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ real or fabricated(all “evidence” would be conveniently vaporized). A significant number of U.S. ground troops might become besieged, as in Khe-Sanh, Vietnam with resulting nuclear weapons use.(Modern low yield nukes make this scenario even more likely today.36 ) Iraqi leadership might take shelter in a highly fortified and defended bunker and nuclear weapons used against it. These scenarios encompass by no means the only potential contingencies described in the recent NPR.

The impending war against Iraq will exacerbate already existing tensions in the region. The chaos and confusion sown by unilateral U.S. action against Iraq and continuation of the mindless and ineffectual “war on terrorism” may have dire consequences. Israel, with a large and sophisticated nuclear arsenal and delivery system, could attempt to take advantage of a U.S. attack to intensify its already near genocidal attempt at ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, risking a military confrontation with the neighboring Arab states; a war which could easily become nuclear.37 (Those who doubt Israel’s willingness to use nuclear weapons should consider that in 1998 80% of Israelis supported the use of nuclear weapons.)38 Noam Chomsky, among others, has accused of broad sections of the peace movement of providing “ideological support” for Israel by ignoring or downplaying Israeli aggression and possession of nuclear weapons. “The unwillingness of major segments of the peace movement to face this issue- and more generally, to confront the question of how a nuclear war is likely to break out as a result of tensions and conflicts in the third world to which the U.S. makes a significant contribution- deserves some thought.”39 Under Secretary of State John Bolton’s recent statements to Israeli officials that “he has no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards,”40 will undoubtedly further fan the flames of war . Bolton, Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, in Orwellian fashion typical of the Bush regime, is a long-standing and vehement opponent of arms control.

Coupled with the military occupation of a likely future Iraqi client state, the U.S. “military footprint” in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and other former Soviet Republics, and Afghanistan will destabilize all of South Asia and threaten the stability of several states in the region, especially Pakistan, which possesses an arsenal of at least several dozen atomic bombs.41 Destabilization of the Musharraf dictatorship, reportedly under attack by rogue elements in the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Agency(Pakistani CIA), could easily intensify the already near war situation between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, leading to nuclear conflict. Reversing years of India’s opposition to nuclear weapons, “the Hindu fundamentalist, right wing , Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP),”42 has strongly embraced nuclear weapons.

India and Pakistan have already brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. The new relations of India and Pakistan with the U.S. A. have also promoted the prospects of a nuclear war between the two South Asian neighbors. “Each is interpreting statements and signals from the endless stream of U.S. and Western emissaries to the region over the recent period in terms that encourage them and exacerbate the tensions.”43 In a strategy reminiscent of the Iran-Iraq war and numerous other regional conflicts, the U.S. is arming and abetting both sides in the nuclear standoff. 44 The purpose of the orchestrated escalation in South Asia is not just to extend the U.S. sphere of influence in Central and South Asia, but to complete the encirclement and isolation of Russia and China as part of a strategy to maintain hegemony and secure relatively untapped resources and markets.


The use of nuclear weapons in war, whatever the rationale, risks global annihilation. According to Senator Edward Kennedy(D. MA), “Initiating the use of nuclear weapons would make a conflict with Iraq potentially catastrophic... the administration's radical consideration of the possible use of our nuclear arsenal against Iraq is itself a grave danger to our national interests, our nation and all that America stands for.”45 Bill Arkin warns, “What worries many senior officials in the armed forces is not that the United States has a vast array of weapons or contingency plans for using them. The danger is that nuclear weapons -- locked away in a Pandora's box for more than half a century -- are being taken out of that lockbox and put on the shelf with everything else. While Pentagon leaders insist that does not mean they take nuclear weapons lightly, critics fear that removing the firewall and adding nuclear weapons to the normal option ladder makes their use more likely -- especially under a policy of preemption that says Washington alone will decide when to strike. To make such a doctrine encompass nuclear weapons is to embrace a view that, sooner or later, will spread beyond the moral capitals of Washington and London to New Delhi and Islamabad, to Pyongyang and Baghdad, Beijing, Tel Aviv and to every nuclear nation of the future.”46

If nuclear weapons are used, it is certain that both the U.S. and Russia(and all other nuclear weapons states) will implement a heightened nuclear alert status. Currently the U.S. has about 7,600 deployed strategic nuclear weapons47 and Russia about 5,60048 , but the numbers alone do not tell the entire story. Russia’s nuclear arsenal is undependable and deteriorating, while the U.S. arsenal is robust. The bulk of Russia’s warheads(over 3,000) are deployed on land-based ICBMs, vulnerable to the Pentagon’s first strike weapons, while most of the U.S. warheads(again, over 3,000) are deployed on utterly impregnable Trident submarines. With both sides adopting a ‘launch on warning’ policy, this strategic asymmetry greatly destabilizes the ‘balance of terror’ and lowers the threshold to nuclear war. In the case of Russia, if the Kremlin believes that a U.S. first strike is imminent, the pressure to launch their weapons before they are destroyed would be overwhelming.

The real key to preventing the use of nuclear weapons, an act which will inevitably have calamitous consequences for the entire world, lies in the ability of the anti-nuclear, anti-intervention, social justice and antiglobalism movements to understand that their issues are inextricably linked. The task is not an easy one. For example, In the teeth of unprecedented nuclear saber rattling by Bush, the April, 2002 mobilization which brought 100,000 to Washington featured only two speakers on the nuclear threat(Helen Caldicott and Phil Berrigan), while the June 12, 1981 anti-nuclear protest in Central Park, during the height of the Israeli annihilation of Beirut, failed to address the intervention issue at all. At the April 2000 mass rally against the World Bank in Washington, DC, a single speaker was given just 2 minutes to talk about the connection between militarism, nuclear weapons and globalization. The task is complicated even further by the present jingoistic atmosphere and Constitutional lawlessness that have undoubtedly intimidated millions from speaking out.

In The Dialectics of War, Martin Shaw writes, “By the time nuclear war is even likely, war-resistance may be largely beside the point. The resistance to nuclear war has to be successful in the period of general war-preparation. The key question is the relationship between militarism and antimilitarism, and the wider social struggles of the society in which nuclear war is prepared.”49 He argues that “If the values which sustain all the social movements for change suffer when nuclear militarism is in the ascendancy ...the relationship between nuclear militarism and society implies a general strategic relationship between peace movements and wider movements for social change.”50 The best strategy for abolishing nuclear weapons is to fight social injustice by broadening and strengthening the people’s movement to challenge all aspects of the corporate imperial state.



1 Robert Aldridge, The Counterforce Syndrome: A Guide to U.S. Nuclear Weapons and Strategic Doctrine, (Washington, Transnational Institute, 1978) p. 9

2 Richard Falk & David Kreiger, “Taming the Nuclear Monster”, (Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, April 11, 2002), www.wagingpeace.org

3 Haruko Moritaki, Message to the American People, (Hiroshima, Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, 2002) Contact Steve Leeper at [email protected]    for complete text.

4 Greg Palast, “Jim Crow In Cyberspace: The Unreported Story of How They Fixed the Vote In Florida,”The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, (London, Pluto Press, 20002) pp. 6 - 43

5 Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod, “To Win A Nuclear War: the Pentagon’s Secret War Plans,” (Boston,South End Press, 1987) p.184

6 Arjun Makhijani, “A Chronology of Nuclear Threats,” (Takoma Park, Institute for Energy & Environmental Research, 1998) www.ieer.org/ensec/no-6/threats.html

7 Daniel Ellsberg, “A Call to Mutiny,” Protest and Survive, eds. E.P. Thompson and Dan Smith, (New York, Monthly Review Press, 1981) p. i

8 8 William Arkin, The Nuclear Option in Iraq: The U.S. has lowered the bar for using the ultimate weapon, (Los Angeles Times, 26 January , 2003)

9 Kaku and Axelrod, pp 166-168

10 Joseph Gerson, With Hiroshima Eyes: Atomic War, Nuclear Extortion and Moral Imagination, (Philadelphia, New Society Publishers, 1995) pp. 2-4

11 R. Jeffrey Smith, Clinton Directive Changes Strategy On Nuclear Arms, (Washington Post, 7 December 1997), p. A1.

12 Daniel Sneider, Bush Policy On Nuclear Weapons Traced to Cheney after Gulf War, (San Jose Mercury News, March 15, 2002) P. 2

13 Periodically, the pentagon conducts a 'nuclear posture review(NPR) for the purpose of updating and refining nuclear weapons strategy.

14 William M. Arkin, Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable, (Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2002) http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-arkinmar10.story


15 David Wastell, US plans for first-strike nuclear attacks against seven countries (Sunday Telegraph, 10 Mar. 2002, p. 1)

16 Arkin, op. cit.

17 Nuclear Disarmament Partnership(NDP), Cost Implications of National Missile Defense, (NDP, June 2001) www.disarmament.org/costfactsheet.pdf

 (The NDF estimates that NMD will cost at least $241 billion and probably much more)

18 Joseph Gerson, Continuity and Change in the Aftermath of September 11 , (Speech to Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives, May 8-9, 2002) www.afsc.org/nero/pesp/jgarena.htm

19 Joseph Gerson, Continuity and Change in the Aftermath of September 11

20 Hiroyuki Sugiyama, Beijing Tests Missile With Multiple Warheads, (Yomiuri Shimbun, Feb. 8)

21 Robert M. Bowman, Star Wars: Defense or Death Star? , (Institute for Space and Security Studies, 1985) pp.58 - 63

22 Eugene J. Carroll, Nuclear Wars Past and Future, (C-SPAN, April 29, 2002)

23 Helen Caldicott, The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush’s Military Industrial Complex, (New York, The New Press, 2002) pp. 165-166

24 U.S. Department of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, 13th Defense Secretary, www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/rumsfeld.htm

25 Caldicott, p. 27

26 Daniel Smith, Space Wars, (Washington, Center for Defense Information, 2001) <www.cdi.org/dm/2001/issue2/space.html>

27 Paolo Pontoniere, New U.S. Military Doctrine Vexes Europeans , New California Media(copyright Pacific News Service, May 1, 2002) www.ncmonline.com/content/ncm/2002/may/0501newdoctrine.html


28 ibid

29 Thom Shanker, Rumsfeld Asserts Forces Must Take Risks & Think Creatively to Prepare for New Challenges, (New York Times, February 1, 2002, National Desk)

30 Eric Schmitt, New Command Would Meld Missile Defense and Offense, (New York Times, National Desk, June 25, 2002)

31 Helen Caldicott, On Star Wars, Space War & Death Merchants, (STAR Foundation [Standing for Truth About Radiation], July 11, 2001) http://www.noradiation.org/cgi-win/caldicott.exe/artidetl118 (“Not only does the US plan to wage war in space but it plans to "hold at-risk", "high-value Earth targets" with "near instantaneous force application". In English, that means the ability to target cities, and to kill millions of people, from space.”)

32 Ibid

33 William Arkin, “The Nuclear Option in Iraq: The U.S. has lowered the bar for using the ultimate weapon” , (Los Angeles Times, 26 January , 2003)

Abolition 2000, Recent Public Opinion Polls Indicate Overwhelming Support for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, (Abolition 2000, 2001) www.abolition2000.org/polls.html


35 William Arkin and Stan Norris, Nuclear Notebook, (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1991)

36 Kaku and Axelrod, P. 159

37 John Steinbach, Israel’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, (Covert Action Quarterly, April-June, 2001), p. 22

38 Asher Arian, Israeli Public Opinion on National security, 1998, (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, 1998) www.tau.ac.il/jcss/memoranda/memo49chp5.html


39 Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle, The U.S., Israel and the Palestinians, (South End Press, 1999) pp. 451 - 452)

40 Aluf Benn and Sharon Sadeh, U.S. to Israel: We’ll deal with Syria, Iran after Iraq War , (Haartez, February 17, 2003)

41 Robert Burns, U.S. considers future military relations with former Soviet states, (Sacramento Bee, April 30,2002) http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/terrorism/story/386005p-3072835c.html


42 Praful Bidwai, India Politics: Right-wing Party Hardens Nuclear Stance,

43 J. Sri Raman, South Asia: Waiting for the U.S.A., (Global Network Against Weapons and Power In Space, June 1, 2002) www.space4peace.org


44 Michael Chossudovsky, Washington is pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war, (Centre for Research on Globalisation, 23 May, 2002) http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO205C.html

45 Senator Edward Kennedy, Our Nuclear Talk Gravely Imperils Us, (Los Angeles Times, January 29, 2003)

46 William Arkin, The Nuclear Option in Iraq: The U.S. has lowered the bar for using the ultimate weapon, (Los Angeles Times, 26 January , 2003)

47 William M. Arkin & Stan Norris, U.S. Nuclear Forces 2002, (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June 2002) pp.70 - 75

48 William M. Arkin & Stan Norris, Russian Nuclear Forces 2001, (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June 2001), pp. 78 - 79

49 Martin Shaw, The Dialectics of War: An essay in the social theory of total war and peace, (London, Pluto Press, 1988) p. 102

50 Martin Shaw, p. 111

 Copyright   2003.  For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement .