Nukes For a New Century Made Right Next Door (Page 1 of 1)

Five years ago, only arms control policy wonks and peace activists talked about the nuclear proliferation; now hardly a day passes when there isn’t some headline about it. Iraq, North Korea, Iran, India—about the only country whose nuclear proliferation we aren’t reading about is our own. The irony is, the U.S. is the world’s leading proliferator of nuclear weapons.

Here in Oak Ridge

For most readers, U.S. nuclear proliferation is an intellectual concept; for us in East Tennessee, it is a $2 billion a year industry. Oak Ridge is where the rubber hits the road when it comes to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

At Y-12, the U.S. is upgrading our current arsenal through Stockpile Life Extension Program. It’s just what the name says: old warheads are returned to Oak Ridge, broken down, parts are replaced or refurbished, and the reassembled warhead is certified reliable for 100-120 years. As fellow nuclear proliferation activist Sister Mary Dennis Lentsch says, “The work being done at Y-12 today casts a shadow over the next century.”

That’s not all. Oak Ridge wants a new bomb plant, with a price tag of $2 billion. Good money if you work there, but don’t kid yourself; it comes out of our wallets, yours and mine, and it’s money we won’t have for health care for seniors, Head Start for children, housing for the homeless…

And Congress is right now debating funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead—a new nuclear weapon. If they fund it, it will be the first new bomb in the U.S. arsenal in 13 years. And Oak Ridge will be the key manufacturing facility for the RRW.

How nuclear proliferation works

When the U.S. announces it is building a new bomb plant, what must they think in Iran or North Korea, those “axis of evil” countries? Do they think we mean to honor our commitments to the Nonproliferation Treaty (which clearly calls for “negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”) which we signed in 1969? Or are they smart enough to think they better arm themselves to defend against our nuclear threat?

The rest of the world watches U.S. government actions, not rhetoric, especially when security is on the line. It is the continued U.S. reliance on a nuclear arsenal, reflected in the work at Y-12, that drives other nations to pursue nuclear arsenals of their own. In the 1990s it was India and Pakistan joining the thermonuclear club; in the 2000s it has been North Korea, with Iran not far behind. If we continue to pursue a double standard—which has been as ineffective as any grade schooler could have predicted—in the 2010s it will likely be Brazil and Argentina, maybe Syria or Indonesia. A shift in economic or political power could make Japan or German think again.

Common sense provides a good test of our nuclear policy: If security requires nukes for us, the country with the biggest military in the world, surely more vulnerable nations need them all the more.

What choice do we have?

During a recent trip to India, I was asked several times by reporters if Gandhi’s message of nonviolence was still relevant. The question reflects the path of India’s coming of age. India’s quest for a place on the world stage befitting its size has led it to mimic Western “progress” whether it be in Bollywood or in Hyderabad’s technology corridor or in the pursuit of a nuclear arsenal.

But something—maybe history—nags the gracious people of India. Some sense that in their quest to achieve economic or political superpower status they are squandering a chance to become the superpower the world truly needs; India alone has a history that qualifies it to be the world’s spiritual superpower.

India was born in a spiritual movement, led by satyagrahis (nonviolent activists) committed to nonviolence. “We must cultivate the calm courage to die,” Gandhi said, and they did. By the thousands, without striking back. And eventually the moral power of their cause prevailed and the British packed up and left. Gandhi’s movement, and all India’s movement, taught us that nonviolence is not only relevant; it is grounded in a more profound truth than violence. “Can nonviolence work?” is the irrelevant question—history has answered it in the positive.

The reporters’ questions were ironic. It is those who practice violence in pursuit of peace or security who should be called to answer. Where in history do we find examples of the success of violence? Wars do not lead to lasting peace, they plant the seeds of the next war. Conflicts stretch over generations, sometimes lying dormant for decades, but eventually the old enmities rise up to claim new victims.

Those who desire true security will work to stop nuclear proliferation. They will not wait for elected officials whose campaign coffers are full of contributions from defense contractors to wake up. They will insist the U.S. honor its commitments to the Nonproliferation Treaty not just because the United States keeps its word, but because the path charted in the treaty is the only hope we have of reducing the nuclear threat.

Gandhi’s idea that nonviolence was a powerful force that could triumph over violence was not just a fluke—its emergence was a pivotal moment in history that teaches us the power of truth dedicated not to might, but to right. If we all want peace, we will have to choose the path that will get us there—more bombs, or the truth force of satyagraha? We can’t have both.

Ralph Hutchison is spokesman for the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, a non-profit organization working for peace, justice, and an end to nuclear weapons production at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge. OREPA is on the Web at http://www.stopthebombs.org.