Deep Blade Archive
Cutting through the machinations and
effects of the U.S. empire
1991 Archive
Archive of 2003 War Resources
Archive of 1991 Gulf War Articles
911 Archive
Nukes—Whose are bigger?
Nuclear weapons and oil have for 50 years
been the most potent foci of the U.S. national security state.
In the Middle East, these ingredients combine with potentially
deadly consequences. To illustrate, there is the little known
case of Eisenhower’s secret directive to use nuclear
weapons against the previously mentioned anti-monarchist forces
that took over Iraq in 1958, should they try for Kuwaiti oil
fields.
The Rapid Deployment Forces of the late
70’s and early 80’s were entwined with the doctrine
of nuclear retaliation. These forces were tailored for
projecting the use of low yield tactical warheads should the
Soviets cause trouble. But what happens now that the Soviets
are allies in the cause? It’s a nuclear planner’s
dream, a return to the 1950s when the United States held
nuclear dominance over the Soviet Union. U.S. planners
are exerting a modified kind dominance over Iraq. The absence
of a Soviet check on U.S. power makes the whole war policy
possible. The rungs on the ladder of nuclear escalation in
U.S.-Soviet Middle East conflict are gone.
Let’s look more closely at how the
nuclear threat has evolved to Iraq, with the Soviets obviously
occupying a different policy role. Last November, the question
hyped before the public became: When will Iraq get the bomb?
For the Bush program of solidifying the jingoist consensus, the
sooner the better. So pretty soon the President and deputies
like Asst. Sec. of State Lawrence Eagleburger, rumored that
Iraq may be only a few months from having a usable warhead.
Well, the Iraqi nuclear program is quite
real. And so is the threat that the United States will detonate
one or more nuclear devices against Iraqi targets in the next
few months. Nuclear weapons are the keystones of U.S. Middle
East policy. We could discuss the technical status of the Iraqi
nuclear program. We could talk about their access to enriched
Uranium or Plutonium, the status of their electronics industry
and their success in obtaining trigger devices (recall the well
hyped stories from last April). This examination would lead one
to conclude that Iraq wants a bomb. No surprise, they join a
dozen other countries, including the United States and Israel
in this respect. But even the ubiquitous “intelligence
officials” quoted in Time magazine for December 10 state
that Iraq is several years from being able to fabricate its own
nuclear device.
Furthermore, Iraq is a signatory of the
Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). They are therefore subject to
international inspection of any fissile material. On
November 20, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded
that Iraq’s known 10 kg of enriched uranium, salvaged
after the Israeli raid on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981,
has not been touched for weapons purposes.
For comparison, note that Israel is not a
signatory of NPT, stole tons of enriched uranium, and probably
has 200 clandestine nuclear devices. Does it follow that Israel
must be attacked? No. In fact U.S. officials cannot even breath
the words “Israeli nuke” because admission of their
existence would make all aid provided to Israel for 13 years
illegal under U.S. law. If you want to be afraid of Middle East
nuclear weapons, turn your attention away from nuclear infant,
Iraq, and towards the aforementioned advanced regional nuclear
terrorists, the United States and Israel. Though, the policies
and incidents associated with nuclear forces remain shrouded in
secrecy, it is known that the U.S. probably has around 2000
nukes available for this war. There are nuclear equipped
aircraft in Turkey, hundreds of sea-launched and air-launched
cruise missiles and a variety of miscellaneous nukes floating
in the Gulf. Would they be used if U.S. forces became pinned
down in an ugly ground war?
The military economy—The
“necessary” war
With talk of a “peace
dividend” rampant by last summer, the military economy
was losing its purpose. For those vested in war, hundreds of
thousands of troops out of a job in Europe and lots of hardware
programs in jeopardy was an unacceptable situation. A place to
send the troops and their high-tech killing machines was
needed. And these weapons have become real media stars, with
concomitant increase in public support for them. How else will
the military continue to extract their pound of flesh from the
taxpayer? Let’s see if those B-2’s get built now-
$70 billion is a lot for southern California military
contractors to give up. Or note the new evolution of the star
wars program. Due to the “success” of the high-tech
missile interceptors, there is new life for missile defense
programs that were being hammered by the improvement in
U.S.-Soviet relations. Bush has called for a near doubling of
the star wars budget to around $5 billion. For the
military-industrial establishment, the war is but a
“necessary crisis.”
Energy policy—Avoiding the
next war
Fighting a desert war against Saddam
Hussein over oil profits is not in the interest of the American
people. A sane energy policy designed to wean us off of oil is.
What happened to policies designed to reduce oil dependence and
energy gluttony? The answer lies in economics. Oil economics
from 1973 to about 1982–84 was driven by a broad
consensus amongst elites in oil-producing states and the
multinational owners of the oil production and distribution
system. That consensus dictated control of supply along with
measures designed to keep demand high. Supply control was
highly successful, as long as everyone cooperated. Demand
control required end-users, mostly American, to continue to
drive gas guzzling vehicles and to maintain an insatiable need
for other refined & processed petroleum products (heating
oil, plastics).
But even in this highly managed economy,
some vestiges of market forces operate. Consensus collapsed
among oil elites. It was impossible keep prices high in the
face of slackening demand. Conservation policies worked;
improved vehicle fuel efficiency reduced demand, curtailing oil
company revenue. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the
United Arab Emirates began to pump oil in order to maintain
their shrinking profits and market shares. But this flooded the
market and oil prices that had slowly fallen since 1981
collapsed in late 1985. Oil lost 2/3 of its value in about a
year. That price drop punished anyone with an interest in
selling oil, but it seduced consumers. An explosion in purchase
of heavy consumer vehicles followed (pickup trucks, vans and
Broncos).
Conservation policies that had been so
effective were gutted by the Reagan Administration. Oil imports
began to rise again. By mid-1989, we were importing 53% of our
oil, mostly from the Middle East. Programs given the big kibosh
by the Reaganites (led by de-regulation czar, then Vice
President George Bush) included anything designed to conserve
energy or rationally plan for the inevitable eventual
extinction of oil resources. People need to be educated in
order to use energy efficiently. Europe as a whole uses 1/3 of
the energy per person than the United States. Energy education
programs were nearly all eliminated. As a result, people have
been extremely vulnerable to oil & car company’
consumption message. And no one in Washington has the courage
to suggest that gluttonous behavior ought to be taxed. A
program of energy conservation and education, and a concerted
effort to reduce oil demand and therefore its profit value
could help avoid future Middle East wars.
Conclusion—Peace is
possible
If peace and justice are to be possible
in this depraved world, we must all come together now and
learn, educate ourselves about the history of the Middle East.
We must understand the influences of colonialism and resource
extraction, and the machinations of the national security
apparatus. We must recognize the Administration’s lies.
The real reason diplomacy has not been used is that it would
work. The United States is becoming a mercenary state.
Application of U.S. force for the protection of oil profits and
the military economy is wrong. This war is not necessary!
We demand a cease-fire, and continue to
work to wrest political control away from the makers of war.
Eric T. Olson
February 1991
February 1991
