WMD and US Nuclear Policy

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِِ
WMD and US Nuclear Policy

The current discussion surrounding Weapons of Mass Destruction [WMD] is not a new subject. WMD refers to chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons that may be deployed using missile or rocket technology or any other means to cause maximum damage to a certain target. WMD covers a lot of different aspects of military arsenal but of greatest concern to the US is the proliferation of nuclear arms.

The international situation of the world used to be influenced by 2 powers, the US and Russia. During the Cold war they built up large military stockpiles and armed themselves with nuclear weapons to deter one another. Even the combined nuclear arsenal of Europe was less than that of the US as they had seconded their security to America. At the fall of communist Russia the US was left standing as the sole superpower. Despite possessing a large number of nuclear arms and being a strong advocate of nuclear deterrence, the US began to cast the idea of nuclear armaments in a negative light labelling them “Weapons of Mass Destruction” - WMD. The policy of criticizing possession of WMD was not a new thing but the intensification of this view by the US was. This new approach was designed to maintain a permanent American global military superiority, reduce the military capability of other nations and at the same time enable her to project this power in order to spread her values of life and influence. The defence secretary in the Clinton administration, William Cohen, made this abundantly clear when he stated - “Without such superiority, our ability to exert global leadership and to create conditions conducive to the achievement of our national goals would be in doubt.”

The US began to undertake preventive measures to limit the spread of weapons that might threaten her supremacy through non-proliferation agreements. Since 1987, through the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) the US has been attempting to curtail the spread of missile technology that may be used to arm and launch nuclear warheads. This scheme is being reinforced with the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). The US has supported the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which is enforced by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the UN. In 1992 it encouraged the ratification of a global Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which calls for the cessation of nuclear testing. It also became active in assisting the former Soviet Union to dismantle nuclear weapons and control access to nuclear material via the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR). All of these measures were designed to limit the proliferation of nuclear technology, to protect the interests of the US and curtail the ability of others to acquire advanced missile and rocket technology.

On the other hand, while the US is curbing the access to advanced weaponry for others it is busy pursuing the development of more efficient nuclear technology and the means of its delivery. Firstly, the US spent ten times more money in 1996 preparing for nuclear war ($27B) than it did preventing it ($2.2B). For instance, it approved the development of the advanced B-61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb in the same year. In 1997 it announced a new policy that increases the possibility of a nuclear strike against states that could deploy their own nuclear capabilities in a manner that the US might consider “hostile”. This threat was renewed in 2002 in the Nuclear Posture Review. The US government is spending $40 billion over the next ten years under the Science Based Stockpile Stewardship (SBSS) program to build new nuclear facilities. In 1998 and 1999 it also attempted to convince NATO to deploy nuclear weapons against its enemies who possessed chemical and biological weaponry. Prior to the recent war in Iraq the US government was enthusiastically considering the development of “mini-nukes” - battlefield nuclear warheads with an alleged limited fallout range. The US continues to pressure countries like Iran and North Korea to submit to unannounced checks by the IAEA yet refuses the same organisation to inspect its nuclear facilities.

The US doesn’t hide the fact that it is trying to put as much military miles as possible between it and any potential future threat. The now famous “two-war” scenario was first proposed in the 1993 Bottom Up Review (BUR) where the US would have the capability to fight 2 regional wars simultaneously. This military strategy policy was updated in the Quadrennial Defence Review (QDR) of 1997. This covers US defence needs up to the year 2015. In line with this they are pursuing a much criticised national ballistic missile defense (NMD) system that will be designed to intercept missiles targeted at the US mainland. Even close US allies like Europe cannot be trusted to come too close. The US is frowning upon the EU rapid reaction force, the proposed EU military headquarters, a perceived rival to NATO and Galileo. Europe's plans to develop Galileo, a satellite network to compete with the US-controlled global positioning system (GPS), ran into opposition from the US. Galileo was proved to be more accurate than GPS.

As the US becomes an ever increasing threat to Islam and the Muslim Ummah by developing more advanced means to project their military strength and reinforce their influence the rulers in the Muslim countries have been deceived by the call to ban advanced weaponry. They have been scaling down the military capability of the Muslim Ummah. Iran recently capitulated and accepted to open up its nuclear research facilities to the IAEA and Libya declared that developing a nuclear capability was not worthwhile. It has agreed to inspections that are much more intrusive than what is permitted under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Pakistan - the only Muslim country that is known to openly possess nuclear arms - having been accused of proliferation by the US is currently investigating its top nuclear scientists. The war on Iraq and the toppling of the Saddam regime was waged on the basis of WMD. In spite of the absence of such weapons it still sends out the message that to seek nuclear capability is to invite the wrath of the US.

Yet not all countries that possess nuclear arms are counted as rogue states. Countries like Britain, France and Israel who possess nuclear capabilities are hardly seen as threats to the US, rather they are viewed as allies. But the likes of Iran, Libya and Iraq are considered potential adversaries. Why this difference? The Western nations and Israel all reflect the same values of secular democracy and capitalism that the US propagates whereas the other countries with their predominant Muslim populations are a potential threat. After all, the US is dedicated to “preventing the emergence of a hostile regional coalition or hegemon.” as the QDR states. Hence, the “WMD” label is aimed at nations that might stand in the way of US global hegemony.

Muslims must not be deceived by the idea of WMD as a negative security policy. The idea that only Western democratic nations are responsible enough to handle nuclear arms is hypocrisy of sheer magnitude. The only nation to ever use such weapons with devastating effects was the US when it atomised Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The effectiveness of nuclear arms as a deterrence is also unquestionable. If you pose a real nuclear threat to any adversary it will deter them. It deterred the Soviet Union and the US before the Cold War and recently enabled North Korea to repel US pressure. It is also possible the thought of nuclear capability may have emboldened the Israelis to attack Syria and equally discouraged the Syrians from retaliating. It certainly deterred Saddam Hussein in 1991 before the first Gulf War. The implicit threat by James Baker, the US secretary of state at the time, to incinerate Saddam’s forces may have hastened his retreat from Kuwait.

Nuclear weapons are tools of foreign and military policy. When such technology is harnessed to the interest of the Khilafah state it will tremendously enhance the security of the Ummah and allow us to project the call to the Deen and facilitate our interests. The determination to deploy it must be consonant with its possession. The Messenger of Allah [sallallahu alaihi wa sallam] acquired all manner of military technology in order to determine the security of the new Islamic state in Madinah and to equip the army of jihad to further the call of Islam and spread its leadership. It was indispensable to have a strong military force to engage the enemies of Islam at that time. This requirement hasn’t changed today nor should it.

وَأَعِدُّوا لَهُمْ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ مِنْ قُوَّةٍ وَمِنْ رِبَاطِ الْخَيْلِ تُرْهِبُونَ بِهِ عَدُوَّ اللَّهِ وَعَدُوَّكُمْ وَآخَرِينَ مِنْ دُونِهِمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَهُمُ اللَّهُ يَعْلَمُهُمْ
"Make ready for them all you can of (armed) force and of horses tethered, to cast terror into the hearts of your enemy and the enemy of Allah and besides those whom you do not know but Allah knows." [TMQ Al-Anfaal: 60].

Khilafah.com Journal
9 Dhul Qa'dah 1424 Hijri
01 January 2004

Click here to E-mail us regarding this or any other article on Khilafah.com