|
The United States' decision to pursue the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons is wrong. At a time when Washington is trying to convince other nations that nuclear-weapons programs should be abandoned, the U.S. move suggests that such weapons are useful after all. It is one more blow to the much maligned Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty regime: rather than shrinking its arsenal as promised in the treaty, the U.S. stock of weapons will grow — and the new weapons are designed to be more usable. It is difficult to conceive of a decision that more completely contradicts U.S. interests and those of the entire world.
Last month, the U.S. Congress approved a $27.3 billion spending bill for 2004 that includes $6 million to research small, low-yield nuclear weapons. The vote authorized $15 million for more research into the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, a nuclear weapon that is designed to penetrate deeply buried underground bunkers. The vote lifted a decade-old ban on research into low-yield nuclear weapons. The bill goes to the Senate where passage is virtually assured and then to U.S. President George W. Bush. But the administration must go back to Congress for another vote before development work on the weapons can begin.
Strategists argue that new weapons are needed for deterrence, since the destructive capability of old nuclear weapons serves to dissuade any government from using them. Although a typical U.S. nuclear weapon can be delivered within about 100 meters of its target, it must produce a blast equivalent to about 15 kilotons of TNT to destroy a bunker target. Radiation from such a blast would spread over an 8-km radius.
It is thought that reluctance to cause such devastation could embolden potential enemies to act. A more accurate weapon — capable of landing within 10 meters of a target — would need a blast of only 0.5 kilotons to destroy a bunker, and the radiation zone would be about 1.6 km in size. These smaller weapons would then restore credibility to the nuclear threat.
The argument for penetrating weapons is only a little different. Governments, such as those in North Korea and Iran, are making greater efforts to bury their assets in case of war so that they cannot be destroyed by traditional nuclear weapons. In this case, too, the new nuclear bombs would restore a deterrent by promising punishment.
Oddly, critics of nuclear weapons make much the same argument as supporters of the new bombs. They argue that the massive destructive power of nuclear weapons has deterred governments from using them. They assert that "mininukes" would blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons, making it easier to resort to the nuclear arsenal. Unlike mininuke advocates, they believe this is a bad thing.
The credibility of a nuclear threat is in the eye of the beholder. There are other grounds for challenging the claims of mininuke supporters, however. First, the idea that smaller weapons would reduce "collateral damage" reflects a dangerous relativism. Such weapons would threaten tens of thousands of lives and poison the earth for generations. "Penetrators" would create even more environmental damage because their explosions underground would contaminate more soil.
Second, the nuclear taboo is extremely powerful — and rightly so. We hope that no leader will resort to the use of nuclear weapons, no matter how tempting the situation or how "tailored" the weapon might be to the particular circumstance. It is this taboo, and not the particulars of the radiation zone, that inhibits the use of nuclear weapons.
The U.S. decision sends the message that such weapons have utility, and governments are right to develop them. Worse, this signal is being sent at a time when concerned nations are trying to convince governments in Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear ambitions.
Japan has been rightly dismayed by the U.S. decision. The Japanese government recognizes that the U.S. move damages the NPT regime. U.S. assurances that it will only be undertaking research are not good enough. Projects take on a life of their own, especially after enough money has been sunk into them. The world does not need more nuclear weapons — real or theoretical, small or full-size.
The Japan Times Weekly
Dec. 6, 2003
(C) All rights reserved
|
|
米国は次世代の核兵器開発を推進する決定をしたが、これは誤りだ。他国に対し核開発の放棄を求める一方で、米国が行った決定は核兵器には利用価値があるという判断であり、核不拡散条約を揺るがすものである。この問題では、米国の利益は世界の利益と完全に反している。
先月、米議会は273億ドルの2004年歳出案を承認したが、このなかには小型核兵器についての600万ドルの研究予算、地下深く潜伏する敵を攻撃する「強力地中貫通型核兵器」についての1500万ドルの研究予算が含まれている。ただ、ブッシュ大統領により署名される予定の歳出案には、研究から開発に移行する際には新たに議会の承認を必要とする修正条項が盛り込まれている。
典型的な核爆弾は、目標の100メートル以内に着弾しても、TNT15キロトンに相当する破壊力がなければ地中の目標を破壊できない。この場合、爆発の放射能は直径8キロに拡散する。しかし、目標10メートル以内に着弾するならばTNT 0.5キトロン相当の小型爆弾で目的を達し、放射能汚染は半径1.6キロくらいに止まる。
「強力地中貫通型核兵器」は、北朝鮮やイランが軍事施設等を通常核兵器で破壊できない地中深く隠そうとする場合の抑止力となる。
核兵器批判者も新型核兵器支持者も、小型核兵器は核兵器と通常型兵器の区別をぼかし、核兵器使用を容易にするという点で一致している。
新型核兵器開発については重大な疑問がある。第一に、小型核兵器は数万人の生命を危険にさらし、地球環境を長期間汚染するおそれがある。土壌を汚染する地下貫通型核兵器は、さらに深刻な環境問題を引き起こす。第二に、核使用は強いタブーになっている。放射能汚染の範囲の問題よりも、このタブーが核兵器の使用を抑制している。
日本は米国の決定に動揺している。現実的にも理論的にも、また大きさの大、小にかかわらず、核兵器のこれ以上の拡散は世界にとって望ましくない。
|
●英字新聞社ジャパンタイムズによる英語学習サイト。英語のニュース、よみもの、リスニングなどのコンテンツを無料で提供。無料見本紙はこちら
