Hours before the invasion of Kuwait, the Associated Press reported that the U.S. Commerce Department authorized a US. manufacturer last spring to ship specialized industrial furnaces to Iraq, even though officials at Commerce had been warned that the furnaces could be used in the production of nuclear warheads and missile nose cones.
The U.S. Customs Service officials intercepted the shipment on a dock in Philadelphia, as they earlier last year stopped another shipment to Iraq that consisted of nuclear warhead triggers. How many similar shipments got through? That we may discover the hard way.
American assistance to Iraq's nuclear development hasn't only consisted of providing the technical components. The United States has also provided Saddam Hussein with something that might in the long run be more important: the political rationale for Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Iraq is a signatory in good standing of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (known as the Nonproliferation Treaty, the NPT), which was intended to prevent the spread of atomic weapons -- for countries which didn't yet have them, but also for the superpowers, who agreed in the treaty to pursue negotiations "in good faith" toward eliminating their nuclear arsenals.
As we know, it hasn't worked. The Soviet Union and the United States, despite the removal of the Cold War rationale for their buildup of nuclear warheads, continue to build new and better weapons -- the numbers now stand somewhere around 50,000.
Many non-nuclear countries see the superpowers continuing full tilt with their nuclear stockpiling, and say to themselves, If they can do it, why can't we?
The result? A worldwide race to multiply nuclear weapons. And all of it is "legal" under the terms of the NPT. Saddam's pursuit of nuclear weapons doesn't violate the treaty because it bans only the receipt or construction of a complete nuclear device, not the ingredients to build one. And the U.S.-Soviet arms race doesn't violate the pact because the countries are allegedly negotiating the weapons' eradication even as they continue to build them.
THE SOLUTION TO THE problem of a near-useless (if not dangerous) NPT is not to throw the whole thing out but to fill in its biggest gap. The continued testing of nuclear weapons, and the modernization of warheads and missiles, allows the arms race to grow increasingly lethal even as the numbers are reduced. To stop the arms race, the world must stop nuclear testing.
And the world is trying. In January, most of the world's nations -- those who signed the 1963 partial test ban treaty -- will gather at the United Nations in the first major follow-up to the treaty. The goal: a complete, comprehensive ban of nuclear weapons tests. The obstacle: the United States.
The U.S. government, with Great Britain following its lead, is virtually the only factor blocking passage of a Comprehensive Test Ban. Still relying on the mythology of deterrence, the Bush administration is fighting increasing pressure from the rest of the world so the Pentagon can continue to make technical improvements in its nuclear arsenal.
The Soviets, who have reportedly suspended testing at their central Asian site -- in part because of the growing Soviet resistance movement -- have for years made concrete, specific offers to end nuclear testing. Surveys in this country repeatedly show that 75 to 80 percent of Americans favor a test ban -- although many are unaware that testing continues apace in Nevada.
At the Nevada Test Site, organizers are preparing for the 10th annual Lenten Desert Experience, a spiritual and political gathering designed to give people of faith the opportunity to witness against nuclear explosions. "The testing of bombs invites us, compels us, to look deeply at our faith," said LDE organizer Peter Ediger. The idolatry of nuclear testing gives people of faith the opportunity to confront the ultimate expression of violence with our simple nonviolence."
The theme for this year's Lenten experience is drawn from the story of Elijah in the desert, where, scripture tells us, "a great and awesome fire swallowed the sky, but God was not in the fire." For 45 years, the world has experienced in the nuclear arms race the antithesis of God's presence. If humanity begins to step away from nuclear weapons, perhaps we will discover the presence of God not in the fire, but in its quenching.
Jim Rice is editor of Sojourners.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!