La question de l’utilisation de l’arme nucl\u00e9aire, \u00e9ventuellement en mode pr\u00e9emptif, p\u00e8se lourdement sur la r\u00e9putation des USA et contribue \u00e0 d\u00e9grader constamment leur statut international. Le m\u00eame texte cit\u00e9 dans notre pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent<\/a> Bloc-Notes<\/em> renvoie lui-m\u00eame \u00e0 un texte du Washington Post<\/em> du 1er novembre<\/a> rapportant les avatars des USA \u00e0 une conf\u00e9rence des Nations Unies charg\u00e9e de contr\u00f4ler si les diff\u00e9rents pays signataires du trait\u00e9 de non-prolif\u00e9ration remplissent leurs obligations. Les USA y ont \u00e9t\u00e9 mis en accusation avec l’affirmation qu’ils ne r\u00e9duisent pas leur posture d’alerte pour leurs armes nucl\u00e9aires: \u00abThey also come on the eve of a U.N. General Assembly vote on a resolution calling on the world’s nuclear powers to take their nuclear weapons off high alert. The nonbinding resolution calls on states to decrease the operational readiness of their nuclear weapons. The maintenance of nuclear weapons systems at a high level of readiness increases the risk of the use of such weapons, including the unintentional or accidental use, the resolution warns.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLe d\u00e9bat (qui s’est pass\u00e9 le 9 octobre) a \u00e9t\u00e9 particuli\u00e8rement houleux et les USA ont d\u00fb se d\u00e9fendre contre leurs accusateurs, essentiellement des pays du Tiers-Monde. Selon le trait\u00e9 de non-prolif\u00e9ration, il est demand\u00e9 \u00e0 ces pays de ne pas d\u00e9velopper d’armements nucl\u00e9aires, en \u00e9change de quoi les pays officiellement nucl\u00e9aires acceptent de r\u00e9duire le degr\u00e9 d’alerte de leurs forces nucl\u00e9aires, de r\u00e9duire leurs forces, etc., tout cela vers le but hypoth\u00e9tique de suppression des armes nucl\u00e9aires. La position US a amen\u00e9 \u00e0 des contestations aux USA m\u00eames.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abSpeaking at an Oct. 9 U.N. conference, Christina Rocca, the U.S. representative to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, dismissed concerns that American nuclear missiles are ready to launch on a moment’s notice. U.S. nuclear forces are not and have never been on hair-trigger alert, she told U.N. delegates.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbHer comments sparked rapid criticism. It’s plain wrong, said Hans Kristensen, director of nuclear information at the Federation of American Scientists. There are forces on alert, and whether they are on ‘hair-trigger alert’ or launch on warning,’ they are capable of launching in minutes.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbA senior U.S. official said the claim that thousands of U.S. nuclear weapons can be launched within minutes is incorrect, but added that the information on launch time is classified. The idea we are on Cuban-missile-crisis posture, sitting on the silo ready to push the button, is false, said the official, who was unauthorized to speak publicly. The essence of deterrence strategy is having some element of ambiguity.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBruce Blair, a nuclear weapons expert and president of the World Security Institute, said the United States and Russia keep about one-third of their strategic arsenals on launch-ready alert and that hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear warheads can be launched within a very few minutes.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThere has been long history of denying U.S. forces are on hair-trigger alert’ Blair said. Some of that is based on lack of knowledge, and some of it is an evasion, and some of it is just an outright lie.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tObjectivement, on doit observer que les accusations lanc\u00e9es contre les USA valent largement pour les autres pays officiellement nucl\u00e9aires, dans cette question d\u00e9licate du statut de leurs forces nucl\u00e9aires (effectivement, comme le dit l’officiel cit\u00e9, l’incertitude joue un r\u00f4le fondamental dans la dissuasion). Ces pays se sont en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral gard\u00e9s de trop se manifester dans cette affaire, jugeant que la discr\u00e9tion pour leur compte est la meilleure tactique. De ce point de vue, l’attaque contre les USA comporte une part d’injustice. Mais elle est aussi la cons\u00e9quence d’un comportement, d’une r\u00e9putation, et, d’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, d’une politique ext\u00e9rieure brutale des USA qui nourrit l’anti-am\u00e9ricanisme. Si l’attaque contre les USA est stricto sensu<\/em> assez ambigu\u00eb et contestable par rapport aux autres pays nucl\u00e9airees, elle est justifi\u00e9e dans l’esprit par leur r\u00e9putation d\u00e9sormais et elle mesure les d\u00e9g\u00e2ts que leur politique actuelle occasionnent aux USA dans leurs relations avec les autres pays. D’autre part, ces accusations mettent les USA en mauvaise posture et les conduisent \u00e0 r\u00e9pondre avec des affirmations qui sont \u00e9videmment mensong\u00e8res par rapport \u00e0 certaines fictions qu’entretient le trait\u00e9 de non-prolif\u00e9ration, aggravant encore leur position. De tels \u00e9pisodes rendent beaucoup plus discutable et fragile l’argumentation US anti-iranienne dans la crise actuelle sur le nucl\u00e9aire iranien.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 7 novembre 2007 \u00e0 10H33<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" La question de l’utilisation de l’arme nucl\u00e9aire, \u00e9ventuellement en mode pr\u00e9emptif, p\u00e8se lourdement sur la r\u00e9putation des USA et contribue \u00e0 d\u00e9grader constamment leur statut international. Le m\u00eame texte cit\u00e9 dans notre pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent Bloc-Notes renvoie lui-m\u00eame \u00e0 un texte du Washington Post du 1er novembre rapportant les avatars des USA \u00e0 une conf\u00e9rence des Nations… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[5505,5622,2773,4620,3004,3478,1343],"class_list":["post-69388","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-boy","tag-cow","tag-iran","tag-non","tag-nucleaire","tag-onu","tag-proliferation"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69388","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69388"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69388\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69388"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69388"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69388"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}