Nuclear Use as 'Option' Clouds Issue
Los Angeles Times
March 12, 2002
By DOYLE McMANUS, TIMES STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON -- During the Cold War, the
purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons was
straightforward: to deter an attack on the United
States by the other nuclear superpower, the Soviet
Union.
But now the most frightening threats to American
security come not from nuclear powers, but from
terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and rogue states
such as Iraq. The Pentagon's proposed new nuclear
strategy, outlined in a secret report that came to light
last week, is intended to make atomic weapons
useful again--by making them threatening to a new
set of enemies.
The report, called the Nuclear Posture Review,
proposed building a new generation of atomic
weapons designed not to destroy the nuclear
arsenals of Russia or China but to attack
underground command posts and biological weapon
facilities. The overall purpose, Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote, is "to provide the
president with a range of options to defeat any
aggressor."
But the study has provoked vigorous debate among
nuclear strategists on several counts.
Should the United States use nuclear weapons
against nonnuclear forces, a significant change in
policy? Will the new strategy make it more likely that
the United States--or any other nuclear power, a
group that includes China, India and Pakistan--would
use atomic weapons in a crisis? And do we even
know that nuclear weapons would successfully deter
terrorists or tyrants?
"We thought we could deter the Soviet Union,
because the Soviets had a lot of people and other
assets to protect," said Hans Binnendijk, a nuclear
weapon expert at the Pentagon's National Defense
University. "But we're not sure that theology works
anymore. . . . Rogue states and non-state actors
[such as terrorists] have less to lose."
Bush administration officials acknowledge that it will
be difficult to deter attacks by rogue states or
terrorists. But they said the report's emphasis on
new kinds of nuclear weapons is intended to make
that kind of deterrence possible--not to make a
nuclear war easier to start.
"We all want to make the use of weapons of mass
destruction less likely," National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice said in a television interview. "The
way that you do that is to send a very strong signal
to anyone who might try to use weapons of mass
destruction against the United States that [they]
would be met with a devastating response."
But liberal critics argue that the administration's new
course is hazardous too.
"This is a very dangerous policy," said Joseph
Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "The
test is: How would we feel if other countries adopted
the same policy? I'm not talking about rogue states.
What if India developed nuclear weapons to go after
terrorists in the Himalayas? Would we feel safer
then?"
Administration officials said the new policy, which is
still evolving, wasn't designed principally to deal with
terrorists but rather with the threat of biological
weapons, especially in the hands of a regime such as
Saddam Hussein's in Iraq.
A Counter to Threat of Biological Warfare
If a hostile regime attacked the United States with a
virulent biological agent such as smallpox, the
casualty figures could resemble those from a nuclear
exchange, one official said.
"Because the facts of biological weapons are so
enormous, we have to do all we can to deter their use," a senior official said.
"One of the ways you deter is to make it clear you're not ruling any options off
the table."
Thus, in the administration's view, building new nuclear weapons designed for
use against smaller countries doesn't make their use any more likely. Instead, it
should make their use less likely by deterring attacks against the United States.
The same logic is behind the Pentagon's interest in building new
"Earth-penetrating weapons" with nuclear warheads to destroy underground
bunkers, such as those Bin Laden used in Afghanistan.
"If we were in a conventional war with a country that used biological weapons
against our soldiers or our homeland, I can envision a president retaliating by
using these weapons against their leaders," Binnendijk said. "And if that becomes
a credible threat--if their leaders know it's there--then it also becomes a
deterrent."
But critics don't buy that argument.
"The administration has . . . eliminated the line between nuclear weapons and
chemical and biological weapons," Cirincione said. "They talk about 'weapons of
mass destruction' as if mustard gas were the equivalent of a nuclear weapon that
could destroy a city. It just isn't true.
"The United States used to tell countries that if they did not acquire nuclear
weapons, we would not attack them with our nuclear weapons. This
administration has abandoned that policy. . . . Now there's no reason for other
countries to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons."
U.S. military strategists considered using nuclear weapons several times in the
last half century but always shied away.
During the Cold War, Pentagon officials considered using nuclear weapons
against Communist forces in China, North Korea and North Vietnam. And the
United States stationed thousands of nuclear artillery shells and other tactical
nuclear weapons in Western Europe for use in the event of a Soviet ground
invasion.
In 1991, President Bush warned that he might retaliate with nuclear weapons if
Iraqi leader Hussein used chemical weapons against U.S. forces. But Bush later
wrote that he never intended to carry out the threat.
In 1996, during the Clinton administration, Defense Secretary William J. Perry
renewed the warning, saying a nation that used chemical weapons "would have
to fear the consequences of a response from any weapon in our inventory."
In a sense, one official said, the Bush administration is merely taking that policy
and calling for new weapons to make it more effective.
Some Want Debate to Focus on Strategic Issues
Administration officials did not seem especially perturbed by the leak of the
Nuclear Posture Review, even though the report was officially classified. Some
said privately that a national debate on nuclear strategy might be healthy.
But they complained that newspapers that reported on the issue focused on the
report's list of seven countries as nuclear targets--Russia, China, North Korea,
Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya--more than larger strategic issues.
"The main thing we're trying to do is to reduce our dependence on nuclear
weapons," a senior official said. "That report isn't just about new nuclear
systems. It also says we should rely more on conventional weapons and on
defensive systems."
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. For information about
reprinting this article, go to www.lats.com/rights.
latimes.com 12, 2002 |
