BUNKER-BUSTER DEBUNKER. . . .
John Kerry seems to misfire.. . . .
06/02 09:04 AM
The presidential campaign focused on containing nuclear weapons Tuesday, as President Bush touted his Proliferation Security Initiative and Senator Kerry outlined his plans to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists. The clearest distinction between the two candidates is their perspective on whether America needs "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons.
The lesson the rest of the world took from the first Persian Gulf war was that the U.S. military can target any site, anytime, anywhere — provided it is above ground. Beyond several stories, even tomahawk missiles and laser-guided bombs cannot hit a target beneath hundreds of feet of rock.
America's friends and foes alike took notes and adapted. There are currently more than 10,000 underground military facilities in more than 70 countries, including more than 1,000 underground facilities on both sides along the Korean Demilitarized Zone. Pentagon reports estimate that more than 1,400 underground sites are known or suspected to be sheltering weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles, or military commands.
DEFINITE DIFFERENCES
The Bush administration's response to this new challenge is to research upgrading the only existing earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, the 1,200-pound B61-11 gravity bomb, which has an adjustable yield of from 1 to 300 kilotons and has been in service since 1997. But it can currently only penetrate 15 to 25 feet underground.
The National Nuclear Security Administration has spent $22 million on studying the ability to improve the bomb's penetrating power over the last two years.
By a mostly party-line vote of 214-204, the House last month supported spending $7.5 million on research into a new nuclear "bunker buster," the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.
Kerry said Tuesday, "As president, I will stop this administration's program to develop a whole new generation of bunker-busting nuclear bombs. This is a weapon we don't need. And it undermines our credibility in persuading other nations. What kind of message does it send when we're asking other countries not to develop nuclear weapons, but developing new ones ourselves?"
On the campaign trail, Kerry has repeatedly suggested that the Pentagon's research into bunker busters threatens to start a new arms race. His fellow Massachusetts Democrat and arms-control enthusiast, Rep. Ed Markey, spelled out the logic behind the bunker-buster anxiety.
"Can you imagine on the first day of Shock and Awe if we had dropped a nuclear bunker buster in the middle of Baghdad to get Saddam Hussein, and he was not in the command bunker, he was not there at all?" Markey asked from the floor of the House, thoroughly throttling the straw man before him.
"It is an unusable weapon," Markey continued. "We cannot preach temperance from a bar stool; you cannot tell a kid not to smoke while holding a Camel cigarette in your hand."
MILITARY VS. KERRY
But a slew of military brass disagrees with Kerry's assessment that bunker busters aren't needed.
The commander of U.S. Strategic Command, Adm. James Ellis, stated recently that a military requirement does exist for the study of these kinds of weapons, traced back 10 years to the Clinton administration when STRATCOM and the Air Combat Command both issued a mission needs statement for a method to defeat these hardened and buried targets. Since then, the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Science Board, and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all identified a need for study to go forward.
Gen. Richard Myers, in a May 2003 briefing, explained that a nuclear bunker buster could minimize the threat from biological or chemical weapons at an enemy site.
POLITICAL FALLOUT
A well-placed Washington Republican sees Kerry's stance on bunker busters as a political miscalculation, a move that will not add a single vote to his total, while giving Bush another way to paint him as weak on defense. He also notes that Kerry missed four Senate votes on the topic in 2003.
Beyond pledging to drop a bunker buster on new technology, Kerry's speech Tuesday was nothing much more than a promise he will do everything Bush is doing, but be better at it: "more, better, faster." Instead of taking 13 years to secure potential bomb material in the former Soviet Union, Kerry promises to do it in four. He promised to tear down "bureaucratic walls" delaying action in Russia. He said we "must make rigorous inspection protocols mandatory, and refocus the mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency to stop the spread of nuclear weapons material." Invigorating original and detailed suggestions, all.
On the issue of Iran's nuclear program, Kerry said, "We should call their bluff, and organize a group of states that will offer the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they can't divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this, their true motivations will be clear." (Is he the last person in the world to not realize their motives?) But Kerry didn't say what would happen once those motivations were clear.
The Democratic senator had the unfortunate timing to insist he would do a better job working "with every country to tighten export controls, stiffen penalties, and beef up law enforcement and intelligence sharing" on the day Russia announced it had become the 15th core member of Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative, which is supported by more than 60 countries. Bush credits the PSI with leading to "the unraveling of A. Q. Khan's nuclear network," which showed its "potential to end a program that threatens us all."
Senator Kerry might want to go back to lying low.
nationalreview.com |
