Rumsfeld Fights Making Bush Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament Measures Permanent

San Jose Mercury News | April 27, 1969 | Jonathan S. Landay

[rightwing2]

San Jose Mercury News
April 27, 2002

Rumsfeld Reportedly Resists Firm Limits On Nuclear Arms

By Jonathan S. Landay, Mercury News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his aides have been fighting a rearguard action against White House efforts to limit the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal in a treaty with Russia, senior administration officials contend.

At one point, President Bush had to order Rumsfeld to stop opposing a treaty now being negotiated that would limit the United States and Russia to deploying no more than 1,700 to 2,200 operational warheads each by 2012, said the senior officials, all four of whom spoke on condition of anonymity.

The United States and Russia deploy about 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads each. At a summit in November, Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to seek the 1,700- to 2,200-warhead ceiling. U.S. and Russian officials are to resume talks in Moscow on a nuclear arms deal this weekend.

Resistant to mandate

Rumsfeld and his top aides have supported Bush's decision to slash operational U.S. warheads to reflect a ``new strategic relationship'' with America's former Cold War rival. But they have resisted a formal accord binding the United States to a numerical ceiling, the senior officials said.

Instead, Pentagon officials have advocated in talks with Russia and in internal U.S. deliberations a political deal that would not be subject to legislative approval and would lack the force of law, the senior officials said.

Such an arrangement would make it easier for the United States to exceed the 1,700 to 2,200 limit if U.S. officials ever determined that more operational warheads were required because of an increased threat to U.S. national security.

Secretary of State Colin Powell and other senior officials have favored a legally binding accord because it would help Putin deflect critics who oppose his efforts to seek closer ties with the United States. Many hard-liners within the Russian military and parliament do not trust Washington to hold up its end of any arms-reductions bargain.

Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice confronted Rumsfeld over the issue in March. The three reminded Rumsfeld that Bush had agreed with Putin to seek a pact that would require the approval of the Russian parliament and Congress, the officials said.

Several days later, Bush himself informed Rumsfeld that he wanted a legally binding treaty with Russia, officials said.

``The president's decision was communicated to Secretary Rumsfeld by the president himself, by the vice president and by the national security adviser,'' said one of the senior administration officials. ``Everyone understands that we want to work out a legally binding agreement with the Russians that will reduce both our strategic arsenals to more sensible levels.''

On March 13, Bush publicly affirmed his support for a legally binding deal with Putin, saying ``there needs to be a document that outlives both of us.''

Discord among aides

The senior officials said some Pentagon aides, however, had continued to try to stymie efforts to finalize an accord, which Bush and Putin hope to sign when Bush visits Russia next month. Their intent is to keep numerical limits out of a treaty and limit any legally binding aspects to procedures for verifying warhead cuts.

The Pentagon tactics include rewriting portions of working drafts of the treaty after they have been agreed upon by U.S. and Russian negotiators, officials said.

A White House official declined to answer questions about the issue, and a Pentagon official did not respond to a request for comment Friday. Rumsfeld is to hold talks in Moscow this weekend with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Ivanov.

[rightwing2]

This is confirmation of what I have been saying all along. Our fine Secretary of Defense has been working behind the scenes for several months trying to fight Bush's unilateral nuclear disarmament measures passed over the objections of himself and many of our top generals and admirals including Admiral Mies, who commanded STRATCOM until late last year. Rumsfeld is trying to spare the US strategic nuclear deterrent from evisceration at the hands of President Bush and foil Bush's and Powell's attempts to appease the Russian demand that these unilateral nuclear disarmament 'cuts' be made irreversible. May God bless his efforts and the efforts of some of his top lieutenants at DoD to put the US national security interest first for a change becuase nobody else in the Bush Administration including former arms control opponent Dick Cheney seems to be willing to do so.

[rightwing2]

NATIONAL SECURITY BUMP!

[Thud]

ping

[gcruse]

I have to interest in reviving the Cold War. We must do what we can to forge closer ties and relationships with Russia, and keeping an arsenal targetted at them makes no sense. That said, how does the threat of a Chinese nuclear buildup figure into this? Would we be unable to defend against it?

[Digger]

If you don't know what Russia is doing about advancing theirs it is huge. For your info it was POWELL under the inept Bush Sr. that got rid of the neutron bomb - all while the Chi-Coms are making many. This is treason in my mind.

[thinktwice]

Rumsfeld is positively the best person within Bush's administration.

[gcruse]

If you don't know what Russia is doing about advancing theirs it is huge.

Do you have a cite for that?

[rightwing2]

I have to interest in reviving the Cold War. We must do what we can to forge closer ties and relationships with Russia, and keeping an arsenal targetted at them makes no sense. That said, how does the threat of a Chinese nuclear buildup figure into this? Would we be unable to defend against it?

While the CIA and I disagree with your statement that Russia's nuclear arsenal is no longer a threat to the US, your question regarding the ChiCom nuke threat is a good one. Currently, the ChiComs have a nuclear arsenal about 25% the size of ours--2300 ChiCom nukes v. 9800 US nukes. Unfortunately for them most of their nukes are tactical and theater nukes, not the strategic-range nukes which constitute the backbone of our current arsenal. Currently, the ChiComs have no more than 100 strategic range nukes deployed on less than 35 ICBMs and SLBMs. As you know, the ChiComs have a goal which is to transform their country into a military and nuclear superpower before the end of the next decade.

In order to be a nuclear superpower, the ChiComs have to field a strategic nuclear arsenal which is roughly comparable to our own. For them to build up to our current level would be an unsurmountable task. However, given Bush's directive to unilaterally disarm the US of 75% of its strategic nuclear deterrent down to 1700 stratnukes, Communist China will be able to become a nuclear superpower and establish rough nuclear parity with the US with as few as 1500 strategic nuclear warheads on as few as 300 MIRVd mobile ICBMs and SLBMs. The Heritage Foundation published a study a few years back which estimated that the ChiComs had the technological and industrial capacity to build as many as 1000 ICBMs within a decade or two time.
>
Meanwhile, Russia, which fields a nuclear arsenal FOUR TIMES LARGER THAN THE US is not about to disarm itself of its nuclear arsenal and therein lies the real nuclear threat. By 2011 when the Bush evisceration of our strategic nuclear deterrent is complete, the US will no longer be able to deter nuclear attack from Communist China, will no longer have a large enough arsenal to be called a nuclear superpower and Communist China, a staunch Russian ally will likely have a nuclear arsenal very nearly as large and potent as our own! The US will at best be outnumbered two nuclear superpowers to one. At worst, the US will be downgraded to regional power status, while Russia and Communist China use their superior nuclear offensive and strategic defensive forces to dominate the rest of the globe.

[rightwing2]

If you don't know what Russia is doing about advancing theirs it is huge. For your info it was POWELL under the inept Bush Sr. that got rid of the neutron bomb - all while the Chi-Coms are making many. This is treason in my mind.

Treason indeed, but it was not Bush-Powell who got rid of the neutron bomb for it was never built beyond the prototypes tested, not even by Reagan. Russia is the only country in the world which retains the ability to destroy the US as a country with their superior nuclear arsenal. While Russia has not done much to advance their nuclear arsenal, they have been doing a lot to maintain and extend the lifetimes of what they got and that makes the Bush unilateral nuclear disarmament plan nothing short of a policy of national suicide.

[Paul Ross]

Get real about the cites. Are you truly interested in reading any, or accepting any truths adverse to your 'cold war' 'anti-nuke' mindset.? So is your call for citations...(a standard Lefty parrying maneuever when out-debated, btw) merely lazy or are you adverse to reading...? E.g., any one of any depth on this web site knows and reads Alamo-Girls massive national security compendium in her site. It would also answer your question about how dire is the existing balance of power with the Chinese. They already are not really deterred. It is only a matter of time now before the balloon goes up.

[gcruse]

So is your call for citations...(a standard Lefty
parrying maneuever when out-debated, btw)

My goodness.  The vitriol.

Asking someone to substantiate their statements
is a sign of deviousness.....?

Swallowing allegations whole
is the mindset of the naive.

[Scholastic]

Thanks! Bump to Rummy on this matter.

[Looking for Diogenes]

How are the weapons cuts 'unilateral' if both Russia and the U.S. make them? Everything in the article points to these as 'bilateral' cuts.

[afuturegovernor]

Grow-up! Everybody that disagrees with you is not commenting treason. If you don't like the policy, then state so rationally why. Throwing around words like treason, the only crime defined by the Constitution, corrupts proper use of the word.

[Orion78]

"This is confirmation of what I have been saying all along. Our fine Secretary of Defense has been working behind the scenes for several months trying to fight Bush's unilateral nuclear disarmament measures passed over the objections of himself and many of our top generals and admirals including Admiral Mies, who commanded STRATCOM until late last year. Rumsfeld is trying to spare the US strategic nuclear deterrent from evisceration at the hands of President Bush and foil Bush's and Powell's attempts to appease the Russian demand that these unilateral nuclear disarmament 'cuts' be made irreversible. May God bless his efforts and the efforts of some of his top lieutenants at DoD to put the US national security interest first for a change becuase nobody else in the Bush Administration including former arms control opponent Dick Cheney seems to be willing to do so."

---

Rumsfeld Fights Making Bush Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament Measures Permanent
Posted on 4/29/02 12:53 PM Pacific by rightwing2

"WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his aides have been fighting a rearguard action against White House efforts to limit the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal in a treaty with Russia, senior administration officials contend.

At one point, President Bush had to order Rumsfeld to stop opposing a treaty now being negotiated that would limit the United States and Russia to deploying no more than 1,700 to 2,200 operational warheads each by 2012, said the senior officials, all four of whom spoke on condition of anonymity."

Russian Defector Warns US against Planned Unilateral Disarmament Measures
Posted on 07/19/01 10:30:43 PDT by rightwing2

"At the request of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, military analysts are currently developing a new defense strategy, due in September, which will sufficiently reduce American combat readiness, defense capabilities and effectiveness. While it's very difficult to predict what could happen to America's defenses after this new strategy is implemented, there is no doubt that from that time onward the U.S. military will no longer be prepared to wage two major wars simultaneously."

[rightwing2]

Here are some key excerpts (part only) from an article worth repeating which refutes both the statements of GEN Butler calling for the abolition of all US nuclear weapons and the radical unilateral nuclear disarmament initiatives of President Bush by the Commander-in-Chief of STRATCOM, Admiral Mies:

Nuclear Arms Chief Questions Cut In Warheads By Walter Pincus,
Washington Post Staff Writer
July 15, 2001

The commander of U.S. strategic nuclear forces has forcefully, though indirectly, challenged President Bush's plan to slash the number of warheads and take intercontinental ballistic missiles off "hair-trigger" alert. Bush has said repeatedly -- most recently in a May 4 speech at the National Defense University -- that he would like to move quickly to reduce U.S. nuclear forces, unilaterally if necessary.

Adm. Richard W. Mies, chief of the U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha, told a Senate subcommittee Wednesday that it is "naive and mistaken" to believe "that the 'nuclear danger' is directly proportional to the number of nuclear weapons and, accordingly, lower is inevitably better." There is "a tyranny in very deep numerical reductions that inhibits flexibility and induces instability in certain circumstances," Mies said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces. "Stability is the most important criterion as we assess further initiatives to reduce our strategic forces to the lowest levels consistent with national security."

Although Mies did not directly criticize the president's position, his remarks indicated that there is deep resistance in at least some parts of the military to reductions below 2,500 to 3,000 warheads, the level proposed during the Clinton administration for a possible third strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia. The United States now has about 7,000 warheads.

As the head of the Strategic Command, the admiral carries great weight inside the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has recently made two visits to Omaha to talk with Mies and other officers there as part of a review of strategic deterrence. Completion of that review, originally scheduled for this month, has been delayed until fall...

[rightwing2]

How are the weapons cuts 'unilateral' if both Russia and the U.S. make them? Everything in the article points to these as 'bilateral' cuts.

The cuts will only be bilateral if you trust the Russians to keep their agreement to reduce their nuclear arsenal below 2000 stratnukes. I don't. The Russians have broken every arms control treaty they have ever entered into with us. Why should we expect them to act differently when it is not in their interests to do so. Look, the Russians will take measures to feign compliance as with past treaties, but they will keep their missiles MIRVd and will retain cold-launched "refire" missiles and non-deployed nuclear missiles neither of which will be covered by the treaty. The truth is that the US has no idea how big the Russian nuclear arsenal really is. We can only make educated guesses, but the CIA estimated that they may have undercounted Russian strategic nukes by up to 4,000 warheads. The US has always embraced the minimum estimates for the Russian nuclear arsenal in the interests of furthering the arms control process and appeasing the Russians. This time will be no different.

[rightwing2]

Too bad Rumsfeld isn't president. Bush is either stupid or crazy. The Chinese are preparing for a war with us day and night, and Bush thinks it's just great for us to disarm. I fear we are now approaching the final days of America, and no one except Rumsfeld seems to give a damn.

I agree. Interestingly enough, I recently read a political analyst predict that Cheney would retire in 2004 due to health reasons and that Bush might choose Rumsfeld or one other guy probably Powell as his running mate for the 2004 election. If he chose Rumsfeld he would probably win, but if he chose Powell his conservative base would desert him en masse and the few extra liberal votes he got would be insufficient to put him over the top. Anyway, Rummy is definitely presidential material. As for Powell, he should have been fired for urging Bush to appease the ChiComs with the April 2001 EP-3 incident. Our apologies to the ChiCom hostagetakers were nothing less than humiliating.

[Paul Ross]

Yes when it is clearly a disengenuous ploy...as was yours, and as evidenced by your response. You merely prove that your intentions were in fact dishonorable. If you were serious, you would just be busy reading at AG's site, instead of riposting with spurious guilt-trippery.