United States: Congress Battles Over Bush Nuclear Agenda

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Congress should lift restrictions and authorize an aggressive program for developing new nuclear weapons, said a report released yesterday by congressional Republicans.

The report, Differentiation and Defense: An Agenda for the Nuclear Weapons Program, was released by Representative Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), who chairs the Republican-controlled House Policy Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs. It adds a voice to a growing Washington debate over controversial Bush administration policies regarding nuclear weapons and the potential use of force against Iraq (see GSN, March 11, 2002).

The report specifically advocates waiving a 1993 congressional prohibition on researching weapons with yields less than five kilotons and calls for an “advanced development program” for new nuclear capabilities.

It urges the United States to aggressively develop new, lower-yield nuclear weapons for battlefield use, which advocates argue would be more practical because they might result in fewer civilian casualties than strategic weapons currently in the U.S. arsenal.

The report also says the president should have the option of using “nuclear weapons that are capable of holding all targets at risk,” including deep and hardened bunkers.

The United States would be “more likely to avoid war, control the escalation of a conflict, or end a conflict on terms acceptable to us,” if the United States “develops a variety of capabilities” for holding at risk what other countries value, the report says.

The issue arose elsewhere on Capitol Hill yesterday, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld restated the longstanding U.S. policy to never rule out the possible use of nuclear weapons.

“Our policy historically has been generally that we will not foreclose the possible use of nuclear weapons if attacked,” Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee in a hearing to discuss the Pentagon’s budget request.

Regarding the possibility of war in Iraq, however, Rumsfeld said, “We have every confidence that in the event force is to be used in Iraq, that we can do what needs to be done using conventional capabilities.”

Critics charged that the House committee report’s recommended measures would undermine international nonproliferation efforts.

“Coupled with the news that Secretary Rumsfeld refuses to rule out the use of U.S. nuclear weapons in Iraq, this report reveals a truly frightening GOP vision of national security policy, which would abrogate our Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitments to reduce, not increase, reliance on nuclear weapons,” said Representative Tom Allen (D-Maine) in a statement released yesterday.

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the administration’s consideration of using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear Iraq in a looming war could have severe negative global repercussions.

“I’m concerned that the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq, in the absence of an imminent, overwhelmingly threat to our national security, would bring a near total breakdown in our relations between the United States and the rest of the world, particularly with regards to the Arab world,” he said.

The House committee report also endorses the Bush administration’s new policy of anticipatory self-defense, which holds that a state can attack another anticipating that the other might one day pose a threat (see GSN, Sept. 20).

In support of the doctrine, the report says, “the United States must further develop tools to detect, defeat or disrupt weapons of mass destruction before they can be used.”

The Bush administration, in a national security strategy document released last year, advocated a change in the international legal understanding that pre-emptive force could only be used if a threat was imminent (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2002). The change would help justify a possible war on Iraq over its suspected WMD development and stockpiles.

“Possession of weapons of mass destruction alone is not sufficient justification for military action. Possession combined with evidence of the intent to use those weapons is sufficient,” the committee’s report argues.

Senate Democrats at yesterday’s hearing charged that the administration’s nuclear weapons policies would encourage other countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Referring to the administration’s request for funding research on the lower-yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) asked:

“If the United States sends signals that we’re considering new uses for nuclear weapons, isn’t it more likely that other nations will also want to explore greater use or new uses for nuclear weapons, and that other nations won’t listen to our pleas to stay non-nuclear or to stay in the Nonproliferation Treaty, but rather would say, “Well, you’re even relying more — you’re looking at new ways to use nuclear weapons. Why shouldn’t we?”

“The world is experiencing an enormous amount of underground tunneling and activities, activities underground that are for production, that are for manufacturing, that are for development, for storage [of weapons of mass destruction],” he said.

“And the problem of not having visibility into them, and when one has visibility, not having the ability to penetrate and reach them, creates a very serious obstacle to the U.S. national security,” he said.

Noting a recent Los Angeles Times story that the administration has developed plans for possibly using nuclear weapons against Iraq (see GSN, Jan. 27), Kennedy suggested that such a move would “violate a long-held commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of not attacking non-nuclear states that are not aligned with nuclear states” (see GSN, Feb. 22, 2002).

Rumsfeld said the administration’s approach was in line with a general, historical U.S. policy “not to rule out various options.”

He said there was a need for the Pentagon to draw up a variety of plans, but said the United States has and will continue to maintain a very high standard for using nuclear weapons.

“You’ve raised a very sensitive subject, and the implication of it, from the article, is that there’s a likelihood that nuclear weapons would be used. And I think that implication is an unfortunate one,” Rumsfeld said.

Critics have charged that the Bush administration — with its nuclear weapons, missile defense, and pre-emption policies — is turning its back on global arms control and nonproliferation by selecting arms control agreements and initiatives it supports, and rejecting approaches that constrain U.S. military capabilities.

The House report addresses such criticism, declaring the United States has reached “the end of arms control” with the former Soviet Union, as tensions have lowered.

It says, further, “there are limited opportunities for strengthening arms control regimes in the areas of most concern,” since the current countries of concern are not interested in mutual restraint.

The report says arms control “is not an end in itself … It is a tool to enhance security.”

David Culp, an analyst with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, disputed those arguments.

“North Korea has repeatedly asked to negotiate with the United States and we’re refusing to do it,” he said, adding that the Bush administration was making no effort to meet with Iran about its nuclear and missile programs.

The administration wants “to see a return to the nuclear arms race, and that’s what they’re advocating,” Culp said.

“We’ve got the worst crisis of nuclear proliferation in decades, and it’s because the United States is threatening the first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states,” he said.

I have a gut feeling that the Bush Administration has found a few ways to circumvent congressional restrictions on some of this stuff. I've heard some credible reports of nuclear bunker busters being developed and tested despite the current restrictions.

Critics charged that the House committee report’s recommended measures would undermine international nonproliferation efforts.

Nuclear deterence and the concept of "Mutual Assured Destruction" served us well during the Cold War period. However the non-proliferation treaties that followed are proving to be well-intentioned, bu unenforceable scraps of paper. Convinced that the nuclear powers will not strike first, tinhorn tyrants develop nuclear capabilities as a means of nuclear blackmail, amplifying the threat of their despotic regimes.

Nobody wants to initiate nuclear warfare, but a policy facilitating a nuclear preemptive strike strongly merits consideration. The lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while well documented, will soon pass from living memory into history. Perhaps the only way to deter the aspirations of 21st Century tyrant wannabes is a firsthand demonstration of the consequences.

I agree. A major danger here is North Korea, who are the useful idiots for China. NK is getting more brazen and we need to take action against countries who would launch a nuclear weapon at us because they think that they have nothing to lose or because they think that they can get away with it.

We have got to stop weapons development in NK, Pakistan, China, and other countries that would sell nuclear weapons to al-Qaeda.

If you're going to fight, then don't hold back. Screw urban combat. Demonstrate a 20 kton device on the outskirts of Baghdad and give'm 48 hours to evacuate or surrender.

World Opinion isn't worth the life of even one of our soldiers.

I'm just ticked cause they shutdown underground testing about the time I got to Livermore. I hear it was good fun.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.