US Nuclear Plan Signals a Policy Revolution
San Jose Mercury News - March 17, 2002
San Jose Mercury News - March 17, 2002
By Jane Wales
Center for Arms Control Board Member
On the day in September that changed the world, the rage of others caused us to reflect on what makes Americans distinctive. We are pragmatic, principled and proud. Our leaders told us we would combat terror in ways that would not diminish us as a nation. We stood united, not simply by a common enemy, but by a commitment to one another and to the rule of law.
In the six months since Sept. 11, the character of the American people has not changed. But our governmental policies have. We stand on the verge of a policy revolution. The scope of change
It will be up to all of us to determine the wisdom of this revolution. We will need to answer two fundamental questions: Will these policies achieve their intended objectives -- and do they accurately reflect who we are?
The globalized war against terror has taken our military forces to Afghanistan, and now on to Yemen, the Philippines and Georgia. In the war's "second stage," plans are under consideration for toppling the government of Iraq. Here at home, we have detained some 1200 immigrants to try to root out would-be terrorists and accomplices.
With the disclosure last weekend of the Nuclear Posture Review, we have learned that our government has redefined our relationship with nuclear weapons. Always a reluctant steward, the United States now embraces these devices as instruments of war-fighting meant to give us the advantage in an otherwise conventional war.
The Pentagon plan describes a shift in nuclear doctrine that would change our procedures in ways that could increase the chance of accidental or unintended use. And, by naming non-nuclear nations that we would strike under certain circumstances, it creates incentives for them to go nuclear to deter us from using the bomb. As each successive country joins the nuclear club, the stakes are raised.
For those reasons, the plan may increase the danger it seeks to remove: a nuclear attack on the United States, its friends or allies.
But equally disturbing is what the plan does to our image around the world. It portrays the United States in ways most Americans would not recognize: as a state that operates in defiance of international norms, unconstrained by multilateral agreements, and in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the freedom to use them.
The Pentagon plan is a classified document that was given to the Congress in January. It offers a blueprint and rationale for U.S. nuclear weapons policy. It provides the basis for military planning and strategic targeting. It reflects decisions about the weapons we will acquire, the arms control policies we will pursue, and the military obligations we will undertake.
The President could still reject it. But much of the funding needed for its initial implementation is contained in the budget that Congress approved. And the document reflects many of the policy statements the President has publicly made.
The Bush administration contends that the review
It offers a new role for nuclear weapons
Heres' how: It offers a new role for nuclear weapons
While the policy review would reduce the overall number of nuclear weapons, it expands the conditions under which they could be used. In the past, these weapons were used solely to deter -- or to attack when our survival, or that of our allies, was at stake. But this plan assigns an elaborate war-fighting role to nuclear weapons.
The plan directs the military to prepare to use nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological attack; against hardened targets able to withstand conventional bombardment; or in the event "of surprising military developments"--an almost inevitable occurrence in the midst of ongoing conflict.
This final contingency is a novel and open invitation to integrate nuclear forces into battlefield plans.
The document reflects a firm belief that deterrence is no longer relevant to the threats we face. In one chilling phrase, "nuclear attack optionswould complement other military capabilities," the review blurs the distinction between weapons of last resort and conventional weaponry, reversing a long-held tradition.
For 50 years, successive Presidents have sought to differentiate between nuclear and other arms, in recognition of the devastating effects of nuclear bombs. President Truman went so far as to place our nuclear arsenal under the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission, rather than the Pentagon.
New weapons for new roles
The Energy Department--which absorbed the Atomic Energy Commission-- remains the steward of U.S. nuclear forces. And, with the concurrence of the military, presidents had gradually reduced our nuclear reliance, by assigning these weapons a limited role. By offering a variety of options for nuclear use, this Nuclear Posture Review suggests a reversal of that trend. New weapons for new roles
The document calls for the development of weapons that could be employed in the type of preemptive attack the Pentagon envisions. New, earth-penetrating weapons could be used to destroy hardened bunkers of the sort used by Iraq and perhaps North Korea. And, improved guidance systems would be developed to assure greater precision in a surgical strike. The Pentagon even contemplates having Special Operations forces gather on-the-ground intelligence to be used in orchestrating a combined nuclear and conventional assault.
Testing needed to develop new weapons
Without explaining how to predictably confine radiation effects from nuclear weapons, the plan depends on technological breakthroughs that would limit such "collateral" damage. Testing needed to develop new weapons
The Nuclear Posture review would require a resumption of nuclear weapons testing in order to develop new arms. Resuming testing would break a six year-long moratorium, encouraging others, like China, to follow suit.
The moratorium was meant to pave the way for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was signed by the US but never ratified. It was one of many arms control agreements initially championed by the United States but rejected by this President as relics of a previous age. Their purpose was to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Signals that non-nuclear nations could be attacked
Such treaties were also part of a larger push by arms control advocates to stop proliferation by stigmatizing nuclear devices as both militarily useless and morally repugnant. Pentagon plans would take us in the opposite direction, increasing their perceived value as weapons of war. Signals that non-nuclear nations could be attacked
The Nuclear Posture Review identifies several non-nuclear and near-nuclear countries that might be the object of a preemptive attack, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and North Korea. It thereby removes the promise of the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that nuclear weapons would never be used against non-nuclear states, unless those nations were acting in concert with a nuclear power
The plan not only removes that disincentive those states had for pursuing a nuclear capability, it creates a compelling argument for them to rapidly "go nuclear" in their scramble deter us from using the bomb.
Calls for mingling conventional and nuclear arms
While the Nuclear Posture Review may be a contingency plan from the Pentagon's perspective, non-nuclear countries may feel they've been put on notice that we are willing to attack them. They may conclude they have no choice but to join the nuclear club. Calls for mingling conventional and nuclear arms
The plan calls for a "new Triad" comprised of more flexible offensive nuclear arms, increasingly advanced conventional weapons and anti-ballistic missile systems to defend against retaliation. By trying to create a useable mix of offensive and defensive weapons, the Pentagon is signaling that it believes it can launch a preemptive strike without fear that our nuclear foes would retain the capacity to respond.
Throughout the nuclear age, we have known that if either side has the ability to attack without fear of retaliation, the advantage goes to whichever strikes first. Once the United States has this combination of offensive and defensive weaponry
This raises the risk of unintended or unauthorized nuclear launch, something we and other responsible powers have always worked to avoid.
Ironically, the Pentagon developed this ground-breaking plan because of concerns about renegade states and non-state actors who play by their own rules. The fear is that they will be unconstrained by traditional calculations of cost and benefit, and therefore cannot be deterred.
Yet that is the picture of America that this planning document paints -- a picture of a power that makes its own rules, sheds its treaty obligations, and is immune to the logic of assured destruction. When combined with the pledge to project power any place, anywhere and to use that power to topple regimes, an image emerges of pax Americana -- a world in which we impose our own peace, in our own way, and on our own terms.
From the perspective of those who make and carry out policy, the appeal of this approach is evident. It frees them from the constraints of collaborative decision-making and expands their options greatly. But can we function in this fashion without raising the danger we hope to avert?
In recent years, many policy makers have argued that we should engage renegade states that concern us--that we should embed them in international regimes, hold them to international standards of behavior, and require that they play by the rules. In other words, we should persuade them to be more like us. This document, combined with the President's pronouncements, may give the false impression that we have chosen instead to be more like them.
Whether the policy choices made are consistent with both our interests and our values as a nation are questions only an educated public can answer.
In a democracy, we count on one another to be informed, to challenge, to teach, and to choose wisely. Our security depends on it.
Jane Wales is the former Associate Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Senior Director of the National Security Council. She is now President and CEO of the World Affairs Council of Northern California.