Bunker
Busters: Washington's Drive
for New Nuclear Weapons
-
-
- By Mark
Bromley and David Grahame
-
-
Already
strained on a range of issues, the transatlantic relationship
will be further tested by a budget request currently moving through
Congress. Washington is considering allocating money for the development
of new, more useable nuclear weapons to use against hardened and
deeply buried targets (HDBTs). This could dramatically lower the
threshold for nuclear use and threaten the nuclear testing moratorium.
The
Bush administrations nuclear policy gained public attention
in March when the Nuclear
Posture Review (NPR) was leaked to the press. The Review,
the first of its kind since 1994, sparked strong responses from
U.S. opponents and from many quarters in Europe as well. In particular,
its request for contingency plans to be drawn up for the use of
nuclear weapons against Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria,
Russia and China was seen by some as another example of a hyperpower
giddy with its own supremacy.
But is the image of Dr Strangelove retaking control of the U.S.
military justified? In truth, many of the NPRs recommendations
were already part of U.S. nuclear policy before President George
W. Bush came to power. Contingency plans for the use of nuclear
weapons against rogue states have existed since President
Bill Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 60 in 1997.
In this respect, the 2002 NPR mainly served to make more explicit
what was already present in U.S. nuclear policy. But the Review
does recommend that the United States develop new nuclear weapons
to tackle HDBTs. This would introduce a new and more dangerous
element into U.S. nuclear policy.
Concern over the development of underground facilities has grown
considerably since Saddam Hussein used them to considerable effect
during the Gulf War. Since September 11, fears about the possession
of weapons of mass destruction by rogue states and
non-state actors has pushed the issue further up Washingtons
agenda. An October 2001 Pentagon report estimates over 10,000
HDBTs exist worldwide, and while only a tiny proportion are of
strategic significance, it anticipates a significant increase
in that number in the coming decade.
Using
nuclear weapons to destroy HDBTs gained favour among certain military
planners during the 1990s as the Pentagon sought new justification
for retaining its nuclear arsenal in the Post-Cold War world.
With the arrival of George Bush, a number of strong proponents
of nuclear arsenals were appointed to key positions and pushed
new nuclear weapons development even higher on the political agenda.
Reflecting their influence, the NPR argues that current
U.S. technological capabilities, either conventional or nuclear,
are unable to defeat all types of HDBTs.
Because current conventional weapons may not be able to achieve
the complete destruction of HDBTs, the NPR supports the further
development of US nuclear capabilities. More specifically, it
calls for a feasibility study on modifying an existing nuclear
warhead, and the Department of Energys budget request for
2003 includes $15.5 million of funding to begin work on a Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator. This is likely to be created by
modifying an existing warhead. In June the Republican-controlled
House of Representatives approved the funding but the Senate subsequently
voted to block it, leaving the issue unresolved until a House-Senate
conference. Once initial funding has been secured for the
new weapon, the program will rapidly gain momentum and become
extremely difficult to cancel. Congressional action in the coming
weeks to block this initiative is therefore essential.
With the NPR and the budget request for the upcoming fiscal year,
a clear signal has been sent. While the White House has grabbed
the headlines with its U.S.-Russian Treaty of Moscow signed in
late May, behind the scenes the proponents of new nuclear capabilities
have gained the upper hand. Developing new weapons to targer HDBTs
could signal the beginning of an ongoing process of expanding
the U.S. nuclear arsenal and widening the range of missions it
is designed to perform.
-
-
The implications are stark.
New nuclear weapons may mean
a return to nuclear testing by the United States for the first
time since 1992. The Bush administration is strongly opposed to
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and has made it clear
that it has no intention of ratifying the agreement, which President
Clinton signed in 1996. Unsatisfied with this stance, Pentagon
hawks are reportedly pushing President Bush to go even further
by withdrawing the U.S. signature from the treaty. Washington
has already set the precedent for withdrawal by removing its signature
from the Rome Statute forming the International Criminal Court.
If Washington decides to proceed with the development of a new
nuclear weapon it would bring the United States one step closer
to a resumption of nuclear testing.This
would do serious damage to wider arms control structures like
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT). Already severely strained by a range of issues,
countries around the world would likely walk away from the NPT
if the United Sttes resumes nuclear testing.
Secondly, indications that the United States is increasing the
role of low-yield nuclear weapons in its military planning will
seriously damage efforts to block to tackle the
stark proliferation threat posed by Russias
vast arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons currently
estimated to number between 4,000 and 12,000 warheads. The recent
arms control treaty signed in Moscow by Presidents Bush and Vladimir
Putin focused purely on strategic warheads without confronting
this dangerous excess of tactical weapons.U.S. actions re-emphasizing
the importance of low-yield nuclear weapons will severely undermine
any incentive Russia has to place further controls on its tactical
arsenal, thus causing further deterioration in an already dangerous
situation.
With tensions and the
threat of nuclear war high on the Indian subcontinent, Washington
should be doing all it can to emphasise the limited value of nuclear
weapons, rather than their efficacy. But the Bush administration
seems intent on sending the entirely wrong message, developing
new, more useable nuclear weapons. It is incumbent upon U.S. allies
around the world to strengthen the voices in the U.S. Congress
who are opposed to this.
-
-
-
-
-
Mark
Bromley is a security analyst at the British American Security
Information Council (BASIC) and the co-author of a new report
Bunker Busters: Washingtons Drive For New Nuclear Weapons
available at http://www.basicint.org
-
-
-
©
2002 New York University. All Rights Reserved. The Global Beat
Syndicate, a service of New York University's Center for War,
Peace, and the News Media, provides editors with commentary and
perspective articles on critical global issues from contributors
around the world. For more information, check out http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/.
-
-
|
- Report
to Congress on the Defeat of Hard and Deeply Buried Targets,
Submitted by the Secretary of Defense in Conjunction with the Secretary
of Energy
- B61-11
Concerns and Backgrounds, from the Los Alamos Study Group
- Excerpts
from the Nuclear Posture Review, from GlobalSecurity.org
- Letter
to President Bush,
from Representatives opposing the development of a new generation
of low-yield nuclear weapons and the resumption of underground nuclear
testing.
- Union
of Concerned Scientists Action Center, calling on Congress to
eliminate funding for study and development of the Robust Nuclear
Earth Penetrator
- Text
of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT)
- Preparatory
Commission for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization
(CTBTO)
-
Committee
on Technical Issues Related to Ratification of the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,
National Academy of Sciences, 2002
- Text
of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), from the Arms Control
Association
- Text
of the 13 Practical Steps, from the Acronym Institute
-
Information
Page on the NPT, from BASIC
- Russias
Military Doctrine, from the Arms Control Association
- Russias
National Security Concept,
from the Arms Control Association
- Uncovered
Nukes: Arms Control and the Challenge of Tactical Nuclear Weapons,
Fourth Freedom Forum Policy Briefing by Alistair Millar and Brian
Alexander
- Documentation
and Statements on the Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Tests in 1998,
from the Acronym Institute
- Indias
Nuclear Forces 2002,
from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
- Pakistans
Nuclear Forces 2001, from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
|