September 6, 2002 © 2002 New York University. All Rights Reserved.

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 administration’s 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 NPR’s 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 Washington’s 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 Energy’s 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 Russia’s 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: Washington’s 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/.

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
 

Home | About | Archives | Advisors | Staff