U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms\n\n\n\n\n\r\n<\/p>
Published on Saturday, March 9, 2002 in the Los Angeles Times \r\n \r\n<\/i><\/div><\/td><\/tr> U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms Administration, in a Secret Report, Calls for a Strategy\nAgainst at Least Seven Nations: China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya\nand Syria <\/b><\/div><\/td><\/tr> by Paul Richter<\/b><\/div><\/td><\/tr> <\/td><\/tr> | \n WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare\ncontingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries\nand to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations,\naccording to a classified Pentagon report obtained by the Los Angeles Times. | \r\n \r\n<\/td><\/tr>\r\n<\/table>\r\nThe secret report,\nwhich was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared\nto use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya\nand Syria. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations:\nagainst targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack\nwith nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or \"in the event of surprising\nmilitary developments.\"\r\n A copy of the report\nwas obtained by defense analyst and Times contributor William Arkin. His\ncolumn on the contents appears in Sunday's editions. <\/p>\r\n Officials have long acknowledged\nthat they had detailed nuclear plans for an attack on Russia. However, this\n\"Nuclear Posture Review\" apparently marks the first time that an official\nlist of potential target countries has come to light, analysts said. Some\npredicted the disclosure would set off strong reactions from governments\nof the target countries.<\/p>\r\n \"This is dynamite,\" said\nJoseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International\nPeace in Washington. \"I can imagine what these countries are going to be\nsaying at the U.N.\" Arms control advocates said the report's directives on\ndevelopment of smaller nuclear weapons could signal that the Bush administration\nis more willing to overlook a long-standing taboo against the use of nuclear\nweapons except as a last resort. They warned that such moves could dangerously\ndestabilize the world by encouraging other countries to believe that they,\ntoo, should develop weapons.<\/p>\r\n \"They're trying desperately\nto find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to\ndeterrence,\" said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World.\n\"This is very, very dangerous talk . . . Dr. Strangelove is clearly still\nalive in the Pentagon.\"<\/p>\r\n But some conservative\nanalysts insisted that the Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies,\nespecially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are\nengaged in secret weapon development programs.<\/p>\r\n They argued that smaller\nweapons have an important deterrent role because many aggressors might not\nbelieve that the U.S. forces would use multi-kiloton weapons that would wreak\ndevastation on surrounding territory and friendly populations.<\/p>\r\n \"We need to have a credible\ndeterrence against regimes involved in international terrorism and development\nof weapons of mass destruction,\" said Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at\nthe conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. He said the contents\nof the report did not surprise him and represent \"the right way to develop\na nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world.\"<\/p>\r\n A spokesman for the Pentagon, Richard McGraw, declined to comment because the document is classified.<\/p>\r\n Congress requested the\nreassessment of the U.S. nuclear posture in September 2000. The last such\nreview was conducted in 1994 by the Clinton administration. The new report,\nsigned by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, is now being used by the\nU.S. Strategic Command to prepare a nuclear war plan.<\/p>\r\n Bush administration officials\nhave publicly provided only sketchy details of the nuclear review. They have\npublicly emphasized the parts of the policy suggesting that the administration\nwants to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.<\/p>\r\n Since the Clinton administration's\nreview is also classified, no specific contrast can be drawn. However, analysts\nportrayed this report as representing a break with earlier policy.<\/p>\r\n U.S. policymakers have\ngenerally indicated that the United States would not use nuclear weapons\nagainst nonnuclear states unless they were allied with nuclear powers. They\nhave left some ambiguity about whether the United States would use nuclear\nweapons in retaliation after strikes with chemical or nuclear weapons.<\/p>\r\n The report says the Pentagon\nshould be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in\na war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on the south.\nThey might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another\nneighbor, it said.<\/p>\r\n The report says Russia\nis no longer officially an \"enemy.\" Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian\narsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed warheads and perhaps 10,000\nsmaller \"theater\" nuclear weapons, remains of concern.<\/p>\r\n Pentagon officials have\nsaid publicly that they were studying the need to develop theater nuclear\nweapons, designed for use against specific targets on a battlefield, but\nhad not committed themselves to that course.<\/p>\r\n Officials have often\nspoken of the advantages of using nuclear weapons to destroy the deep tunnel\nand cave complexes that many regimes have been building, especially since\nthe Persian Gulf War of 1991. Nuclear weapons give off powerful shock waves\nthat can crush structures deep in the Earth, they point out.<\/p>\r\n Officials argue that\nlarge nuclear arms have so many destructive side effects, from blast to heat\nand radiation, that they become \"self-deterring.\" They contend the Pentagon\nneeds \"full spectrum deterrence\"--that is, a full range of weapons that potential\nenemies believe might be used against them.<\/p>\r\n The Pentagon was actively\ninvolved in planning for use of tactical nuclear weapons as recently as the\n1970s. But it has moved away from them in the last two decades.<\/p>\r\n Analysts said the report's\nreference to \"surprising military developments\" referred to the Pentagon's\nfears that a rogue regime or terrorist group might suddenly unleash a wholly\nunknown weapon that was difficult to counter with the conventional U.S. arsenal.<\/p>\r\n The administration has\nproposed cutting the offensive nuclear arsenal by about two-thirds, to between\n1,700 and 2,200 missiles, within 10 years. Officials have also said they\nwant to use precision guided conventional munitions in some missions that\nmight have previously been accomplished with nuclear arms.<\/p>\r\n But critics said the report contradicts suggestions the Bush administration wants to cut the nuclear role.<\/p>\r\n \"This clearly makes nuclear weapons a tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them,\" said Cirincione.\n<\/p>\r\n Copyright 2002 LA Times<\/p>\r\n ###<\/p>\r\n\n\n\n\n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/commondreams.org\/","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"\"They're trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence,\" said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World. \"This is very, very dangerous talk . . . Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon.\"","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2002\/03\/comm.html","filesize":"9.4 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2002\/03\/15432.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]} |