Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: nuclear posture review

  • The Return of the Undead

    On March 9 and 10, the Los Angeles Times published some of the classified portions of the US Nuclear Posture Review presented to Congress on January 8. The two most important revelations from this document were: American plans for the possible use of nuclear weapons against a list of seven potential adversaries in the event of military conflict, and, closely related, proposals for the development of a new class of smaller nuclear weapons that would be “useable” against military targets with minimum civilian “collateral damage”.

    The notion of “useable” nuclear weapons is not recent, but like the Undead in an Anne Rice novel, just keeps resurfacing each generation when everyone thought it discredited. In the ’50’s and ’60’s, it was “battlefield” nuclear weapons. Two problems, their guidance systems were imprecise and they weren’t small enough to avoid getting your own guys.

    Then in the ’70’s there was the so-called “neutron bomb” (actually a mini – H-bomb), which NATO was going to deploy until forced to stop by public opinion (primarily German, this battle put the Green Party there on the map).

    Under Reagan, it was “escalation dominance”, in which “tactical” nukes were part of an overall strategy of strategic nuclear warfighting. Reagan’s confident public pronouncements that the US could “prevail” in a nuclear war gave birth to a massive new peace movement (those were the days when we got 100, 000 marching across the Burrard bridge).

    The point is that the twin notions of first – use and nuclear warfighting have been part of US doctrine since the beginning of the nuclear age (the Pentagon’s own documents now declassified in the National Security Archive prove this beyond any doubt).

    After the Cold War ended, most analysts assumed (especially given such dramatic battle proven advances in “smart” conventional weapons) that Clinton would move away from existing nuclear doctrine and abandon reliance on nuclear weapons. But after the fiasco over policy about gays in the military, and Clinton’s inability to keep his pants zipped, he never again took on the military on any issue and nuclear policy treaded water for eight years.

    Now the old gang is back, every retread from the Reagan, the Ford, and yea, even the Nixon Administration, and they are nuclear True Believers one and all. They’ve been certain that nuclear weapons are an essential political as well as military currency for the US since they were weaned.

    Ominously, this time around the technology will soon catch up with the concept, and, with a bit more testing, real nuclear warfighting will become “feasible” to the sort of people who populate the Bush Administration. So goodbye to the dream of nuclear disarmament, and hello to the ghost of General Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during much of the ’50’s and early’60’s. He once said to a reporter re: the Middle East and Vietnam that the President should “just nuke the gooks and ragheads”, and during the Cuban Missile Crisis he’s on tape as virtually calling Kennedy a coward to his face for not invading Cuba (which we now know would have triggered nuclear use). The Undead have returned to Washington once more, and are clearly in charge again.
    *Michael D. Wallace is Professor of Political Science and Faculty Fellow at the Simons Centre for Peace and Disarmament at the University of British Columbia.

  • The US Nuclear Posture Review: Putting the Promise of Disarmament on the Shelf

    The US Nuclear Posture Review: Putting the Promise of Disarmament on the Shelf

    The Bush administration has conducted the first Nuclear Posture Review since 1994, and has released a classified version of the report to Congress. The report, which has not been made public, provides an updated strategic nuclear plan for the United States. It helps to clarify Bush’s promise to President Putin to reduce the deployed US strategic nuclear arsenal by two-thirds to between 2,200 and 1,700 over a ten-year period.

    The Bush nuclear posture stands on three legs. First, deactivated nuclear weapons will be kept in storage rather than destroyed. Second, the nuclear weapons that are deactivated will be replaced by powerful and accurate conventional weapons. Third, missile defenses will be deployed ostensibly to protect the US from attack by a rogue state or terrorist.

    Despite the planned reductions in the nuclear arsenal, the Bush administration intends to retain a flexible responsive capability by putting a portion (perhaps most) of the deactivated warheads into storage, making them available for future use. The problem with this approach is that it will encourage the Russians to follow the same path and to also keep deactivated nuclear warheads in storage. This means that the promised disarmament will not be disarmament at all. It will not lead to the destruction of the nuclear warheads, nor will it be irreversible, as called for by the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It will be subject to reversal at any time for any reason, by the Russians as well as the US.

    In essence, the Bush administration is hedging its bets, and simply putting nuclear weapons on the inactive reserve list, ready to be activated should they decide circumstances warrant doing so. It is sending a message to the Russians that we do not trust them and that we do not intend to any longer follow the path of irreversible reductions in the nuclear arsenals of the two countries set forth in verifiable treaties. The Russians will likely follow our lead and also put deactivated nuclear weapons into reserve stocks, where they will be subject to diversion by terrorists. This would be highly unfortunate since the Russians would prefer to make the nuclear reductions permanent and irreversible.

    The new nuclear posture also calls for cutting down the time necessary to reinstate a full-scale US nuclear testing program should the administration decide to do so. This also fits the pattern of flexible response. According to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, “Recognizing that the world can change in dangerous and unpredictable ways, we are putting more emphasis than we have in the last 10 or 15 years on that underlying infrastructure that allows you, including in the nuclear area, to rebuild capabilities or build new ones if the world changes.”

    A second factor driving the Bush administration’s nuclear posture is its belief that conventional weapons now have the capability to replace nuclear weapons in deterring an enemy from attacking. Again, according to Mr. Wolfowitz, “We’re looking at a transformation of our deterrence posture from an almost exclusive emphasis on offensive nuclear forces to a force that includes defenses as well as offenses, that includes conventional strike capabilities as well as nuclear strike capability.” It is anticipated that many of the nuclear warheads being placed in storage will be replaced, particularly on the submarine force, by highly accurate, precision-guided conventional warheads, capable of doing enormous damage.

    A third factor figuring prominently in the Bush administration’s nuclear posture is its plan to deploy missile defenses. Over the continuing objections of Russia, China and many US allies, President Bush has made clear that he intends to move forward with deployment of ballistic missile defenses that will violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. In December, President Bush gave formal notice to the Russians that the US will withdraw from this treaty in six months.

    The Bush administration argues that withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and deployment of ballistic missile defenses will make the US safer, but this is a very unlikely proposition. Instead, it makes the Russians nervous about US intentions, and this nervousness must be increased by the Nuclear Posture Review’s emphasis on retaining the deactivated US nuclear warheads in storage. US deployment of ballistic missile defenses will also force the Chinese to expand their nuclear deterrent force with increased targeting of the US. Increases in the Chinese nuclear arsenal may also touch off a new nuclear arms race in Asia.

    The bottom line of the new US nuclear posture is that it is built on smoke and mirrors. It will reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons, but it will put them on the shelf ready to be reinstated on short notice. It will also retain enough nuclear weapons to destroy any country and annihilate its people. Recent computer-based estimates generated by the Natural Resources Defense Council indicate that eliminating Russia as a country would take 51 nuclear weapons and China would require 368 due to its large population. On the other hand, the US could be destroyed as a country with 124 nuclear weapons and all NATO countries, including the US, could be destroyed with approximately 300 nuclear warheads.

    The recent Nuclear Posture Review tells us that US policymakers are still thinking that nuclear weapons make us safer, when, in fact, they remain weapons capable of destroying us. Their desire to retain flexibility is in reality a recipe for ending four decades of arms control. Their push for ballistic missile defenses is a formula for assuring that US taxpayers enrich defense contractors while diverting defense expenditures from protecting against very real terrorist threats. The Bush promise of nuclear weapons reductions turns out to be a policy for missing the real opportunities of the post Cold War period to not only shelve these weapons but eliminate them forever.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Press Release Regarding the the January 9 Nuclear Posture Review

    Issued January 2002

    On 9 January, the US Department of Defense released a classified version of the first Congressionally mandated Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). It is the first NPR since 1994. Building on the Quadrennial Defense Review released in September 2001, the NPR provides a blueprint for the changing role of US strategic nuclear forces with as few treaty restrictions as possible.

    Despite international obligations to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons under Article VI of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the NPR upholds nuclear weapons as central to US national security policy. Following on Bush’s pledge at the Crawford Summit in November, the NPR calls for unilaterally reducing strategic warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 over the next ten years. However, the proposal would simply put the deactivated warheads in storage, making them available for future use. The US will also maintain the capability to modify existing or develop new nuclear weapons.

    The NPR also notes that the Bush administration will not change its position on nuclear testing. While for the time being the Bush administration will continue to adhere to the moratorium on full-scale nuclear testing, it will also continue to oppose ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The NPR does not make a formal recommendation to resume nuclear testing, however it calls on the Department of Energy to accelerate the time it would take to prepare a full scale test, which is currently two years.

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, stated, “The recent Nuclear Posture Review tells us that US policymakers are still thinking that nuclear weapons make us safer, when, in fact, they remain weapons capable of destroying us. Their desire to retain flexibility is in reality a recipe for ending four decades of arms control. Their push for ballistic missile defenses is a formula for assuring that US taxpayers enrich defense contractors while diverting defense expenditures from protecting against very real terrorist threats. The Bush promise of nuclear weapons reductions turns out to be a policy for missing the real opportunities of the post Cold War period to not only shelve these weapons but eliminate them forever.”

    The NPR announces a New Triad in which the traditional strategic nuclear triad will become a subset bolstered by missile defenses, advanced conventional weapons, and improved command, control and intelligence capabilities to increase the US deterrent capability. Although Russia, China and even some allies oppose US plans to develop and deploy missile defenses, the NPR reaffirms the US resolve to move forward with missile defenses regardless of international consequences.