|
|
|
|
Taken from
-Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, May 2003
The complete text, including the administration argument for new nuclear weapons and the arguments against from military personnel and scientists, and quotes from Members of Congress can be found at: Briefing Book
"Demonstrating a significant shift in America¼s nuclear strategy, the Bush Administration intends to produce - not just research - a thermonuclear bunker-buster to destroy hardened, deeply buried targets, the Pentagon has acknowledged for the first time . . . Fred Celec, the deputy assistant to the secretary of defense for nuclear matters, made clear that the administration wants the weapon and is moving forward. If a hydrogen bomb can be successfully designed to survive a crash through hard rock or concrete and still explode, 'It will ultimately get fielded,' Celec said in an interview with the Mercury News." San Jose Mercury News - April 2003
The Bush Administration has taken a number of steps toward building a new generation of nuclear weapons, resuming nuclear weapons explosive testing and using nuclear weapons in future conflicts.
There are three issues before Congress this year related to new nuclear weapons as it considers the annual authorization and appropriations bills:
1. The Administration is requesting that Congress repeal a law passed in 1993 barring research and development on low-yield (less than five kiloton) nuclear weapons.
2. The Administration is requesting $15 million for research on a nuclear bunker buster, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, plus $6 million for „advanced concept initiatives.¾
3. The Administration is seeking $25 million to reduce the amount of time it takes to carry out a technically significant nuclear test explosion from the current 24 - 36 months to 18 months. . . .
These requests follow a number of Bush Administration actions and pronouncements on nuclear weapons:
1. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review suggested possible first use of nuclear weapons against countries without nuclear weapons (Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran) and in non-nuclear situations, such as a North Korean attack on South Korea or a confrontation with China over Taiwan.
2. The 2002 National Security Presidential Directive, known as NSPD-17, made explicit a previously ambiguous policy that the U.S. may use nuclear weapons in response to the use of weapons of mass destruction against our forces.
3. This year, the National Nuclear Security Administration in the Department of Energy will launch a study scheduled to be concluded in 2006 on building a nuclear bunker buster.
4. In October 2002, the Nuclear Weapons Council, an Executive Branch committee, suggested that "it would also be desirable to assess the potential benefits that could be obtained from a return to nuclear testing."
5. The Administration refuses to ask Congress to reconsider the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, rejected by the Senate in 1999. Some Administration officials have reportedly proposed that the U.S. withdraw its signature from the treaty.
REASONS FOR REFRAINING FROM BUILDING NEW NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR FINDING NEW USES FOR THEM:
1. The Administration risks blurring the bright line that has existed since 1945 between the use of conventional and nuclear weapons and lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.
2. Even small nuclear weapons would kick up immense piles of radioactive debris that can drift for miles on the wind and cause many civilian casualties and deaths.
3. Nuclear weapons use could jeopardize U.S. and allied troops in the vicinity of the explosion.
4. Other countries may follow the U.S. example and consider building or expanding their nuclear weapons stockpiles.
5. New nuclear weapons are not needed; the war in Iraq demonstrated the efficacy of precision guided conventional munitions to destroy targets and weapons;
6. A nuclear attack on chemical or biological weapons stockpiles could cause the release of those agents.
7. Because of their smaller size, low-yield nuclear weapons are considered vulnerable to theft by terrorists.
8. Development of new nuclear weapons could create a justification for the resumption of nuclear testing.
9. The U.S. already has more than ample numbers of nuclear weapons, including 6,000 deployed strategic nuclear weapons and more than 10,000 deployed or reserve nuclear weapons.
ADMINISTRATION ARGUMENTS FOR NEW NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Arguments for building the nuclear bunker buster
1. Existing weapons cannot destroy bunkers buried deeply underground, and may not be able to destroy stockpiles of chemical or biological agents.
2. Foreign leaders are not deterred by current U.S. nuclear weapons because they do not believe the President will use them. If we develop a „usable¾ nuclear weapon, the leaders will be more convinced.
3. The U.S. is taking steps at the same time to reduce its deployed strategic nuclear force by about two-thirds from today¼s level.
Arguments for eliminating the 1993 law
1. The 1993 law impedes U.S. research into more effective nuclear weapons to attack deeply buried bunkers.
2. The law has had a 'chilling effect' on the U.S. ability to explore the full range of technical options of nuclear weapons.
3. A revitalized nuclear weapons program is necessary to train the next generation of weapons scientists and engineers.
4.The law prevents the search for technical options that could strengthen our ability to deter, or respond to, new or emerging threats.
5. Repeal of the law does not commit the U.S. to develop, produce or deploy new, lowyield warheads.
