March 11, 2002
U.S. Nuclear Plan Sees New Weapons and New Targets
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, March 9 — Outlining a broad overhaul of American nuclear policy, a secret Pentagon report calls for developing new nuclear weapons that would be better suited for striking targets in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya.
The Nuclear Posture Review, as the Pentagon report is known, is a comprehensive blueprint for developing and deploying nuclear weapons. While some of the report is unclassified, key portions are secret.
In campaigning for office President Bush stressed that he wanted to slash the number of nuclear weapons and develop a military that would be suited for the post-cold war world.
The new Pentagon report, in fact, finds that non-nuclear conventional weapons are becoming an increasingly important element of the Pentagon arsenal. But the report also indicates that the Pentagon views nuclear weapons as an important element of military planning.
It stresses a need to develop earth- penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy heavily fortified underground bunkers, including those that may be used to store chemical and biological weapons. It calls for improving the intelligence and targeting systems needed for nuclear strikes and argues that the United States may need to resume nuclear testing.
The New York Times obtained a copy of the 56-page report. Elements of the report were reported today by the Los Angeles Times.
One of the most sensitive portions of the report is a secret discussion of contingencies in which the United States might need to use its "nuclear strike capabilities" against a foe.
During the cold war, the United States used nuclear weapons to deter a Soviet attack on Western Europe.
But now, the Pentagon report says, the nation faces new contingencies in which nuclear weapons might be employed, including "an Iraqi attack on Israel or its neighbors, or a North Korean attack on South Korea or a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan." Another theme in the report is the the possible use of nuclear weapons to destroy enemy stocks of biological weapons, chemical arms and other arms of mass destruction.
Pentagon and White House officials turned down repeated requests for interviews on the report. The Pentagon issued a statement this evening noting that the purpose of the review was to analyze nuclear weapons requirements, not to specify targets.
"It does not provide operational guidance on nuclear targeting or planning," the Pentagon statement said. "The Department of Defense continues to plan for a broad range of contingencies and unforeseen threats to the United States and its allies. We do so in order to deter such attacks in the first place."
"This administration is fashioning a more diverse set of options for deterring the threat of weapons of mass destruction," the Pentagon statement continued. "That is why the administration is pursuing advanced conventional forces and improved intelligence capabilities. A combination of offensive and defensive, and nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities is essential to meet the deterrence requirements of the 21st century."
Critics responded to the report by complaining that the Bush administration was not only pushing for the development of new types of nuclear weapons, but broadening the circumstances in which they might be used.
"Despite their pronouncements of wanting to slash nuclear arms, the Bush administration is reinvigorating the nuclear weapons forces and the vast research and industrial complex that support it," said Robert S. Norris, a senior research associate at the Natural Resources Defense Council and an expert on nuclear weapons programs. "In addition the Bush administration seems to see a new role for nuclear weapons against the `axis of evil' and other problem states."
Classified versions of the report were provided to Congress in January but the disclosure now could become a public relations problem for Vice President Dick Cheney, who is scheduled to leave on Sunday for a 10-day trip to Britain and Middle Eastern countries. The disclosure of the administration's ambitious nuclear plans is likely to spark criticism from European groups that have long supported more traditional approaches to arms control. Middle Eastern leaders may be alarmed to learn that the Pentagon sees Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya as potential nuclear battlegrounds.
One of the most sensitive portions of the report is its discussion of countries that do not have nuclear arms. Recalling the Cuban missile crisis, the report noted that the United States might be caught by surprise if an adversary suddenly displayed a new ability involving weapons of mass destruction or if a nuclear arsenal changes hands as a result of a coup in a foreign land.
"In setting requirements for nuclear strike capabilities, distinctions can be made among the contingencies for which the United States must be prepared," the Pentagon report states. "Contingencies can be categorized as immediate, potential or unexpected."
"North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies," it added. "All have long-standing hostility toward the United States and its security partners; North Korea and Iraq in particular have been chronic military concerns."
It said, "All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and all have active" programs to create weapons of mass destruction and missiles.
Among Iraq, Iran, Syria or Libya none has nuclear weapons, though Iraq and Iran are making a serious effort to acquire them, according to American intelligence.
American intelligence officials believe that North Korea may have enough fissile material for one or two nuclear weapons, but there is considerable debate as to whether it has actually produced one.
Significantly, all of those countries have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Washington has promised that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty unless those countries attack the United States or its allies "in alliance with a nuclear weapon state."
The policy was intended to discourage outsider nations from seeking to develop nuclear weapons. But conservatives argue that Washington should be able to threaten the use of nuclear weapons as a way to deter one state from attacking the United States with chemical or biological weapons.
Earlier this month, Richard Boucher, the State Department spokesman, repeated the policy but then added that "if a weapon of mass destruction is used against the United States or its allies, we will not rule out any specific type or response." His qualified statement along with the Pentagon report raises the question of whether the Bush administration still plans to abide by the longstanding policy.
One former senior American officials said that the development of new weapons to attack non-nuclear states would not in itself contradict American policy since it would be no more than a contingency. But using them would contradict the policy, he said, unless the nations violated their commitments to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by developing nuclear weapons.
"I would not say that developing a bunker-busting nuclear weapon for use against these countries would by itself violate that pledge," the former American official said. "But using nuclear against them would unless they violated their assurance by acquiring nuclear weapons."
The Pentagon report discussed other contingencies as well. The report stated that China is also a potential adversary and is modernizing its nuclear and conventional forces. While Russia has the most formidable nuclear force, the report took the view that relations with Moscow have vastly improved.
"As a result, a contingency involving Russia, while plausible, is not expected," the report states. Still, the report said that the United States cannot be sure that relations with Russia will always be smooth and thus must be prepared to "revise its nuclear force levels and posture."
In addition to surveying the potential situations in which nuclear weapons might be employed, the report discusses the sort of force that might be needed. The Bush administration has said that it plans to reduce strategic nuclear weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads, a big reduction from the 6,000 or so nuclear weapons that the United States has now.
Critics of the Bush administration say the cuts are roughly the same as the those foreseen by the Clinton administration, which agreed that future strategic arms treaty should reduce nuclear weapons to between 2,000 and 2,500 warheads. While the reductions projected by the Bush administration seem deeper, the Pentagon has changed the rules for counting nuclear weapons and no longer counts bombers or nuclear missile submarines that are in the process of being overhauled.
Adding new detail to previous briefings, the Pentagon says that its future force structure will have the following components. By 2012, the United States will have 14 Trident submarines with two in overhaul at one time. They will be part of a triad that will include hundreds of Minuteman III land-based missiles and about 100 B-52 H and B-2 bombers.
"This will provide an operationally deployed force of 1,700 to 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads and a wide range of options for a responsive force to meet potential contingencies," the report says.
But the Pentagon report said that nuclear planning is not merely a question of numbers. The Pentagon also wants to improve existing nuclear weapons and possibly develop new ones.
The report cites the need to improve "earth-penetrating weapons" that could be used to destroy underground installations and hardened bunkers. According to a secret portion of the Pentagon study, more than 70 nations now use underground installations. It notes that the only earth-penetrating weapon that exists is that B61 Mod 11 bomb and that it has only a limited "ground-penetration capability."
The report argues that better earth-penetrating nuclear weapons with lower nuclear yields would be useful since they could achieve equal damage with less nuclear fallout. New earth-penetrating warheads with larger yield would be needed to attack targets that are buried deep underground. The report said it is very hard to identify such underground targets but that American Special Operations Forces could be used for the mission.
Another capability which interests the Pentagon are radiological or chemical weapons that would employed to destroy stockpiles of chemical or biological agents. Such "Agent Defeat Weapons" are being studied. The report also argues that Washington needs to compress the time it takes to identify new targets and attack them with nuclear weapons, a concept it calls "adaptive planning."
In general, the Pentagon report stresses the need for nuclear weapons that would be more easy to use against enemy weapons of mass destruction because they would be of variable or low yield, be highly accurate and could be quickly targeted.
Pentagon officials say this gives the United States another tool to knock out enemy chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. But critics say that the Bush administration is, in effect, lowering the nuclear threshold by calling for the development of nuclear weapons that would be easier to use.
The need to maintain the capability to rapidly expand the American nuclear arsenal in a crisis, such as "reversal of Russia's present course," is also a theme of the report. The Pentagon calls the this hedge "the responsive force." The notion that the United States is reserving the right to rapidly increase its nuclear forces has been an important concern for Moscow, which has pressed Washington to agree to binding limits and even destroy some of its warheads.
The Responsive Force, the Pentagon report says, "retains the option for the leadership to increase the number of operationally deployed forces in proportion to the severity of an evolving crisis," the Pentagon report said. As part of this concepts, bombs could be brought out of the non-deployed stockpile in days or weeks. Other efforts to augment the force could take as long as a year.
To maintain the nuclear infrastructure a number of steps are planned. The Pentagon says that an "active" stock of warheads should be maintained which would incorporate the latest modifications and have the key parts.
The report says that the United States needs a new capability to produce plutonium "pits," a hollow sphere made out of plutonium around which explosives are fastened. When the explosives go off they squeeze the plutonium together into a critical mass, which allows a nuclear explosion. The Pentagon said the production of Tritium for nuclear warheads will resume during the fiscal 2003 year.
Another sensitive political point involves the report's discussion of the United States moratorium on nuclear testing. The Bush administration has refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, but says it has no plans yet to resume nuclear testing. But the report suggests that it might be necessary to resume testing to make new nuclear weapons and ensure the reliability of existing ones.
"While the United States is making every effort to maintain the nuclear stockpile without additional nuclear testing, this may not be possible in the indefinite future," it said.
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
