|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Senate Committee Cuts Bush Plan to Arm Strategic Missiles With Conventional Warheads By David Ruppe WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday eliminated funding for a Bush administration plan to modify submarines carrying nuclear Trident ballistic missiles to deploy conventionally armed Tridents, judging it a potentially “provocative” capability (see GSN, May 12). The committee cut all but $5 million of $127 million in initial funding requested for fiscal 2007 by the administration for the Navy’s Conventional Trident Modification Program. It directed that the remaining $5 million fund a National Academy Sciences study of the concept. Supporters have touted the proposed capability as a potential tool for rapidly striking with conventional weapons targets anywhere on the planet, such as a gathering of terrorists in a remote location. “These missiles are intended to give the president a real option for a responsive, global strike capability in the short-term,” said Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) at a National Defense University Foundation event last month. Critics have argued such a weapon could cause Russia, China or some other country to mistakenly perceive they are facing a nuclear missile attack by the United States. “If there was a crisis somewhere and this thing started flying, the Russians or the Chinese couldn’t be certain this wasn’t a nuclear missile under way or America’s conventional ballistic missile. … It could trigger their own retaliation,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists. The committee wrote in a report accompanying the defense appropriations bill that it “believes that fundamental issues about the use of this weapon must be addressed prior to investing in this effort. Furthermore, it is not clear that other potentially less provocative alternatives, such as land and air-based options, have been considered.” Much of the requested money sought was intended to fund an assessment of the feasibility of converting Trident 2 missiles with conventional warheads for use as a “global strike” weapon. However, the administration also requested $50 million for initial procurement, indicating its interest in moving forward quickly. Allard, who sits on the Appropriations Committee, said last month he supported the concept, but also expressed concern the missiles could be mistaken by other nuclear powers as an attack. “This is still a very new concept, and the Department of Defense has yet to work out all the details,” he said. “Of particular concern is the fact that the department is still developing a variety of transparency, confidence-building, and operational measures to ensure there is no confusion about our intentions. The last thing we want is for Russia or China to think we are launching a nuclear strike when we use one of these submarine-launched conventional missiles,” he said. Allard said he supported a requirement in the Senate’s version of the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill that prohibits funding the program until the secretaries of defense and state submit a joint report considering potential alternatives, evaluate the potential for other nations to misinterpret the system, and state how the United States might work with other nations to prevent an inadvertent nuclear strike. The Appropriations Committee directed that a National Academies’ study, due March 15, 2007, analyze the military’s need for such a system, and “where appropriate,” recommend alternatives that meet the prompt global strike mission in the near-, mid-, and long-terms. “The study should include analyses of the military, political and international issues associated with each alternative,” it said. Allard said last month “there may be other less challenging global strike options available, such as land-based conventional ballistic missiles in California or Guam.” The bottom line, according to Kristensen: The committee’s cut “says it ain’t sold yet.”
| ||||||||||
Back to top
