The Pentagon is assessing its ability to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria, according to classified information, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.
Classified parts of the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, which the Pentagon provided to Congress in January, says the United States must be able to use nuclear weapons against the seven countries in three scenarios:
* against targets that non-nuclear weapons could not destroy;
* in response to attacks with weapons of mass destruction; and
* “in the event of surprising military developments” (see GSN, Feb. 27).
The latter scenario refers to concerns that a state or terrorist group might unexpectedly reveal a new weapon that the United States could not counter with conventional force, analysts said (Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, March 9).
“North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies,” the report says. “All have long-standing hostility toward the United States and its security partners; North Korea and Iraq in particular have been chronic military concerns … All sponsor or harbor terrorists” and pursue WMD and missile programs, the report says (Michael Gordon, New York Times, March 10).
Regarding the Middle East, the report says the United States should be ready to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict or if Iraq attacks Israel or another neighbor (Richter, Los Angeles Times).
The report lists China as “a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency,” due to “developing strategic objectives” and China’s nuclear capability (see GSN, Feb. 26). The United States might need to use nuclear weapons if a U.S.-China confrontation arises over the issue of Taiwan, the report says (William Arkin, Los Angeles Times, March 10).
Russia has the most imposing nuclear force, and the United States must be prepared to “revise its nuclear force levels and posture” toward Russia if U.S.-Russian relations turn sour, the report says (see GSN, March 5). Relations between the two former rivals, however, have greatly improved, and “as a result, a contingency involving Russia, while plausible, is not expected,” the report says.
Of the countries listed in the report, only China and Russia have known nuclear arsenals. North Korea might have enough material for one or two nuclear weapons, but it probably has not produced one, according to U.S. intelligence officials (see GSN, Feb. 7). Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya do not have nuclear weapons, but Iraq and Iran are working to acquire them, according to U.S. intelligence officials (see GSN, Feb. 7).
All seven countries have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and the United States has promised not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear NPT members unless one of those states attacks the United States or a U.S. ally and is allied with a nuclear weapon state (Gordon, New York Times).
Report Is “Not a Plan”
The Nuclear Posture Review is “not a plan,” said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers. “This preserves for the president all the options that a president would want to have in case this country or our friends and allies were attacked with weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear, biological, chemical or for that matter, high explosives.”
The United States does not plan to attack countries with nuclear weapons, several top U.S. officials said in response to concerns about the report. “Right now, today, not a single nation on the face of the Earth is being targeted by an American nuclear weapon on a day-to-day basis,” said Secretary of State Colin Powell (Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press/Boston Globe, March 11).
“We should not get all carried away with some sense that the United States is planning to use nuclear weapons in some contingency that is coming up in the near future,” Powell said yesterday on CBS’s Face the Nation. “It is not the case. What the Pentagon has done with this study is sound, military, conceptual planning, and the president will take that planning, and he will give his directions on how to proceed” (Eric Schmitt, New York Times, March 11).
Officials said the United States must have the ability to respond to WMD threats. “We all want to make the use of weapons of mass destruction less likely,” National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said yesterday. “The way that you do that is to send a very strong signal to anyone who might try to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States that they’d be met with a devastating response.”
The United States has never said it would not use nuclear weapons against a nuclear-armed enemy, Powell said. “We think it is best for any potential adversary out there to have uncertainty in his calculus” (Lindlaw, Associated Press/Boston Globe).
Pentagon Response
The Defense Department refused to comment on any details after newspapers published the classified nuclear strategy information. The department had previously made some sections of the report public, but the list of countries is classified.
“We will not discuss the classified details of military planning or contingencies, nor will we comment on selective and misleading leaks,” said a Defense statement.
The department also said the report is not a specific plan. “It does not provide operational guidance on nuclear targeting or planning.” The report is part of an ongoing process to evaluate threats and military requirements, Defense said.
“The Department of Defense continues to plan for a broad range of contingencies and unforeseen threats to the United States and its allies,” the department said (Defense Department release, March 10).
Defense and other U.S. officials emphasized that the report’s intent is to deter the use of weapons of mass destruction.
“The purpose and effect of the administration’s nuclear policy as embodied in the nuclear policy review [is] to make the use of nuclear weapons less likely,” said Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith.
The review usually names countries when it is conducted every few years, said a U.S. official. The official refused to say if any countries had been added to or subtracted from the list (Barry Schweid, Associated Press/Los Angeles Times, March 9.)
Lawmakers Respond
Media reports of the classified report might help deter potential enemies, said Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.).
“Frankly, I don’t mind some of these renegade nations who we have reason to believe are working themselves to develop nuclear weapons — and I’m thinking of Iraq and Iran and North Korea here — to think twice about the willingness of the United States to take action to defend our people and our values and our allies,” Lieberman said.
“Originally, much of our nuclear policy was predicated on nuclear versus nuclear,” said Senator John Warner (R-Va.). “Now, with the advent of these other weapons of mass destruction, the purpose of the report was to think through our policy, given the growing number of types of weapons of mass destruction” (David Savage, Los Angeles Times, March 11).
Warner said he would ask the Bush administration to clarify its position, however. Lieberman said people in the United States and other countries should not “overreact to the news stories” (Lindlaw, Associated Press/Boston Globe).
“New Triad”
The Nuclear Posture Review also outlines a new structure of U.S. nuclear weapons, the “New Triad.” The new triad includes:
* an “offensive strike leg” of nuclear and conventional forces;
* “active and passive defense,” which includes missile defense and other defenses; and
* “response defense infrastructure,” or the ability to produce nuclear weapons and resume nuclear testing.
The traditional nuclear triad referred to sea, air and land nuclear forces.
The report emphasizes integrating non-nuclear capabilities into nuclear plans. “New capabilities must be developed to defeat emerging threats such as hard and deeply buried targets (HDBT), to find and attack mobile and relocatable targets, to defeat chemical and biological agents and to improve accuracy and limit collateral damage,” the report says.
The report also urges incorporating “nuclear capability” into conventional systems, such as modifying conventional cruise missiles currently under development to carry nuclear warheads.
The report calls for researching the potential of weapons to destroy buried targets (see GSN, March 6), preparing for cyber-warfare (see GSN, Oct. 10, 2001) and improving intelligence (Arkin, Los Angeles Times). It also says the United States should maintain the ability to rapidly expand its nuclear arsenal in a crisis, develop a new capability to produce plutonium “pits” and to resume producing tritium (see GSN, Jan. 29) and improve its ability to resume nuclear testing (see GSN, Feb. 19) if necessary (Gordon, New York Times).
“The administration is fashioning a more diverse set of options for deterring the threat of WMD. That is why the administration is pursuing missile defense, advanced conventional forces and improved intelligence capabilities,” the recent Defense release said.
The report also includes plans to reduce the U.S. deployed nuclear stockpile (see GSN, Nov. 14, 2001) by two-thirds (Defense Department release).
Recently leaked information about U.S. nuclear weapons policies indicates the Pentagon might reduce the threshold for using nuclear weapons, according to some analysts (see GSN, Feb. 28).
“Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack (for example, deep underground bunkers or bioweapons facilities),” the report says.
Classified portions of the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review call for allowing more flexibility and intermingling of conventional and nuclear capabilities. Policies include cutting the number of the current U.S. nuclear arsenal while developing smaller, more tactical nuclear weapons and improving conventional capability. In addition, the report calls for developing nuclear weapons for use against conventional forces and developing conventional weapons for use against nuclear targets, the New York Times reported today.
“Greater flexibility is needed with respect to nuclear force and planning than was the case during the Cold War,” the report says (Michael Gordon, New York Times, March 11).
“Nuclear attack options that vary in scale, scope and purpose will complement other military capabilities. The combination can provide the range of options needed to pose a credible deterrent to adversaries whose values and calculations of risk and gain and loss may be very different from, and more difficult to discern, than those of past adversaries, the report says (John Cushman, New York Times, March 10).
Weapons for War
The new policy views nuclear weapons as a potential weapon for fighting wars, according to some analysts. “This clearly makes nuclear weapons a tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them,” said Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“They’re trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence,” said John Isaacs of the Council for a Livable World. “This is very, very dangerous talk … Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon” (Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, March 9).
Blurring the Line Between Conventional and Nuclear War
“Throughout the nuclear age, the fundamental goal has been to prevent the use of nuclear weapons,” said Ivo Daalder, a foreign policy analyst at the Brookings Institution.
“Now the policy has been turned upside down. It is to keep nuclear weapons as a tool of war-fighting rather than a tool of deterrence. If military planners are now to consider the nuclear option any time they confront a surprising military development, the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons fades away,” he said.
Blurring the roles of conventional and nuclear weapons could eliminate the threshold for using nuclear weapons, some analysts said.
“By emphasizing the important role of nuclear weapons, the Pentagon is encouraging other nations to think that it is important to have them as well,” said Robert Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council (Gordon, New York Times).
The End of MAD?
The policy represents a change from the Cold War strategy of mutual assured destruction to unilateral assured destruction, according to a New York Times analysis yesterday. The Nuclear Posture Review’s recommendations are aimed at developing a force that would make it impossible for a dictator to hide himself or weapons of mass destruction in a deep bunker or other facility conventional weapons could not penetrate, according to the Times.
First-Strike Policy?
The Pentagon report could create concern that the Bush administration will institute a first-strike policy, according to the Times. The United States has never declared a no-first-strike policy against nuclear-armed states but did pledge not to attack a non-nuclear country (see GSN, Feb. 27). Although the United States has not withdrawn that pledge, plans to build nuclear weapons designed for destroying bunkers and other tactical tasks could undermine the pledge and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, according to the Times.
Any preemptive, limited nuclear strike, which the Pentagon report foresees as a possibility, would probably be a last resort, the Times said. Deterrence remains the primary theme of Pentagon policy, and U.S. leaders would not consider a nuclear strike lightly.
Doing Away with Arms Control Treaties
Although the Nuclear Posture Review calls for cutting the U.S. deployed nuclear arsenal, it also views the traditional arms control regime as outdated. “That old process is incompatible with the flexibility U.S. planning and forces now require,” the report says (Cushman, New York Times, March 10).
Nuclear Posture Review Is No Plan
Meanwhile, top U.S. officials emphasized the Nuclear Posture Review is a policy document, not a plan. There are no current plans to develop totally new types of weapons, they said.
“This is prudent military planning, and it is the kind of planning I think the American people would expect,” Secretary of State Colin Powell said on CBS’s Face the Nation. “We are not developing brand new nuclear weapons, and we are not planning to undergo any testing” (Gordon, New York Times).
Mostly muted international response followed a leak Saturday of classified information that the Pentagon is considering its capabilities for attacking seven countries — China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea and Russia (see related GSN story, today). Iranian President Mohammad Khatami provided one exception.
“The U.S. is involved in the worst kind of war and accuses Iran as forming part of the ‘axis of evil,’ but history will judge on who promoted dialogue and who violence,” Khatami said yesterday, according to the Khabar news agency, Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported.
The Iranian president was referring to his attempts to promote dialogue and to U.S. President George W. Bush’s reference to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil” (see GSN, Jan. 30), Khabar reported (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, March 10).
Iran will not declare a state of emergency in response to the U.S. report, Iranian spokesman Abdullah Ramezanzadeh said yesterday. The report does not directly threaten Iran, he said. It does, however, prove the United States will never abide by international law banning nuclear weapons, Ramezanzadeh said.
“The Islamic Republic believes that the era of using force to push forward international relations is long past, and those who resort to the logic of force follow exactly the same logic as terrorists, although they are in the position of power” (Islamic Republic News Agency/BBC Monitoring, March 10).
Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani said the United States is trying to frighten other countries.
“America thinks that if a military threat looms large over the head of seven countries, they will give up their logical demands,” he said.
The report “indicates that the U.S. administration is going to wreak havoc on the whole world in order to establish its hegemony and domination,” wrote the Tehran Times, which is close to Iranian hardliners, according to the Washington Post (Sharon LaFraniere, Washington Post, March 11).
Russia
Russia wants more assurances that the United States has no plans to use nuclear weapons against Russia or other states, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said today in response to the information, which reportedly was based on classified portions of the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review.
“If it is true, it can only give rise to regret and concern, not only from Russia but from the entire world community. Such a plan can destabilize the situation and make it more tense,” Ivanov said.
“We hope that following the explanations by the U.S. secretary of state and the national security adviser, there will be declarations at a higher level to provide more clarity on this issue, assure the world community and establish that the United States is not carrying out such plans,” Ivanov said (Reuters/Russia Journal, March 11).
The report shows the United States sees Russia as a geopolitical rival, said Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, a former top defense official. “It’s about time Russian politicians realized this and stopped having illusions that Washington wishes Moscow well,” said Ivashov.
“They’ve brought out a big stick — a nuclear stick — that is supposed to scare us and put us in our place,” said Dmitry Rogozin, a member of the Russian Parliament (LaFraniere, Washington Post).
China
In China, reactions were mild compared to responses to U.S. criticism of the country’s human rights record, Agence France-Presse reported. The nuclear posture information is cause for “uneasiness and worry,” China said today, but it did not condemn the report, according to Agence France-Presse.
“I have no knowledge of the content of the report you mentioned, but I think many countries in the world will express their uneasiness and worry about this,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi (Agence France-Presse, March 11).
Libya
Media reports on the Nuclear Posture Review are hard to believe, Libyan African Affairs Minister Ali Abd al-Salam al-Turayki said in Cairo, the Associated Press reported, according to the Washington Post.
“I don’t think this is true,” he said. “I don’t think America is going to destroy the world.”
Europe
In Europe, the British Foreign Office and Italian defense minister said the U.S. report is part of routine military planning, the Post reported.
“Military forces from time to time evaluate their long-term programs, even when it is hypothetical,” Italian Defense Minister Antonio Martino told the ANSA news agency, the Post reported.
A NATO spokesman said it is too soon to comment on the report (LaFraniere, Washington Post).
“Not the Way to Do It,” Financial Times Says
Although countries seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction should be stopped, “threatening nuclear strikes, whether tacitly or explicitly, is not the way to do it,” the Financial Times wrote in an editorial today.
If the Bush administration is serious about such threats, “then it suggests a willingness in this U.S. administration to contemplate the use of nuclear weapons more readily than before,” the Times wrote. “That gives a very worrying signal to others, such as India and Pakistan, that have just acquired them.”
The information leak could complicate U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s trip to the Middle East, which began yesterday, the Times wrote (Financial Times, March 11).
By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — Using the world’s fastest and most capable supercomputer, the National Nuclear Security Administration has conducted three-dimensional simulations of nuclear explosions critical to the maintenance of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the Energy Department announced last week (see GSN, Dec. 3, 2001).
The two simulations, which occurred continuously over the past four months on a remote connection between the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories, signify an important milestone for NNSA’s Stockpile Stewardship Program, which is responsible for maintaining the safety, security and reliability of U.S. nuclear warheads, NNSA officials said in a news release.
“This is a significant technical achievement,” said NNSA Administrator John Gordon. “The NNSA’s role in spurring the development of some of the fastest computers in the world is already paying dividends. We can now simulate an entire nuclear weapon explosion and learn critical information about the nation’s weapon stockpile as it ages.”
The ability to simulate a nuclear explosion enables U.S. scientists to examine key physics issues through a combination of simulation, precision experiments and analysis of data from past nuclear tests, NNSA officials said.
Having a firmer grasp of the physics of a nuclear explosion is “crucial” to the making of replacement weapon components and the refurbishing of aging nuclear warheads, they said.
The first phase of the ongoing simulation program focused on the development of supercomputers that possess unprecedented speed and capacity, officials said. Now it also seeks to develop multiple physics simulation codes needed to identify, diagnose and correct potential flaws in the aging U.S. arsenal, they added.
The supercomputer used for these simulations transmitted about 35 times the amount of information stored in the world’s largest library, the Library of Congress, according to the release.
“Our simulation was run remotely from Los Alamos on the White machine at Livermore, more than 1,000 miles away,” said project leader Bob Weaver, referring to the laboratories located in, respectively, New Mexico and California. “Thanks to the secure network connecting the laboratories, this remote computing effort worked almost as easily as computing on a local supercomputer at Los Alamos.”
The threat of a nuclear weapon attack against New York City in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, revealed last week, was made by an intelligence source considered to be a “fabricator” and to suffer from “delusions of grandeur,” according to U.S. officials cited by CNN last week (see GSN, March 4).
“The only scandal here is that the Defense Intelligence Agency ever used this guy as a source of anything,” said one official.
The source is a U.S. citizen who said he learned of the supposed threat to New York, by a group that had acquired a stolen Russian nuclear weapon, in a Las Vegas casino a few weeks after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, according to the U.S. officials.
One official regretted that news of warning had “leaked without context, causing unnecessary concern to Americans, especially New Yorkers” (David Ensor, CNN.com, March 6).
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov is visiting the United States for four days this week to conduct talks on reducing nuclear arsenals, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, Feb. 22). He plans to discuss “global strategic stability and Russian and U.S. plans to radically cut the number of nuclear strategic arms,” a ministry spokesman said today.
Russian and U.S. negotiators, who finished a round of talks March 5, have generally reached a deal but still disagree over “concrete enforcement mechanisms,” Ivanov said last week. Russia wants to be able to check U.S. progress on disarmament and opposes a U.S. proposal to store decommissioned warheads rather than destroy them (see GSN, Jan. 9), AFP reported (Agence France-Press, March 11).
| 
Back to top
