Global Security Newswire

President Barack Obama's intention to pursue significant U.S. nuclear arsenal cutbacks has been subject to intense debate as his administration prepares to wrap up a congressionally mandated review of the nation's nuclear weapons policy, the Los Angeles Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 26, 2009).

Elements within the Defense Department and other agencies have resisted calls to reduce the country's nuclear deterrent in size and strategic scope, said U.S. officials and independent observers with knowledge of the dispute. The White House, in turn, has pressed the Pentagon to revise the pending Nuclear Posture Review to more fully address steps toward achieving disarmament goals articulated by Obama in the Czech Republic last April (see GSN, April 6, 2009).

The United States possesses around 9,400 nuclear weapons, down from approximately 10,400 such armaments in 2002, according to the Times. Obama's administration hopes that moving toward significant U.S. nuclear arms reductions would advance Washington's efforts to update the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Proposals to adopt a nuclear "no-first-use" policy or to rule out nuclear retaliation to a biological, chemical or conventional strike have emerged as key matters of contention, officials said. Some Pentagon officials have questioned arguments that such moves could encourage other nations to make similar policy adjustments.

Officials have also clashed over how to pursue nuclear arsenal reductions while maintaining a reliable nuclear umbrella as a means of discouraging U.S. allies from producing their own strategic stockpiles. Such concerns have prompted some officials to defend deployments of nuclear-armed torpedoes near Japan and roughly 200 nuclear bombs at bases in Europe.

"This is the first test of Obama's nuclear commitments. They can't afford to fall short at the outset," said Nancy Soderberg, a former U.S. official who occupied several key diplomatic posts under the Clinton administration.

One Pentagon official referred to exchanges on nuclear policy issues as "spirited ... I think we have every possible point of view in the world represented."

"We are not looking at whether to reduce the roles of nuclear weapons and whether to reduce (their numbers). We're looking at how," the official added (Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 4).

The administration has also considered whether the United States must continue to rely on a "triad" of land-, air- and sea-based nuclear weapons, the Boston Globe reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2009).

The review could call for dropping the U.S. arsenal of deployed nuclear warheads to no more than 1,000, according to administration officials.

“I would recommend giving up the bomber leg,’’ said retired Gen. Eugene Habiger, a former head of U.S. Strategic Command, referring to the nation's 114 long-range nuclear bombers.

Reductions have also been considered to the number of U.S. ballistic missiles deployed on land -- the count now stands at 450 ICBMs -- and on 14 submarines.

A rapid U.S. nuclear weapons cutback, though, might encourage China and other nuclear-armed states to quickly build up their own arsenals, warned Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.

Arms Control Association head Daryl Kimball suggested that such a development is unlikely to occur.

“The United States and Russia each deploy more than 2,000 strategic warheads, most of which exist only to deter a massive nuclear attack by the other. No other country possesses more than 300 nuclear warheads, and China currently has fewer than 30 nuclear-armed missiles capable of striking the continental United States,’’ Kimball said (Bryan Bender, Boston Globe, Jan. 3).