Disarmament Diplomacy

Issue No. 63, March - April 2002

News Review

Controversy and Clarification over US Nuclear Use Policy

On February 11, Arms Control Today held a wide-ranging interview with John Bolton, US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. The following exchange was interpreted in media reports as suggesting the Bush administration no longer considered itself bound by the traditional American view on the terms and conditions under which it would be prepared to consider using nuclear weapons:

"Question: 'In 1995, Secretary of State Warren Christopher reaffirmed US negative security assurances which...say that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-weapon state unless that state attacks the United States or its allies in association with a nuclear-weapon state. Is that the policy of this administration as well?'

Bolton: 'I don't think we're of the view that this kind of approach is necessarily the most productive. What we've tried to say is that we're looking at changing the overall way we view strategic issues, and a large part of that is embodied in the outcome of the Nuclear Posture Review. ... So, I just don't think that our emphasis is on the rhetorical, our emphasis is on the actual change in our military posture.'

Question: 'So, right now, the Bush administration would not make a commitment to non-nuclear-weapon states under the circumstances I outlined...'

Bolton: 'I don't think that we have any intention of using nuclear weapons in circumstances that I can foresee in the days ahead of us. The point is that the kind of rhetorical approach that you are describing doesn't seem to me to be terribly helpful in analysing what our security needs may be in the real world, and what we are doing, instead of chit-chatting, is making changes in our force structures...'"

The Nuclear Posture Review outlines a 'new triad', the first leg of which - a mix of nuclear and non-nuclear offensive systems - can be argued as blurring the qualitative distinction between conventional and non-conventional use (see last issue for details and comment). The rationale for the triad, according to the Pentagon, is precisely the opposite: to provide US Strategic Command with a "diverse portfolio", in the recurrent phrase, of effective and flexible offensive options, acting to reduce US reliance, in extremis, on incredible threats of nuclear use. Such a strategy could clearly involve the intensified development and deployment of devastating conventional weaponry. There is also some concern, as reported in recent issues, that the development and deployment of new, 'low' yield 'mini-nukes' may be under active consideration, though no definite commitments along these lines are made in the NPR.

The basic international interpretation of the negative security assurances offered - 'rhetorically', rather than as part of a legally binding agreement - by the nuclear-weapon states is contained in UN Security Council resolution 984 of 1995. Speaking on February 22, State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher made clear that the official US position had not changed since the adoption of the resolution, repeating the careful formulation set out by Secretary Christopher at the time:

"The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon state parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT], except in case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies or on a state toward which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon state in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon state."

Boucher added: "We will do whatever is necessary to deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its allies and its interests. If a weapon of mass destruction is used against the United States or its allies, we will not rule out any specific type of military response."

Expressing a measure of relief at Boucher's statement, Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, publishers of Arms Control Today, noted that they remained hard to reconcile with Undersecretary Bolton's remarks:

"This is a very important reiteration of US nuclear policy. It's one of the rare instances where the Bush administration is following prior policy, rather than repudiating it. ... Anyone who understands the English language would see the difference [between the Boucher and Bolton comments]... This is an important and useful correction of Mr. Bolton's statement, and should help US foreign policy..."

Note: on March 9, the Los Angeles Times reported that the NPR included a classified Pentagon report outlining contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven possible targets: Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya and Syria. Use would be contemplated, according to the report, 1) in response to an attack using weapons of mass destruction, 2) against targets immune to destruction by conventional weapons, presumably reinforced underground facilities against which 'mini-nukes' could be deployed, and 3) in the words of the classified study quoted in the article, "in the event of surprising military developments". The same day, the Defense Department issued the following 'Statement on Nuclear Posture Review':

"We will not discuss the classified details of military planning or contingencies, nor will we comment on selective and misleading leaks. The Nuclear Posture Review is required by law. It is a wide-ranging analysis of the requirements of deterrence in the 21st Century. This review of the US nuclear posture is the latest in a long series of reviews since the development of nuclear weapons. It does not provide operational guidance on nuclear targeting or planning. 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. Of particular significance in the new Nuclear Posture Review is President Bush's decision to reduce operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons by two-thirds, a decision made possible by the new strategic relationship with Russia. This 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. A combination of offensive and defensive, and nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities is essential to meet the deterrence requirements of the 21st Century."

See next issue for further details and reaction.

Related Material on Acronym website:

Article & Statement on US Nuclear Use Policy

Reports: A new strategic framework? Detailing the Bush approach to nuclear security, Arms Control Today interview with John Bolton, February 11 (http://www.armscontrol.org); US drops pledge on nukes, The Washington Times, February 22; 'Negative security assurances' no longer supported, Bolton says, Global Security Newswire, February 22; US adopts Clinton policy on use of nuclear weapons, Reuters, February 22; US works up plan for using nuclear arms, Los Angeles Times, March 9, Statement on Nuclear Posture Review, US Department of Defense News Release 113-02, March 9.