Disarmament Diplomacy

News Review

US Groups Call for Radical New Posture as Bush Review Proceeds

With the Bush administration in the process of reviewing US nuclear posture, a number of independent groups have been articulating their vision of reform and restructuring. On June 5, three prominent groups - the Federation of American Scientists (http://www.fas.org), the Natural Resources Defense Council (http://www.nrdc.org), and the Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org) - released a joint study, Toward True Security: a US Nuclear Posture for the Next Decade, advocating nine steps by which "US security would be substantially improved":

"[1] Declare that the sole purpose of US nuclear weapons is to deter and, if necessary, to respond to the use of nuclear weapons by another country.

[2] Reject rapid-launch options, and change...deployment practices to provide for the launch of US nuclear forces in hours or days rather than minutes.

[3] Replace...reliance on pre-set targeting plans with the capability to promptly develop a response tailored to the situation if nuclear weapons are used against the United States, its armed forces, or its allies.

[4] Unilaterally reduce...[the] nuclear arsenal to a total of 1,000 warheads, including deployed, spare, and reserve warheads. The United States would declare all warheads above this level to be in excess of its military needs, move them into storage, and begin dismantling them in a manner transparent to the international community. To encourage Russia to reciprocate, the United States could make the endpoint of its dismantlement process dependent on Russia's response. The deployed US warheads should consist largely of a survivable force of submarine-based warheads.

[5] Promptly and unilaterally retire all US tactical nuclear weapons, dismantling them in a transparent manner. In addition, the United States would take steps to induce Russia to do the same.

[6] Announce...[a] commitment to further reductions in the number of nuclear weapons, on a negotiated and verified multilateral basis.

[7] Commit to not resume nuclear testing and to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

[8] Reaffirm...[the] commitment to pursue nuclear disarmament and present a specific plan for moving toward this goal, in recognition that the universal and verifiable prohibition of nuclear weapons would be in the US national security interest.

[9] Recognize that deployment of a US missile defense system that Russia or China believed could intercept a significant portion of its survivable long-range missile forces would trigger reactions by these countries that could result in a net decrease in US security. The United States should therefore commit to not deploy any missile defense system that would decrease its overall security in this way."

On June 18, a Nuclear Status Report on the Former Soviet Union was released by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (http://www.ceip.org). The report strongly advises against a provocative missile defence programme. In the words of Joseph Cirincione, Director of the Endowment's Non-Proliferation Project: "The Bush policy counts on Russia going down to 1,000 warheads no matter what the US does, but missile defence may force them to make their deterrent secure by putting more warheads on missiles and stepping up production of new ones. ... That shows there is a real national security cost to be paid for missile defence."

Media reports in late May suggested that consideration was being given within the official review process to proposals to eliminate all land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and reduce the strategic bomber force in an effort to minimise the vulnerability of US territory in the initial stages of a nuclear exchange.

Note: the Bush administration is requesting supplemental FY 2001 funding of $320 million for nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship and environmental management work. According to Senator Pete Domenici (Republican - New Mexico), $140 million of the funds - part of a $6.1 billion supplemental request submitted to Congress on June 1 - would be provided to the Los Alamos and Sandia nuclear weapons laboratories. Domenici enthused (June 1): "This is terrific news. I couldn't be more pleased with the administration's willingness to make sure the resources are there for our labs. I worked extensively with the administration to make stockpile stewardship whole and make sure money was there to move [warhead] pit production forward."

Reports: Future use of B-2 stealth bomber may not include nuclear weapons, Kansas City Star, May 20; US proposals envision sharp cuts in missiles, bombers, Washington Post, May 26; Scientists want nuclear arsenal cut, Associated Press, June 5; NM Labs' budgets may grow, Los Alamos Monitor, June 5; Bush missile defense plan could backfire, Washington Post, June 6; Study says Russia might keep missiles in face of US shield, Washington Post, June 18; Nuclear Status Report - Nuclear Weapons, Fissile Material, and Export Controls in the Former Soviet Union, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 18.

© 2001 The Acronym Institute.