by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 10, 2002
All Rights Reserved.

ince 9/11, the U.S. pulls out all the stops and considers using scaled down nuclear weapons. Beating the war drums, the Pentagon announced plans to potentially use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria, or so says a "secret" report given to Congress on Jan. 8. Making the "classified" report public sends a loud message to America's enemies contemplating their next moves. While fingering rogue states, the report doesn't specifically target terrorists responsible for 9/11 or other attacks against the U.S.. Raising nuclear anxiety, the special report calls for modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to develop battlefield nukes, departing from 50 years of Mutual Assured Destruction—the prevailing Cold War paradigm of nuclear deterrence. No longer would the U.S. only stockpile warheads for deterrent value. Instead, nukes would be used in a variety of scenarios including, (a) retaliation for nuclear, biological and chemical attacks, (b) "surprising" military developments, and (c) against targets invulnerable to conventional weapons.

      Going public with "secret" reports suggests that the government wants to put enemies on notice. If the report were really "classified," the White House wouldn't have leaked it. Covert documents don't make headlines unless officials wish to make public statements. With the foreign press already antagonized by "the axis of evil," placing certain countries on a nuclear hit list is bound to ruffle feathers. "This is dynamite," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "I can imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the U.N.," remarked Cirincione, stunned by the "Nuclear Posture Review" that identifies specific countries. Since Truman nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, using nuclear weapons was unthinkable, accept for deterrent purposes. But since Sept. 11, the rules of engagement changed: The U.S. could no longer play sitting duck while terrorists and rogue states pursue nuclear bombs.

      Reexamining nuclear strategy, the White House threw peace mavens for a loop. "They're trying desperately to find new use for nuclear weapons, when their use should be limited to deterrence," said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, expressing horror at the prospects of using nuclear weapons, but ignoring how things have changed since 9/11. With law enforcement and intelligence communities working 24/7 to prevent more terrorism, the military must also change tactics, utilize new weapons and plan new lines of defense. "This is very, very dangerous talk . . . Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon," warned Isaacs, suggesting that a new arms" race could destabilize global relations. Recent reports about missing "suitcase nukes" from the old Soviet arsenal sent chills up the White House's spine. Few people doubt whether Bin Laden would have detonated an atomic bomb in New York. That prospect along with Iraq's active nuclear weapon's program, prompted a top-down review of nuclear strategy.

      Smaller, mobile, less powerful multi-kiloton nukes have distinct battlefield advantages over conventional weapons. Unlike conventional bombs, they"re capable of busting caves and bunkers, shortening the duration of certain theater engagements. One battlefield nuke would end the battle of Gardez quickly—where Al Qaeda and Taliban are hunkered down in underground caves. Granite caverns and connecting tunnels couldn't withstand the firepower of multi-kiloton nukes. Battlefield nukes don't wreak the widespread devastation and fallout seen in megaton blasts. "We need to have a credible deterrent against regimes involved in international terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction," said Jack Spencer, a defense expert at the conservative Washington-based Heritage Foundation, supporting the administration's move to develop battlefield nukes. While 50 years of deterrence worked with the Soviets, it clearly failed to prevent brazen attacks on U.S. soil. Battlefield nukes could have a powerful deterrent effect, proving that the U.S. intends to use new firepower should it be necessary.

      Changing directions, the recent "Nuclear Policy Review" indicates that the U.S. is prepared to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers, including terrorists or rogue states that attack American interests. Theater nukes opens the door for intervention, where thermonuclear weapons remain unfeasible because of their devastating effects. Multi-kiloton nukes give the Pentagon a "full spectrum of deterrence," where conventional nukes produce too much heat, radiation and environmental damage. Introducing "surprising military developments," the Pentagon leaves the nuclear option open in response to terrorist attacks. Before nukes were regarded as a last ditch military option. Now, with lower power, multi-kiloton theater nukes, the military puts terrorists and rogue regimes on notice that they face devastating consequences for launching terrorist attacks. With Vice President Dick Cheney traveling abroad to make the case against Iraq, foreign governments should get the message that the U.S. means business.

      Entering a dangerous terrorist age, America must get beyond Cold War "drop-drills" and accept new applications for nuclear weapons. Stockpiling warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles no longer prevents brazen attacks on U.S. soil. Preemptive action requires the Pentagon to develop a full spectrum of nuclear weapons capable of meeting the challenges in today's world of global terrorism. Already behind the curve, the U.S. can no longer sit on its hands while rogue nations actively develop nuclear weapons. While the administration pursues nuclear disarmament, it must also develop more mobile, theater-style nukes to deter rogue nations and terrorist groups. "This clearly makes nuclear weapons a tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them," said Cirincione, suggesting that the White House betrayed its policy of nonproliferation. Since 9/11, the U.S. can no longer avoid dealing with global terrorists. Developing better deterrence involves using any and all means—including tactical nukes—to make the world a safer place.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He's director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in political consulting and strategic communication. He's author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.