Bush's Plan to Disarm U.S. of its Strategic
Nuclear Deterrent Opposed by Pentagon
by David T. Pyne, Esq.
Note: This is Part I of a three part series on the Bush-Putin Nuclear Reduction Treaty. Parts II and III will be posted early next week.
US
and Russian arms control negotiators have reportedly reached an agreement on
the terms for a new treaty between the US and Russia to reduce the size of the
US arsenal to about 1700-2200 nuclear warheads each. President Bush has announced
that he plans to sign it at the Bush-Putin summit in Moscow on May 24th. The
Russians sought a binding agreement in order to make the planned US nuclear
disarmament measures "irreversible" while Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
(right) worked to keep provisions in the treaty which would leave the US the
option to rearm itself in the event of a crisis using some deactivated warheads
to be placed in storage. While the final treaty does not mandate the destruction
of deactivated warheads, according to an article today in The
Washington Times, a senior administration official who spoke on condition
of anonymity said that "most of those that are retired are likely to be destroyed."
Rumsfeld was reportedly so opposed to the treaty that he tried various stratagems
in an attempt to sabotage the agreement. He did not desist from his efforts
until personally ordered to do so by the President.
.jpg)
In
order to better understand the rationale for the President's decision to sign
this planned bilateral nuclear arms reduction treaty in opposition to the counsel
of his own Secretary of Defense, it is necessary to provide a little background.
Back in November 2001, President Bush and Russian President Putin of Russia
(both pictured right) met during their summit in Crawford, Texas with much fanfare
where they pledged sweeping reductions in their respective strategic nuclear
deterrent forces. At the summit, Mr. Bush announced his plan to go against the
recommendation of his Secretary of Defense and top generals who know better
and begin unilaterally disarming the US strategic nuclear deterrent from the
7200 warheads fielded by the US at that time to between 1700-2200 weapons by
the year 2012. This would comprise as much as a 75% reduction in deployed US
strategic warheads. The reason for this proposed range of weapons was reportedly
an attempt to placate his generals, however the Administration has clearly indicated
that Bush would prefer to disarm to the low-end level of 1700 warheads. The
Pentagon's top commanders, most notably Admiral Mies, then Commander of Strategic
Command or STRATCOM stated at the time that the minimum number of strategic
nuclear weapons necessary to constitute an effective deterrent was 2300 warheads.
President Bush initially had expressed a preference for the implementation of unilateral nuclear disarmament measures. At the Texas summit, President Bush reiterated his past promise to unilaterally disarm the US arsenal well below this minimum number "regardless of what Russia does." Bush has recently stated his determination to comply with the sweeping nuclear arms reductions required by the new treaty even if it is rejected by the Democrat-controlled Senate. However, the President has since agreed to the codification of his unilateral nuclear disarmament measures now being implemented in the form of a binding bilateral accord with Russia. The primary reason of Bush's policy change was reportedly to appease the Russians for his announced decision in December that the US would 'opt out' of the long defunct ABM Treaty strictures, which forbid it from deploying national missile defenses of any size or effectiveness.
In February 2001, Bush ordered a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) to determine what the minimal size of the US nuclear deterrent could be and still successfully meet US requirements to deter a nuclear attack from America's most likely enemies. Nations viewed as potential threats under the NPR included North Korea, Communist China, and a number of other rogue states including most notably Iran now on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. This Nuclear Posture Review was finally disclosed to the public after much delay in January. The Nuclear Posture Review states that the US will transition from the current nuclear triad of land, sea and air-based nuclear weapons to a "New Triad" consisting of "non-nuclear and nuclear strike capabilities, defenses, and responsive infrastructure." The Nuclear Posture Review stated that the US would henceforth replace the current "Threat Based Force" with a "Capabilities Based Force." In other words, the US will no longer seek to field a force capable of matching the vast Russian strategic nuclear arsenal, but instead will only deploy a force sufficient to counter potential threats from rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction as well as the ballistic missiles needed to deliver them.
According to the Nuclear Posture Review, the US has abandoned its emphasis on deterring nuclear attack (Mutual Assured Destruction) that has kept the nuclear peace for nearly sixty years and will resort to more "flexible" measures to counter a wider "spectrum of contingencies." This strategy change was inaugurated by President Bush and some of his top advisors who wanted to reflect their new post-9-11 outlook that Russia is not only not a threat, but is actually a strategic partner and a new ally in the war against terrorism to be welcomed into NATO's highest decision-making councils. In other words, this vast planned reduction in US nuclear might is politically motivated and is not being implemented for any military rationale, which in this case was invented to serve and justify the political directives of the President. One wonders if this may be yet another case of the "peace dividend" being implemented prematurely, requiring yet another costly buildup of our military forces if Russia retains the bulk of her strategic arsenal as she may well do and re-emerges as a major threat. ***
Next up: Part II-Do Russian Nukes Still Threaten the US?
© 2002 David T. Pyne, Esq.
David T. Pyne, Esq. is a national security expert who works as an International Programs Manager in the Department of the Army responsible for the countries of the former Soviet Union and the Middle East among others. He is also a licensed attorney and former Army Reserve Officer. In addition, he holds a MA in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. Mr. Pyne currently serves as Executive Vice President of the Virginia Republican Assembly. He is also a member of the Center for Emerging National Security Affairs based in Washington, D.C.
COPYRIGHT © 2002 BY THE AMERICAN PARTISAN. All writers retain rights to their work.
Home | About Us | Archives | Forums | Links | Resources | Submissions | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer