U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike
on Iraq
For what one defense analyst says is a
worst-case scenario, planners are studying the use of atomic bombs on
deeply buried targets.
by Paul Richter, Times Staff Writer, January
25 2003
WASHINGTON -- As the Pentagon
continues a highly visible buildup of troops and weapons in the Persian
Gulf, it is also quietly preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons
in a war against Iraq, according to a report by a defense analyst.
The complete article can be viewed at: http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-nuke25jan25,0,4684654.story
Visit Latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com
U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq
By Paul Richter, Times Staff Writer, January 25 2003
For what one defense analyst
says is a worst-case scenario, planners are studying the use of atomic
bombs on deeply buried targets.
WASHINGTON -- As the Pentagon
continues a highly visible buildup of troops and weapons in the Persian
Gulf, it is also quietly preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons
in a war against Iraq, according to a report by a defense analyst.
Although they consider such a strike unlikely, military planners have
been actively studying lists of potential targets and considering options,
including the possible use of so-called bunker-buster nuclear weapons
against deeply buried military targets, says analyst William M. Arkin,
who writes a regular column on defense matters for The Times.
Military officials have been focusing their planning on the use of tactical
nuclear arms in retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with chemical
or biological weapons, or to preempt one, Arkin says. His report, based
on interviews and a review of official documents, appears in a column
that will be published in The Times on Sunday.
Administration officials believe that in some circumstances, nuclear
arms may offer the only way to destroy deeply buried targets that may
contain unconventional weapons that could kill thousands.
Some officials have argued that the blast and radiation effects of such
strikes would be limited.
But that is in dispute. Critics contend that a bunker-buster strike
could involve a huge radiation release and dangerous blast damage. They
also say that use of a nuclear weapon in such circumstances would encourage
other nuclear-armed countries to consider using such weapons in more
kinds of situations and would badly undermine the half-century effort
to contain the spread of nuclear arms.
Although it may be highly unlikely that the Bush administration would
authorize the use of such weapons in Iraq -- Arkin describes that as
a worst-case scenario -- the mere disclosure of its planning contingencies
could stiffen the opposition of France, Germany and Middle East nations
to an invasion of Iraq.
"If the United States dropped a bomb on an Arab country, it might be
a military success, but it would be a diplomatic, political and strategic
disaster," said Joseph Cirincione, director of nonproliferation studies
at the Carnegie Endowment for Interna- tional Peace in Washington.
He said there is a danger of the misuse of a nuclear weapon in Iraq
because of the chance that "somebody could be seduced into the mistaken
idea that you could use a nuclear weapon with minimal collateral damage
and political damage."
In the last year, Bush administration officials have repeatedly made
clear that they want to be better prepared to consider the nuclear option
against the threat of "weapons of mass destruction" in the hands of
terrorists and rogue nations. The current planning, as reported by Arkin,
offers a concrete example of their determination to follow through on
this pledge.
Arkin also says that the Pentagon has changed the bureaucratic oversight
of nuclear weapons so that they are no longer treated as a special category
of arms but are grouped with conventional military options.
A White House spokesman declined to comment Friday on Arkin's report,
except to say that "the United States reserves the right to defend itself
and its allies by whatever means necessary."
Consideration of the nuclear option has defenders.
David J. Smith, an arms control negotiator in the first Bush administration,
said presidents would consider using such a weapon only "in terribly
ugly situations where there are no easy ways out. If there's a threat
that could involve huge numbers of American lives, I as a citizen would
want the president to consider that option."
Smith defended the current administration's more assertive public pronouncements
on the subject, saying that weapons have a deterrent value only "if
the other guy really believes you might use them."
Other administrations have warned that they might use nuclear weapons
in circumstances short of an all-out atomic war.
In January 1991, before the Persian Gulf War, Secretary of State James
A. Baker III warned Iraqi diplomat Tarik Aziz in a letter that the American
people would "demand the strongest possible response" to a use of chemical
or biological weapons. The Clinton administration made a similar warning
to the Libyans regarding the threat from a chemical plant.
But officials of this administration have placed greater emphasis on
such possibilities and have stated that preemptive strikes may sometimes
be needed to safeguard Americans against adversaries who cannot be deterred,
such as terrorists, or against dictators, such as Saddam Hussein.
Instead of making such a warning from time to time as threats arise,
the Bush administration "has set it out as a general principle, and
backed it up by explaining what has changed in the world," Smith said.
In a policy statement issued only last month, the White House said the
United States "will continue to make clear that it reserves the right
to respond with overwhelming force -- including through resort to all
of our options -- to the use of weapons of mass destruction against
the United States."
One year ago, the administration completed a classified Nuclear Posture
Review that said nuclear weapons should be considered against targets
able to withstand conventional attack; in retaliation for an attack
with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons; or "in the event of surprising
military developments." And it identified seven countries -- China,
Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria -- as possible targets.
The same report called on the government to develop smaller nuclear
weapons for possible use in some battlefield situations. Both the United
States and Russia already have stockpiles of such tactical weapons,
which are often small enough to be carried by one or two people yet
can exceed the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, Japan, in
World War II.
The administration has since been pushing Congress to pay for a study
of how to build a smaller, more effective version of a 6-year-old nuclear
bunker-buster bomb called the B-61 Mod 11. Critics maintain that the
administration's eagerness for this study shows officials' desire to
move toward building new weapons and to end the decade-old voluntary
freeze on nuclear testing.
The B-61 is considered ineffective because it can burrow only 20 feet
before detonating. The increasingly sophisticated underground command
posts and weapon storage facilities being built by some countries are
far deeper than that. And the closer to the surface a nuclear device
explodes, the greater the risk of the spread of radiation.
The reported yield of B-61 devices in U.S. inventory varies from less
than 1 kiloton of TNT to more than 350. The Hiroshima bomb was 20 kilotons.
Discussion of new weapons has set off a heated argument among experts
on the value and effects of smaller-yield nuclear weapons.
Some Pentagon officials contend that the nation could develop nuclear
weapons that could burrow deep enough to destroy hardened targets. But
some independent physicists have argued that such a device would barely
penetrate the surface while blowing out huge amounts of radioactive
dirt that would pollute the region around it with a deadly fallout.
Wade Boese of the Arms Control Assn. in Washington said there is no
evidence that conventional arms wouldn't be just as effective in reaching
deeply buried targets.
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
For information about reprinting this article, go to www.lats.com/rights.
Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
Home
Disclaimer/Fair
Use
