Africa Speaks Reasoning Forum

Facing A Second Nuclear Age
By William J. Broad
The New York Times

Sunday 03 August 2003

This week, ten minutes by car south of Omaha, Neb., the United States
Strategic Command is holding a little-advertised meeting at which the
Bush administration is to solidify its plans for acquiring a new
generation of nuclear arms. Topping the wish list are weapons meant to
penetrate deep into the earth to destroy enemy bunkers. The Pentagon
believes that more than 70 nations, big and small, now have some 1,400
underground command posts and sites for ballistic missiles and weapons
of mass destruction.

Determined to fight fire with fire, the Defense Department wants bomb
makers to develop a class of relatively small nuclear arms — ranging
from a fraction the size of the Hiroshima bomb to several times as large
— that could pierce rock and reinforced concrete and turn strongholds
into radioactive dust.

"With an effective earth penetrator, many buried targets could be
attacked," the administration said in its Nuclear Posture Review, which
it sent to Congress last year.

Welcome to the second nuclear age and the Bush administration's quiet
responses to the age's perceived dangers.

While initiatives like pre-emptive war have gotten most of the headlines
(understandably, given the invasion of Iraq and its shaky aftermath),
the administration is hard at work on other ways to counteract the
spread of weapons like nuclear arms. Federal and private experts agree
that with the notable exception of North Korea, diplomacy and arms
control, for now, have taken a back seat to muscle flexing.

For instance, as part of its missile defense program, on which nearly $8
billion is being spent this year, the administration is erecting a
rudimentary system of ground-based interceptors in Alaska and
California. By late next year, 10 interceptors are supposed to be ready
to zap any warheads that North Korea might lob at the United States.
Whether the system would work as advertised is open to doubt. But, then,
so is whether North Korea could — or would — ever directly attack the
United States.

Skeptics are more likely to think that North Korea has nuclear blackmail
in mind, and that what the White House really is doing is an
election-year bit of showing its determination, even as it moves toward
negotiating with Pyongyang. Late last week, there were even signs that
the North Koreans were beginning to consider a principal American demand
— that they accede to talks not with the United States alone, but
including other powers like China, Russia and Japan.

Still, while critics may berate the administration's plans and
responses, the long-term dangers are considered real. Most alarming are
the declared effort by North Korea to build a nuclear arsenal and a
presumed effort by Iran. Experts talk of wide repercussions — of an
atomic Iran inspiring nuclear ambitions in other Middle Eastern
countries, and of North Korea prompting rapid proliferation in the Far
East.

Japan is considered a likely flash point, despite its historic disdain
for things nuclear after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Nisohachi Hyodo, once seen as part of the lunatic fringe for promoting a
plan by which Japan would quickly acquire nuclear arms, now has his own
radio program on a major Tokyo station and is a popular speaker on
college campuses.

And if Japan went nuclear, experts say, China might feel compelled to
expand its own arsenal.

Paul Bracken, a Yale political scientist who described the second
nuclear age in "Fire in the East" (HarperCollins, 1999), argued that the
danger lies not just in the spread of nuclear arms but in the culture of
the second age. He said most of the new powers are poor, unlike their
atomic predecessors. Thus, India, Pakistan and North Korea are
cannibalizing their conventional forces to finance their atomic and
missile ambitions. In a crisis, he said, the military repercussions of
that trend could erode the traditional restraints on nuclear arms.
Pakistan, he said, "will be forced to use them earlier."

Perhaps least-known of the administration's responses to the second age
is its effort to fight arms of mass destruction with arms of mass
destruction. Advocates say that relatively small nuclear weapons that
burrowed deep into the ground to destroy enemy bunkers would cause
reduced collateral damage — that is, less accidental destruction beyond
the intended target.

"These kinds of capabilities could contribute to our ability to prevent
attacks by deterring them," said Keith B. Payne, who from April 2002 to
this May argued for the new arms as deputy assistant secretary of
defense for forces policy. "If an opponent thinks he has a sanctuary, he
could be emboldened to aggression."

Dr. Payne, who plans to be at the Omaha meeting, is now president of the
National Institute for Public Policy, a Washington research group. He
added that the new arms might dissuade an enemy from ever building deep
bunkers. "It's not worth the investment," he said.

Critics hate the proposed arms, fearing that their relative smallness
will breech the firewall between conventional and nuclear war and pose a
new threat to world security. They also question whether radioactive
fallout can be contained and denounce the project's overall secrecy.

"We worked hard to get civilian control over nuclear arms," said Greg
Mello, director of the Los Alamos Study Group, a private organization in
Albuquerque that monitors arms labs. "Even though nuclear weapons are
inimical to the democratic spirit, the idea of these being made by a
small minority is especially dangerous."

Dr. Payne challenged the idea that small weapons would lower the bar for
nuclear war, saying America had deployed very small atomic arms in the
past. "There's no evidence I've seen," he said, "that these made any
U.S. president anything other than very reluctant to think about the use
of nuclear weapons."

If the arms are ever built, critics say, the biggest hurdle to bunker
busting may be targeting. Atomic intelligence is notoriously crude, as
the failed weapons hunt in Iraq suggests. Recently, America's spies have
also had trouble tracking nuclear arms production in Iran and in North
Korea, which has a maze of secret sites and buried bunkers.

Congress, too, is uneasy about the new weapons, which are still in the
research stage. Last month, a House appropriations subcommittee cut back
on the administration's 2004 budget request for the arms, citing
organizational disarray among the nation's bomb makers and calling
"pursuit of a broad range of new initiatives premature."

Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private
group in Washington that monitors nuclear trends, said the rebuff from
the Republican-led House was surprising. "But they may buy it," he
added, "if the administration comes up with a clearer plan."

That tops the agenda this Wednesday and Thursday at Offutt Air Force
Base south of Omaha. Air Force Maj. Michael Shavers, a Pentagon
spokesman, said the meeting will involve some 150 people from weapons
labs, the Defense and State Departments, the Energy Department, its
National Nuclear Security Administration and the White House.

The United States Strategic Command, the host, controls the nation's
deployed nuclear arms and writes the war plans for their use.

Eager to shed light on the secretive meeting, peace advocates organized
a descent on Omaha this weekend to protest the new arms with educational
workshops, a rally, a commemoration of the Japanese bombings, a peace
concert and a vigil.

Dr. Bracken, the Yale political scientist, said the administration has a
historic opportunity, of the Nixon-in-China variety, to pioneer a new
kind of arms control that actually lowers the risk of war.

For instance, he said, the United States could renounce the first use of
nuclear arms. He said that step would help counteract the current
downward spiral toward a lower nuclear threshold. "In the cold war you
needed to retain that," he said of the threat to use nuclear arms first.
"But today, with more players in the game, there's a lot to be gained by
giving it up."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/03/weekinreview/03BROA.html?hp