01/04/10
Those who beat their
swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords
-Benjamin Franklin
Obama's nuclear-free vision mired in debate
Pentagon officials have pushed back against the president's
goals to shrink the U.S. stockpile and reduce the role of such weapons in
foreign policy, sources say.
By Paul Richter
January 4, 2010
Reporting from Washington
President Obama's ambitious plan to begin phasing out nuclear weapons has run up
against powerful resistance from officials in the Pentagon and other U.S.
agencies, posing a threat to one of his most important foreign policy
initiatives.
Obama laid out his vision of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague, Czech
Republic, last April, pledging that the U.S. would take dramatic steps to lead
the way. Nine months later, the administration is locked in internal debate over
a top-secret policy blueprint for shrinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal and
reducing the role of such weapons in America's military strategy and foreign
policy.
Officials in the Pentagon and elsewhere have pushed back against Obama
administration proposals to cut the number of weapons and narrow their mission,
according to U.S. officials and outsiders who have been briefed on the process.
In turn, White House officials, unhappy with early Pentagon-led drafts of the
blueprint known as the Nuclear Posture Review, have stepped up their involvement
in the deliberations and ordered that the document reflect Obama's preference
for sweeping change, according to the U.S. officials and others, who described
discussions on condition of anonymity because of their sensitivity and secrecy.
The Pentagon has stressed the importance of continued U.S. deterrence, an
objective Obama has said he agrees with. But a senior Defense official
acknowledged in an interview that some officials are concerned that the
administration may be going too far. He described the debate as "spirited. . . .
I think we have every possible point of view in the world represented."
The debate represents another collision between Obama's administration and key
parts of the national security establishment, after scrapes over troop levels in
Afghanistan and missile defenses in Eastern Europe.
But more than those issues, the future of U.S. nuclear weapons policy is
directly tied to a series of initiatives Obama has advanced as a prime goal of
his presidency.
"This is the first test of Obama's nuclear commitments," said former U.S.
Ambassador Nancy E. Soderberg, who held senior foreign policy positions in the
Clinton administration. "They can't afford to fall short at the outset."
Congress called for the nuclear review, the third such study since the end of
the Cold War, placing the Pentagon in charge. Similar reviews were conducted
near the beginning of the Clinton and the George W. Bush administrations, but
Obama's is the first in which substantial changes stand to be made both in the
number of U.S. nuclear weapons and in how they are used.
The government maintains an estimated 9,400 nuclear weapons, about 1,000 fewer
than in 2002. But Obama believes that stepping up efforts to reduce the
stockpile will give U.S. officials added credibility in their quest to
strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the cornerstone international
arms-control pact.
The timing of the administration debate on the nuclear review is crucial,
because a key international meeting on the treaty is planned for May in New
York.
Also looming this year are other elements of Obama's nuclear agenda, including
renewal of an arms-reduction treaty with Russia and a push for Senate
ratification of a global ban on nuclear testing.
The nonproliferation treaty has been weakened in recent years by the spread of
nuclear technologies to countries such as North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. But
nonnuclear countries are wary of intrusive new rules, arguing that though the
United States preaches nuclear arms control to others, it has failed to live up
to its own promises to disarm.
For Obama, the stakes are high. The difficulties posed by challenges in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea and the Middle East underscore the need for
progress on arms control.
Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in part because of expectations that he
would make good on his pledge to reduce the nuclear threat.
Obama would not be the first president to suffer setbacks on nuclear policy at
the hands of politics and the U.S. bureaucracy. President Clinton and Defense
Secretary Les Aspin had ambitious plans to overhaul nuclear policy. But their
1994 review quickly bogged down in internal disagreement, and ended largely by
preserving the status quo.
Obama has vowed to move toward abolishing American nuclear weapons, but has
acknowledged that the process may not be completed in his lifetime.
The president told world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly meeting
in September that his administration would soon set out a new nuclear posture
policy statement that "opens the door to deeper cuts and reduces the role of
nuclear weapons."
But the process of doing so in Washington has encountered difficulty on several
scores, according to those who described the talks.
A core issue under debate, officials said, is whether the United States should
shed its long-standing ambiguity about whether it would use nuclear weapons in
certain circumstances, in hopes that greater specificity would give foreign
governments more confidence to make their own decisions on nuclear arms.
Some in the U.S. argue that the administration should assure foreign governments
that it won't use nuclear weapons in reaction to a biological, chemical or
conventional attack, but only in a nuclear exchange. Others argue that the
United States should promise that it would never use nuclear weapons first, but
only in response to a nuclear attack.
Pentagon officials question the value of such public declarations, contending
that foreign governments may not even believe them, said the U.S. officials and
others.
During the Cold War, Soviet officials declared that they would use nuclear
weapons only in response to a nuclear attack. But when Soviet archives were
opened, it became clear that "there were scenarios where they would have
contemplated first use," said Charles Ferguson, a former State Department
official who now heads the Federation of American Scientists.
The lingering skepticism that resulted could carry over to similar U.S.
declarations, limiting their worth, some officials have argued.
A "no-first-use" policy may represent a bigger step than the Obama
administration would be willing to take, private analysts said.
Instead, they think the administration might hedge its policy by saying, for
instance, that the United States would use nuclear weapons only in situations
that threatened its existence.
Another issue being debated is how to scale back the U.S. stockpile while
continuing to provide nuclear protection to allies, in part to keep them from
developing their own nuclear arsenals. The U.S. maintains hundreds of nuclear
weapons overseas for such purposes.
For instance, some U.S. submarines in the Pacific carry nuclear-tipped
torpedoes, which, Ferguson said, many Japanese officials like for their possible
deterrent effect against a growing Chinese navy. Because nuclear weapons provide
such assurance to a key ally, some U.S. officials are reluctant to cut back on
the capability.
For similar reasons, some U.S. officials want to keep about 200 U.S. bombs at
European bases, providing security for Eastern European countries.
Another debate is whether the U.S. needs three major delivery systems for its
nuclear weapons -- long-range missiles, submarines and bombers. But eliminating
one of them would face strong resistance from the affected military services and
the lawmakers who support them.
The senior Defense official said the nuclear posture debate centers on the
different ways toward the twin goals of nonproliferation and deterrence.
"We are not looking at whether to reduce the roles of nuclear weapons and
whether to reduce [their numbers]," he said.
"We're looking at how."
paul.richter@latimes.com
Julian E. Barnes in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.
* * * * *
Obuma's back from vacation, refreshed and reinvigorated. Look for a flurry of efforts like this to weaken U.S. defenses and destroy our society and infrastructure. Watch your wallet and your guns.
EnemyoftheState