[Peace-discuss] new US nuclear weapons

[patton paul]

U.S. debates reviving banned nuclear option
More aggressive policy to counter global threats

James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, May 6, 2003

Ten years ago, Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., co-sponsored a widely supported
piece of legislation that seemed an enlightened coda to the Cold War.

After the military had eliminated most of its smaller, tactical nuclear
weapons, Spratt's amendment codified the leap by prohibiting the
development of any more of these low-yield warheads.

In a remarkable sign of the times, a congressional committee will debate
on Wednesday the repeal of the so-called Spratt-Furse Amendment, under a
proposal by the Bush administration.

Further, the White House is pushing in next year's defense authorization
bill for funds to design a new generation of bunker-buster nuclear
warheads and to increase the readiness of the underground site in Nevada
where the weapons were once tested, which could lead to the end of a
decade-old test ban and send ripples around the globe.

The Bush administration describes its aggressive nuclear policies -- which
appear likely to sail through the Republican-controlled Congress -- as a
necessary response to the more dangerous world it faces, particularly with
countries such as North Korea and Iran developing a nuclear capability.
The aim, the White House said, is to provide ways of attacking deeply
buried caches of weapons of mass destruction.

But Spratt and many arms control experts said conventional weapons could
do the job just as well, as the recent bombing campaign in Iraq
demonstrated. They expressed amazement that what had seemed a firm resolve
to cut back on the most dangerous weapons ever created had eroded so
quickly since the end of the Cold War.

"We saw this as one small symbolic way of saying, 'Let's not backslide
into thinking about using these tactical weapons'," Spratt said in an
interview. "We decided we didn't want to go back. We'd been there."

He added that his biggest concern was that the military might regard the
low-yield nuclear weapons as just bigger bombs, rather than an entirely
different level of warfare that increased the risks of devastating nuclear
exchanges. Repealing his amendment, he said, seems like it will lower the
threshold all over again, creating weapons that will seem more "usable"
than the hugely destructive "strategic" nuclear warheads in the arsenal.

Just how provocative those steps could prove was evident half a world away
in Geneva, where dozens of countries have been meeting over the past week
to strengthen one of the principal arms controls agreements, the Nuclear
Non- Proliferation Treaty.

Jayantha Dhanapala, undersecretary-general for disarmament affairs at the
United Nations, said there were already deep concerns that the Bush
administration's nuclear policies could trigger a new arms race and
undermine years of success in limiting the spread of the weapons.

"I never imagined that this kind of regression would take place," said
Dhanapala. He added that if the Bush administration were to create new
low- yield weapons and then resume underground testing, other countries
would surely follow.

"You can be certain other countries will test if the U.S. does," he said.

"That would start a chain reaction. The bad old days will be back."

The Bush administration insists it supports most of the arms control
agreements past presidents have signed. In a statement read at the Geneva
conference last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the Bush
administration had "a desire and an intention to reduce our reliance on
nuclear weapons" and that "the spread of nuclear weapons would gravely
destabilize our world."

But a number of administration officials have cast scorn on old agreements
for failing to restrain nations such as North Korea and Iran and have
demanded a more muscular U.S. response -- especially the repeal of the
Spratt-Furse Amendment and a big push on developing new nuclear weapons.

"It seems to be either that the left doesn't know what the right is doing
or there are two separate policies" being pursued by the Bush
administration, said Dhanapala. "But the fact that the nuclear weapons
states, especially the U.S., are not moving toward disarmament is creating
a lot of frustration."

Spratt said that, given the Republican majority in Congress, he was hoping
merely to water down the White House effort. He said he was proposing to
loosen his amendment so it would allow advanced design work on low-yield
weapons, but not actual production.

In addition, he said, he is seeking to pass an amendment that would
require the president to seek congressional approval if he plans to resume
nuclear testing. His hopes, he added, are not high.

"These days, you win a few, and you lose a lot," he said.

E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold at sfchronicle.com.