U.S. Nuclear Proposals Envision Radical Changes in Nuclear Arsenal

Washington Post (WP) reported yesterday that proposals are circulating inside the U.S. defense establishment for radical changes in nuclear arsenal, including a phase-out of all land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and a sharp reduction in the strategic bomber force.

WP stated that ``the proposals, described by some experts as the first revolutionary ideas in nuclear thinking since the end of the Cold War, have been triggered by President Bush`s statements.`` In his May 1 speech, President Bush said that ``the U.S. can, and will, change the size, the composition and character of our nuclear forces in a way that reflects the reality that the Cold War is over.``

Quoting a recent Air Force Academy research paper, WP stated that ``if the United States cuts its current arsenal of more than 6,500 strategic bombs and missile warheads to between 1,500 and 1,000, most national security officials agree this will by necessity drive the United States to eliminate one offensive leg of the current triad.`` WP also added that the authors of the paper, all active-duty Air Force officers, contended that the most logical step would be to eliminate the entire U.S. force of 550 land-based ICBMs, most of which are aimed at Russia.

WP also reported that proposals to end the nuclear mission for B-52Hs, which are devoted to nuclear missions, were under consideration.

WP anticipated that although Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has ordered a review of nuclear strategy, the review of nuclear deterrence, which officials once indicated could be finished by early summer, appeared unlikely to be ready until late fall, around the same time that a congressionally mandated nuclear posture review is due.

Meanwhile, in his Naval Academy commencement speech, President Bush indicated that proposals for the new U.S. national defense system was not an easy task by saying that ``to augment the defense capacity is not easy. To change the direction of the defense system is same as to change the direction of a gigantic ship.``

Although White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer stated that President Bush could speak on defense policy at the Naval Academy’s commencement accompanied by the timely completion of the proposals for the new U.S. national defense system, Bush did not discuss specifics of the system. WP commented that the Bush administration was having a hard time to combine the opinions of the military circles with the public opinions with regard to the national defense strategy.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was reported to have examined the new defense strategy with Andrew Marshall (79), defense strategy analyst, as well as twenty other private consulting organizations. In this process, however, some of the marginalized military circles were reported to have opposed the contents as well as the process of the defense strategy proposals. The U.S. press reported that Rumsfeld and the chief military generals had arguments with regard to the proposals.

Han Ki-Heung eligius@donga.com