Pre-emption denied new nukes
By Jim Lobe
Washington, DC, Nov. 24 (IPS) — A cost-conscious US Congress
has denied funding to Bush administration projects to develop new nuclear
weapons designed to target rogue states or terrorists developing weapons
of mass destruction (WMD).
Critics who said the new “bunker buster” weapons risked blurring
the lines between conventional and unconventional warfare hailed the
move, which was led by a member of President George W. Bush’s Republican
Party.
Over White House objections, members of both the House of Representatives
and the Senate decided against approving 27.6 million dollars for the
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (“bunker buster”) designed
to destroy command-and-control facilities or WMDs buried deep underground.
The proposed funding was part of the mammoth 388-billion-dollar government
spending bill approved Saturday.
Members of Congress also cut a suggested nine million dollars for what
is called advanced-concepts research on new weapons designs, a program
that could have funded new, lower-yield nuclear weapons — so-called
“mini-nukes” — for use as tactical battlefield weapons.
Politicians also denied the administration 30 million dollars it had
requested to shorten the lead-time needed to resume nuclear weapons
testing at the Nevada Test Site.
“This is the biggest victory that arms-control advocates in Congress
have had since 1992, when we were able to place limits on nuclear testing,”
said Massachusetts Representative Edward Markey from the opposition
Democratic Party.
“If we are to convince other countries to forgo nuclear weapons,
we cannot be preparing to build a whole new generation of nuclear weapons
here in the US,” he added.
The decisions were also hailed by arms-control activists, who gave much
of the credit for the outcome to Republican Rep David Hobson, the chairman
of the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy
and Water Development.
“This proves both how one person in a key position can make a major
difference and that opposition to new nuclear weapons extends across
party lines,” said John Isaacs, the director for the Council for
a Liveable World (CLW), a grassroots organization that had lobbied against
the new weapons, in a statement.
Hobson himself warned the administration that it “should read this
as a clear signal from Congress” that any new effort to revive
the funding in 2005 “would get the same reaction.”
The Bush government had made the new weapons a top priority beginning
in 2002, as an integral part of its “pre-emption” strategy
to be employed against terrorists and rogue states suspected of having
or building WMD.
Advocates of them have long argued that nuclear weapons, if precisely
targeted and designed in a way that would limit their destructive impacts,
could be used effectively for conventional purposes, particularly in
Bush’s “war on terrorism.”
They also contended that such weapons would help deter attacks ordered
by foreign leaders or terrorists who believed they could escape retaliation
by building hardened, underground shelters.
“The problem is the public — and the Congress reflects this
— just doesn’t understand the role of nuclear weapons in the
post-Cold War world,” David Smith, chief operating officer of the
National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP), a think tank that has long
lobbied for developing more advanced nuclear weapons, told the ‘San
Francisco Chronicle’ on Tuesday.
But opponents have argued that developing new nuclear weapons could
spark an arms race with other nuclear powers and make countries that
have not yet crossed the nuclear threshold more determined to acquire
WMD and the ability to deliver them.
In a speech last August, Hobson said he saw the administration’s
proposals, particularly for the “bunker buster,” the “mini-nukes”
and cutting the time needed to resume nuclear testing as “very
provocative and overly aggressive policies that undermine our moral
authority to argue that other nations should forgo nuclear weapons.”
“We cannot advocate for nuclear non-proliferation around the globe
and pursue more useable nuclear weapons options at home,” he added.
Daryl Kimball, director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association
(ACA) praised Hobson’s “enormous courage” in defying
the White House. He said Congress’ action showed “that not
only are Democrats convinced, but key Republicans are convinced we don’t
need new nuclear weapons capabilities.”
According to CLW’s Isaacs, the politicians’ rebuff to the
administration was aided by the growing concern over the unprecedented
budget deficit piled up under Bush, currently more than 400 billion
dollars annually, or roughly the same amount as the defense budget.
In negotiating the omnibus spending bill, the House and Senate agreed
that budgets for all executive departments, except Defense and Homeland
Security, would be subject to strict ceilings for fiscal year (FY) 2005.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, which runs nuclear programs,
is administered by the Energy Department.
Congress also cut another administration request for 29.8 million dollars
to build plutonium pits — or nuclear triggers — for new nuclear
weapons to seven million dollars.
“This is not winning the war by a long shot,” said California
Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the principal foes of the administration’s
proposed nuclear programs. “But it is a consequential step that
should send a very loud message to the administration.”
