On December 31, 2001 the Bush Administration released to Congress its classified Nuclear Posture Review. It followed up in September 2002 with its presentation of the National Security Strategy. These two documents taken together represent a profound shift in nuclear weapons-use policy; signaling that the United States is ready to use nuclear weapons against countries that are deemed threats to security, either actual or potential.

The new National Security Strategy (NSS) document states: “Our enemies are seeking weapons of mass destruction. America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. The U.S. cannot let our enemies strike first.”

The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) looks to be basically an outline for implementing the goals of the Bush Administration’s National Security Strategy. It is a compilation of current nuclear capabilities and post-Cold War nuclear strategies, but catalyzed by the military imperative to prepare for a world envisioned by Strangelovian nuclear-war planners. It covers every circumstance in which the President might wish to use nuclear weapons.

• The NPR outlined three situations for which the U.S. would use nuclear forces:
• Nuclear weapons could be deployed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack,
• In retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, and
• In the event of surprising military developments.

Under these circumstances, the NPR named Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea as countries that the United States would most likely use nuclear weapons against. In the event of surprising military developments, the report recommends that the Pentagon be prepared to use nuclear weapons against hostile regimes or terrorist groups that might suddenly acquire unknown weapons.

The NPR calls for using our nuclear capability to strengthen the credibility of our non-nuclear offensive force, in order to deter the enemy. It calls for developing tactical nuclear weapons known as Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators (RNEPs) to be used against hardened or deeply buried targets. It also calls for the development of low-yield nuclear weapons, known as mini-nukes.

Congress Moves Ahead with RNEP and Mini-Nukes

On May 20-21, 2003, the House and Senate debated and passed their respective versions of the fiscal year 2004 defense authorization bill, HR 1588/S 1050. This annual bill authorizes funds for the Defense Department and for the nuclear weapons activities of the Energy Department. One of the issues that most concerned nuclear disarmament advocates was funding for research on RNEPs. After a heated debate, both the House and Senate authorized $15 million for research on the RNEP.

For decades, a few civilian military planners and nuclear scientists have argued for creating this new class of earth-penetrating nuclear weapons. Sometimes referred to as “bunker busters,” these weapons would be designed to burrow into the ground to destroy underground military facilities that are protected by 100 to 300 feet of concrete or rock. The RNEP would use an existing nuclear weapon, redesigned for use against underground bunkers. It would have a yield about 70 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb.

RNEP proponents claim that, because the weapon penetrates the earth before detonating, it would be a “clean” nuclear weapon. But in reality, there is no such thing as a “clean” nuclear weapon. According to Princeton University physicist Rob Nelson, even a very small nuclear bunker buster with a yield of about 0.1 kiloton (1/200 the energy of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima), must penetrate approximately 230 feet underground for the explosion to be fully contained.

Currently, the Pentagon’s only nuclear earth penetrator, the B61-11, can achieve a depth of only 20 feet in dry earth. At this depth, a 0.1-kiloton nuclear weapon would blow out a huge crater and eject a massive cloud of radioactive dust and debris into the atmosphere. Larger nuclear yields necessary to destroy targets buried deep underground would create considerably more fallout. Even at depths at which a nuclear explosion would theoretically be “contained,” some of the resulting radioactivity would be forced back up the “chimney” created by the penetration device. The appropriate question is therefore not whether nuclear earth penetrators will contaminate the atmosphere with radioactivity, but rather how much radioactivity will be produced.

If detonated in an urban setting, tens of thousands of people could receive a fatal dose of radiation within the first 24 hours. More would be killed or injured by the extreme pressures of the blast and thermal injuries arising from the heat of the explosion. Still more casualties would result from the fires and the collapse of buildings from the seismic shock that the explosion would produce.

Another deeply troubling development in Congress was the repeal of the Spratt-Furse provision, which would have banned research and development of low-yield (under five kiloton) nuclear weapons. Congress voted to allow the research of low-yield nuclear weapons, but specified that the administration must get Congressional authorization before proceeding with development.

Where Are We Going?

The U.S. has strongly criticized North Korea, Iran, and Libya for trying to obtain equipment to produce weapons-grade nuclear materials and the ability to deliver them as nuclear bombs. The U.S. government has also expressed concerns about continuing nuclear programs in Pakistan and India, as well as growing concern that nuclear materials could fall into the hands of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. U.S. research on and development of so-called usable nuclear weapons undermines U.S. demands that these countries not seek acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Why is the Administration abandoning cooperative international arms control efforts and instead seeking to develop new nuclear weapons? If the U.S. will not lay down its nuclear weapons and stop developing new ones, why should anyone else—especially those that feel most threatened by the new U.S. policy of preventive war?

Building the nuclear “bunker buster” (RNEP), will further weaken already struggling international efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. U.S. influence with the international community will erode further if it seeks to upgrade U.S. nuclear weapons while demanding that other countries, such as Iran and North Korea, disarm.

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), recently said that, instead of developing new nuclear weapons, the U.S. should send a message to potential proliferators that “[e]ven though we have nuclear weapons, we are moving to get rid of them. We are going to develop a system of security that does not depend on nuclear weapons because that’s the way we want the world to move.”

But instead, the Bush Administration is leading the world down the wrong path. Rather than adhering to our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to reduce reliance on the most horrific weapons ever created and to work for global disarmament, the Administration is seeking new uses for nuclear weapons. Adopting such a nuclear posture is a step backward, and a virtual invitation for other nations to opt out of their NPT obligations as well.

These same issues will be debated in Congress next year. They may also be raised in the presidential races in early primary states. Nuclear weapons proponents will have to work very hard, while facing considerable opposition, if these new weapons are to be built. Members of Congress need to continue hearing from constituents that limiting low-yield and nuclear bunker buster research is important for American security and U.S. nonproliferation efforts worldwide.

Please raise awareness on this issue. Educate your family and friends on new nuclear weapons development and nuclear non-proliferation. Communicate with your Member of Congress, expressing your opposition to the development of new nuclear weapons, and write an op-ed for your local paper, explaining the serious implications of building such weapons.

Assembly Policy

Since reunion in 1983 the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has repeatedly affirmed its long-standing call to end the arms race. General Assembly resolutions and statements of the Washington Office have gone on record to:

• Urge ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
• Oppose deployment of a missile defense system.
• Advocate adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Support negotiations for arms control and disarmament.
• Oppose expanded use of nuclear weapons.
• Oppose the development of new nuclear weapons.

Reexamination by the United States of both its domestic and international policies, and the seeking of informed public review of its foreign policy perspective and goals for the 21st century will be based on the extension of the rule of law, the development of strengthened instruments of nonviolent conflict resolution, not on the continued enhancement of technological instruments of destruction, shaped originally in the context of the cold war... (Minutes, 2000, Part I, pp. 280-281)