Democrats Divide Over Nuclear Plan

Several leading Senate Democrats voiced concern Tuesday with a Pentagon plan that calls for the development of new breeds of nuclear weapons and an expansion of the list of nations against whom such warheads might be used.

But as the administration continued to downplay the aggressive tone of the so-called Nuclear Posture Review, there were also abundant signs that many lawmakers from both parties are prepared to consider profound changes to the nation’s nuclear contingency plans.

Many Republicans voiced support for the report and argued that its central goal--the deterrence of strikes against the United States and its allies--is consistent with the nation’s long-standing nuclear policy. “I do not believe it changes our basic U.S. approach,” said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

And several high-ranking Democrats said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks made them more inclined to back a more aggressive nuclear posture.

Changed Environment in Washington

“There are nations and groups adversarial to U.S. interests that have gotten the mind set that the United States is a paper tiger,” said Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Pentagon’s call for new weapons and a wider range of scenarios in which to use them, he said, “sounds like a step in the right direction.”

Such receptive reactions to a report that many nuclear experts--and some foreign leaders--have condemned underscores the extent to which the terrorist attacks have altered the course of defense policy debate in Washington.

For much of the last decade, policymakers have largely been preoccupied with finding ways to reduce the size of the United States’ nuclear arsenal and with persuading other nations to combat the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology.

In testimony Tuesday on the Hill, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell stressed that fighting the spread of nuclear weapons remains a paramount goal. Noting that the number of U.S. nuclear warheads has shrunk by two-thirds over the last decade, he said, “The philosophy of President Bush, the philosophy of this administration, is to continue driving down the number of nuclear weapons.”

But the report calls for, among other things, the development of “low-yield” nuclear weapons that could be used against smaller targets such as underground bunkers or chemical weapon facilities. The report also recommends adding such hostile nations as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria to the nation’s nuclear targeting plans.

Many members of both parties, including Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), simply withheld judgment.

Daschle noted that the report’s urging of the development of more precise nuclear weapons contradicts earlier signals from the Pentagon. But he offered no direct criticism of the report itself. “We need more information before we come to any conclusions,” he said.

Democrats See Diplomatic Setback

But several prominent Democrats expressed dismay, saying the Pentagon’s proposal would put the United States on a rogue course likely to erode the nation’s diplomatic leverage and encourage other countries to pursue or expand their own nuclear capabilities.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the plan could “reverse the direction of where arms control has been going for decades,” and he vowed to press the White House for details on the extent to which it intends to pursue the report’s recommendations.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the United States risks being labeled “a rogue nation going off and finding ways to use nuclear weapons.”

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a prospective presidential candidate, said the report undermines U.S. credibility as it pressures other countries to resist developing nuclear weapons of their own. “It’s very disturbing. It reduces all our bona fides on the proliferation issue.”

Though the White House has a significant amount of discretion in formulating nuclear contingency plans, several key elements of the report would require cooperation from Congress.

The administration can modify existing weapon platforms, a Democratic leadership aide said, but would need approval from Congress to develop new varieties of weapons under the terms of a 1994 statute.

And of course, Congress controls the Pentagon’s purse strings. Asked what leverage lawmakers have on administration nuclear policy, Levin replied: “The leverage is funding.”