House to Back Nuclear Strategy

The House is poised to lend its support to the Bush administration’s revised nuclear arms strategy, which includes controversial proposals to build smaller “battlefield” nuclear bombs and to consider the development of nuclear-tipped missile defense interceptors.

A vote is expected today on a defense authorization bill that urges the administration to proceed with these plans, to accelerate preparations for the resumption of nuclear testing and to develop a broad plan for designing a new generation of nuclear weapons.

The bill also urges the administration not to shrink its offensive nuclear arsenal below the level of 1,700 operational warheads that is the target of current U.S.-Russian arms discussions.

While today’s House vote is not binding, critics view it as another part of a long-term campaign to build support for an agenda they fear will make the use of nuclear weapons more likely.

John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, a Washington-based arms control organization, said the step is “another building block in the effort toward revamping and building up nuclear forces.” House Armed Services Committee members who wrote the language are trying to “move the most destructive weapons ever invented back into the mainstream of security policy,” he contended.

A supporter of the new policy, Jack Spencer of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said he is pleased to see that lawmakers “understand that it is important to make [nuclear policy] more consistent with the international environment.”

In unveiling their approach in March, administration officials argued that new threats from potential Third World adversaries made it necessary to consider developing nuclear arms that would be more effective in deterring the use of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological agents, against the United States.

Some in the administration favor developing “bunker busters”--smaller nuclear weapons that can reach the deeply buried and hardened targets that regimes are increasingly using to shield weapon stores and command posts.

Proposals for such weapons have been controversial because of critics’ contentions that nuclear arms would no longer be viewed only as weapons of last resort. This could cause other countries to develop and use the nuclear weapons, they argue.

Another lightning rod is the proposal to explore the use of nuclear-tipped interceptor missiles as part of a missile defense system.

Advocates say one advantage of such a system is that, unlike “hit to kill” alternatives, it could destroy an incoming missile from miles away.

But the notion of an explosion that disperses radioactive material through space is unsettling to many people, as well as politically problematic. There are also technical issues, including whether the electromagnetic pulse set off by such an explosion would destroy radar and other electronic equipment on Earth.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has signaled that he would like to at least explore the possible development of such weapons.

But some influential Republicans already have objected, including Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, the ranking member of the defense appropriations subcommittee.

The Pentagon is planning to build a test complex in Alaska that could be converted to use as an emergency missile defense system.