DATE=03/12/02

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=NUCLEAR ATTACK CONTROVERSY

NUMBER=6-125600

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=Washington

INTERNET=YES

EDITOR=Assignments

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: The Los Angeles Times reported within the past few days a new Pentagon study advocating the potential use of nuclear weapons against terrorists and other enemies. The study has generated a rapid and rather intense controversy in the American press. We get a sampling now from V-O-A's _____________ in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: The study says that in the advent of a terrorist, but non-nuclear attack from such states as Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea or Libya, the use of small nuclear weapons to respond is a possibility. In addition, under certain circumstances, such as an outside attack against Israel, or China invading Taiwan, the use of such weapons should at least be considered an option.

Critics say even considering such a change in U-S nuclear policy could destabilize the world, and cause a resumption of nuclear testing. Advocates say that current nuclear policy, the Cold War dogma of Mutually Assured Destruction, no longer makes sense when the adversary might be a terrorist group such as the al-Qaida, and not a nation state. The debate is sure to intensify, but already, the pros and cons have found their way into newspaper editorials. The New York Times is afraid the United States will look like a "Nuclear Rogue" nation to the rest of the world because of the proposal, and calls it "reckless folly."

VOICE: Mr. Bush needs to send that document back to its authors and ask for a new version less menacing to the security of future American generations. ... In a world where numerous countries are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, it is quite right that America retain a credible nuclear deterrent. Where the Pentagon review goes very wrong is in lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons and in undermining the effectiveness of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. … Nuclear weapons are not just another part of the military arsenal. They are different, and lowering the threshold for their use is reckless folly.

TEXT: Equally shocked by the disclosure, The Boston Globe calls the plan "dangerous" and "A twisted posture," adding it:

VOICE: … amounts to a blueprint for undertaking what Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Center at the Carnegie Endowment, calls "a major expansion of the role of nuclear weapons in U-S military policy." The new posture calls for new nuclear weapons, new missions and uses for those weapons, and a readiness to resume nuclear testing.

TEXT: In western Pennsylvania however, The Greensburg Tribune-Review couldn't disagree more, scoffing at the "hand-wringing … at home and abroad," as it suggests:

VOICE: The simple fact is that weaponry must keep pace with changing times and circumstances. That the Bush administration clearly is prepared to do so should be cause for great comfort at home but great consternation among liberty's enemies abroad.

TEXT: Also coming to the Pentagon's defense, for at least freshly considering the use of small nuclear weapons in some cases, The Washington Times demands that people focus on the new realities.

VOICE: … 12 nations have nuclear weapon programs, 28 have ballistic missiles, 13 have biological weapons and 16 have chemical weapons. The N-P-R [The Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review] also says North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are among countries that could be involved in immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies, meaning a nuclear war, sooner rather than later. The report says that an Iraqi-Israeli conflict could escalate into a nuclear conflict.

It is no surprise that most of the nations named in the … review sponsor and harbor terrorists and have programs to produce weapons of mass destruction and missiles to carry them. … Any nation that exports nuclear terrorism, or allows it to operate from within its borders, must know that America will do whatever it takes to prevent such an attack against us.

TEXT: That endorsement of the new thinking from The Washington Times.

Back to the critics of such thinking, and to Minnesota, where The Saint Paul Pioneer Press suggests that this "New nuclear policy would ravage [this country's] credibility."

VOICE: It's no wonder that word leaked out of the Bush administration's shocking about-face in nuclear weapons policy planning. Some prudent soul or souls told the Los Angeles and … New York Times about the concepts of the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review … The premise is that nuclear weapons should be considered part of an offensive arsenal instead of as a deterrent to attack.

Quite beyond the profound immorality of nuclear proliferation, this realignment of defense policy would put the United States in the perverse position of encouraging escalation in he "rogue' nations with nuclear designs that cause the greatest worry in the post-Cold War era. President Bush, who campaigned to reduce nuclear weapons and is following through with warhead cuts, must reject the notion that "new" lower-yield nuclear weapons are a responsible option.

TEXT: Excerpts from an editorial in The Saint Paul [Minnesota] Pioneer Press. Colorado's Rocky Mountain News says it may be shocking but: "the shocking thing would be to discover no such thinking was going on. … Developing new weapons …is surely worth consideration. In Kentucky, The Louisville Courier-Journal, noting the strong reaction, suggests:

VOICE: What is [Editors: italics for emphasis] unnerving about the classified document is its revelation that the Pentagon views nuclear weapons as an important component of military planning, even regarding potential non-nuclear enemies, such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

TEXT: Newsday on New York's Long Island, disagrees. "The Pentagon's new policy shift is a warning, not an attack plan, and is actually … more than a decade … overdue."

VOICE: Don't overreact to the disclosure … that the Pentagon is shifting nuclear-attack planning away from Cold War targets and toward rogue nations developing weapons of mass destruction, such as Iraq and Iran. The change is simply the latest in a series of broad strategic reassessments, not a guide to nuclear targeting, as some alarmist critics saw it. In truth, the rethinking of U-S nuclear policy is more than a decade overdue. The geopolitical landscape has changed since the end of the Cold War. The new threats arise from nations that are not as risk-averse as the Soviet Union in their development and possible deployment of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

TEXT: For its part, The Augusta [Georgia] Chronicle agrees with Newsday that this debate is healthy in the post 9/11 world that has changed the world's security equation.

VOICE: The Bush administration seems to be signaling that it is considering using nuclear weapons to respond to biological and chemical attacks, as well as nuclear strikes. That would mark a historic change in nuclear policy that will be as heatedly debated at home as well as abroad. Let the debate begin. We're all ears. [Editors: U-S slang for "we are very attentive"]

TEXT: With that noncommittal sentiment from The Augusta, Georgia Chronicle, we conclude this editorial sampling over the Pentagon's reassessment of nuclear weapons use in future conflicts.

NEB/ANG/MEM