Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Transcript: Nuclear Posture Review gives Bush nuclear option
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:33:03 -0500
------ Forwarded Message From: richard pauli <rpauli () speakeasy org> Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 23:02:52 -0800 To: farber () cis upenn edu Subject: Transcript: Nuclear Posture Review gives Bush nuclear option Dave, Your readers may want to know that the transcript of the Nuclear Posture Review is available online. Transcript Nuclear Briefing Jan 9th 2002 http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/t01092002_t0109npr.html Slides: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/g020109-D-6570C.html A quick scan of the briefing transcript shows that it recommends that Nuclear weapons should be regarded as just another weapon to be selected by the president for strategic or tactical reasons. The language does not make it clear to me whether this means adding 1700 to 2300 warheads to our arsenal. Noticeably lacking is any discussion of long range ecological or political impacts of this policy change. RP -snip- J. D. Crouch, the assistant secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. Q: Preserving the existing triad, are you going to be abandoning the counting rules that you use right now under START, or -- and does that mean that you're going to be counting strictly the number of warheads and not counting a bomber as a certain number of warheads and a submarine as a certain number of warheads? Crouch: START I will continue to be in force, and all of its applicable rules, including the verification provisions as well as the counting rules, are still in force. However, when we talk about 1,700 to 2,300 operationally deployed systems, we are talking -- this is what we might call truth in advertising. There are no phantom warheads here. This is the actual number of weapons that we will deploy on the force. Now, those two things are not inconsistent, because obviously START force levels are at about 6,000 weapons, and we're going to be -- we are in fact drawing down to force levels that are not only below START I, but are below what would have been deployed under START II. Q: When you say the number of weapons that will be deployed, weapons and warheads then are interchangeable there; you mean the number of warheads that will be deployed? Crouch: Warheads. --snip- Q: May I ask a question? I know you probably think you might have answered it, but just for the average American, average public, without getting into technical terms, provided you can even avoid the word "triad", would you just explain the -- exactly what it is that you are doing and why it is important, if you can? Just summarize what it is and why is it important. Crouch: Right. The Cold War is over. We have a nuclear capability that was built then. And what we are doing is we are transforming our forces in a way that I think will make -- that is much more appropriate to the security environment and the threats that we believe we will face in the future. And as a result of that, I think we will have a U.S. military uniformly, because of that military transformation, and in this particular piece of that transformation in this new strategic triad, we will have a capability that will make the United States safer, will give the president more effective options for dealing with crises and managing crises. And I think that that benefits every American. Q: And why is this being done? Is it strictly because of Russia, or is this also the best plan? Crouch: (laughs) I think it's definitely the best way to arrange or to array our forces for the future. And -- but I want to underscore that one of the -- I mean, one of the things that enabled us to -- gave us the opportunity to do this was our improved relationship with Russia. So I think the two sort of go hand in hand. - snip The Web site (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/b03092002_bt113-02.html) says: "The Nuclear Posture Review is required by law. It is a wide-ranging analysis of the requirements for deterrence in the 21st century. This review of the U.S. nuclear posture is the latest in a long series of reviews since the development of nuclear weapons. It does not provide operational guidance on nuclear targeting or planning." (Special briefing on the results of the Nuclear Posture Review [NPR]. Also participating were Rear Adm. Barry M. Costello, deputy director for Strategy and Policy, Joint Staff; John Harvey, director, Office of Policy, Planning, Assessment and Analysis, Department of Energy; and Richard McGraw, principal deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Slides shown in this briefing are on the Web at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/g020109-D-6570C.html. The cover letter forwarding the NPR to Congress was made available during the briefing and is on the Web at http:// www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/d20020109npr.pdf.) ------ End of Forwarded Message
Current thread:
- IP: Transcript: Nuclear Posture Review gives Bush nuclear option Dave Farber (Mar 10)