Scripps Howard News Service February 05, 2003
Nuclear weapons on the table in a Iraqi war
By Lance Gay
- The Bush administration won't take nuclear weapons off the table as military planners sketch out a war in Iraq and weigh whether Saddam Hussein would likely lash back with chemical or biological weapons if cornered.
In a policy publicly unveiled in December, the White House said America's strategy is to consider all options against any use of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons on American troops or U.S. allies.
"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through resort to all of our options - to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, or forces abroad, and friends and allies," it says.
Critics say the new policy removes nuclear weapons from their special classification, and makes the Pentagon consider wider use of them. The Pentagon has already studied the possibility of using low-yield nuclear bombs to destroy underground bunkers or buried stockpiles or chemical or biological weapons.
In a report sent to Congress last year, the military concluded that new generations of laser-guided conventional weapons were so accurate they could do a better bunker-busting job than nuclear weapons, which aren't as accurate. Furthermore, nuclear explosions could create so much damage they might spread chemical or biological weapons to surrounding civilian areas, and make it more difficult to clean up contaminated areas once the war is over, the military concluded.
Some military analysts say the Bush administration is forcing a shift in how the military would use nuclear weapons.
"There is a greater willingness to entertain a nuclear response," said Michael Levi, deputy director of the strategic security project at the American Federation of Scientists. Levi contended that it's possible under the new doctrine that the U.S. military could respond to a chemical weapons attack with nuclear weapons, although he expects that any decision would hinge on how many people were killed in an Iraqi attack.
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, and also has used the weapons against Iraqi Kurds. But he did not use them during the Persian Gulf War, or install chemical weapons on Scud missiles he sent to Israel.
Levi said he expects Saddam will use chemical weapons, both against U.S troops and Israel, this time. "It is difficult to deter someone who has nothing to lose," he said.
Francois Boo, an analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington think tank, said a new war with Iraq would be different because President Bush has repeatedly declared his intention this time to depose Saddam and his regime. U.N. weapons inspectors say they have not yet had an accounting for vast stocks of VX nerve gas, chemicals used to make mustard gas, or stockpiles of anthrax that Iraq has hidden.
"The restrictions are gone, and he will try to create as many casualties as possible," Boo said. Boo said he also expects Saddam would order the use of chemical weapons in a last-ditch effort to blunt an American attack.
But responding to a chemical attack with nuclear weapons "would cause more harm than good," and would send a message to other countries that the nuclear threshold has been lowered. "It's very unlikely we would turn Iraq into a giant glass bowl," he said.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said using nuclear weapons in Iraq would also cause a backlash against the United States in the Arab world, and be a recruiting tool for terrorists. "Our nation, long a beacon of hope, would overnight be seen as a symbol of death, destruction and aggression."
The Pentagon says it is prepared for a chemical and biological attack, and is equipping the military forces with new protective gear. But a recent investigation by the congressional General Accounting Office found the military lost track of 250,000 suits that were defective, and found that troops weren't properly trained in how to wear the new suits while fighting.
One thing has been ruled out: the United States would not respond to Iraqi use of chemical weapons by using chemical or biological weapons itself. The United States signed a treaty promising never to use chemical weapons, and the Pentagon has been destroying the weapons stockpiles built up during the Cold War.
Analysts say the threat that Saddam will unleash chemical weapons will alter the U.S. military strategy in the opening hours of any war, as the Pentagon will use electronic warfare and bombs to try and prevent Saddam and his inner circle from issuing orders to Iraqi troops.
Stephen Bryen, who worked as a deputy undersecretary of defense in the Reagan administration, said that Iraq's military forces are well-trained in using chemical weapons, but have no guidance on precautions needed to safely handle biological weapons like anthrax.
Although U.S. troops are inoculated against anthrax, Iraqi defectors say they do not get inoculations against the bacteria in Baghdad. Bryen said that during the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq used chemical weapons mixed with biological agents, which complicated Iranian efforts to clean up after an attack.
On the Net:
www.whitehouse.gov
www.globalsecurity.org
Copyright © 2003, Scripps Howard News Service
