President Strangelove

With the Cold War over, people care less now about nuclear weapons. People might worry that al Qaeda could nuke New York, but judging by CNN, that's far less important than Michael Jackson's trial ... But Stephen Schwartz cares. And so should you.\nSchwartz is the publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a journal established in 1945 by nuclear scientists, including Albert Einstein, who helped build the first atom bombs. The Bulletin publishes news about international security and weapons development -- including the development of new nuclear weapons.\nSchwartz spoke to the IU Physics Department's weekly colloquium on Nov. 19 on the Bush administration's nuclear weapons strategy. \n"We are, in fact, in the middle of a nuclear revival in this country," Schwartz said. "The administration and Congress have been very careful about hiding what they're doing."\nAmong the Bush administration's policy initiatives: changing federal law to allow for research into so-called "bunker buster" nukes. This is a major development in American nuclear policy, but it's gone almost entirely unnoticed.\nThe bunker buster's supporters, including many Republican senators and administration officials, claim that a Saddam-like dictator could bury his nuclear laboratories where the United States can't use its current weapons. \nIn theory, these nuclear weapons, smaller than those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would allow the United States to destroy underground facilities without causing too many civilian casualties.\nSchwartz and most independent experts (and many government officials) disagree with that assessment.\nUsing nuclear weapons underground actually increases a bomb's yield, Schwartz said, so that a 15-kiloton weapon detonated at a one-meter depth would have the effect of a weapon with roughly a 150-kiloton warhead detonated above ground. Worse, explosions at the bunker buster's target depth have many times the fallout of an above-ground explosion. Tens of thousands or more could die if these weapons were used\nThere are other objections: The CIA and other agencies were wrong about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Should an American president decide to use nuclear weapons based on that sort of intelligence? And if our intelligence is that good, then why not use Special Forces teams or precision-guided conventional munitions?\nIn the meantime, Schwartz said in an interview, the White House's attitude toward international relations is an area of grave concern.\nThe administration's rejection of several major international agreements and its nearly-unilateral invasion of Iraq demonstrate that Washington believes it can act without taking other countries into account, Schwartz explained. "We're not willing to give up anything substantial to get (other countries) to go along," he said.\nThe administration's actions show that it distrusts diplomacy. Instead, it puts its faith in military force. The bunker buster, a nuclear weapon designed to be used (unlike the Cold War's signature megaton warheads, which were designed to be displayed) is emblematic of this attitude. Instead of negotiating with future threats, the White House will be more likely to attack them. \n That's what happened with Iraq, but not with North Korea, which has publicly declared that it has nuclear bombs. Schwartz suggests that the North's leaders are just the first to learn the lesson of the Second Gulf War: "If you don't want the U.S. to mess with you, you'd better get nuclear weapons quickly."\n While Schwartz believes there may be times when the United States must use force unilaterally to defend its interests, he also thinks America must strengthen international arms control agreements.\n"We are the preeminent leaders in nuclear weapons today. It's in our interest to prevent others from developing or perfecting them," Schwartz said. "Can there be progress absent U.S. involvement? Sure. Will it be ultimately successful? I doubt it."\nIf President Bush or any of the Democratic candidates would adopt Schwartz's position, the world would be a safer place.\nBut they haven't. And it isn't.