Upload
dsmcdonough
View
231
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
1/35
The Bush administration has proposed some very significant revi-sions to American nuclear strategy. These revisions were firstintroduced in the 2002Nuclear Posture Review(NPR), a classified doc-
ument that envisions a "New Triad" military doctrine consisting of
offensive strike systems (nuclear and conventional), defences (active
and passive), and a revitalized defence infrastructure, which would be
bound together by a sophisticated command, control, communica-
tions and intelligence (C3I) system.1This document, while ostensibly a blueprint for the US nuclear
arsenal, provides the basis for a significant transformation of the
wider US military architecture. This point is reiterated by Keith B.
Payne: "Despite its title, the scope was much broader than nuclear
matters. It was a strategic posture review, the Pentagon's first strategic
policy initiative to depart fundamentally from a Cold War-era policy
orientation."2 Nuclear weapons are, however, incorporated as a cen-
tral element of this strategic military posture. This is not merely hypo-
thetical. In fact, these modifications have been further codified in
National Security Presidential Directive 17 (NSPD-17)3, and many arein the process of being implemented in US nuclear war plans and
operational policies. While not a radical departure from previous
administrations, the New Triad does represent the most recent mani-
THE NEW TRIAD, BUNKER BUSTERSAND 'COUNTERPROLIFERATION WARS':
Nuclear Primacy and Its Implications for Canadian
Security Policy
By David S. McDonough
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
2/35
90 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
festation of a little noticed trend in post-Cold War US nuclear strate-gy the incorporation of "counterproliferation" as an integral mis-
sion for the US nuclear arsenal.
The rationale for much of these developments is the predomi-
nant US perception of the threat posed by the horizontal prolifera-
tion of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to adversarial or revi-
sionist "rogue states." This threat perception is not limited to
Washington. In fact, many countries including Canada are begin-
ning to recognize that such proliferation will be a critical challenge in
the 21st century. However, it should also be recognized that the cur-
rent administration's plans to increase reliance on nuclear weapons asa response could potentially have detrimental consequences, not only
to the strategic stability among the established nuclear weapon states
(NWSs), but perhaps more importantly, to the strategic stability
between the US and its rogue state adversaries.
The dangers posed by this example of "vertical" nuclear prolif-
eration, which is essentially what the US is pursuing, have not received
much attention in Canada. This is certainly understandable. For the
most part, interest in these issues has declined in the post-Cold War
period, when the threat posed by such arsenals was perceived (falsely)
to have been reduced. Moreover, Canada is not a nuclear power, noris it directly involved in the formulation of US nuclear strategy. As a
"middlepower," and an increasingly marginalized one at that,
Canadian policy has frequently focused on alternative, and often less
strategic, concerns.4
Despite such preoccupations, American nuclear strategy par-
ticularly under this administration is not an issue that should be dis-
missed lightly. Canadian international influence may have indeed
deteriorated in recent years, and our attention has been justifiably
focused on domestic and continental security, but our security inter-
ests are still very much international in scope. American nuclear strat-egy cannot be disassociated from either Canada's long-standing sup-
port for multilateral non-proliferation measures, nor from its prefer-
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
3/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 91
ence for international and regional strategic stability. Canadian poli-cy-makers who ignore these developments may inadvertently find
their influence even further limited, at a time when the international
environment has become far less amenable to Canadian security and
interests.
Historical Context
The Bush administration's nuclear strategy, while featuing some
elements that are novel, is not a radical departure from the policies of
previous administrations. Much of the foundation for the New Triad
actually originated as early as the Cold War, when US nuclear planners
were intent on mitigating the importance of a Soviet nuclear deter-
rent.5 "Counterforce" targeting of an opponent's military capabilities
and command and control infrastructure, which are featured quite
prominently in the New Triad's emphasis on counterproliferation mis-
sions, were originally conceived as a necessary component to the US
deterrence of its Soviet adversary. In the post-Cold War period, the
emphasis on targeting of Third World and rogue state adversaries has
only increased the necessity for even more specialized(e.g. counterpro-
liferation-based) counterforce capabilities.A common public misperception is that, during the Cold War,
the US emphasized "countervalue" targets against Soviet cities, for
example and unusablenuclear weapons. It was during this period that
the US had publicly accepted the mutually assured destruction (MAD)
doctrine: if one side decides to initiate an attack, the other side would
have sufficient second-strike nuclear forces to inflict an unacceptable
degree of destruction on the initiator. This doctrine stemmed largely
from the development of a Soviet nuclear deterrent, and later, the
seemingly inevitable development of nuclear parity between the two
superpowers. Indeed, this may be one reason why so many peoplewere surprised by this administration's very explicit emphasis on
counterforce targeting in theNuclear Posture Reviewand its concept of
the New Triad.
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
4/35
92 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
However, this perception of US Cold War nuclear strategy isfalse. In fact, despite an official adherence to MAD, the US had con-
sistently emphasized a mixture of both countervalue andcounterforce
targeting against the Soviet Union. Nuclear counterforce options
against the Soviet nuclear arsenal and later, its political and eco-
nomic foundations were an integral if often unrecognized part of
American nuclear war plans since the Eisenhower administration's
fixation on nuclear overkill during the 1950s.6The Kennedy adminis-
tration did attempt to reject the overkill features of its predecessor,
preferring instead "flexible" nuclear options, based on preemptive
counterforce nuclear capabilities and the ability to withhold attacks onseveral categories of targets (the "no cities" version of counterforce).7
But despite initially accepting the idea of MAD and its need for sec-
ond-strike forces and countervalue targeting, it would continue to
emphasize such potentially destabilizing first strike targeting options.
Subsequent administrations would expand on this proclivity
towards counterforce weapons and flexible targeting. The Nixon
administration emphasized the need to maintain "sufficiency" in
nuclear capabilities, to reinforce the US ability to deter the Soviet
Union, and therefore promulgated Single Integrated Operating Plan 5
(SIOP-5) which featured selective nuclear options, and enshrined theSoviet recovery economy as a central "withhold" option in US nuclear
war plans. Such withhold options would be critical in any American
attempt to achieve intrawar deterrence and war termination during a
protracted nuclear exchange.
Following a Nuclear Targeting Policy Review, the Carter admin-
istration introduced the "countervailing strategy," the goal of which
was to prevent the Soviet Union from achieving any definition of vic-
tory in the event of a nuclear war. The administration's Presidential
Directive 59 (PD-59) codified this doctrine, while the Nuclear
Weapons Employment Policy 80 (NUWEP-80) followed through onthis strategy, by emphasizing a more survivable command, control
and communications system for the United States to allow it to bet-
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
5/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 93
ter survive a protracted nuclear war and expanding the target list toinclude political as well as economic and military targets.8
The Reagan administration was particularly attached to this "war-
fighting" role for its nuclear arsenal, to achieve "escalation domi-
nance" or the ability to "contain or defeat the adversary at all levels of
violence with the possible exception of the highest."9 The need for
such a doctrine was particularly acute, given the growth in Soviet
nuclear capabilities and the perceived arrival of nuclear parity. The
National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) of October 1981 even
had the goal of "prevailing" in a nuclear war of up to 180 days. To
achieve this goal, there have been six revisions to the nuclear war plan(SIOP-6A to SIOP-6F), and yearly NUWEPs to guide these revisions.
In turn, this led to an emphasis on decapitation strikes against the
Soviet leadership and military capabilities (e.g. mobile or relocatable
targets) by such hard target kill weapons as the new MX interconti-
nental ballistic missile (ICBM) and the Trident II D-5 sea-launched
ballistic missile (SLBM), and the potential for damage limitation capa-
bilities inherent in such programs as the Strategic Defense Initiative
(SDI).10
The New Triad may advocate new nuclear capabilities, but this
merely reflects the long-standing American fascination with counter-force, as opposed to countervalue weapons. The nuclear capabilities
advocated by the current administration are geared towards counter-
proliferation missions,11 and as such, represent specialized counter-
force weapons for the destruction of an adversary's military forces
(especially those related to chemical and biological capabilities). That
the targets for these counterforce weapons were often non-nuclear
Third World countries is also not a new development, but rather has
its origins with the fall of the Soviet Union, when much of the poli-
cies developed to achieve escalation dominance over the Soviet Union
were shifted to the newly recognized rogue state threat.The post-Cold War period while witnessing the end of the
Soviet Union, the primary rationale for the US nuclear arsenal also
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
6/35
94 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
saw the growing American fixation on rogue states. "Horizontal" pro-liferation to these "states of concern" had replaced the Soviet Union
as the primary strategic threat facing the United States.12This change
in threat calculation was reinforced in two key incidents in the early
post-Cold War period. First, there was the 1990-1991 Gulf War and
the implicit danger of chemical or biological weapons use by Iraq.
This led the US not only to undertake active and passive defences for
its troops, but also to attempt conventional strikes to pre-empt possi-
ble Iraqi use of WMD.13
This was followed by the 1994 Korean nuclear crisis and the pos-
sible acquisition of nuclear weapons by North Korea. While thedevelopment of a couple of nuclear weapons was considered a real
danger, the possibility that the regime might develop a dozen weapons
made this incident an even more serious crisis this number of
weapons could potentially be sold to other countries or lead to the
nuclearization of other regional countries. Reports even indicate that
the US briefly considered pre-emptive military action against
Pyonyang between 1993 and 1994.14
With the seemingly inevitable horizontal proliferation of WMD,
the Defence Department introduced the Defense
Counterproliferation Initiative (CPI), a new proposal that envisionedusing US military force as a means to address the threat posed by
rogue states and WMD. As pointed out by Secretary of Defense Les
Aspin, the CPI accepts that proliferation could still occur despite the
best efforts of non-proliferation: "At the heart of the Defense
Counterproliferation Initiative, therefore, is a drive to develop new
military capabilities to deal with this new threat."15
While introduced as a conventional doctrine, counterprolifera-
tion would be incorporated as an integral part of American post-Cold
War nuclear planning. Both the 1990 Military Net Assessment and the
Reed Panel recommended the incorporation of Third World targetsinto US nuclear war plans. These recommendations would be formal-
ized in SIOP-93. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) even attempted
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
7/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 95
to further reinforce this new counterproliferation role with what hasbeen termed the "Silver Books," classified documents with "plans for
military strikes against WMD facilities in a number of 'rogue'
nations."16This controversial initiative was eventually terminated, but
counterproliferation would be a feature of American nuclear policy
throughout the 1990s. This was made abundantly clear in the process
leading up to the 1994 NPR, when despite Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Policy Ashton Carter's early efforts
to reduce the number of nuclear targets and therefore the nuclear
arsenal, STRATCOM was, by and large, successful in codifying such
expanded mission requirements for the US nuclear force structure.17In the post-Cold War period, the United States has expanded on
its traditional counterforce emphasis on nuclear weapons; the mis-
sions have become more specialized, for purposes of counterprolif-
eration, while the targets are now spread throughout the Third World.
Counterproliferation has, indeed, become a central rationale for both
the existing nuclear force structure, as well the development of new
nuclear capabilities. This has taken place despite public adherence to
negative security assurances, which are assurances to non-nuclear
weapon states (NNWSs) that they would not be targeted by nuclear
weapons, provided that they are not allied to a nuclear power.
The Implementation of the New Triad
The 2002 NPR expanded on many of these historic develop-
ments in its concept of a New Triad. Offensive strike systems, which
include nuclear and conventional weapons, constitute the first leg of
this strategic triad. Conventional weapons would be emphasized in
order to reduce collateral damage and conflict escalation. However, as
the NPR goes on to note, "Nuclear weapons could be employed
against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, (for example,deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities)."18 The strike
element of the New Triad would be supplemented with two other
integral components. The development and deployment of active and
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
8/35
96 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
passive defences would be emphasized, in the event that offensivecapabilities fail to deter an adversary's attack. In addition, both offen-
sive and defensive legs would be enhanced with a responsive defence
and especially nuclear infrastructure.
The NPR also outlines a number of defence policy goals that the
New Triad would help to achieve, including (i) the assuranceof securi-
ty partners and allies, which refers to US positive security assurances
as well as extended deterrence guarantees; (ii) the dissuasionof poten-
tial adversaries from even pursuing threatening (e.g. WMD) capabili-
ties; (iii) the reinforcement of the credibility of US nuclear deterrence;
and (iv) the provision of greater military flexibility in order to defeatadversaries.19 Based on the Bush administration's frequent emphasis
on its pre-emptive/preventive doctrine, enshrined in the 2002
National Security Strategy (NSS) document and demonstrated in the
2003 Iraq War, one can also argue that a hidden goal of the New Triad
is to reinforce the American ability topreemptpotential adversaries.20
New nuclear capabilities are advocated in order to deal with a
number of potential threats and problems. According to the Report to
Congress on the Defeat of Hardened and and Deeply Buried Targets, "struc-
tures ranging from hardened surface bunker complexes to deep tun-
nels" can be used by adversaries to house WMD as well as commandand control facilities, and are therefore seen as a growing danger in
the post-Cold War period.21 The US estimates that there are over
10,000 underground facilities (UGFs) worldwide, many of which con-
stitute hard and deeply buried targets (HDBTs), and that this number
will no doubt increase.22
The need to deal with mobile and relocatable targets, which can
be weapon systems armed with WMD, is a second justification for
new capabilities, and places a need to further develop intelligence col-
lection and tracking capabilities. The third justification is the threat
posed by chemical and biological weapons (CBWs). New capabilitiesare necessary to both identify agent production and storage facilities,
and to deny access to, immobilize, neutralize or destroy such agents.
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
9/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 97
Lastly, the US also perceives a need to develop new capabilities inorder to improve the accuracy of and, in the event that the US has to
defeat an adversaries capabilities, reduce the collateral damage caused
by its nuclear weapons.
The NPR is a congressionally mandated review of the "policy,
strategy, plans, stockpile, and infrastructure for US nuclear forces,"23
and as such, is only a blueprint for the US nuclear arsenal. One must
therefore examine how this blueprint is operationalized and imple-
mented. The devil is in the details, as they say. In that regard, it is clear
that the New Triad is not some hypothetical concept, but has already
had a very real impact on operational policy in a number of areas.First, the NPR advocates a planned force structure composed of
between 1700-2200 warheads by 2012, which would entail the elimi-
nation of the MX Peacekeeper missile force, a reduction in the num-
ber of Trident II ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and the
removal of a number of warheads on the existing ICBM and SLBM
force. This number has since been agreed to and codified by the US
and Russia in the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT), bet-
ter known as the Treaty of Moscow. This treaty seems to reflect the
Bush administration's ambiguity towards arms control agreements, as
well as give both countries a great deal of flexibility in implementingthe proposed nuclear weapon reductions. For instance, not only are
verification protocols conspicuously absent from this "anti-arms-con-
trol arms control treaty,"24 but it is also notably silent on warhead
stockpiles, tactical nuclear weapons, the elimination of multiple-war-
head land missiles and the destruction of delivery systems.
Implementation of the NPR's proposed force structure has
already begun; this has reduced the operational nuclear warheads in
the US stockpile to an estimated 5,300, down from an estimated
10,600 in 2002 (and 7,000 as early as a year ago). Only 10 MX missiles
are still on alert, out of a total force of 50 the remaining 10 missileswere deactivated in mid-2005. Four Trident II SSBNs have also been
removed since 2002.25 Furthermore, in 2004, the US announced that
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
10/35
98 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
"almost half" of its total stockpile would be retired by 2012, and even-tually dismantled this would make the total stockpile consist of an
estimated 6,000 warheads. This, it should be noted, is a departure
from both the NPR and previous Bush administration statements,
which had initially wanted a much larger stockpile as part of its
"responsive nuclear force" hedge and "inactive stockpile."
Second, following from the NPR's emphasis on HDBTs and
WMD facilities, the Bush administration appears intent on developing
new nuclear capabilities for the destruction of such targets. The US is
studying (i) the development of "bunker busters" or earth penetration
weapons (EPWs) that would be capable, hypothetically, of destroyingHDBTs; and (ii) using nuclear weapons as agent defeat weapons
(ADWs) for the destruction of chemical and biological weapons and
their facilities. These weapons are envisioned to have kinetic earth
penetration capability, as well as a low-yield warhead to minimize fall-
out (or potentially large-yield warheards for deeper facilities). The
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), which is the Bush admin-
istration's EPW project, is studying possible modifications that would
give an existing US nuclear warhead some degree of earth penetration
capability (beyond the B61-11 kinetic EPW nuclear warhead, which is
only capable of pentrating to a depth of 30 feet).26The development of smaller-yield, minature nuclear weapons of
less than 5 kilotons, which would eventually require nuclear testing, is
still only hypothetical the majority of the funding for the adminis-
tration's nuclear plans has gone to the RNEP project (a modification
of an existing nuclear warhead that does not require testing) rather
than to the Advanced Concepts Initiatives examination of new low-
yield weapon concepts.27 But given the work being done to revitilize
the US nuclear infrastructure, their development remains a distinct
possibility in the near future.
Third, the US is implementing a number of modernization plansfor its nuclear delivery systems. The Minuteman has a $6-billion mod-
ernization program, which would improve the missile's accuracy as
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
11/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 99
well as extend its service life. The Air Force has already begun seek-ing conceptual designs for a missile to replace the Minuteman in 2018.
What is more, since the START II Treaty is no longer in force, both
Russia and the US will be maintaining (and perhaps expanding) those
missiles with Multiple Independently-targetable Re-entry Vehicle
(MIRV) technology.
The NPR has placed the fleet of Trident SSBN and its SLBM
force, which represents 48 percent of the existing operational strate-
gic weapons, at the center of the US nuclear deterrent. The retirement
of the MX missile force has only increased its importance, as the
SLBMs have taken over many of the targets previously covered by theMX missile. Not surprisingly, the SLBM's D-5 missile, which has an
already impressive hard-target kill capability, will soon have a much
more lethal accuracy due to the Navy's three year Enhanced
Effectiveness Re-entry program to provide the Mk-4/W76 re-entry
vehicles with GPS-like accuracy. Another modernization program, to
replace the re-entry vehicle's fuze, will lead to re-entry vehicles (des-
ignated Mk-4A/W76-1) with increased lethality. Furthermore, the
Navy has plans for an eventual Trident SSBN replacement, as well as
to develop a new submarine-launched intermediate-range ballistic
missile (SLIRBM) for these submarines (with plans to test this missilein 2005).28
In the long-term, the US is also studying new types of "global
strike" delivery systems for its conventional and nuclear armaments,
such as the Manoeuvrable Non-Nuclear Re-entry Vehicles
(MNNRVs) and/or the Common Aero Vehicles (CAVs). The
MNNRV would rely on manoeuvres and a high re-entry rate to evade
defences, and would allow for precision attacks against HDBTs and
hard surface targets. The CAV would combine high manoeuvrability
and an ability to deliver an assortment of advanced munitions that are
currently only deliverable by aircraft. The possibility that the CAV, andeven the more explicitly non-nuclear MNNRV, would be used for
nuclear strikes cannot be dismissed.29
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
12/35
100 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
Fourth, the emphasis on HDBTs and the destruction of biolog-ical and chemical agents represents another rationale for the incorpo-
ration of non-nuclear rogue states in US nuclear targeting. The NPR
does explicitly mention North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya as
countries that could be involved in immediate, potential and unex-
pected contingencies. Proactive counterproliferation, it should also be
remembered, has become a dominant component of the US national
security strategy. As the 2002 NSS makes clear, "Counterproliferation
must also be integrated into the doctrine, training, and equipping of
our forces and those of our allies to ensure that we can prevail in any
conflict with WMD-armed adversaries."30This was further elaborat-ed in the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, the
classified version of which states: "The United States will continue to
make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming
force including potentially nuclear weapons to the use of [weapons of
mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and
friends and allies."31
In response, the Bush administration has placed a renewed
emphasis on "adaptive planning" for the rapid generation of nuclear
war plans32, as well as on "crisis action planning" for limited strike
options against unexpected contingencies; such developments wouldhelp to ensure increased, flexible, and selective nuclear options
against rogue states.33 The Strategic Warfare Planning System
(SWPS) had already undergone a major modernization, which was
finally completed in 2003, and which gave the ability to formulate
limited options within 24 hours. The Bush administration seeks to
expand this capability, and has therefore initiated a new moderniza-
tion plan (SWPS-M, later renamed the Integrated Strategic Planning
and Analysis Network [ISPAN]) that seeks to develop even quicker
and more adaptive nuclear planning through greater reliance on com-
puter models.That being said, the Bush administration also released in October
of 2003 a very traditional SIOP, which emphasized the counterforce
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
13/35
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
14/35
102 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
missile defence into a command that has traditionally overseen USnuclear policy. As such, it represents a move towards incorporating
defensive systems into the US nuclear posture a goal that was
enshrined in the first- and second-leg of the New Triad. While mis-
sile defence is ostensibly a defensive system, its potential to provide
damage limitation capabilities in support of US nuclear forces, as well
as the need to connect such defensive systems into the US offensive
battle management system, makes its integration in the new STRAT-
COM a very real and, to an extent, logical possibility.
Theatre nuclear planning has not been exempt from these devel-
opments. According to a recent draft of the Doctrine for Joint NuclearOperations, the "Use of nuclear weapons in a theatre requires that
nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent
possible and that careful consideration be given to the potential
impact of nuclear effects on friendly forces." Geographic combatant
commanders are also given the authority to request Presidential
approval for use of nuclear weapons in a wide variety of first-use and
pre-emptive situations, including for use against overwhelming con-
ventional forces; for the purpose of war termination; for pre-emptive
attacks against an adversary's WMD facilities; and even "to demon-
strate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adver-sary's use of WMD."38 This doctrine has an expansive view on the
utility of nuclear weapons, and stands in sharp contrast to previous
doctrines, which placed greater emphasis on "nuclear policy con-
straints"39 as opposed to nuclear weapons utility.
Lastly, a critical foundation for the Bush administration's vision
of nuclear weapons is a revitalized nuclear infrastructure. Despite the
Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), which relies on computational
and simulational experimental facilities and "virtual testing/virtual
proto-typing," numerous problems with the current infrastructure are
identified. Not only are improvements deemed necessary, but theadministration seems keen to have a revitalized capability to develop
new warheads and to resume nuclear testing. As the NPR states, there
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
15/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 103
is the need for a nuclear weapons complex that will be able to "design,develop, manufacture and certify new warheads in response to new
national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume underground
nuclear testing if required."40
Following from this perspective, the US seems intent on re-estab-
lishing a significant pit production capability. Plutonium pits are a hol-
low shell of plutonium in every nuclear warhead surrounded by
chemical explosives, these "pits" are a necessary trigger component
for a nuclear explosion. In 2003, a plutonium pit was completed the
first new plutonium pit since the closure of the pit facility at Rocky
Flats, Colorado in 1989. This seems to be part of a much larger goal,since the Bush administration has proposed a Modern Pit Facility that
would cost $2-4 billion in construction and up to $300 million in
annual maintenance, and would be capable of producing between 125
and 450 pits annually. The Bush administration is also continuing with
its efforts to reduce the readiness time for nuclear testing, down from
its current 24-36 months to 18 months. The Nevada Test Site is the
focus of the Enhanced Test Readiness program, and has already
received up to $24.9 million in 2004 and $22.5 million in 2005.
Of course, one can argue that some improvements need to be
done for the maintenance of the US nuclear stockpiles. However, thesechanges to the US nuclear infrastructure do seem excessive and, it
should be remembered, associated with a policy that envisions new
nuclear capabilities and potentially smaller-yield mini-nukes. As John
Gordon, the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator
for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) points out,
"it may be appropriate to design, develop and produce a small build of
prototype weapons both to exercise key capabilities and to serve as a
'hedge,' to be produced in quantity when deemed necessary."41While
the Spratt-Furse amendment banned research on nuclear warheads of
less than 5 kilotons, the administration has successfully repealed part ofthat law the Warner amendment passed on a 59-38 vote, and permits
research on, but not development of, low-yield nuclear weapons.42
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
16/35
This is not to say that these developments are irreversible. InNovember of 2004, the US Congress took the unprecedented step of
cutting and/or reorienting funding for many of these programs for
FY2005. Specifically, the request for $27 million for the RNEP proj-
ect has been cut, while the $9 million request for new nuclear weapon
concepts has been re-oriented towards increasing the reliability of
existing nuclear warheads as part of the Reliable Replacement
Warhead (RRW) program. Furthermore, only $7 million will be
released for the construction of a Modern Pit Facility and $22.5 mil-
lion for the reduction of the nuclear test preparation period, as
opposed to the Bush request for $30 million for each respective pro-gram.43
However, it remains to be seen whether this Congressional oppo-
sition will continue. The Bush administration is already pushing
Congress to support a $4 million Department of Energy request for
the RNEP project, alongside $4.5 million of complementary funding
for the Pentagon (and $22.5 million over the next two years). The $9
million for new nuclear weapon concepts may now be a part of RRW,
but there are continuing questions regarding whether this program
will simply be "a back door for the administration to circumvent con-
gressional opposition to new warhead designs for new and destabiliz-ing nuclear strike missions."44 The Bush administration appears,
despite these recent Congressional setbacks, intent on pursuing its
drive for developing new nuclear capabilities during its second term.
Implications for Canadian Security Policy
Canada is a self-professed middlepower, a classification which
denotes a countrys inability to wield much influence when acting
alone, but ability and often interest in working with like-minded pow-
ers on various issues, as a means to multiply its influence. This can beseen in this country's integral role in the development of the United
Nations; as a peacekeeper, in order to eliminate potential American-
Soviet flashpoints; its place in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
104 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
17/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 105
(NATO); and most recently, as part of its involvement in NATOpeace enforcement activities as well as in various multilateral security
initiatives. Working through multilateral institutions is therefore
Canada's preferred approach for dealing with security issues, as
opposed to acting alone or even working in ad hoc coalitions. Given
that the defence capabilities and, therefore, foreign policy influence of
Canada has eroded in recent years,45 the importance of such institu-
tions has only increased.
However, while Canada may prefer multilateral solutions, geo-
graphical and geopolitical realities must also be accepted.46 This is
especially true for Canada, which occupies a critical and, in the post-9/11 security environment, increasingly ambiguous strategic position
beside the United States. The US interest in working at unilateral solu-
tions for dealing with the threat of terrorist organizations and rogue
states, and of ignoring or dismissing traditional multilateral solutions,
has never been greater. A grand strategy of "primacy," whereby the
US seeks to preserve its "supremacy by politically, economically, and
militarily outdistancing any global challenger," appears to guide the
policies of the current administration.47
The Bush administration's revisions to US nuclear strategy rep-
resent the most explicit manifestation of the post-Cold War empha-sis on unilateral "nuclear counterproliferation" against rogue states.
This requires new strategic strike capabilities and more flexible and
adaptive nuclear war plans, and represents an American attempt to
not only develop specialized capabilities against rogue states, but in
fact to outdistance any potential nuclear adversary. It should be
remembered that dissuasion, explicitly mentioned in the NPR as a
goal of the New Triad's strategic posture, represents the concept of
of fielding a military force so dominating that it prevents adversaries
from contemplating resistance.48This goes to the very heart of the
Bush administration's drive towards strategic primacy. In the words ofPresident George W. Bush, America has, and intends to keep, mili-
tary strengths beyond challenge.49
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
18/35
The New Triad is therefore a critical component of this highlyambitious grand strategy. With its emphasis on sophisticated strategic
capabilities, spearheaded by offensive nuclear strike systems and
incorporating conventional offensive and defensive capabilities, the
New Triad offers a vision of American strategic dominance or, to put
it squarely in the context of its grand strategy, "nuclear primacy."50
This provides the fundamental guidance for the Bush administration's
force structure and policies. The impact of this development on the
international security environment is uncertain but, in all likelihood,
potentially detrimental in a number of areas: on the non-proliferation
regime; the strategic stability between the established NWSs; and thestrategic instability between the US and its rogue state adversaries. As
such, it touches upon various aspects of Canadian international secu-
rity policy.
First, the Bush administration's revisions to American nuclear
strategy challenges one of the basic precepts of Canadian interna-
tional security policy, namely that multilateral non-proliferation meas-
ures are the foundation for dealing with the threat of WMD prolifer-
ation. Like most middlepowers, Canada has been an ardent supporter
of the non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament (NACD)
regime, and the norms and institutions underlying this regime, whichare embodied in a number of international treaties, including the
NPT, BTWC, CWC, CTBT and various fissile and missile regimes.51
In contrast, the Bush administration viewing the growing WMD
programs of its adversaries seems highly dismissive of such meas-
ures, preferring instead unilateral or ad hoc means for dealing with
this post-Cold War danger.
As implied throughout this paper, counterproliferation provides
a guiding force for the Bush administration's nuclear strategy, and in
many ways, for its entire national security strategy.52
Counterproliferation is not, however, non-proliferation. To someextent, these are mutually exclusive concepts. The non-proliferation
regime seeks to prevent the proliferation of WMD, while the coun-
106 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
19/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 107
terproliferation doctrine accepts that proliferation will indeed takeplace, and seeks to prepare military forces sufficient for dealing with
such a threat. Of course, counterproliferation can be seen as a neces-
sary and prudent adjunct to non-proliferation, as was the case for
the most part with the Clinton administration. The Bush adminis-
tration seems, however, far less inclined to rely on multilateral non-
proliferation measures, preferring to place its bet on unilateral, proac-
tive counterproliferation. While the Clinton administration's 1999
National Security Strategy detailed a number of multilateral initiatives,
including the NPT and the CTBT, "the Bush document outlined non-
proliferation activities in one paragraph that only mentioned a recentGroup of Eight agreement to assist with weapons disposal in
Russia."53
A good example of the disdain that the current administration
has for multilateral non-proliferation can be seen with its treatment of
the NPT, long regarded as the cornerstone of the non-proliferation
regime. For example, by explicitly targeting NNWSs, the US has effec-
tively ended the negative security assurances that were first given out
by President Carter in 1978. These assurances are commonly consid-
ered an integral if not codified NWS obligation arising out of the
NPT. "They have been viewed by NNWSs as one of their majorrequirements for achieving an adequate balance between their obliga-
tions and those of the nuclear weapons states."54 It is true that the
US, like many NWSs, has not always followed its negative security
pledges. A good example of this is the "calculated ambiguity" doc-
trine, which seeks to give uncertainty on whether the US would
indeed attack a NNWS adversary with nuclear weapons in the event
of retaliation.55 But this ambiguity is dramatically clarified by the
growing incorporation of such states in US nuclear war plans; the US
may still retain a doctrine of public ambiguity, but there is nothing
ambiguous about its operational nuclear plans.Relatedly, by explicitly maintaining the nuclear deterrent for the
foreseeable future, the Bush administration nuclear strategy seems to
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
20/35
be contrary to the goals enshrined in Article 6 of the NPT, whichstates that
The dismissal of Article 6 is further evident in the apparent need tobegin nuclear testing. This would not only effectively destroy any
chance of resurrecting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and
therefore give China, India and Pakistan a possible excuse to resume
testing themselves, but would also reinforce the impression that the
US has no intention in pursuing what the NPT terms "effective meas-
ures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms raceand to nuclear
disarmament."
This change in US emphasis will likely have a detrimental impact
on Canada's stated goal of dealing with horizontal WMD prolifera-
tion in a multilateral framework. While both Canada and the UnitedStates do indeed share similar threat perception, their respective views
on the means for dealing with that threat may only widen in the
future. The impact that this will have on the Canada-US strategic rela-
tionship is unknown. However, one should not be optimistic on this
front. There is a distinct possibility that the recent bilateral acrimony
evident during Canada's refusal to join the US coalition of the will-
ing to undertake regime change in Iraq, and its refusal to formally
approve US plans for national missile defence may not be foreign
policy aberrations, but rather an ominous prelude for things to come.
Second, the Bush administration's nuclear strategy may have anuncertain, but potentially detrimental impact on strategic nuclear sta-
bility among the great powers, particularly among such established
108 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue
negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating
to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and
to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and
complete disarmament under strict and effective interna-
tional control.56
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
21/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 109
NWSs as the United States, Russia and China. Stability between thesepowers is an important prerequisite for an international system based
on multilateral cooperation and normative institution-building, and is
therefore very much in the Canadian national interest. To put it sim-
ply, when such stability is lacking, the possibility for a middlepower
like Canada to be ignored, and even stepped on, is substantially
increased.
The argument that the New Triad will have a detrimental impact
on the strategic stability between the established nuclear powers fol-
lows closely on criticisms of missile defence. According to such criti-
cism, missile defence will lead to both Russia and China initiatingcountermeasures to compensate for any US missile shield, and raise
the spectre of a renewed and cascading arms race.57The New Triad's
incorporation of offensive and defensive systems increases the
strength of such an argument, since the nuclear policy planners of
both countries will have to take into account the threat posed by US
counterforce capabilities, as well as the damage limitation capabilities
inherent in missile defence, on their respective arsenals. For example,
earth-penetrating counterforce weapons that are meant to hit the
HDBTs and mobile and relocatable targets in rogue states would also
be ideal weapons for first-strike counterforce attacks against Chinaand Russia.
On one hand, China has long maintained a "minimum deter-
rent"58 against US forces, composed of a small number of liquid-
fuelled ICBMs that, given their lack of mobility and small numbers,
would be very vulnerable to a US first-strike. China is suspected of
having only 18 ICBMs (the DF-15) that are capable of reaching the
continental United States (CONUS).59 While it does have an addi-
tional 12 ICBM-classified missiles (the DF-4), this delivery system is
generally not considered capable of reaching CONUS. Not surpris-
ingly, the Chinese nuclear deterrent, an integral component of anyfeasible Chinese military attack on US-allied Taiwan, has been under-
going a modernization program. This could potentially see its nuclear
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
22/35
forces expanded to include up to 100 ICBMs capable of hitting theUnited States (based on the DF-31 and DF-31A missile), as well as
improved accuracy, lighter warheads, a more robust C3I system and
new solid-fueled and potentially MIRVed ICBMs. This modernization
program, which would exist irrespective of US nuclear developments,
will likely accelerate as a result of the growing emphasis on American
counterforce capabilities.60
On the other hand, Russia has a declining number of strategic war-
heads,61 and would be very keen to maintain its deterrent in the face of
the growing sophisitication of the US strategic arsenal. This would
necessitate a robust command and control infrastructure that would bemore capable of surviving a US decapitation strike evident in the
development of the key leadership and nuclear command system facil-
ities deep in the Yamantau and Kosvinsky mountains62 and in the
development of advanced weapon systems that would be better capa-
ble of mitigating any US damage limitation capability. Russia has
already indicated that it would maintain its inventory of MIRVed
ICBMs, and has recently announced progress in the development of
the Bukavu SLBM and the mobile Topol-M ICBM, the latter of which
is a hypersonic and manoeuverable ballistic missile that would be "capa-
ble of penetrating any missile defense system that could conceivably bedeveloped in the next several decades."63 One could also conceivably
expect a renewed "launch on warning" posture for the Russian strategic
arsenal, in order to better prevent a US first-strike capability.64
That being said, strategic stability between these powers is based
on a more substantive footing than during the Cold War.65
Modifications to their arsenals may be necessary, to better secure the
viability of their respective nuclear deterrents, but a renewed arms
race is by no means a certainty. However, the Bush administration's
fixation on strategic primacy provides a problematic environment for
the pursuit of such strategic nuclear capabilities. While primacists mayassume that other countries would acquiesce to perpetual US pre-emi-
nence, it is more than likely that one will see increased balancing
110 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
23/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 111
behavior on the part of both Russia and China. As noted by Posenand Ross, "States coalesce against hegemons rather than rally around
them."66 This increases the possibility that the US relationship with
both countries will deteriorate, perhaps to the point of featuring stark
adversarial characteristics. If so, the potential for arms races and
strategic instability will undoubtedly increase.67
Third, there is also the potential for the deterioration of strategic
regional stability between the US and its rogue state adversaries. In
sharp contrast to the stability commonly associated with the estab-
lished NWSs, the relationships between the United States and various
rogue states are rarely if ever characterized as stable, even at the bestof times. It is also fair to say that these adversarial relationships have
only increased with the current administration. As the 2002National
Security Strategymakes clear, "We must be prepared to stop rogue states
and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use
weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies
and friends."68 The US invasion of Iraq, and its continuing tensions
with Iran, Syria and North Korea, are indicative of this fundamental
instability.
Strategic instability therefore provides a necessary and, potential-
ly, worrisome context for the New Triad's emphasis on new nuclearcapabilities for counterproliferation missions against these states. As
mentioned earlier, the stated goals of the Bush administration's New
Triad include making the US deterrent more credible against these
adversaries, and increasing the US ability to dissuade hostile states
from even pursuing WMD programs. This creates an impression that
strategic stability between the United States and its adversaries will be
enhanced. Unfortunately, this impression is also misleading. Nuclear
targeting of rogue states armed only with suspected chemical and bio-
logical weapons, rather than deterring or dissuading them from pur-
suing such programs, may simply make WMD, and especially anuclear deterrent, even more tempting. As Scott Sagan makes clear, a
strong reason (and the dominant explanation) for the acquisition of
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
24/35
nuclear weapons is the need to increase national security against for-eign threats.69 One can equally apply this rationale for the acquisition
of various kinds of CBWs.
Relatedly, the Bush administration's nuclear strategy also envi-
sions the need to defeat rogue states armed with WMD. Given the
possibility that the US attempt to deter and dissuade such states from
even acquiring WMD will have the opposite impact, to actually abet
the horizontal proliferation of WMD, the need to defeat such states
may become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unfortunately,
the New Triad may also give the US a false sense of security in its abil-
ity to deal with the WMD of rogue states, and increase the temptationfor it to undertake regime change campaigns against these states. This
represents a vision, not of reinforced strategic stability among these
the US and its potential adversaries, but rather of US-led "counter-
proliferation wars." For example, the US may believe that its more
credible nuclear capabilities can be translated to the intrawar deter-
rence of a rogue state's WMD capabilities (e.g. in the midst of a
regime change campaign). Alternatively, such weapons could be seen
as a feasible means to retaliate in the event that WMD are employed
by its adversaries, or even as a means to pre-empt such capabilities.70
As such, the New Triad is a means to eliminate the possibility, how-ever remote, that the US might itself be deterred from intervening
against a rogue state due to the latter's WMD capabilities.71
Does this mean that US nuclear developments, accelerated under
the Bush administration, will automatically lead to strategic instabili-
ty? Fortunately, no it is possible that such blatant nuclear primacy
may lead to a rogue state being deterred from ever brandishing and
employing their weapons and even dissuaded from seeking such
asymmetrical counters. However, this outcome cannot be guaranteed,
and it is equally possible (and in this authors opinion, more likely)
that strategic instability between the US and these countries will con-tinue to deteriorate.72 Of course, one should not overstate the impact
that these nuclear developments will have on the threat perception of
112 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
25/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 113
rogue states the existing power imbalance between the US and itsrogue state adversaries is more than sufficient to justify WMD deter-
rent capability. But the New Triad, with its emphasis on damage lim-
itation and specialized counterforce capabilities (the necessary ingre-
dients for a pre-emptive, first-strike posture), may lead already inse-
cure rogue states to adopt ever more destabilizing employment strate-
gies for their own WMD deterrents. The possibility for conflicts
which could escalate and feature the use of WMD, by rogue states
and/or the US, should not be discounted.
As can be seen with this admittedly brief analysis, the Bush
administration's emphasis on nuclear primacy, as an integral part ofits wider goal for grand strategic primacy, provides for an uncertain
and potentially dangerous international security environment. This
should be a concern for Canada, as it affects not only our support for
the non-proliferation regime, but our vital interest in a cooperative
international security environment. It is not necessarily in Canada's
interest that the 21st century be defined by unilateral American strate-
gic dominance, the gradual deterioration in relations between the
established nuclear powers, and periodic US-led counterproliferation
wars, which may even feature the use of WMD.
Unfortunately, Canada's ability to have any real impact on thesedevelopments is minimal. To put it simply, vertical nuclear prolifera-
tion by the United States may be of concern for the international
community including Canada but this community is largely impo-
tent to discourage such developments. As a marginal middlepower,
with a long history of free-riding on our Southern neighbour, it would
be hubris to think that this country's arguments and policies would
have any impact in the corridors of Washington. That being said, the
divergence of interest on means for dealing with rogue states can also
be seen as an opportunity to improve and supplement multilateral
non-proliferation measures. While one can be critical of its currentpolicies, the US does have cause for concern over the utility of the
non-proliferation regime; the ability of this regime to stop determined
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
26/35
proliferators can certainly be questioned. Fortunately, Canada doesseem to have partially recognized this reality, as evident in its belated
decision to take part in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). It is
true that such an arrangement may not be perfect, and may require
some compromises on Canada's part. However, the potential role for
an innovative middlepower should not, and must not, be underesti-
mated.
Conclusion
The nuclear strategy of the Bush administration is centered on a
New Triad that envisions new nuclear and conventional counterforce
capabilities for flexible and selective "global strikes" against rogue
states, supplemented with active defences for purposes of damage
limitation. By incorporating and expanding on the policies of its pred-
ecessors, the Bush administration has indeed made some significant
revisions to American nuclear strategy, and placed it squarely as an
integral component of its wider vision for strategic primacy.
The impact that these revisions will have on Canada is a little
more ambiguous. It is true that these revisions affect, and should be
a concern for this country. But they do so in a primarily indirect way by having an impact on strategic stability and the international secu-
rity environment, and therefore, on Canadian national interests.
Perhaps more importantly, it remains to be seen what a middlepower
like Canada can do to mitigate these policies. These changes are large-
ly the result of a shift in US perception of what constitutes strategic
threats, and Canada should not fool itself that arguments to the con-
trary will have an even minimal impact on this threat perception.
Despite such limitations, it would be prudent for Canada to
renew its emphasis on dealing with the threat posed by the horizontal
proliferation of WMD for Canada's own security interests; to showthe United States that its neighbour is indeed serious about this threat;
and as a means of eliminating the rationale for continued US empha-
sis on nuclear weapons. It is true that Canada's ability to deal with US
114 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
27/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 115
vertical proliferation is minimal to non-existent. However, continuingefforts to deal with horizontal proliferation could conceivably reduce
a central rationale for the expansion of the US nuclear arsenal.
Notes:
1 Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report (Washington DC: Department of
Defense, January 8, 2002) (hereinafter theNuclear Posture Review). Excerpts of this document
are available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm.
2 Keith B. Payne, "The Nuclear Posture Review: Setting the Record Straight," The Washington
Quarterly, vol. 28, n. 3 (Summer 2005), pp. 135-151.
3 NSPD-17 has also been codified under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 4 (HSPD-
4). While the classified document has yet to be released, the public version (National Strategy
t o Combat Weapons o f Mass Destruc tion) can be found at
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-wmd/pdf.
4 This has been a constant critique of Canadian international security policy in the 1990s,
which has, under the leadership of Lloyd Axworthy, often focused on issues of "soft power"
while ignoring or dismissing traditional "hard power" concerns. For good examples of these
kinds of critiques, see Fen O. Hampson and Dean F. Oliver, "Pulpit Diplomacy: A Critical
Assessment of the Axworthy Doctrine," International Journal, vol. 53, n. 3 (Summer 1998), pp.
379-406; Kim Richard Nossal, "Pinchpenny Diplomacy: The Decline of 'Good International
Citizenship' in Canadian Foreign Policy," International Journal, vol. 54, n. 1 (Winter 1998-99),pp. 88-105. For an interesting defence of the Axworthy Doctrine, see Joe Jockel and Joel
Sokolsky, "Lloyd Axworthy's Legacy: Human Security and the Rescue of Canadian Defence
Policy," International Journal, vol. 56, n. 1 (Winter 2000-01), pp. 1-18.
5 This argument can be found in David S. McDonough, "Nuclear Superiority or Mutually
Assured Deterrence: The Development of the US Nuclear Deterrent," International Journal,
vol. 60, n. 3 (Summer 2005). pp. 811-823.
6 See David Alan Rosenberg, "The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American
Strategy, 1945-1960," International Security, vol. 7, n. 4 (Spring 1983), pp. 3-71 and Marc
Trachtenberg, "A 'Wasting Asset': American Strategy and the Shifting Nuclear Balance, 1949-
1954," International Security, vol. 13, n. 3 (Winter 1988/89).
7 See Fred Kaplan, "JFK's First-Strike Plan",Atlantic Monthly, vol. 288, n. 3 (October 2001).
For an interesting critique on the flexibility, if not the pre-emptive basis, of Kennedy's
nuclear strategy, see Francis J. Gavin, "The Myth of Flexible Response: American Strategy in
Europe during the 1960s," International History Review, n. 23 (December 2001), pp. 847-875.
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
28/35
8
This strategy, while also featuring weapons development, placed the primary importance onthe need to develop a sophisticated and robust C3 capability. See Walter Slocombe "The
Countervailing Strategy," International Security, vol. 5, n. 4 (Spring 1981), pp. 18-27.
9 Robert Jervis, The Illogic of American Nuclear Strategy(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984),
p. 131. Escalation dominance has its intellectual roots in the work of Herman Kahn at Rand
in the 1950s, specifically his idea of the escalation ladder and the need to control and domi-
nate the escalation process.
10 See Desmond Ball and Robert C. Toth, "Revising the SIOP: Taking War-Fighting to
Dangerous Extremes," International Security, vol. 14, n. 4 (Spring 1990), pp. 65-92. For a good
look at the threat of decapitation, see John D. Steinbruner, "Nuclear Decapitation," Foreign
Policy, n. 45 (Winter 1981-82), pp. 18-28.
11 For instance, both counterproliferation and the New Triad focus on shallow buried targets,
advanced energetic materials (i.e. extreme heat, chemical reaction or thermobaric effects),
hard and deeply buried targets, special operations forces, and capabilities against mobile mis-
siles. For further information on counterproliferation, see Center for Counterproliferation
Research (CCR), The Counterproliferation Imperative: Meeting Tomorrow's Challenges, CCR Report
(Washington, DC: National Defense University, November 2001), Chp. 5.
12 See Michael Klare, Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws: America's Search for a New Foreign Policy
(New York: Hill and Wang, 1995).
13 See Barry R. Schneider, Future war and counterproliferation: US military responses to NBC prolif-
eration threats (Westport, Conn.; London: Praeger, 1999). For more on the threat posed by
Iraq's WMD capabilities during the 1990-1991 Gulf War, see Avigdor Haselkorn, The
Continuing Storm: Iraq, Poisonous Weapons, and Deterrence (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1999) and Amatzia Baram, "An Analysis of Iraqi WMD Strategy," The
Nonproliferation Review, vol. 8, n. 2 (Summer 2001), pp. 25-39.
14 For a detailed account of the 1994 North Korea crisis, see Michael J. Mazarr,North Korea
and the Bomb: A Case Study in Non-proliferation(New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995).
15While no White House factsheet was presented on the CPI, Les Aspin's remarks has been
posted on the Federation of American Scientists' website, at http://www.fas.org/irp/off-
docs/pdd18.htm.
16 British American Security Information Council (BASIC), "Nuclear Futures: Proliferation
of Weapons of Mass Destruction and US Nuclear Strategy," BASIC Research Report(February
1998), p. 15. Silver Books stands for Silver or Strategic Installation List of Vulnerability
Effects and Results. While this project was terminated, a Silver Book was developed for
European Command, and one was in development for Pacific Command. See Hans
116 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
29/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 117
Kristensen, "Targets of Opportunity," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, vol. 53, n. 5(September/October 1997), pp. 22-28.
17 For more on the disproportionate role and influence of STRATCOM in the formulation
of US nuclear forces, see Hans Kristensen, The Matrix of Deterrence: US Strategic Command Force
Structure Studies(Berkely, CA: The Nautilus Institute, May 2001), pp. 1-23. This report details
numerous STRATCOM studies such as the Phoenix Study, the Sun City Study and the Sun
City Extended Study that heavily influenced the US government's nuclear policies through-
out the 1990s.
18Nuclear Posture Review, pp. 12-13.
19Nuclear Posture Review, pp. 12-14.
20 See Roger Speed and Michael May, "Dangerous Doctrine," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
vol. 61, n. 2 (March/April 2005), pp. 38-49.
21 Department of Energy and Department of Defense, Report to Congress on the Defeat of
Hardened and Deeply Buried Targets(Washington DC: Department of Energy and Defense, July
2001), p. 8. The Report identifies two types of facilities: (i) the shallow "cut and cover"
design, which would have a concrete structural overburden of less than 10 feet of thickness
to protect tactical facilities; and (ii) the much harder facilities with strategic functions, which
could have a concrete overburden equivalent to 70 to 300 feet, redundant ventilation, power,
and communications systems, and sophisticated camouflage, concealment, and deception
techniques. A slightly modified HDBT classification scheme is outlined in Michael A. Levi,
"Fire in the Hold: Nuclear and Non-nuclear Options for Counter-Proliferation," Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace Working Paper, 31 (November 2002).
22This figure is from Defense Science Board Task Force on Underground Facilities, which
is quoted in Nuclear Posture Review, p. 46. The NPR goes on to note that, according to the
Defense Intelligence Agency, 1,400 of these UGFs are known or suspected of housing
strategic facilities, many of which are deep underground.
23 Kurt Guthe, "The Nuclear Posture Review: How Is the 'New Triad' New?" Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessements (2002), p. 1. The NPR became a a congressional
requirement due to Section 1041 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001 (Public Law 106-398), October 30, 2000.
24 Philippe Lagasse, "The SORT Debate: Implications for Canada," IRPP Working Paper
Series, No. 2003-01 (October 2003).
25 Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, "US nuclear forces, 2005," Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, vol. 61, n. 1 (January/February 2005), pp. 73-75.
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
30/35
26
The RNEP project is officially a Phase 6.2/6.2A feasibility and cost study, intended toexamine the possibility of increasing the earth penetration capability of the B61 and B63
nuclear bomb. However, the Bush administration's FY2005 request did specify a five year
plan that went into cost estimates for Phase 6.3 on development engineering, and Phase 6.4
on production engineering. See Jonathan Medalia, "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Budget
Request and Plan, FY2005-FY2009," CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report to Congress
(January 10, 2005,) available at http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/RL32347.pdf.
27 For example, in the FY 2005 budget request, the Bush administration asked for $27.6 mil-
lion for the RNEP program, and an additional $9 million for the study of new nuclear
weapon concepts. See Karin Yourish with Matthew Johnson, "Proposed Energy Department
Budget Would Boost Funds for Nuclear Weapons,"Arms Contr ol Today(March 2004).
28 For these developments, see Norris and Kristensen, "US nuclear forces, 2005" and Robert
S. Norris, Hans M. Kristensen, and Christopher E. Paine,Nuclear Insecurity: A Critique of the
Bush Administration's Nuclear Weapons Policies(National Resources Defense Council, September
2004), pp. 9-15.
29 See Western States Legal Foundation (WSLF), "The Shape of Things to Come: The
Nuclear Posture Review, Missile Defense, and the Dangers of a New Arms Race," WSLF
Report (April 2002) and WSLF, "The Military Space Plan, Conventional ICBMs, and the
Common Aero Vehicle: Overlooked Threats of Weapons Delivered Through or From
Space," WSLF Information Bulletin(Fall 2002). Both weapon systems seem to be based on the
Reagan administration's research on a nuclear Manoeuverable Re-entry Vehicle (MARV).
30
The National Security Strategy of the United States(September 2002), p. 14. This document canbe found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf.
31 See Nicholas Kralev, "Bush Approves Nuclear Response," The Washington Times, January 31,
2003.
32This can be differentiated from "deliberative planning," which emphasizes large pre-exist-
ing nuclear war plans in the form of the Single Integrated Operating Plans. These plans will
still continue, in the form of OPLAN 8044, but with a more rapid production time.
33 Crisis action planning has been codified in CONPLAN 8022-02, which is a pre-emptive
"global strike" contingency plan against unexpected imminent threats, such as in Iran and
North Korea, involving precision kinetic (conventional and nuclear) and non-kinetic effects.
Under this plan, nuclear weapons would be given a prompt strike capability (minutes tohours) against targets not included in the pre-existing nuclear plans, in order to destroy an
enemy's launch of a nuclear strike or to destroy a critical HDBT. See Hans Kristensen,
"Nuclear Mission Creep: The Impact of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation on US
118 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
31/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 119
Nuclear Policy and Planning," Presentation to The Program on Science and Global Security,Princeton University (May 11, 2005), available at http://www.nukestrat.com and William
Arkin, "Not Just a Last Resort?" Washington Post, May 15, 2005, p. B01.
34 Norris and al.,Nuclear Insecurity, pp. 1-8.
35The name was formally changed at a conference in 2003, though OPLAN 8044 has been
used throughout the 1990s to refer to the SIOP's implementation plan. It remains to be seen
whether this name change will become permanent. See Hans Kristensen, "US Changes Name
of Nuclear War Plan," Nuclear Brief (December 21, 2004), available on The Nuclear
Information Project website, available at http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/siopname.
htm. Interestingly, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard B. Myers has recently
used the term "strategic deterrence response plan" to describe the US nuclear war plan this
has a strong resemblance to the unsuccessful proposal by former STRATCOM commander
General George Lee Butler to use the term "National Strategic Response Force" See General
Richard B. Myers, "Written Posture Statement to SASC, HASC amd HAC-D," (February 16
and 17, 2005), at http://www.nukestrat.com/us/jcs/Testimony_Myers0216-1705.pdf.
36 Defense Science Board, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Future of Strategic
Strike Forces(Washington DC: Defense Science Board, February 2004), pp. 5-13.
37 The US attempt at operationalizing "global strike" can be seen in Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld's approval of a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order," which in
turn led to CONPLAN 8022-02 and the incorporation of nuclear weapons in this pre-emp-
tive contingency plan. See footnote 33.
38Joint Chiefs of Staff, Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, Joint Pub 3-12 (Final Coordination
[2] draft, March 15, 2005) p. III-2, available at http://www.nukestrat.com/us/jcs/JCS_JP3-
12_05draft.pdf.
39 See Joint Chiefs of Staff, Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, Joint Pub 3-12 (Washington
D.C.: Joint Chiefs of Staff, December 15, 1995), p. III-2. It remains to be seen whether the
new document gives any greater authority to the combatant commanders in terms of release
authority. As the old document notes, "Each commander with a nuclear planning capability
identifies and requests authorization to strike any targets necessary to accomplish the mis-
sion." (p. III-4).
40Nuclear Posture Review, p. 30.
41 John A. Gordon, Statement to the Senate Committee on Armed Services (February 14,
2002), available at http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/docs/congressional/2002/2002-02-14-TESTI
MONY-US_Armed_Services_NPR.pdf.
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
32/35
42
Christine Kucia, "Congress approves research on new nuclear weapons," Arms ControlToday(June 2003).
43 Wade Boese, "Congress Axes Funding for New Nukes,"Arms Control Today(December
2004).
44 Daryl G. Kimball, "Replacement Nuclear Warheads? Buyer Beware,"Arms Control Today
(May 2005). Also see Wade Boese, "US Weighing Nuclear Stockpile Changes,"Arms Control
Today(May 2005) and William J. Broad, "US Redesigning Atomic Weapons,"New York Times
February 27, 2005.
45 For a good overview, see Andrew Cohen, While Canada Slept: How We Lost Our Place in the
World(Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2003). Numerous reports from academics and non-
governmental organizations reiterate this point. For a good overview, see Barry Cooper,Mercedes Stephenson and Ray Szeto, "Canada's Military Posture: An examination of Recent
Civilian Reports," The Fraser Institute Critical Issues Bulletins(January 2004), available at
http://www.stratnet.ucalgary.ca/publications/pdf/cooper_CanadaMilitaryPosture_jan04.pdf
46This argument is reiterated in Ko Colinj, "Weapons of mass destruction: A medium-power
concern," International Journal, vol. 59, n. 2 (Spring 2004).
47 Barry R. Posen and Andrew L. Ross, "Competing Visions for US Grand Strategy,"
International Security, vol. 21, n. 3 (Winter 1996/1997), p. 32. A blueprint for such a grand strat-
egy was first brought to light in 1992, with the leak of then Undersecretary of Defense for
Policy Paul Wolfowitz's controversial Defense Policy Guidance (1994-1999). For further
information on this document, see Patrick E. Tyler, "US Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No
Rivals Develop,"New York Times, March 7, 1992. For a good discussion on the writing of this
controversial document, see James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet
(New York: Viking, 2004).
48 Carl Kaysen, John D. Steinbruner, Martin B. Malin, "Behind the Prospect of War with Iraq:
The New US National Security Strategy," Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Public Interest
Report, vol. 55, n. 5 (September/October 2002), pp. 3-4, available at:
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n5/v55n5.pdf
49 George W. Bush, "Remarks by the President at 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United
States Military Academy," Office of the Press Secretary, June 1, 2002.
50This does not mean that the non-nuclear elements are not an integral component of the
New Triad. However, such components are featured in what is formally a review of the US
nuclear posture, and are seen in a context that has traditionally been dominated by US strate-
gic nuclear weapons capabilities. For these reasons, and despite its wider strategic nature, this
author has chosen to use the term "nuclear primacy."
120 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
33/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 121
51
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC);Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC); Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Other
non-proliferation agreements include the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the
Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), the Australia Group, on chemical and biological
materials, as well as the most recent Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).
52 See Jason D. Ellis, "The Best Defense: Counterproliferation and US National Security," The
Washington Quarterly, vol. 26, n. 2 (Spring 2003), pp. 115-133.
53 Christine Kucia, "Counterproliferation at Core of New Security Strategy,"Arms Control
Today(October 2002). Other treaties mentioned in the 1999 document include the BTWC
and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) agreements. It should also be noted that
the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction does outline these multilat-
eral non-proliferation measures (though with the conspicuous absence of the CTBT).
54 George Bunn and Roland M. Timerbaev, "Security Assurances to Non-Nuclear-Weapon
States," The Nonproliferation Review(Fall 1993), p. 11. Such assurances are commonly seen as
being a necessary condition for Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to relinquish their nuclear
weapons in 1994, and for the NNWSs to support the 1995 NPT Review Conference. Also
see George Bunn, "The Legal Status of US Negative Security Assurances to Non-Nuclear
Weapon States," The Nonproliferation Review(Spring-Summer 1997), pp. 1-17.
55 Calculated ambiguity was coined by former Secreatry of State James A. Baker, who used
it to describe US policy during the 1990-91 Gulf War. As Baker writes, "I purposely left the
impression that the use of chemical or biological agents by Iraq could invite tactical nuclear
retaliation." Quoted in William Arkin, "Calculated Ambiguity: Nuclear Weapons and the GulfWar," The Washington Quarterly, vol. 16, n. 4 (Autumn 1996), 3-18. Also see Scott D. Sagan,
"The Commitment Trap: Why the United States Should Not Use Nuclear Threats to Deter
Biological and Chemical Weapons Attacks," International Security, vol. 24, n. 4 (Spring 2000),
pp. 85-115.
56 Article 6, The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (July 1, 1968), at
http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html.
57 For a good example of the critique on missile defence, see Ernie Regehr, Canada and
Ballistic Missile Defence, Report of the Simons Centre for Peace and Disarmament Studies
(December 2003). Also see the contrasting arguments by Fergusson and Ross in this volume.
58
According to one author, minimum deterrence has shifted towards a more robust "limit-ed deterrence" strategic concept. See Alastair Iain Johnston, "China's New 'Old Thinking':
The Concept of Limited Deterrence," International Security, vol. 20, n. 2 (Winter 1995/96),
pp. 5-42.
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
34/35
122 DAVID S. MCDONOUGH
59
While it does have an additional 12 ICBM-classified missile (the DF-4), this delivery sys-tem is generally not considered capable of reaching CONUS. For a recent sober assessment
of the Chinese nuclear arsenal, see Jeffrey Lewis, "The Ambiguous Arsenal," Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, vol. 61, n. 3 (May/June 2005), pp. 52-59.
60 The NPR does also explicitly point to China as a country that could be involved in an
immediate or potential contingency. The immediate contingency is regarding a military con-
frontation over the status of Taiwan. The potential contingency consists of plausible but not
immediate dangers, which can include "the emergence of a new, hostile military coalition
against the United States or its allies." See Nuclear Posture Review, pp. 16-17. For more on the
impact that the NPR has had on China, see Joanne Tompkins, "How US Strategic Policy is
Changing China's Nuclear Plans,"Arms Contr ol Today(January-February 2003).
61 For more information on the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal, see Robert S. Norris and
Hans Kristensen, "Russian nuclear forces, 2005," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 61, n. 2
(March/April 2005), pp. 70-72.
62The Yamantau facility is a leadership relocation facility, while the Kosvinsky facility hous-
es the Russian nuclear command system. As such, it is a critical link to the 'Dead Hand' com-
munications network for semi-automatic retaliation in the event of a decapitating strike. See
Bruce G. Blair, "We Keep Buiding Nukes for All the Wrong Reasons," Washington Post, May
25, 2003, available at http://www.cdi.org/blair/new-nukes.cfm.
63 Nikolai Sokov, "Military Exercises In Russia: Naval Deterrence Failures Compensated By
Strategic Rocket Success," Center for Non-Proliferation Studies Research Story(February 24, 2004),
available at http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040224.htm. It should be noted that in the 2004exercise that featured both weapon systems, the Bukavu SLBM failed to launch.
64 For more on the Russian 'launch on warning' nuclear posture, see Bruce G. Blair, Global
Zero Alert for Nuclear Forces (Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, 1995). Also see
Bruce G. Blair, The Logic of Accidental Nuclear War(Washington DC: Brookings Institution,
1993).
65 See Frank P. Harvey, "The future of strategic stability and nuclear deterrence," International
Journal, vol. 58, n. 2 (Spring 2003), pp. 321-346.
66 Posen and Ross, "Competing Visions for US Grand Strategy," p. 43.
67 For this argument, see David S. McDonough, "The 'New Triad' of the Bush administra-
tion: Counterproliferation and escalation dominance in US nuclear strategy," International
Journal, vol. 59, n. 3 (Summer 2004), pp. 613-634.
68National Security Strategy of the United States, p. 14.
7/30/2019 Workshop Proceedings - Chapter
35/35
THE DILEMMAS OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC PRIMACY 123
69
See Scott Sagan, "Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons: Three Models in Search of aBomb," International Security, vol. 21, n. 3 (Winter 1997/98), pp. 54-86. While Sagan does
accept the importance of what he terms the 'security model' for nuclear proliferation, he also
accepts the role of domestic politics and norms as explanatory variables.
70This author takes a more sanguine view on the possibility that nuclear weapons would be
used as part of a first-strike pre-emptive attack against a rogue state. A 'commitment trap'
may have been created on nuclear pre-emption. However, one should also recognize that
such a trap is based on public communication of such threats, and such pronouncements, on
the issue of nuclear as opposed to conventional pre-emption, has not been a feature of the
Bush administration. For more on the commitment trap, see Sagan, "The Commitment
Trap," pp. 85-115. Of course, while not part of the official US doctrine, nuclear pre-emptive
strikes appear to have been incorporated into operational planning, as seen in the crisis action
planning and prompt strike capability of CONPLAN 8022-02.
71 The fear of a rogue state deterrent, and the need to counter such a deterrent with
enhanced nuclear capabilities, has be raised by a number of prominent analysts. See Colin S.
Gray, The Second Nuclear Age (New York: Lynne Rienner, 1999) and Keith B. Payne, The
Fallacies of Cold War Deterrence and a New Direction (Kentucky: The University Press of
Kentucky, 2001). Interestingly, both authors are prominent members of the National
Institute of Public Policy, and were involved in writing the influential document, Rationale and
Requirements for US Nuclear Forces. This document is acknowledged to have heavily informed
the 2002 NPR, and many of its authors, including Keith Payne, would go on to hold posi-
tions in the Bush administrations Pentagon.
72 For the opposite perspective, see Payne, "The Nuclear Posture Review," pp. 135-151.