IP: Transcript: Nuclear Posture Review gives Bushnuclear option(fwd)

Eugene Leitl Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
Sun, 10 Mar 2002 12:38:53 +0100 (MET)

Is it still good PsyOps if it kills you?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:33:03 -0500
From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
Reply-To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
To: ip <ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com>
Subject: IP: Transcript: Nuclear Posture Review gives Bushnuclear option

------ 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


Your readers may want to know that the transcript of the Nuclear Posture
Review is available online.

Transcript  Nuclear Briefing  Jan 9th 2002
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.



 J. D. Crouch, the assistant secretary of Defense for International Security

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.


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://

------ End of Forwarded Message