' Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Jan. 18, 2005 / 8 Shevat 5765

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

Gaffney
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports



Goin' nuclear   —   literally


http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Last week, the leadership of the House of Representatives employed the political equivalent of the "nuclear option." It removed a popular legislator, Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, from his position as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee over his failure during the last Congress to adhere to the budget and agenda laid out by the President and his allies on Capitol Hill.


The extent and implications of Rep. Smith's apostasy pale, however, by comparison with those of another Republican chairman, Rep. David Hobson of Ohio, who led the Energy and Water Resources appropriations subcommittee in the 108th Congress. Although Rep. Hobson says he believes that "Our nuclear arsenal remains an important component of our overall national security program" and that he supports "maintaining our current stockpile," his actions last year fail to bear out that commitment.


At the very least, Mr. Hobson has made choices that render the maintenance of our current stockpile problematic. They also raise real questions as to whether our nuclear arsenal can remain "an important component of our overall national security program."


This was accomplished when Rep. Hobson was able last Fall to exploit the classic "smoke-filled room" process that shaped the 2004 omnibus appropriations act to decimate President Bush's plans for assuring the continuing effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent, as called for by the 2002 Nuclear Program Review.


For example, if "maintaining our current stockpile" means anything, it requires that our existing nuclear weapons remain safe and reliable. Given the fact that they are obsolescing, the only way to be absolutely certain is to conduct underground tests. Today, it would take some three years to do so. Mr. Hobson says it is an "unwise and unnecessary use of limited resources" to try, as Mr. Bush has recommended, to shorten significantly that lead-time.


The President also believes we can no longer safely afford to be the only nuclear weapons state incapable of manufacturing "pits"   —   the plutonium cores that are at the heart of our current arsenal. Mr. Hobson says he does, too. But he thinks, since it will take years to design and construct such a facility, it won't matter if all but the most preliminary of work is delayed still further. He says he wants certain questions answered first, but they amount to a technical smokescreen for policy-driven inaction.

Donate to JWR


The Congressman has departed even farther from the Bush strategy with respect to what it will take to provide for America's future deterrent. The President thinks we need to design a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator capable of holding at risk the growing number of deeply buried sites used by North Korea, Iran and the like to conceal weapons of mass destruction and command-and-control facilities. Mr. Hobson disagrees, claiming that, like enhanced testing readiness, this and other advanced weapons development efforts would be not only wasteful but would "send the wrong signal to the rest of the world."


Congressman Hobson has contemptuously dismissed contrary judgments like those President Bush has made as "the desires of Cold War fighters for new weapons and facilities." As Keith Payne observed in Sunday's Times in an essay entitled "Cold War Thinking on Nuclear Policy," such a criticism is all the more ironic for it coming from a man who would condemn America to retaining, at best, an arsenal designed to deter our Cold War foe   —   not those we confront today and tomorrow.


The folly of this approach was dissected in another excellent November 16, 2004 op.ed. in the Washington Post published by one of the Nation's most respected experts on nuclear weapons, former Defense Nuclear Agency chief Vice Admiral Robert Monroe (U.S. Navy, retired). He noted:


"No other nation has the global responsibilities the United States bears, and we must take the actions needed to meet them   —   particularly those involving deterrence. To be effective deterrents in the future, our nuclear weapons must have greatly increased accuracy, reduced yields, specialized capabilities (such as deep earth penetration) and tailored effects (such as ability to neutralize chemical-biological agents).In a dangerous world, with many states and organizations committed to acquiring and using nuclear weapons, it would be unwise for the United States not to make our nuclear deterrent force more effective."


Finally, Mr. Hobson claims that his positions enjoy majority support in the Congress and that representations to the contrary are "simply inaccurate." In fact, the full House and Senate were given successive opportunities to vote last year on who was right   —   President Bush and experts like Admiral Monroe, or Mr. Hobson and anti-nuclear activists opposed to the Bush defense program. Each time, the Bush position prevailed. The Hobson choices were enacted only when, in the Omnibus bill, neither the 108th Congress nor the President had the opportunity to address them individually.


Now, it falls to the 109th Congress to correct the damage Rep. David Hobson's choices threaten to do to our nuclear deterrent. In that debate, Mr. Hobson should, of course, have his say. But it should not be from the vantage point of chairman of the relevant appropriations subcommittee, the sort of position of responsibility that   —   as Chris Smith recently learned the hard way   —   is not entrusted by the leadership to those with their own agenda. That sensible approach to party discipline should most especially be applied when the individual in question's agenda is utterly inimical to the Nation's security.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.


JWR contributor Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. heads the Center for Security Policy. Send your comments to him by clicking here.

Archives

Up

© 2004, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.