If Harry Truman had decided against using nuclear weapons, it is
very unlikely that I would be here to write this. My father was a
Marine captain in 1945 and was scheduled to take his company ashore
in the first wave of the invasion of Japan. His life expectancy in
that assault would have been about fifteen minutes. The nuclear
strikes on Japan probably saved his life. The loss of thousands of
lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki must be weighed against the more
than one million American lives, and millions of Japanese lives,
that would have been lost in the final battles of that war. That
first and only use of nuclear weapons taught lessons we must not
forget on the eve of the campaign to liberate Iraq.
America is not the only nation to have used weapons of mass
destruction. In World War I, thousands died grotesquely from German
use of mustard gas against allied troops. In World War II, the
Soviets used biological weapons. Before the 1942 battle of
Stalingrad, they spread tularemia bacteria among the Germans,
infecting thousands. Saddam, of course, used chemical weapons many
times against Iranian troops and against Iraqi Kurds, killing
thousands. The Germans and Saddam — and arguably the Soviets —
violated what I will call the First Rule of WMD: Weapons of mass
destruction should be used when the only alternative is to incur —
or inflict — casualties of a magnitude that vastly greater that
the WMD will cause.
The Second Rule of WMD is that we must maintain them as a
deterrent. By 1991, chemical and biological weapons were a
commonplace. Secretary of State James Baker is credited with
deterring any use of WMD against American and Coalition forces by
threatening Saddam Hussein with nuclear retaliation. That deterrent
remains credible because, so far, it has not been challenged. If
Iraq — or, for that matter, Iran or North Korea or any other
WMD-armed nation — uses them against us, it will be necessary to
respond just as Mr. Baker threatened. In 2003 Iraq and its WMD
again are on the front burner. Having failed with every other
argument against military action to disarm Saddam, the nattering
nabobs say we’re going nuclear. Dr. Strangelove’s beeper must be
going off like MAD.
It began with the President’s National Security Strategy
document released last September. That paper emphasized that the
United States can and will strike preemptively to “counter a
sufficient threat to our national security” and “to forestall or
prevent” the use of WMD against us. Also last September, as the
Washington Times reported
last week, the President issued a secret order, National Security
Presidential Directive 17. Some of the chattering class say NPD 17
means that we plan to use nuclear weapons in the coming Iraq
campaign.
According to the Times report, a classified part of NPD
17 says that “nuclear weapons are part of the overwhelming force
that Washington might use in response to a chemical or biological
attack.” It goes on to cite one William Arkin, a “military analyst”
who “quoted ‘multiple sources’ close to the preparations for a war
in Iraq as saying that the focus is on ‘two possible roles for
nuclear weapons: attacking Iraqi facilities located so deep
underground that they might be impervious to conventional
explosives; and thwarting Iraq’s use of weapons of mass
destruction.’” Mr. Arkin and his sources aren’t distinguishing
between academic exercises and real war planning.
There are always thousands of “what ifs” that war planners
consider. Inevitably there will be someone among the Pentagon RSG
(real smart guy) crowd who will say, “Hey, why don’t we nuke his
butt?” And there were probably staff papers for both sides of the
argument which have long-since been buried. But that’s a long way
from saying we’re going to do it.
There are reports of new tactical nuclear weapons being designed
for use against hardened targets without causing above-ground
damage. If we can test nuclear weapons underground without doing
damage above, we can design weapons to do this. Or can we? How you
get the weapon deep enough underground before it detonates is a
problem that hasn’t yet been solved. And, thanks to Lil’ Billy, we
haven’t tested a nuclear warhead in the better part of a decade.
Which means we don’t know if it would work as intended.
Even if we could, we have no compelling reason to cross the
nuclear threshold in a preemptive strike. If Saddam is buried so
deeply our forces can secure the area and wait. Eventually, the bad
guys will come out or die of starvation. We can probably hurry them
along by cutting off their air supply. Saddam has his WMD in
hardened underground facilities. (Which is one of the reasons that
Hans and the Blixies are ridiculous. They don’t go underground
anywhere, far less anywhere WMD are likely to be.) And if we can
destroy the weapons, or cut off command and control over them, we
don’t need to resort to preemptive nuclear strikes. Use of nuclear
weapons against deep, hardened targets would violate WMD Rule
1.
America has to decide for itself when and how it goes to war.
But there are limits to the proper exercise of American power.
Using nuclear weapons without first being struck by WMD, or
determining that WMD are about to be used against us without any
other means to prevent it, would forever make America a brutal
monster in our own minds as well as the world’s. We would shatter
ourselves on the rocks of guilt. George Bush is no Caligula. Take
this to the bank: nuclear preemption won’t happen in Iraq.
If some of Saddam’s Scuds manage to leak through our defenses
and deliver chemical or biological weapons, then we must respond
with a nuclear weapon. We should hit them with the lowest-yield
tactical nuclear weapons we have in our arsenal. Saddam’s “palace”
in Tikrit or the al-Tharthar or Abu Ghurayb facilities — all of
which probably contain WMD — would be appropriate targets. But for
the fact that it’s in Baghdad, the headquarters of the “Special
Republican Guard” — which has responsibility for concealing and
using Iraqi WMD — would be at the top of the list. But there, we
must draw the line. Baghdad is a city of millions, and we want to
liberate Iraq, not incinerate it.
Using nuclear weapons to respond to WMD attacks is terrible to
contemplate, but in this new era we must consider it, even plan for
it. We cannot allow terrorists and others to believe they can use
such weapons against us without suffering the most horrific
consequences. Mr. Bush is not a monster. Neither is he a fool. If
we are struck by Iraqi WMD, and hundreds of our troops are killed,
several of Saddam’s “palaces” should quickly become smoking,
glowing holes in the ground. Buck Turgidson, call your office.
Saddam delendus est.
