Texas Gov. George W. Bush on Tuesday proposed slashing the U.S. nuclear arsenal even if Russia doesn’t agree to identical cuts. His proposal came as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaking days before President Clinton travels to Moscow for arms talks, told lawmakers they are willing to go only so far in shrinking the nation’s nuclear force.
Flanked by such pillars of the GOP national security establishment as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and retired Gen. Colin Powell, Bush said that as president he would unilaterally reduce the number of nuclear warheads and develop a broad-based system to protect the U.S. and its allies from missile attack. Clinton is considering a far more limited missile defense system.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee warned the Clinton administration against making any agreement that might hamstring future presidents, particularly in building a missile defense.
“Our nation needs a new approach to nuclear security that matches a new era,” Bush said in Washington. “It is time to leave the Cold War behind and defend against the new threats of the 21st Century.”
On Capitol Hill, the Joint Chiefs of Staff appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee at a hearing called by the panel’s Republican leaders with a clear political purpose in mind. The chiefs said they could not support deeper cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal beyond those Clinton proposed three years ago without intensive study into the strategic implications of such cuts.
Republicans on the armed services panel were responding to reports that Clinton plans to unveil dramatic and unilateral new cuts during the Moscow summit.
The message from the Senate Republicans was clear: Any bold new proposals for arms reductions would receive a cold reception not only from Senate Republicans but from military commanders.
“We have considered additional reductions in our nuclear arsenal,” said Army Gen. Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “From a military perspective, several challenges must be addressed with any new proposals for a lower warhead ceiling.”
Those include the possibility that deep cuts in strategic nuclear weapons would force the United States to eliminate submarines and bombers it could use in conventional combat. Shelton also warned that deep cuts would leave Russia with a significant advantage in shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons.
The senior officers made clear that while they have begun to consider the implications of cutting deeper into the U.S. nuclear arsenal, they have not conducted the kind of comprehensive study on which a president could base a negotiating proposal.
At a 1997 summit at Helsinki, Finland, Clinton said he could foresee cutting the U.S. nuclear arsenal to as few as 2,000 to 2,500 warheads.
“I am quite comfortable with the Helsinki framework,” said Adm. Jay Johnson, the chief of naval operations. “I am quite uncomfortable going outside the Helsinki framework without the requisite analysis on a subject of such major strategic importance.”
Bush proposed just such a comprehensive Pentagon study in his speech before an audience at the National Press Club in Washington.
On two key fronts, though, Bush is at odds with Senate leaders of his own party. Bush was proposing deep, unilateral cuts, something several Republican senators spoke out against Tuesday. And by proposing to cut arms without reaching a formal treaty with Russia, Bush was, in essence, cutting the Senate out of the arms-reduction process.
“Congress, especially the United States Senate, has a role,” said Sen. John Warner, (R-Va.) chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
At least one Republican senator praised Bush’s speech. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), a leading GOP moderate on foreign policy issues, called the speech “comprehensive, far-sighted and statesmanlike.”
Though he declined to detail his arms-reduction goal, Bush said his plan would reach “the lowest possible number consistent with our national security” even without a Russian promise to make commensurate reductions.
More Top Picks Bose Vs Sennheiser Headphones
“We should not keep weapons that our military planners do not need,” Bush said. “These unneeded weapons are relics of dead conflicts.”
The proposal to cut arms unilaterally may be less bold than it seems, however. Russia desperately wants to cut nuclear arms because it cannot afford to maintain its huge conventional force and a major strategic arsenal.
Bush was vague when asked what technology would enable the United States to defend its own territory as well as its allies.
“What I see out there is a couple of things: One, the world has changed a lot since the ’80s. Science is evolving; laser technology is evolving. There is a lot of inventiveness in our society that hasn’t been unleashed on this particular subject,” Bush said.
The Clinton administration and Vice President Al Gore’s presidential campaign were quick to criticize the governor.
“Like a lot of statements Gov. Bush makes,” said White House spokesman Joe Lockhart, “he makes very broad statements; then, when you ask him a detailed question, he says he doesn’t know the answer and he’ll consult with his advisers.”
Gore spokesman Douglas Hattaway said Bush was advocating a “radical rewriting” of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which bans national missile defenses, “or more likely, its abolition. … Bush’s agenda is irresponsible and shows that he lacks the depth of experience to keep America safe and secure.”
Arms-control advocates welcomed Bush’s proposal on unilateral weapons cuts but criticized his missile-defense plan.
“The two strategies are fundamentally incompatible,” said Stephen Young of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers.
Unilateral cuts and taking weapons off of alert reduce tension, Young said. But building a missile defense could cause Russia to keep its weapons on alert and postpone any weapons reductions.
As if to burnish his credentials on national security and international affairs, Bush surrounded himself with some of the best-known names in the Republican Party on security issues: Powell, Kissinger and former Secretary of State George Shultz. He also was joined by former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his campaign’s top national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice.
Powell was careful to point out that he was endorsing Bush’s proposals, not necessarily the candidate himself. And, in response to a question, Powell reiterated that he was not interested in serving as Bush’s vice president. Powell is scheduled to travel Thursday to Austin, Texas, to meet again with the governor.
In proposing unilateral arms cuts, the Texas governor invoked an initiative taken by his father, President George Bush, in 1991. The United States began sharp cuts in tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe and invited the Soviet Union to reciprocate without going through lengthy negotiations.
“Huge reductions were achieved in a matter of months, making the world much safer, more quickly,” Bush said.
Such a move by Clinton would be impossible under current law. Reflecting Republican distrust in Clinton’s foreign policy leadership, Congress has renewed a law for the past several years forbidding any arms cuts below current levels until the START 2 treaty enters into force.
The START 2 pact would cut the U.S. and Russian long-range strategic nuclear arsenals roughly in half, to between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads. It cannot take effect until the Senate approves provisions inserted by the Russian legislature. Senate Republicans have said they strongly oppose those changes.
A Democratic effort to overturn the law restricting Clinton failed earlier this month in the House Armed Services Committee.
Clinton’s agenda in Moscow includes getting a reluctant Russia to go along with a U.S. plan–not yet finally approved–to build a limited national missile defense against possible future threats from “rogue” states such North Korea and Iran. He also wants to set a framework for START 3 talks just under way. Clinton has proposed going to as few as 2,000 to 2,500 warheads. Cash-strapped Russia wants to reduce the force to 1,500.