The Wall Street Journal reports (sub req’d) today that the administration
has been pressing Congress to fund research into a new generation of nuclear weapons. Lawmakers have twice turned down proposals to design a new nuclear ‘bunker-buster’ bomb…. But last month, with little debate, Congress approved $25 million for research into what is supposed to be a sturdier, more reliable warhead than those designed during the Cold War…. Such simulations lead some to wonder if this administration…might use the reliable-warhead program…as an opening to build new military capabilities. ‘I don’t trust this group….We have to be on guard,’ Rep. Hobson says.
This is a good time to review an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal editorial, “Hobson’s Choice,” last March:
Thomas Hobson was a 16th century English stablekeeper who, when it came to renting horses, gave his customers only one option — the horse nearest the stable door. David Hobson is a Republican Congressman from Ohio who, when it comes to America’s nuclear arsenal, seems intent on giving the President only one option — the arsenal we have now. We turn to this subject following North Korea’s recent announcement that it has nuclear weapons. Not that this is news — we’ve known for some time that Pyongyang has several atomic bombs. But it is a timely reminder that the United States now faces asymmetrical nuclear threats for which it needs a different kind of deterrent than the one the U.S. inherited from the Cold War. That deterrent includes an anti-ballistic missile shield, which already is being deployed in Alaska. It also potentially includes weapons such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator — more commonly known as the nuclear ‘bunker buster’ — the purpose of which would be to credibly threaten, or destroy, deeply buried sites such as those in which North Korea hides its arsenal. The bulk of the existing U.S. nuclear arsenal was conceived in the 1970s and built in the 1980s, when the pressing need was to enhance the credibility of our retaliatory options against the Soviet Union. The pressing need today is to persuade adversaries like North Korea and Iran that we possess not only the capacity, but the will, to take out their nuclear bunkers without having to resort to very high-yield weapons that could kill tens of thousands of civilians above ground. The Congressman is within his rights as a representative to try and quash this or that budget item through the power of the purse. And if Mr. Hobson wants to run for President, he can do that, too. Until then, he ought to at least have to defend his theory of nuclear containment in a public debate on the floor of the House, where everyone can see what he’s up to. His colleagues and party leaders might be surprised to learn that a subcommittee chairman wants to determine the nuclear posture of the United States.
