“In Memoriam: Dr. Robert H. Krieble<

(Washington, D.C.): Following the
release of the latest in a series of
polemics calling for the abolition of
nuclear weapons — this one sponsored by
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
and authored by, among others, Rose
Gottemoeller, a candidate for the senior
Pentagon post responsible for nuclear
weapons policy⁽¹⁾
— the Center for Security Policy today
hosted a High-Level Roundtable Discussion
to address “The Future of U.S.
Nuclear Deterrence” at the ANA Hotel
in Washington, D.C. In attendance were 65
experienced national security
practitioners, including a number of
former Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officers
and several retired senior military
officers.

The lead discussant for the
Roundtable’s first session, concerning
“Why Nuclear Weapons Matter in the
Post-Cold War World,” was Senator
Jon Kyl (R-AZ). Senator Kyl, one
of the most influential members of the
Senate on national security and foreign
policy matters and the 1994 recipient of
the Center’s prestigious “Keeper of
the Flame” award, argued forcefully
for maintaining both the credibility and
capabilities of our nuclear forces. He
enumerated ongoing, ominous Russian,
Chinese and rogue state efforts to
acquire and/or upgrade their nuclear
weapons’ arsenals.

Sen. Kyl underscored the essence of
deterrence — the perception that one is both
capable and credible with respect to
threats of the use of nuclear weapons.
Such was the case in Operation Desert
Storm, when U.S. warnings implying a
nuclear response to any use of chemical
and biological weapons by Saddam Hussein
apparently served to dissuade Iraqi CBW
use. The Senator warned that statements
made after the Gulf War had severely
undercut that credibility.

Former Secretary of Defense Caspar
W. Weinberger spearheaded the
next session, addressing “The U.S.
Government’s Current View of Nuclear
Weapons and Their Future
Importance.” Mr. Weinberger not only
stressed the need for continued U.S.
nuclear deterrence, but also the urgent
necessity to compensate for shortfalls in
the present — and future — deterrent
posture by withdrawing from the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and
deploying effective missile defenses. He
highlighted several inconsistencies in
the Administration’s nuclear policy,
notably, the glaring disconnect between
the Quadrennial Defense Review’s
statement that national missile defense
is a priority and President Clinton oft-
repeated claim that the ABM is the
“cornerstone of our strategic
stability.”

Following Mr. Weinberger’s comments,
several of the symposium participants
indicated a desire for pro-deterrence
analysis that could be used to rebut the
NAS study and other nuclear abolition
tracts (notably, a joint letter signed by
60 former flag officers last December).
The expectation is that such a document,
endorsed by distinguished supporters of a
credible, reliable and effective U.S.
nuclear deterrent, would encourage a real
debate about the future requirements for
such a deterrent and the Nation’s ability
to satisfy those requirements.

The third session, focusing on the
“U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex: Will
It Be There When We Need It,” was
led by Dr. Robert B. Barker,
former Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Atomic Energy. Dr. Barker
explained the assumptions behind the
Clinton Administration’s current
Stockpile Stewardship Management Program
(SSMP) and its adequacy as an alternative
to nuclear testing in assuring the future
safety and reliability of the U.S.
nuclear arsenal. The ensuing discussion
identified serious risks associated with
this program — even if fully funded.
Unfortunately, it is estimated to be
seriously underfunded, and likely to
become even more so in the
“out-years.”

The morning session was followed by a
working lunch, which featured remarks by Dr.
James R. Schlesinger, former
head of the Atomic Energy Commission,
director of Central Intelligence and
former Secretary of the Departments of
Defense and Energy, concerning
“Deterrence Requirements and
Responsibilities.” His tour
d’horizon was a tour de force,
offering a thought-provoking exposition
of the ways in which Clinton foreign and
defense policies — notably, the
Administration’s bid to expand NATO —
was renewing the need for extended
American deterrence at precisely the
moment that both U.S. conventional and
nuclear capabilities are being steadily
diminished. Dr. Schlesinger also
addressed the outdated
“bi-polar” thinking that seems
to animate the nuclear abolition movement
and the need not only to reject such
notions but also to pursue, in light of
the character of the post-Cold War world,
periodic low-yield underground testing,
nuclear modernization and the deployment
of strategic anti-missile defenses as
soon as they are available.

The Center for Security Policy will
shortly release a summary of the
symposium. Requests for a copy of the
summary and/or additional information
about this event or the work of the
Center may be placed by telephone at
(202) 835-9077, by fax at (202) 835-9066
or via e-mail at href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected].

– 30 –

1. See the
Center’s recent Decision Brief
entitled Clinton’s Reckless
Nuclear Agenda Revealed? Study
Co-Authored By Candidate For Top Pentagon
Job Is Alarming ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=97-D_96″>No. 97-D 96, 12
July 1997).