Myers Says U.S. Nuclear Review Lists Deterrence Options
--Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman interviewed on CNN
11 March 2002
The Defense Department's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is not an operational
plan, but rather is a policy document that outlines the U.S. deterrence
posture, of which nuclear weapons are a part, says General Richard Myers,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Responding to a question concerning news articles about the NPR, Myers told
CNN's Wolf Blitzer in a March 10 interview that the document preserves for
the president "all the options that [he] would want to have in case this
country or our friends and allies were attacked with weapons of mass
destruction, be they nuclear, biological, chemical, or for that matter high
explosives."
"It's been the policy of this country for a long time," he added, "that the
president would always reserve the right up to and including the use of
nuclear weapons if that was appropriate. So that continues to be the
policy."
Following is the excerpt from the Myers' interview that deals with the
Nuclear Posture Review:
(begin excerpt)
Q: As you know, the Los Angeles Times yesterday, the New York Times today,
lengthy articles about this new military posture, using nuclear weapons in
certain contingencies, it's called a nuclear posture review that has just
been released. It specifically mentions seven countries that potentially
might draw U.S. nuclear action if necessary, China, Russia, Iraq, North
Korea, Iran, Libya, and Syria. That is generating alarm bells around the
world. Give us your perspective, what it would mean for the U.S. to launch
military strikes against any of those countries.
Myers: My perspective will be this, in the headline as we talked about this
about 15 minutes ago on your show, it was referred to as a plan. In fact,
it is the Nuclear Posture Review as required by Congress. So it's not a
plan, it's not an operational plan. It's a policy document. And it simply
states our deterrence posture, of which nuclear weapons are a part. In
addition, it goes a lot further, some of things not covered in the articles
I think are really innovative. It talks about a new triad, that has not
only nuclear weapons in it, but also conventional weapons, that has missile
defenses in it, that has infrastructure implications, and it has underlying
all that is better intelligence, so we can better know what's going on out
there in the world. Q: As you know, five of those countries are not nuclear
powers, at least not as far as the United States knows. China and Russia
are, but Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria are not, and they're, in
fact, signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The New York
Times wrote today, significantly, all of those countries have signed the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Washington has promised that it will not
use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that have signed the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, unless those countries attack the United
States or its allies in alliance with a nuclear weapon state. So what does
that say about breaking, in effect -- would the U.S. have to break its own
acceptance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if it were to launch
preemptive strikes using nuclear weapons against one of those five states?
Myers: Let me put it this way, this is, again, not a plan. This preserves
for the president all the options that a president would want to have in
case this country or our friends and allies were attacked with weapons of
mass destruction, be they nuclear, biological, chemical, or for that matter
high explosives. And it's been the policy of this country for a long time,
as long as I've been a senior officer, that the president would always
reserve the right up to and including the use of nuclear weapons if that was
appropriate. So that continues to be the policy.
Let me just say also, the whole discussion here is about deterrence, why we
have a military, why we have nuclear forces is all about deterrence. And we
certainly hope to deter other actors in this world from taking steps with
weapons of mass destruction that could have devastating affects on our
population and the population of our friends and allies.
(end excerpt)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Sources