Congress is considering a request from the Department of Energy to spend about $68 million on research into new types of nuclear weapons.

Advocates of these “mini-nukes” tout them as a solution to several battlefield problems, including the destruction of heavily fortified and deeply buried bunkers. Hardened bunkers, like those in Iraq and North Korea, are difficult to destroy with conventional weapons. Although much progress has been made, the difficulty in subduing fighters in the caves of Afghanistan and the ability of Saddam Hussein and other former Iraqi leaders to escape U.S. bombing show that current weapons technology is not always enough.

That does not mean we should begin building a new generation of nuclear weapons. The argument against these weapons is straightforward. If we build them, we might use them. Exploding a nuclear weapon would be a great tragedy, regardless of the outcome of a particular battle or the short-term goals that might be achieved.

The size of the weapons in question would be relatively small, and backers say their destructive potential would be limited, nothing like the devastating power of the bombs dropped on Japan prompting the end World War II or the warheads that still rest atop ballistic missiles and are designed to destroy entire cities.

To legitimize the use of nuclear weapons in any way other than as a deterrent is to unleash a new, dangerous orthodoxy on the world. With the development of usable nuclear weapons, the United States would lose the moral authority to demand nonproliferation by other nations.

It’s easy to predict the consequences, as other nations see the world’s lone superpower pursue a strategic missile defense while developing new offensive nuclear options. A new arms race would likely follow.

The fears of a nuclear holocaust have calmed since the end of the Cold War. But memories survive of school drills in which children cowered under their desks in anticipation of a rain of Soviet missiles.

Those fears continue in much of the world. Pakistan and India – both nuclear powers – remain in a state of near war. North Korea postures and threatens to use nuclear weapons against South Korea.

There is a psychological barrier that exists between conventional and nuclear weapons. We should do nothing to tear that barrier down.

A Senate Appropriations subcommittee last week OK’d spending that would move the country closer to fielding these weapons, but some senators are promising a fight to cut off the money. A House version of the bill drastically reduced funding for the weapons’ development, but it’s possible those cuts won’t stand. The issue is still very much in play.

Our nation has become acutely aware of the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction. Is it possible to ever qualify the damage done by a nuclear weapon as limited or acceptable?

We support efforts to keep the country’s arsenal of nuclear weapons reliable and safe. Our strength helps stabilize the world and our nuclear capabilities are a deterrent to despots who value their own survival. But we oppose expansion of those nuclear capabilities into the domain of conventional battlefield needs.


[email protected]