Nuclear deterrence works, so why abandon it in Iraq?

CHICAGO - I was not alarmed to read the news, leaked to the press last week, that the Bush administration has ordered the Pentagon to make plans for the use of nuclear weapons against countries that attack us with weapons of mass destruction. What alarmed me is that no one has explained it to President Bush.

The possibility the United States might answer a non-nuclear attack with a nuclear strike was said to represent a sudden and dangerous change. In fact, as Scott Shuger notes in the online magazine Slate, it's been American policy for years. In 1997, The Washington Post uncovered a classified directive issued by President Clinton "that would permit U.S. nuclear strikes after enemy attacks using chemical or biological weapons." During the Cold War, Washington let it be known that a Soviet invasion of Western Europe might spawn mushroom clouds over Moscow.

The reason for preserving this option is obvious and sensible: to deter our enemies from attacking and killing Americans. We used to stockpile chemical and biological weapons, not because we expected to use them but to discourage our enemies from doing so. But long ago we agreed to destroy those munitions. So our chief deterrent today has to be the only weapons of mass destruction left to us - nuclear ones.

The main change evident in the administration's Nuclear Posture Review is that we might develop small nukes to destroy underground complexes of the sort used by al-Qaida in Afghanistan. North Korea and some 70 other countries are believed to have put command and control operations in such facilities, which they hope will be impervious to conventional bombs. Tucked away in a subterranean bunker, an aggressor like Saddam Hussein might get the idea he could carry out a horrific attack on New York, Washington or Tel Aviv and live to tell the tale. An earth-penetrating nuke would make it clear there are no hiding places.

In his March 13 news conference, President Bush defended this strategy. "The reason one has a nuclear arsenal is to serve as a deterrence," he declared. "We've got all options on the table, because we want to make it very clear that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies or friends."

The chief purpose of nuclear weapons, unlike other arms, is not to destroy but to deter. They serve to keep the peace by raising the cost of war beyond anyone's willingness to pay. They neutralize our enemies' weapons of mass destruction by rendering their use suicidal.