The US would redeploy tactical nuclear weapons to the Asia-Pacific and ask regional allies to host nuclear weapons in plans added to the draft Pentagon budget.
Nuclear weapons would be positioned on US and voluntary allied bases as a deterrent against North Korea, Iran and reassure allies against any belligerent or rogue nation in the Asia-Pacific.
The request from the House Armed Services Committee was added to the 2013 National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) yesterday and is expected to pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives next week.
If the measure survives in the final version of the NDAA, and is not vetoed by President Barack Obama, then formal plans and costings will drafted by the Pentagon for consideration after the 2012 election.
The measure does not address whether Australia would be asked to host nuclear weapons or allow vessels with nuclear weapons to dock. PACOM, the US Pacific command, has placed great importance on the new US Marine training facility in Darwin, and all regional bilateral agreements will be examined as part of the initial report.
Representative Trent Franks says the measure “does not force our nuclear weapons on anyone. It just asks if our alliances would be strengthened with the use of nuclear weapons in the region. If China is concerned about our presence in the region it is very simple they can stop supporting North Korea and get tough on the Kim Jong-un administration.
“They [China] are not just financing North Korea, they’re directly supporting North Korea’s nuclear program. Consequently it has come time for us as a nation to look to our deterrent and look to our allies to make sure we’re doing everything necessary to defend ourselves against any future belligerence or future threats from North Korea.”
The Democrat minority unsuccessfully tried to press for nuclear reduction. Representative Adam Smith said the US already had a robust presence in the Pacific. “Putting into legislation the notion that it would be helpful to the region to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to the Asian region is just completely wrong,” he said. “If anything that will ramp up the temperature and create a greater likelihood of problems in the region not less.”
It has been 21 years since the US last deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Asia, a long-time HASC staff member told Crikey.
The US Navy already has “fearsome” Ohio-class submarines on permanent patrol in the Pacific as well as cruisers and destroyers with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence System protecting the US west coast.
A similar missile defence shield for the US east coast is funded in the draft NDAA, ostensibly in case of a nuclear threat from Iran. Those plans were mocked in the US media earlier this week as the rebirth of the unsuccessful Star Wars program.
War drum rhetoric was ramped up in recent months with debate dominated by the Republican presidential nomination process. Former candidate Rick Santorum made pre-emptive strikes against Iran a key part of his campaign platform. Likely nominee Mitt Romney said Obama’s diplomacy had “emboldened” North Korea and he has expressed concern about China’s military. Almost all candidates, except Ron Paul, sought to increase national defence spending.
Republican legislators have adopted the similar concerns. Despite an automatic $500 billion cut to the Pentagon budget scheduled to take effect at the beginning of 2013 unless savings targets are met, the House version of the draft NDAA instead increases military spending.
This version of the NDAA also includes spending on new warfare technology like pain rays and active denial systems designed for use against civilian populations. Social issues were also touched on, with Republicans banning gay troops from marrying on base facilities and protecting anti-gay religious speech in the military workplace.
The annual NDAA has played a key role in the brinksmanship politics in Congress in recent years, and is likely to feature heavily in the presidential campaign.
The United States should not get any encouragement from Australia – for our sakes, and for theirs.
The US Military does not deploy tactical nuclear weapons on its ships or submarines anymore. They maintain a small stockpile in NATO countries to reinforce Extended Deterrence for NATO states, and they have disassembled warheads in stockpile in the US from Tomahawk cruise missiles.
I think its extremely unlikely that the US would approach Canberra to deploy tactical nukes. What would be the point? Nuclear war at sea is no longer necessary given advances in conventional antiship missiles, and it seems that short of the North Koreans invading South Korea, the US will not get involved in another land war in Asia. Even in that contingency, there would be no need for tactical nuclear weapons. The US strategic nuclear deterrent would provide Extended Nuclear Deterrence to South Korea and Japan (as well as Australia), but I don’t see the Obama Administration – focused on the elimination of all nuclear weapons – agreeing to re-introduce tactical nuclear weapons into the field. Its not even a strong consideration for Middle Eastern states facing the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran.
In any case, the Americans are not stupid. They know it would be political suicide for any Australian government to agree to the deployment of US nuclear forces on Australian soil, and the request will not be made. Australia is too much of an important strategic ally to treat with such disdain.
This is an atomic storm in a tea cup!
Dr. Malcolm Davis
Gold Coast, Australia
Malcolm Davis, your penultimate paragraph contained three sentences and three seriously contestable assertions. Seventy years ago it was said of Americans that they were “overpaid, over sexed and over here”, an easily repeatable combination that might show them up to be, in Australian eyes, 1) stupid, 2) purveyors of political suicide, and 3) easily able to treat an ally with disdain.
Mind you, if Australia allows the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to be developed as a top secret American airbase off-limits even to Australians, you’d have to wonder if there is any limit to our grovel.
Hugh, traditional Australian attitudes to the US aside, I can assure you that though many US politicians are in fact ‘stupid’ the professional national security community in Washington are highly professional and intelligent people. We talk with them all the time within government and there is a strong debate on this issues at all level. They know full well that the Australian people would not accept tactical nukes on our soil, nor would they accept them on US ships in our ports (accepting that during the Cold War the US Navy never confirmed nor denied that their ships had tactical nuclear weapons on board as a matter of policy, and we went along with that stance).
The US values us highly as a key ally, especially now in a far more uncertain and unpredictable security environment that is beginning to unfold. They are also aware that there is a degree of fragility in the alliance that could easily fracture it. Our trade relations with China is just one pressure on the US-Australia strategic relationship and to ignore Australian interests would run the risk of driving a future Australian government into a closer relationship with Beijing – something the US is keen to avoid.
So the nuclear question – if it were to arise – will be handled with kid gloves, and our needs and interests will certainly not be ignored. In any case, even if the US were to ever consider re-introducing tactical nuclear weapons into the region, which I think is highly unlikely, they are much more likely to be deployed in Hawaii rather than on foreign territory – no matter what some Republican congressmen would like.
The US are realists – they will do what is in their interests, and its not in their interests to alienate a key strategic ally.
Malcolm
As a deterrent to recalcitrant regional allies more likely.