Wednesday
May192010
Former Secretary Of State Concerned By Key Element Of Obama’s Nuclear Policy
Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 5:08PM
Former Secretary of State James Baker III expressed hesitancy Wednesday over the Obama administration’s pledge to not use nuclear force against countries that have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they launch a biological or chemical attack against the U.S.
“I question the wisdom of that position,” Baker said during an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Baker, who served under President George Bush Sr., said his opinion stemmed from an interaction with the Iraqi Foreign Minister on the eve of the Gulf War, wherein Baker cautioned that the U.S. could use nuclear arms if the Iraqis attacked American forces with biological or chemical weapons.
“It is entirely possible, and even likely in my opinion, that Iraq did not use its chemical weapons against our forces because of that warning,” Baker said. “Years later when Saddam Hussein was captured, debriefed and asked why he did not use his chemical weapons, he recalled the substance of my statement.”
The restraint on nuclear force was included in the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review unveiled in April. Iran and North Korea, who have not signed the nonproliferation treaty, are still considered legitimate targets for a nuclear attack.
The former Secretary also posed questions over a number of provisions in the New START Treaty, including whether the program in place to verify compliance was satisfactory and if the treaty will provide a large enough nuclear capacity to protect allies. Baker also argued that the treaty should just focus on the reduction of arms and not seek to limit missile defense.
These concerns aside, Baker characterized the new treaty to limit both countries to 1,500 warheads as “a modest, and appropriate” continuation of the original START treaty that expired last year.
“I question the wisdom of that position,” Baker said during an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Baker, who served under President George Bush Sr., said his opinion stemmed from an interaction with the Iraqi Foreign Minister on the eve of the Gulf War, wherein Baker cautioned that the U.S. could use nuclear arms if the Iraqis attacked American forces with biological or chemical weapons.
“It is entirely possible, and even likely in my opinion, that Iraq did not use its chemical weapons against our forces because of that warning,” Baker said. “Years later when Saddam Hussein was captured, debriefed and asked why he did not use his chemical weapons, he recalled the substance of my statement.”
The restraint on nuclear force was included in the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review unveiled in April. Iran and North Korea, who have not signed the nonproliferation treaty, are still considered legitimate targets for a nuclear attack.
The former Secretary also posed questions over a number of provisions in the New START Treaty, including whether the program in place to verify compliance was satisfactory and if the treaty will provide a large enough nuclear capacity to protect allies. Baker also argued that the treaty should just focus on the reduction of arms and not seek to limit missile defense.
These concerns aside, Baker characterized the new treaty to limit both countries to 1,500 warheads as “a modest, and appropriate” continuation of the original START treaty that expired last year.
Reader Comments