• SUPPORT CATO
• FOR STUDENTS
• FOR MEDIA
• FREE NEWSLETTERS

• HOME

• ABOUT

• BLOG

• BOOKSTORE

• EVENTS

• EXPERTS

• MULTIMEDIA

• PUBLICATIONS

Books

Reviews & Journals

Public Filings

Policy Studies

Opinion & Commentary

• RESEARCH AREAS

• SPEAKERS BUREAU

• SUPPORT CATO

• CATO UNBOUND

• DOWNSIZING
  GOVERNMENT.ORG

• ELCATO.ORG

Cato Daily Dispatch for January 16, 2002

Levin Pooh-Poohs Bush Missile Plan

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday criticized the administration's plans to store -- not destroy -- nuclear warheads removed from the nation's strategic nuclear arsenal, charging that the policy would increase the chances of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, according to The Washington Post.

"It seems to me that by talking about putting nuclear weapons in warehouses where they're readily available for reinsertion into planes or missiles, that what we're doing is increasing the threat of proliferation," Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters.

Cato Senior Defense Policy Analyst Charles Peņa had the following comments on the Bush plan:

"Candidate Bush pledged that he would unilaterally reduce the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal if he became president. Last November, President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin both declared that the United States and Russia would dramatically reduce their nuclear weapons by roughly two-thirds over the next decade, leaving each side with no more than 2,200 warheads. What got lost in the shuffle, amidst all the good news, was a statement released by the White House that changed how those weapons would be counted -- from weapons to 'operational nuclear weapons.'

"Under the Pentagon's new proposal, the stored weapons would not be operational nuclear weapons and thus not count towards the 2,200 total. This is an accounting sleight of hand, bad arms control, and bad policy.

"The primary rationale for retaining more weapons in reserve is as a hedge against some unforeseen future threat. The perceived need for a reserve seems to reflect the thinking of many conservatives and military officials that Russia could one day again become a nuclear rival, or that China could pose a future nuclear threat. But this becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. If the United States retains more weapons, so will Russia. And the Chinese will likely view the entire U.S. strategic arsenal - not just deployed weapons - as a threat and react accordingly.

"Furthermore, if the Russians decide to retain more weapons in storage, there are legitimate concerns about the safety and security of those weapons. By definition, they will be less secure than deployed weapons guarded regularly by military personnel. As such, they become attractive targets for terrorists seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. So taking the weapons off operational deployment without destroying them could possibly lessen U.S. security rather than enhance it.

"Thus, when both Russia and the United States agree to reduce their strategic arsenals and remove weapons from operational status, those weapons should be destroyed, not stored. Saying that weapons that are stored are `reduced' is fuzzy math."

U.S., Saudis Try to Salvage Friendship

U.S. and Saudi officials trying to salvage a long friendship strained by the Sept. 11 attacks pledged Wednesday to work together against what they called bad media publicity in both countries, according to Reuters.

"We in the kingdom are certain that any questioning of the depth and strength of our relationship is short-lived because this friendship is based on common interests and shared goals," Saudi National Economy Minister Ibrahim al-Assaf said.

Assaf was speaking at a meeting of the U.S.-Saudi Business Council. It coincided with a visit by U.S. assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs Lincoln Bloomfield to discuss the U.S. military presence in the oil-rich kingdom.

"He is here for consultations with the Saudi government to review our presence here and to discuss what we need and what we don't need," U.S. Ambassador Robert Jordan told reporters.

In "Quit Turning the Other Cheek with Saudi Arabia," Jerry Taylor and Ted Galen Carpenter write:

"The Saudi government has resisted our requests to use their bases for military operations against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. They've dragged their heels when it came to freezing the assets of those Saudis bankrolling Al Qaeda. They've lectured New Yorkers through Crown Prince Abdullah about how it's our fault that the attacks have come in the first place. And they refuse to fully share information about terrorist suspects. Then it comes out that the Saudi monarchy has been the principal financial backer of the Taliban since at least 1996 and that Saudi sources have channeled funds to Hamas and other groups that blow away Israeli civilians day after day in acts of terrorism that are as chilling and morally repellent as those that killed Americans last September. That's all on top of the Saudi monarchy's long-standing policy of funding radical Islamic schools and "charities" throughout the world, fronts for incubators of Islamic revolution and anti-Western fanaticism.

"The common wisdom is that we must turn the other cheek and stay on friendly terms with the Saudi autocrats because we need their oil. Nonsense. They need our money more than we need their oil. Repeat after us: "There is no `oil weapon.'"

Justice to Pursue Clean Air Suits

The Justice Department says it will pursue a string of lawsuits against power companies accused of violating clean air rules, but the future of the litigation, in fact, may hinge on the outcome of a debate swirling within the White House, according to the Associated Press.

After months of review, the Justice Department concluded Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency acted reasonably and legally in going after owners of 51 power plants for modifying the plants without adding pollution controls.

The review of the lawsuits initiated by the Clinton administration in 1999 had been ordered by the White House, which also has asked the EPA to re-examine the clean air regulations on which the legal actions were based.

In "The EPA's Clean Air-ogance," Steven J. Milloy and Michael Gough, commenting on air standards, show how "a close inspection of the EPA proposal shows that it lacks a sound basis in science." In "Time to Reopen the Clean Air Act: Clearing Away the Regulatory Smog," K.H. Jones and Jonathan Adler make the case for revisiting the Clean Air Act to reduce EPA regulations such as "mandatory carpooling and enhanced inspection and maintenance programs to technology standards for factory emissions and new emissions controls on lawn mowers, snow blowers, chain saws, and the like."