Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
China Asking U.S. for Explanation About Report It's On List of Possible Nuclear Strike Targets
Aired March 12, 2002 - 07:32 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, China is asking the United States for an explanation about a report that it is on a list of possible U.S. nuclear strike targets. A secret Pentagon nuclear posture review that leaked out over the weekend names China and six other countries where nuclear weapons could be targeted. Does this mean there has been a change in U.S. policy? And what will the impact on other countries that U.S. has had delicate relations with, including China?
Joining us now is Richard Butler, our ambassador-in-residence who is not in residence with us today. He joins us from his hometown of Sydney, Australia -- good day, sir.
RICHARD BUTLER, FORMER U.N. CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: All right. Richard, I want to read for you, because I don't think you have had a chance to read the U.S. dailies here this morning, something that appeared in the "Los Angeles Times" over the weekend. And this is how this report was characterized. "The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations."
BUTLER: Right.
ZAHN: What do you make of this nuclear posture review?
BUTLER: Two things, Paula. The nuclear posture review is an absolutely regular strike forward process that happens every three or four years, and it makes sense, Paula. If you have got nuclear weapons, then you need to know what they are for and what you would use them on, you know, in certain circumstances. I think it's extremely unfortunate that confidential details have leaked and countries have been named. But for China or one of the other potential target countries with nuclear weapons themselves to say, gee, we find this shocking, is a tough tendentious.
But the second thing is the thing that is, I think, much more disturbing, which is the notion that has also leaked out that the U.S. is going to be building new kinds of nuclear weapons for new situations in the future, and that's actually not what the U.S. has promised to do in its attempt to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons. It has promised that it wouldn't be doing that. And now, we learn that the administration is considering breaking out in that sense, and I think that's more disturbing.
ZAHN: Well, here is what "The New York Times" had to say about that in an editorial this morning: "If another country were planning to develop a new nuclear weapon and contemplating preemptive strikes against a list of non-nuclear powers, Washington would rightly label that nation a dangerous rogue state."
Now, the vice president yesterday, while making an appearance with Prime Minister Tony Blair, said that the press reports were a bit over the top. So who is telling the truth here?
BUTLER: Paula, I wasn't aware, as you pointed out, not from Sydney, Australia of what "The New York Times" has said this morning. I saw it yesterday, of course. But I am on the same line. Look, there is something very fundamental at issue in the effort to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It is that we must bear some of the pain, some of the burden. We must all make some sacrifices. And the U.S., I think, cannot argue successful to others that we have to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction if the U.S. is itself building new ones, new types, something which I have already pointed out, the U.S. has promised not to do.
This is actually a very disturbing development. I am not sure that the U.S., you know, can be successful as "The New York Times" has pointed out in seeking to restrain others, if it's not going to exercise some restraint itself. And I think that's the biggest item that's come out of this leaked report.
ZAHN: But you also have put into context the fact that this follows a normal review process.
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: And "The Washington Post" points out this morning that this process isn't all that new at all. That basically this administration's nuclear posture follows a pattern set five years ago by the Clinton administration.
BUTLER: Yes, that's true. I said that at the beginning, Paula, and "The Washington Post" is right, as are you. This is a regular process. I think it's very important not to beat it up into more than what it is. This is a regular posture review. Out of it comes the single integrated operational plan for targeting of sites in the event of a nuclear exchange.
Now, Ronald Reagan in 1981 instituted a change in their posture, and it wasn't changed further until 1997, when President Clinton changed it further. I understand that this current posture review is not much different from what President Clinton authorized three or four years ago with the possible exception of what is being suggested may be the development of new nuclear weapons.
So I would separate those two things. New development I think is going to be disturbing diplomatically, politically, and it's against what the U.S. has promised it would do. And it doesn't help restrain development of weapons by others. But the posture review itself is, as you have pointed out, a fairly straightforward and normal, regular process.
ZAHN: We appreciate you clarifying all of that this morning. Ambassador Richard Butler, when are you coming home?
BUTLER: Quite soon.
ZAHN: I must confess I am envious of that backdrop behind you. Is that a live picture, or is that a painted backdrop?
BUTLER: Well, let's not give that secret away. It's a beautiful city. I am glad to be here, but I hope to see you quite soon in the flesh.
ZAHN: All right. Travel well -- thanks, Richard.
BUTLER: OK.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
