Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Interview With Frank Gaffney, Robert Alvarez

Aired May 25, 2003 - 07:38   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.


MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN ANCHOR: Before Congress adjourned for the holiday, the Senate lifted a 10 year old ban on the search and development of battlefield nuclear weapons. Then Congress passed a new $400 billion defense bill. It includes authorizing the search on two new types of nuclear weapons.
The two are small, low yield nuclear weapons of less than five kilotons and earth penetrating nuclear bombs that could destroy underground enemy facilities. Congress acted under intense pressure from the White House and the Pentagon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: It is a study. It is nothing more and nothing less. And it is not pursuing, and it is not developing, it is not building, it not manufacturing, it is not deploying, and it is not using.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: Joining us now from Washington to debate the necessity of these weapons are Robert Alvarez, former senior adviser to the Secretary of Energy and now at the Institute for Policy Studies and Frank Gaffney, who is a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and now president of the Center for Security Policy.

Thank you both for joining us on this Sunday morning.

ROBERT ALVAREZ, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES: Morning.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Morning.

SAVIDGE: Let me start by getting your views on this. Mr. Alvarez, you want to start? What do you think of this road we're heading down here?

ALVAREZ: Well, these earth penetrating weapons, nuclear training weapons, they're very horrific radiological weapons. They're not capable of penetrating deeply enough to contain the radioactive fallout. And even under these low yields, if they were to be used in a typical urban environment in the third world, they could yield about -- tens of thousands of radiological casualties, either in a way ultimate dirty bombs.

SAVIDGE: Mr. Gaffney, your thoughts? GAFFNEY: I think what this debate actually masks is a larger question about whether the United States is going to -- excuse me -- retain a viable nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future. We've had most of a decade where we have been pursuing either explicitly or rather quietly a policy of denuclearization. This is the first time that the Bush administration's policies that said, you know, that's not sensible in this kind of world has actually been brought into the open and debated. And I think it's a very good thing.

These weapons, I believe, are needed for the future environment we're likely to face. We will be addressing the kinds of questions Bob has just described in the course of this study, but I think what we will have to do is redouble the effort to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent. And that will require modernization, I believe, along these lines.

SAVIDGE: Well, Mr. Alvarez, let me ask you this. We have been just through a war in which we were talking about weapons of mass destruction and the search for them. Now we have an administration that at least research wise is looking into a different type of weapon of mass destruction, albeit smaller. It's still that kind of weapon. Is it the right thing to do? Is it the right statement to make?

ALVAREZ: Well, I think that the -- that we're living in a world right now where our nuclear non-proliferation regime is unraveling. And in order to sort of stem this unfortunate spread of nuclear weapons, the United States has to lead by example. It is not a good example for the United States to pursue a new class of nuclear weapons, which they at least the designers are claiming to be interchangeable with conventional weapons, blurring the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons, I think, is a very dangerous and provocative thing and sends a signal to other nations seeking to acquire nuclear weapons to do the same.

SAVIDGE: Mr. Gaffney, one of the questions I have is that in developing this smaller nuke, say it's for bunker busting, understandable how you might want to use it. But if the opposing force doesn't have a smaller nuke, only a big one, aren't you then just inviting the big one to be thrown at you in retaliation?

GAFFNEY: Well, look, there are a lot of questions that can arise, depending on the specific circumstances, the kind of enemy that you're facing. But let me just say, I think that where we are today is that the idea of U.S. unilateral restraint has been shown to be a failure. We now have countries all over the world pursuing nuclear weapons programs, despite the fact that as I just said, we have largely been restrained in ours. We've not been building new nuclear weapons. We've not tested any nuclear weapons for over a decade.

This is a step that I think is necessary to try to establish that we will remain a nuclear power for the foreseeable future, which I think is important to both deterrence and as a complement to what the president has also said. In addition to modernizing, in addition to maintaining the necessary nuclear weapons capabilities and technology, you also need defenses. And I think this...

SAVIDGE: But aren't we going to trigger another...

GAFFNEY: ...will help address some of the other problems that you've just mentioned.

SAVIDGE: Won't we trigger another arms race here? Other nations, obviously...

GAFFNEY: I don't think so. Look, the arms race is underway. We've had the Soviet, now Russia, exercising much like the old Soviet Union did, strategic forces against us over the past week, in which they modeled nuclear tests or nuclear attacks, I should say, that would have killed 125 million Americans.

You also have North Korea and Iran in the recent days. Iraq trying very desperately to pursue these nuclear weapons. I think it's foolishness not to maintain our own deterrent against the possibility that they may think they could use or at least blackmail us with those weapons.

SAVIDGE: Mr. Alvarez, if -- aren't we still talking about, though, the nuclear threshold? They may be smaller in yield, but we're still talking about when it comes down to it, would you use a nuke?

ALVAREZ: Well, first of all, I think we have an ample nuclear deterrent. I mean, we have approximately 3,000 to 4,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal right now, that are in active deployment and several thousand that are in reserve.

This is more than enough to destroy a life on the planet many times over. So this...

GAFFNEY: Yes, are they viable?

ALVAREZ: Well...

GAFFNEY: And will they remain that way for the long term, Bob? And I'm concerned about that. I'm not sure...

ALVAREZ: Well, maintaining these weapons, these are weapons that were largely constructs of the Cold War, when there were two super powers.

GAFFNEY: Correct.

ALVAREZ: They do not necessarily mean that we can use them in this much more difficult and complicated world. I think that it's a very dangerous and provocative thing to cross the line here. It is basically committing a taboo in terms of making nuclear weapons interchangeable with conventional nuclear weapons, particularly this type of weapon, where there's ample data from nuclear weapons testing in the past to show that these weapons cannot adequately contain radioactive fallout and can create horrific radiological conditions, yielding tens of thousands of radiation casualties.

GAFFNEY: But that data is probably 20 years old. What we've got is new technology. And we will be experimenting with it, I hope, as a result of this congressional action to establish that it doesn't have those characteristics.

But I can tell you, both of us have been in this business a long time, I don't conceive of any president blurring the distinction between the authorization of the use of nuclear weapons and the use of precision conventional weapons.

What we're going to try to do, I think if we do ever have to use nuclear weapons, is just what we've been doing with conventional weapons, which is to reduce the undesirable effect on other people than the target. And that's a very good thing, I think, if you have to use them.

SAVIDGE: Gentlemen, we have to -- I -- we have to leave it there, I'm sorry, due to time. It is a critical debate, excuse the pun.

GAFFNEY: It is.

SAVIDGE: And I thank you both for joining us and talking about it.

GAFFNEY: Thank you.

ALVAREZ: You're very welcome.

SAVIDGE: Robert Alvarez, former senior adviser to the Secretary of Energy, now the Institute Policy Studies and Frank Gaffney, who's a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and now the president of the Center of Security Policy. Thanks, again for talking on this important subject.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired May 25, 2003 - 07:38   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN ANCHOR: Before Congress adjourned for the holiday, the Senate lifted a 10 year old ban on the search and development of battlefield nuclear weapons. Then Congress passed a new $400 billion defense bill. It includes authorizing the search on two new types of nuclear weapons.
The two are small, low yield nuclear weapons of less than five kilotons and earth penetrating nuclear bombs that could destroy underground enemy facilities. Congress acted under intense pressure from the White House and the Pentagon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: It is a study. It is nothing more and nothing less. And it is not pursuing, and it is not developing, it is not building, it not manufacturing, it is not deploying, and it is not using.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: Joining us now from Washington to debate the necessity of these weapons are Robert Alvarez, former senior adviser to the Secretary of Energy and now at the Institute for Policy Studies and Frank Gaffney, who is a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and now president of the Center for Security Policy.

Thank you both for joining us on this Sunday morning.

ROBERT ALVAREZ, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES: Morning.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Morning.

SAVIDGE: Let me start by getting your views on this. Mr. Alvarez, you want to start? What do you think of this road we're heading down here?

ALVAREZ: Well, these earth penetrating weapons, nuclear training weapons, they're very horrific radiological weapons. They're not capable of penetrating deeply enough to contain the radioactive fallout. And even under these low yields, if they were to be used in a typical urban environment in the third world, they could yield about -- tens of thousands of radiological casualties, either in a way ultimate dirty bombs.

SAVIDGE: Mr. Gaffney, your thoughts? GAFFNEY: I think what this debate actually masks is a larger question about whether the United States is going to -- excuse me -- retain a viable nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future. We've had most of a decade where we have been pursuing either explicitly or rather quietly a policy of denuclearization. This is the first time that the Bush administration's policies that said, you know, that's not sensible in this kind of world has actually been brought into the open and debated. And I think it's a very good thing.

These weapons, I believe, are needed for the future environment we're likely to face. We will be addressing the kinds of questions Bob has just described in the course of this study, but I think what we will have to do is redouble the effort to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent. And that will require modernization, I believe, along these lines.

SAVIDGE: Well, Mr. Alvarez, let me ask you this. We have been just through a war in which we were talking about weapons of mass destruction and the search for them. Now we have an administration that at least research wise is looking into a different type of weapon of mass destruction, albeit smaller. It's still that kind of weapon. Is it the right thing to do? Is it the right statement to make?

ALVAREZ: Well, I think that the -- that we're living in a world right now where our nuclear non-proliferation regime is unraveling. And in order to sort of stem this unfortunate spread of nuclear weapons, the United States has to lead by example. It is not a good example for the United States to pursue a new class of nuclear weapons, which they at least the designers are claiming to be interchangeable with conventional weapons, blurring the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons, I think, is a very dangerous and provocative thing and sends a signal to other nations seeking to acquire nuclear weapons to do the same.

SAVIDGE: Mr. Gaffney, one of the questions I have is that in developing this smaller nuke, say it's for bunker busting, understandable how you might want to use it. But if the opposing force doesn't have a smaller nuke, only a big one, aren't you then just inviting the big one to be thrown at you in retaliation?

GAFFNEY: Well, look, there are a lot of questions that can arise, depending on the specific circumstances, the kind of enemy that you're facing. But let me just say, I think that where we are today is that the idea of U.S. unilateral restraint has been shown to be a failure. We now have countries all over the world pursuing nuclear weapons programs, despite the fact that as I just said, we have largely been restrained in ours. We've not been building new nuclear weapons. We've not tested any nuclear weapons for over a decade.

This is a step that I think is necessary to try to establish that we will remain a nuclear power for the foreseeable future, which I think is important to both deterrence and as a complement to what the president has also said. In addition to modernizing, in addition to maintaining the necessary nuclear weapons capabilities and technology, you also need defenses. And I think this...

SAVIDGE: But aren't we going to trigger another...

GAFFNEY: ...will help address some of the other problems that you've just mentioned.

SAVIDGE: Won't we trigger another arms race here? Other nations, obviously...

GAFFNEY: I don't think so. Look, the arms race is underway. We've had the Soviet, now Russia, exercising much like the old Soviet Union did, strategic forces against us over the past week, in which they modeled nuclear tests or nuclear attacks, I should say, that would have killed 125 million Americans.

You also have North Korea and Iran in the recent days. Iraq trying very desperately to pursue these nuclear weapons. I think it's foolishness not to maintain our own deterrent against the possibility that they may think they could use or at least blackmail us with those weapons.

SAVIDGE: Mr. Alvarez, if -- aren't we still talking about, though, the nuclear threshold? They may be smaller in yield, but we're still talking about when it comes down to it, would you use a nuke?

ALVAREZ: Well, first of all, I think we have an ample nuclear deterrent. I mean, we have approximately 3,000 to 4,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal right now, that are in active deployment and several thousand that are in reserve.

This is more than enough to destroy a life on the planet many times over. So this...

GAFFNEY: Yes, are they viable?

ALVAREZ: Well...

GAFFNEY: And will they remain that way for the long term, Bob? And I'm concerned about that. I'm not sure...

ALVAREZ: Well, maintaining these weapons, these are weapons that were largely constructs of the Cold War, when there were two super powers.

GAFFNEY: Correct.

ALVAREZ: They do not necessarily mean that we can use them in this much more difficult and complicated world. I think that it's a very dangerous and provocative thing to cross the line here. It is basically committing a taboo in terms of making nuclear weapons interchangeable with conventional nuclear weapons, particularly this type of weapon, where there's ample data from nuclear weapons testing in the past to show that these weapons cannot adequately contain radioactive fallout and can create horrific radiological conditions, yielding tens of thousands of radiation casualties.

GAFFNEY: But that data is probably 20 years old. What we've got is new technology. And we will be experimenting with it, I hope, as a result of this congressional action to establish that it doesn't have those characteristics.

But I can tell you, both of us have been in this business a long time, I don't conceive of any president blurring the distinction between the authorization of the use of nuclear weapons and the use of precision conventional weapons.

What we're going to try to do, I think if we do ever have to use nuclear weapons, is just what we've been doing with conventional weapons, which is to reduce the undesirable effect on other people than the target. And that's a very good thing, I think, if you have to use them.

SAVIDGE: Gentlemen, we have to -- I -- we have to leave it there, I'm sorry, due to time. It is a critical debate, excuse the pun.

GAFFNEY: It is.

SAVIDGE: And I thank you both for joining us and talking about it.

GAFFNEY: Thank you.

ALVAREZ: You're very welcome.

SAVIDGE: Robert Alvarez, former senior adviser to the Secretary of Energy, now the Institute Policy Studies and Frank Gaffney, who's a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and now the president of the Center of Security Policy. Thanks, again for talking on this important subject.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com