Non-Nuclear Ballistic Missile Warheads?

The New York Times reports that the Pentagon is seeking funding to develop a non-nuclear warhead to be fitted onto a Trident II missile. Planners believe this will give an additional means of addressing a threat without resorting to nuclear weapons.

The proposal has set off a complex debate about whether this program for strengthening the military's conventional capacity could increase the risks of accidental nuclear confrontation.

The Pentagon plan calls for deploying a new nonnuclear warhead atop the submarine-launched Trident II missile that could be used to attack terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected caches of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and other potentially urgent threats, military officials say.

If fielded, it would be the only nonnuclear weapon designed for rapid strikes against targets thousands of miles away and would add to the United States' options when considering a pre-emptive attack.

Critics worry about how other nations will be able to tell what kind of weapon the submarine is firing.

"There is great concern this could be destabilizing in terms of deterrence and nuclear policy," said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It would be hard to determine if a missile coming out a Trident submarine is conventional or nuclear."

Reflecting the worry that Russia and other nations might misinterpret the launch of a nonnuclear Trident as the opening salvo in a nuclear barrage, lawmakers have insisted that the Bush administration present a plan to minimize that risk before the new weapon is manufactured and deployed.

Which is certainly a valid consideration that needs to be taken into account. I think that such a warhead has got real potential to be used in certain, limited instances, providing a way to make sure nobody mistakes the launch for a nuclear strike is also perfected. Which, of course, is the stickiest issue. We'll see.