WASHINGTON — A quiet Bush administration effort to begin planning for a new generation of nuclear weapons, including some bombs dubbed "bunker-busters," is meeting loud resistance in Congress.
Earlier this year, the Republican-led House unexpectedly voted to deny the administration millions of dollars it had sought to research an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon and other "advanced concepts," including the possible tactical use of atomic bombs on the battlefield.
The Senate is expected to vote today on a similar measure, proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), which would amend a bill that funds the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons programs. Both sides predict that, this time, the administration will prevail.
But the debate underlines congressional unease about one of the most significant shifts in nuclear policy since the Cold War's end, including preparations to accelerate the timetable for possible resumption -- for the first time in more than a decade -- of nuclear weapons tests.
Administration allies said the nation should take a fresh look at how nuclear weapons could maintain deterrence against an array of 21st-century threats, including terrorists, that have emerged since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Critics say that the U.S., by ramping up its weapons research at a time when it is warning such states as North Korea and Iran to halt development of an atomic bomb, risks encouraging the spread of nuclear weapons around the globe. While the U.S. and Russia have cut their atomic arsenals in the last few years, administration statements have heightened the profile of U.S. nuclear arms policy.
In a controversial "Nuclear Posture Review" disclosed in 2002, the Pentagon directed war planners to prepare options for the possible use of nuclear weapons against seven potential enemy nations -- including Iran and North Korea, both of which harbor nuclear ambitions. The administration has also suggested that nuclear weapons might be used against foes that hit U.S. troops with chemical or biological weapons, a position that echoes threats from previous administrations.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, officials also have spoken openly of the need to rethink deterrence in an era when nuclear weapons targeting the U.S. are not necessarily located in missile silos watched by spy satellites.
