Conservative Republicans--looking for a new enemy to fight after the Cold War--have fed the media hype by making the questionable assertion that this is the worst case of espionage in U.S. history. The conservatives seem to have forgotten that in the late 1940s Klaus Fuchs and Ted Hall gave the Soviets the atomic bomb. Any technology the Chinese have obtained merely improves that countrys arsenal of long-range nuclear missiles that can already hit U.S. cities.
The Cox Committee asserts boldly that the stolen U.S. secrets have helped the PRC fabricate and successfully test modern strategic thermonuclear weapons, but little evidence is provided. To date, the Chinese have fielded no weapons that contain U.S. technologies. The committee also judges that the PRCs next generation of thermonuclear weapons, currently under development, will exploit elements of the stolen U.S. design information. That statement may be proven true, but the key issue is the extent of that exploitation. The Central Intelligence Agency was unable to determine what proportion of the information the Chinese obtained was stolen (versus what was gathered from open sources) and what effect the information had on Chinese advances in warhead design. Buried in the Cox Committee report is an admission that the CIAs conclusion is correct: Assessing the extent to which design information losses accelerated the PRCs nuclear weapons development is complicated because so much is unknown. The full extent of U.S. information that the PRC acquired and the sophistication of the PRCs indigenous design capabilities are unclear. Howard T. Hawkins, second in command at the Los Alamos nonproliferation and international security office and a student of the Chinese nuclear force, sees no sign of substantial improvements in the Chinese arsenal that are based on U.S. nuclear data.
Rep. Norman Dicks of Washington, the committees ranking minority member--echoing the opinion of many experts--astutely observed that the Chinese record of success in incorporating foreign technology into weapons has not been good. The Cox report provides an illustration: China required over 30 years to field its present liquid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile--even after emigrating members of the U.S. design team for the Titan missile program in the 1950s illegally gave the Chinese U.S. technology on which the missile was based.
Another committee member, John Spratt (D-S.C.), also distanced himself from one of the major conclusions of the report: The stolen U.S. nuclear secrets give the PRC design information on thermonuclear weapons on a par with our own. Spratt objected to that statement and noted that the United States has had much more experience than China has had building nuclear weapons (30,000 versus a few hundred) and testing them (about 1,100 tests versus 50).
At the news conference held to release the report, Dicks and Spratt admitted that the committees conclusions were written using a worst case scenario. They defended that approach as a way to sound the alarm and then quickly tried to put the report in perspective. Unfortunately, truth is better than scare tactics, and written words have longer lives than oral caveats after the fact.
Even if China did steal all of the secrets the committee cited and is eventually able to successfully incorporate the technology, the Chinese military would need to dramatically expand its small nuclear arsenal and abandon its defensive nuclear doctrine of minimum deterrence to pose a substantially increased threat to the United States. (Stretched thin by the need to support a bloated, sagging and antiquated military, Chinas modest funding for defense--$35 billion per year compared with the U.S. defense budget of $290 billion--may not be able to support a nuclear breakout.) During and after the Cold War, the Chinese eschewed the U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms race and chose instead to build a small retaliatory nuclear force (now about two dozen warheads) that could hit an opponents cities. In contrast, the United States and Russia still have offensive nuclear forces (more than 6,000 strategic warheads each) primarily designed to destroy the other nations missiles in their hardened silos. According to Hawkins, given Chinas current nuclear doctrine, even the crown jewel of the U.S. arsenal--the silo-busting W-88 warhead--will provide China with minimal gains.
Strangely, the Cox report, in a conclusion that was not highlighted, says it best: Although the United States has been the victim of systematic espionage successfully targeted against our most advanced nuclear weapons designs--and although the Select Committee judges that the PRC will exploit elements of those designs for its new generation ICBMs--the United States retains overwhelming qualitative and quantitative advantage in deployed strategic nuclear forces. Despite the current hysteria about Chinese espionage, that vast U.S. nuclear superiority is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
|Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, and Recarving Rushmore.|
RECARVING RUSHMORE (UPDATED EDITION): Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty
Taking a distinctly new approach, Ivan Eland profiles each U.S. president from Washington to Obama on the merits of his policies and whether those strategies contributed to peace, prosperity, and liberty. This ranking system is based on how effective each president was in fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution.