Spencer, Kelly discuss nuclear weapons

Jack Spencer, a policy analyst on defense and national security with The Heritage Foundation, and Dr. Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists, joined CNN viewers to discuss nuclear weapons following the airing of the "Rehearsing Doomsday" segment of CNN's Democracy in America series.

CNN Moderator: Welcome to the CNN chat room, Jack Spencer.

Jack Spencer: Hello. Thank you for having me.

CNN Moderator: Welcome to the CNN chat room, Henry Kelly.

Dr. Henry Kelly: Thank you. It's good to be here.

CNN Moderator: Are nuclear weapons now a liability or more necessary than ever?

Jack Spencer: Yes, they are more important than ever today, because the threats to the U.S. are growing beyond just what the Russian threat is.

Dr. Henry Kelly: At present, nuclear weapons are a liability. The practical uses of nuclear weapons in today's world are increasingly difficult to define but the risks of accidental war and the risks of continued proliferation are very real.

CNN Moderator: Nuclear weapons were supposed to be banned years ago -- however, other countries built them so we had to continue ours.

Jack Spencer: Nuclear weapons were not banned. Because proliferation continues, that's one reason why we need to maintain our arsenal, although not at this current size.

Question from Charlie Zero Five: Would tactical nukes be a more viable solution than maintaining ICBMs?

Dr. Henry Kelly: The best U.S. response to wars likely to be fought today is based on our overwhelming conventional superiority. Moving to make a conventional war into a nuclear war with a tactical weapon would be to take a desperately dangerous step. A tactical nuclear weapon would also [mean] killing enormous numbers of civilians.

Jack Spencer: Tactical nuclear weapons are an important part of deterrence, because the United States does not maintain chemical or biological weapons. However, other potential adversaries of the United States do have those weapons, and tactical nuclear weapons play a part in deterring their use.

Question from Bufdrvr: How do we address the issue of impacting our conventional forces, i.e., B-52s? Should we draw down below 3,500 warheads?

Jack Spencer: We should draw down to the point that our military people say is necessary to fulfill targeting requirements, as dictated by the president. By combining our nuclear draw down with the effect of ballistic missile defense, we could draw down much lower.

Dr. Henry Kelly: Existing arms control agreements make provisions for maintaining use of long-range bombers for conventional purposes. These were obviously used to great effect in the Gulf War and in other recent conflicts.

Question from Chris: How many weapons do you envision [are] needed if we do reach agreement with the Russians?

Dr. Henry Kelly: The core deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is the simple fact of their existence. We could inflict a level of damage on Russia greater than they sustained during the Second World War with a few dozen nuclear weapons. I believe that we should work hard to achieve balance at 10 to 100 survivable weapons on both sides. In the longer term, complete elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide would clearly be in the security interest of the U.S.

CNN Moderator: Where does the greatest nuclear threat lie -- in a rogue nation or a terrorist organization?

Jack Spencer: A rogue nation, because a number of rogue nations, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, for example, all have nuclear programs in different stages. We believe they have enough nuclear material for a small number of weapons and, as a nation, they have the resources to build them. It's a matter of time.

Dr. Henry Kelly: If "rogue nations" acquire nuclear weapons, the central question becomes what incentive they would ever have to use such weapons? They would know, as we informed Hussein during the Gulf War, that any use of a weapon of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear) would lead to the destruction of his regime. With a few nuclear weapons, we could destroy any rogue nation. But, of course, our threat has more than enough impact without nuclear use. An even greater threat may be the risk of accidental nuclear war resulting from maintaining large numbers of U.S. and Russian weapons on hair trigger alert.

Question from Kelly Kelly: Is there a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty still in effect?

Jack Spencer: Yes, there are a number of Nuclear Test Ban treaties. What there is not is a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that bans all testing.

Dr. Henry Kelly: There is a ban on atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons and a ban on testing underground above a fixed yield. A comprehensive test ban was agreed to and ratified by a number of nations but the U.S. Senate failed to approve the ratification in a vote last year. This gravely undermines our ability to secure a critical tool for limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and further expansion of the arms race.

Question from John: How do you define survivable weapons, Dr. Kelly, and why do think 10 to 100 is appropriate? Please explain your thinking on this point.

Dr. Henry Kelly: The value of nuclear weapons is plainly over if they are used. The use of a single nuclear weapon over a large city could kill more Americans than were killed in all American wars -- surely a significant deterrent. One hundred weapons would kill 20 to 25 percent of Russians -- surely this is a deterrent. Survivable means weapons we could be certain would survive a preemptive attack such as those on submarines.

Jack Spencer: With missile defense, we could build down to 1,000 to 1,500 warheads, including sea-based, land-based and air-based.

Question from DavidC: If nobody would ever use a nuclear weapon, surely the threat of nuclear weapons is nil. In which case, why do we have them at all?

Jack Spencer: To insure that no one ever uses a nuclear weapon.

Dr. Henry Kelly: I believe that the risks we suffer by maintaining nuclear weapons exceed their value. If we can find a way to secure elimination of nuclear weapons over the long term, U.S. security would be increased. Our strength for the foreseeable future is in maintaining strong conventional capabilities.

Question from John: But Dr. Kelly, our nuclear planning does not involve specifically targeting population, only specific facilities. Are you suggesting that we change this policy?

Dr. Henry Kelly: The question goes at the heart of the problem of nuclear planning. The deterrent effect is the physical capability to attack cities, but we don't plan to do so. The notion that we can make clean distinctions between targeting civilians and targeting military targets is nonsense. Military targets in Moscow hit by nuclear weapons would kill enormous numbers of civilians. We should not be trapped in a fixed set of use policies but maintain greater flexibility in our planning.

CNN Moderator: What should the American people consider when evaluating whether to have a nuclear arsenal and how large it should be?

Jack Spencer: The American people have to understand that the nuclear genie has been let out of the bottle. Whether this is good or bad is really irrelevant. Until we come to a place in history where nuclear weapons are obsolete, we will have to continue to maintain a safe, effective and reliable nuclear arsenal. The purpose for doing so is not to make war, but to prevent war.

Dr. Henry Kelly: The key question that Americans face in the near term is whether to continue to support the international efforts essential for [ending] the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear use or whether to attempt to proceed unilaterally. Republicans have taken a bold step to reduce numbers and take weapons off alert but are not willing to ratify the nuclear test ban or to support continuation of the antiballistic missile treaty.

CNN Moderator: Thank you for joining us today, Jack Spencer.

Jack Spencer: Good night! Thanks for having me.

CNN Moderator: Thank you for joining us today, Henry Kelly.

Dr. Henry Kelly: Thanks for the opportunity to be here.

Jack Spencer joined CNN.com by telephone from Washington, D.C.; CNN.com provided a typist for him. Dr. Henry Kelly joined the chat from Arlington, VA; he is typing for himself.