"Axis of Evil" Targeted by U.S. Nuclear Weapons

U.S. nuke list mushroomed in 2003 from traditional Cold War adversaries to smaller nations with nuclear ambitions

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The nuclear warheads resting on ballistic missiles in silos, circling the globe in submarines or carried—sometimes mistakenly—by aircraft hail from an era when the U.S. targeted its largest foe, the U.S.S.R. and, more recently, Russia and China. But a document newly obtained by the Washington, D.C.–based Federation of American Scientists (FAS)—founded by the creators of the original nuclear bomb in 1945 and monitoring the weapons ever since—reveals that in recent years the U.S. target list has expanded to include so-called "regional proliferators," smaller states seeking to acquire such weapons of mass destruction.

"This is the first formal confirmation at that high level that those countries entered mainstream strategic nuclear war planning," says Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at FAS, which obtained the excerpt from a 2002 U.S. Strategic Command (U.S. STARTCOM) briefing on the new war plan to take effect in 2003. Such "broadening of nuclear targeting" is troubling, Kristensen says, "especially when diplomats claim we have decreased the role of nuclear weapons."

U.S. Navy Lt. Denver Applehans said U.S. STRATCOM had no comment.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Specifically, the heavily redacted document includes pictures of a North Korean missile, an underground Libyan facility to produce nuclear material, and a short-range, Russian-made SCUD ballistic missile (the weapon that played a terrifying role in the Persian Gulf War). Whereas the latter is employed by many countries, only five such nations were listed in the broader Nuclear Posture Review put together by the Bush administration in December 2001: Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria.

Iraq was likely dropped from this list subsequent to the March 2003 U.S. invasion, Kristensen says, as was Libya when its leader, Col. Muammar Qadhafi, formally foreswore such weapons in December of that year. The 2003 revisions for including such regional states include a "series of [redacted] options" and a "scenario-driven approach" as well as "attack structure changed to increase execution flexibility."

Standing in the way of such military options, however, are a "decreased number of operational warheads," according to the report. That problem has been addressed by the design of a "new triad"—traditionally the three nuclear limbs comprising intercontinental ballistic missiles, air-delivered gravity bombs, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles—to include other weapons systems.

"Under the concept [of a new triad] essentially everything becomes strategic—and by including conventional weapons, missile defense and the weapons facilities, they can say that the prominence of nuclear weapons has been reduced," Kristensen says. "But as this document illustrates, the new triad also leads to an expansion of nuclear targeting policy."

Of course, given the classified nature of this information it is unclear whether it remains the most current; a similar revision took place in 2004. And documents describing that remain classified, though Kristensen has submitted a similar request under the Freedom of Information Act. "This one took three years from the point when I asked for it, so who knows when I will get it," he says. "I asked them in July what plan was in effect and that was still [the 2004] revision." But it seems clear that more flexible and broader targeting has officially been a part of U.S. nuclear weapons policy since at least 2003.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe