WASHINGTON: The House is poised to lend its support to the Bush administration’s revised nuclear arms strategy, which includes controversial proposals to build smaller “battlefield” nuclear bombs and to consider the development of nuclear-tipped missile-defence interceptors.

A vote is expected soon on a defence authorization bill that urges the administration to proceed with these proposals, to accelerate preparations for the resumption of nuclear testing, and to develop a broad plan for designing a new generation of nuclear weapons.

The bill also urges the administration on not to shrink its offensive nuclear arsenal below the level of 1,700 operational warheads that is the target of current US-Russian arms discussions.

While the House vote is not binding, critics view it as another part of a long-term campaign to build support for a nuclear agenda that they fear will make the use of nuclear weapons more likely.

John Isaacs, president of Council for a Livable World, a Washington-based arms control organization, said the step was “another building block in the effort toward revamping and building up nuclear forces.” House Armed Services Committee members who wrote the language were trying to “move the most destructive weapons ever invented back into the mainstream of security policy,” he contended.

A supporter of the new policy, Jack Spencer of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said he was pleased to see that lawmakers “understand that it is important to make (nuclear policy) more consistent with the international environment.”

In unveiling their approach in March, administration officials argued that new threats from potential Third World adversaries made it necessary to consider developing nuclear arms that would be more effective in deterring the use of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological agents, against the US.

Some in the administration favour developing “bunker busters” _ smaller nuclear weapons that can reach the deeply buried and hardened targets that regimes are increasingly using to shield weapons stores and command posts.

Proposals for such weapons have been controversial because of critics’ contentions that nuclear arms would no longer be viewed only as a weapon of last resort. This could cause other countries to develop and use them, they argue.

Another lightning rod is the proposal to explore use of nuclear-tipped interceptor missiles as part of a missile defence system. Advocates say one advantage of such a system is that unlike “hit to kill” alternatives, it could destroy an incoming missile from miles away.

But the notion of an explosion that disperses radioactive material through space is unsettling to many people, as well as politically problematic. There are also technical issues, including whether the electromagnetic pulse set off by such an explosion would destroy radar and other electronic equipment on Earth.

Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has signalled that he would like to at least explore the possible development of such weapons. But some influential Republicans have already objected, including Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, the ranking member of the defence appropriations subcommittee.

The Pentagon is planning to build a test complex in Alaska that could be converted to use as an emergency missile defence system.—Dawn/LAT-WP News Service (c) Los Angeles Times