In their effort to discredit the Clinton administration, Republicans are still pushing the question of whether China was allowed to acquire advanced weapons technology. However, even a cursory comparison of the two countries in terms of nuclear forces shows that China poses no threat to the United States. PNS commentator Sanford Gottlieb is author of "Defense Addiction: Can America Kick the Habit?" published by Westview Press, and has worked for over 30 years for private organizations in the field of international arms control.

Did a transfer of missile technology from U.S. aerospace companies to China damage U.S. security?

Senate majority leader Trent Lott answers "yes." In an "interim report" based on a probe by a Senate Republican group, Lott charged that China received "military benefit" from commercial rocket launches using this technology.

Democrats charge that his statement is reckless and partisan, but a special bipartisan House committee will soon devote $2 million to investigating whether U.S. security was indeed harmed. The committee could save the taxpayers money by starting with a reality check, beginning with a comparison of the nuclear forces in the two countries.

Take the most pessimistic view -- assume that the Chinese army profited from the launches to make their missiles more accurate and that the recent U.S.-China agreement to "de-target" missiles aimed at each other is purely symbolic. Even then, by any standard China is a nuclear pygmy facing a superpower that could wipe out in a day all China has built in the past generation.

The numbers are clear. This May, the CIA reported that 13 of China's 18 long-range missiles were targeting American cities, according to Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) who chairs the investigating committee. Those 13 ICBMs, each one armed with one H-bomb, are capable of destroying a medium-sized city. That represents formidable destructive power. But the United States has 592 H-bombs -- 45 times that many -- deployed on missiles in the state of Wyoming alone. And that is just a small fraction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

The United States has 7,000 long-range nuclear bombs and warheads deployed on missiles, planes, submarines and ships. Another 5,000 warheads are either on smaller battlefield weapons, in reserve, or awaiting disassembly under arms control treaties.

Since the first atomic test in 1945, the United States has built more than 70,000 nuclear weapons of all sizes.

When General Lee Butler assumed command of the Strategic Air Command in 1991, he discovered the meaning of overkill. Hundreds of Soviet bridges, roads and railways -- already vulnerable to conventional munitions -- were targeted by U.S. "city-buster" H-bombs. In an interview after he left the post, Butler said he was "responsible for war plans with over 12,000 targets, many to be struck with repeated nuclear blows, some to the point of complete absurdity."

This excess did not come cheap. The Brookings Institution has put the cost of all nuclear weapons programs at nearly $5.5 trillion in 1996 dollars.

The spending is not over. This year alone Congress will appropriate $35 billion to operate the nuclear arsenal, maintain stockpile safety, conduct research into ballistic missile defenses, clean up nuclear waste and verify nuclear arms treaties.

At present, China is impregnable to land attack but lacks long-range naval and air forces. To be sure, China is modernizing its military forces, and this includes deploying more nuclear-tipped missiles, but its force of 400 operational nuclear warheads is not expected to grow. This process may take decades, as funding for new weapons must compete with the voracious demands of China's developing economy.

If China does make its ICBMs more accurate, it could find a few targets on our west coast. But to what end -- what would make the Chinese leaders risk national suicide?

Taiwan is the one problem that could bring military conflict between China and the United States. The flashpoint would be a Taiwanese declaration of independence which might tempt China to launch a missile attack on Taiwan.

China could do that -- but only at the risk of losing substantial U.S. and Taiwanese investments in China, numerous U.S.-Chinese joint projects , and the warming relations with the Clinton administration. Furthermore, China would face the possibility of U.S. military action in defense of Taiwan. Would Beijing be willing to bet the farm on these conditions?

Was U.S. security harmed by the transfer of military technology? We can rest easy. The only one hurt are the American aerospace companies named in connection with the supposed technology transfer. Their stock has fallen 25 percent since the Republican Congress started its investigations.