Nothing But Politics

[Amaunet]

PREVENT NEW AND MODIFIED NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Why do they need new and modified nuclear weapons unless they plan on gong ahead with a “fourth world war”?




Action: Use the Congressional Spring Recess (April 11-28) to contact your Senators and Representative and urge them to oppose new and modified nuclear weapons. Urge them to:

* Immediately contact colleagues on the Senate and House Armed Services Committees and urge them to preserve the Spratt-Furse prohibition on low-yield nuclear weapons and to cut funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator in the Fiscal Year 2004 Defense Authorization bill.

* Support floor amendments to cut funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and uphold the Spratt-Furse prohibition on low-yield nuclear weapons.

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

Timing: The House Armed Services Committee will begin markup of the Fiscal Year 2004 Defense Authorization bill on April 30 and the Senate Armed Services Committee will begin soon after. A floor vote in the House to cut funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is predicted to take place near the end of May. Senate votes could take place in early to mid-summer.

Background: Section 3136 of the Fiscal Year 1994 Defense Authorization Act includes a prohibition on "research and development which could lead to the production by the United States of a low-yield nuclear weapon" of less than five kilotons (the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of approximately 15 kilotons). Championed by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) and now-retired Rep. Elizabeth Furse (D-OR), the "Spratt-Furse prohibition" has remained in effect for almost a decade despite previous attempts in Congress to overturn it. This year, the Pentagon has sent Congress a draft Defense Authorization bill that includes a request to repeal the Spratt-Furse prohibition. In addition, the Republican House Policy Committee has issued a report explicitly stating a desire to overturn this prohibition. The Armed Services Committees in the House and Senate are expected to include in their early markup of the FY04 Defense Authorization bill a provision to overturn this prohibition.

In addition to repealing Spratt-Furse, the administration and some Members of Congress want to develop a “Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator” (RNEP) to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets that may contain command and control centers, key leadership personnel and stockpiles of chemical and/or biological weapons. The Department of Energy is currently engaged in a three-year "feasibility study" to research and develop the RNEP, costing $15 million per year. RNEP’s design is based on modified, rather than new, nuclear warheads which have the ability to be given large yields in the hundreds of kilotons or small yields less than 5 kilotons, thereby avoiding the Spratt-Furse prohibition. The Pentagon is expected to issue a formal military requirement for the RNEP in the near future. Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) is expected to offer an amendment on the floor to cancel funding for the RNEP.

Key reasons to oppose the repeal of the Spratt-Furse prohibition and the funding of RNEP include:

* A nuclear bunker-buster, whether large or small, would create massive collateral damage, which, if located in an urban area could kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Bombing stockpiles of chemical and/or biological weapons would likely spread some of these agents to surrounding areas;

* Low-yield nuclear weapons blur the line between conventional and nuclear weapons, increasing the likelihood they will be used in conflict, breaking a taboo that has been in place since their use in 1945 during World War II;

* Developing new or modified nuclear weapons sends the wrong message to other nations who may also view them as desirable and usable. This development places in jeopardy the Non-Proliferation Treaty, whereby the United States and other nuclear powers pledged to disarm in return for other nations not seeking nuclear weapons.

* If the Spratt-Furse prohibition is repealed, the development of a new low-yield nuclear weapons could lead to the resumption of underground nuclear testing in order to test the new weapons. This would overturn the 10 year moratorium on nuclear testing and could lead other nuclear powers to also resume testing which would have a chilling effect on future arms control and non-proliferation efforts.

* Because nuclear bunker-busters would be seen as tactical nuclear weapons, the development of these weapons would make it more difficult to encourage Russia to dispose of its arsenal of over 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons.

Additional Materials:

* U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy Undermines NonProliferation, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
http://www.ananuclear.org/nuclearpolicyfs.html

* A More Usable Nuclear Weapon?, Nuclear Watch of New Mexico
http://www.nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/RNEPFactSheetLowRes.pdf

* Fighting Wars With Tactical Nuclear Weapons, Physicians for Social Responsibility
http://www.psr.org/home.cfm?id=Tac_nukes

* No New Nukes, Peace Action Education Fund
http://www.peace-action.org/camp/nukes/nonewnuksfs.pdf

* Sliding Towards the Brink: More Useable Nuclear Weapons and the Dangerous Illusions of High-Tech War, Western States Legal Foundation
http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/nucpreppdf.pdf

* Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request for Nuclear Weapons Activities, An Analysis by Dr. Robert Civiak for Tri-Valley CAREs
http://www.trivalleycares.org/FY04_BudgetAnalysis.pdf

* Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons, By Robert W. Nelson for the Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

* Fire In The Hole: Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Options for Counterproliferation, Michael Levi, Federation of American Scientists
http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/wp31.asp?from=pubdate

This alert was produced by the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Contacting Your Elected Officials
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20500

Switchboard: [phone]

www.whitehouse.gov
The Office of Senator (name)
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Capitol Switchboard: [phone]

www.senate.gov
The Office of Representative (name)
US House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Capitol Switchboard: [phone]

www.house.gov


Not sure who represents you? You can search for your elected officials online, by zip code, at congress.org.


Monitor current legislation by bill number, subject or sponsors at thomas.loc.gov


Reference:
R. James Woolsey, a former director of central intelligence, said Wednesday that Iraq was the opening of a "fourth world war," and that U.S. enemies included the fundamentalist religious rulers in Iran, states such as Syria and Islamic terrorist groups.
Woolsey seemed to be speaking for at least some in the administration. But Bush's aides will not discuss the future – yet.
"We don't want to talk about a broader agenda now," one of his aides said. "It's not the time. The time will come." Excerpt from Bush aides deny war new aspect in foreign policy


Another reference to Woolsey’s remark that Iraq is only the beginning of a “fourth world war”. The former C.I.A. director James Woolsey, a Wolfie pal and a prospective administrator in occupied Iraq, bluntly told U.C.L.A. students last week that to reshape the Middle East, the U.S. would have to spend years and maybe decades waging World War IV. (He counted the cold war as World War III.)

One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle.
I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about
"total war", I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term
again in describing America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This
is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out
there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we
will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our
vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to
piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children
will sing great songs about us years from now." – Pilger


Next on Perle's list would be Iran.

"It's part of the problem, not part of the solution," he said.
Perle's approach to Tehran would be different. He asserts the people of Iran are increasingly disaffected toward their government and favorable to the United States. That instinct could be "encouraged" with propaganda and support to political opposition groups.

"There may be ways to get other resources to opponents," he said.

Perle believes the overthrow of the government in Iran could be bloodless.

"We should be doing everything we can to encourage the centrifugal forces" of change there.

Perle said the United States should then turn its attention to longtime allies, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. – excerpt: Top Bush Adviser: 'Get Saddam Out Violently', NewsMax.com