|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Nukes |
|
"We Found The Weapons Of Mass Destruction - They're In The President's Budget" |
Current rating: 0 |
by Peace Action Education Fund
(No verified email address) |
04 Sep 2003
|
|
"The hypocrisy of preaching non-proliferation to the rest of the world while pushing new nuclear weapons programs is breath-taking..." |
SILVER SPRING, MD - September 3 - The Peace Action Education Fund announced today the initiation of an advertising campaign linking the Bush Administration's dubious pre-war claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction with plans for new U.S. nuclear weapons programs. Under the headline "We found the weapons of mass destruction. They're in the president's budget", the ads will run tomorrow in three key states, Maine, Nebraska and Oregon. Senators from those states are considered pivotal swing voters on upcoming Senate amendments regarding Bush's plans for new, more "usable" nuclear weapons. (The ad can be viewed at www.peace-action.org.)
In addition to outlining objections to new U.S. nuclear weapons plans, the newspaper ads ask readers to call U.S. Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both Republicans from Maine, Republican Chuck Hagel and Democrat Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, and Republican Gordon Smith and Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon and urge them to reject funding for Bush's new nuclear weapons programs.
The ads, to run in the Portland Press Herald, Lincoln Journal Star and The Oregonian, are timed to coincide with upcoming senate votes on amendments to the Energy and Water Approriations Bill. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and others are expected to introduce amendments to cut funding for four programs - the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator or "bunker buster," advanced weapons concepts or so-called "mini-nukes," the Modern Pit Facility, intended to produce new plutonium pits for nuclear warheads, and Nevada test site readiness. Critics fear funding for increasing test site readiness indicates the Bush Administration will seek to resume nuclear testing. The U.S. has not conducted a nuclear weapons test explosion since 1992, and resumed testing would likely bring worldwide outrage, as was directed at France when it briefly resumed testing in the mid-1990s.
In a rare rebuke to the Bush Administration's national security agenda, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted earlier this summer to delete all funding for "mini-nukes" and reduced "bunker buster" funding from $15.5 million to $5 million. Peace and disarmament groups around the country are mobilizing for expected close votes on these and the other two nuclear issues in the Senate. The votes could be scheduled as early as next week.
"The hypocrisy of preaching non-proliferation to the rest of the world while pushing new nuclear weapons programs is breath-taking," said Kevin Martin, Executive Director of Peace Action Education Fund. "A 'do as we say, not as we do' policy won't persuade North Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan or anyone else to forego nuclear weapons development. It's a policy tailor-made to start a new nuclear arms race, recklessly and needlesly decreasing U.S. and world security. Since the Bush Administration clearly doesn't get this, the Senate needs to step up and protect the children of America by rejecting these steps toward re-igniting the arms race."
Similar ads will run later this month in the mass transit systems of Washington, DC, Chicago and San Francisco, with the potential for ads to run in other cities around the country. The ad campaign is part of Peace Action Education Fund's Campaign for a New Foreign Policy. Upcoming ads will address the global arms trade, international cooperation, and voter registration efforts. The Campaign also includes voter registration and education, grassroots organizing, and a Candidate Pledge for a New Foreign Policy. More information about Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund's Campaign for a New Foreign Policy is available at www.peace-action.org |
See also:
http://www.peace-action.org
|
Comments
|
SOS! To Stop US Nuke Production |
by St. Louis IMC via ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Sep 2003
|
 |
Eleven years ago, the first President Bush placed a moratorium on the United States testing nuclear weapons. However, the second President Bush has taken a different approach. The United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM - http://www.stratcom.af.mil/) of the U.S. government held a meeting to discuss and explore the development of new nuclear weaponry for the United States military. The meeting however, was met with opposition from an organization known as Speak out Against STRATCOM (SOS). SOS is putting a call out for "No new weapons of mass destruction!"
On the weekend of August 1-3 Strategic Command (STRATCOM), of the United States government, held a meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. The meeting was to discuss and explore the development of new nuclear weaponry for the U.S military. STRATCOM officially stated that the meeting was "charged with deterring and defending against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). The meeting primarily focused on discussing the development of small, low yield nuclear bombs, also known as "mini-nukes". To protest the meeting an organization called Speak Out Against STRATCOM (SOS - http://www.sos2003.com/sos2003/index2.jsp) held a weekend long event, which many activists from the Midwest attended. The demonstration was promoted as "an international weekend of education, demonstration, action, and solidarity against new weapons of mass destruction".
The STRATCOM meeting came in light of recent attempts by the Bush administration to lift the ten year ban on the development of small, low yield nuclear weapons. The administration has stated that there is no need for these weapons yet, but that does not mean nuclear scientists should not be able to explore their possibilities. According to the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers the biggest push for the lifting of the ban on "mini-nukes" is coming from nuclear weapons laboratories. These laboratories would not only benefit monetarily from the lifting of the ban, but it would bring them new scientific and technological training as well.
Proponents of the development of these low yield nuclear bombs argue that they would be a valuable tool in fighting terrorism and destroying hard to reach underground bunkers, where terrorists could be hiding and planning attacks. However, the U.S military already has conventional weapons that can destroy bunkers up to fifty feet below ground, and it continues to develop bombs that can hit harder to reach targets. It is also likely that the proposed "mini-nukes" would not be as effective as the conventional weapons the U.S presently has. In 1997, after tiptoeing around several treaties and agreements, the U.S government developed a small, low yield nuclear weapon. When it was tested it was found the missile could only travel twenty feet underground.
Proponents also declare that these weapons would be contained under the earth, thus minimizing civilian casualties. However, scientific research seems to suggest the opposite. Again, the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers has found that small, low yield nuclear bombs are able to shoot out blankets of radioactive dirt over large areas. If one happened to fall in an urban setting, the civilian casualties could be monstrous.
The lifting of the ban on "mini-nukes" could also create a diplomatic fiasco for the U.S government. By lifting the ban the U.S would be violating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This could possibly enrage U.S allies and begin a new nuclear arms race with its enemies.
Individuals who are opposed to the development of these nuclear weapons should contact their representatives immediately to say no to new weapons of mass destruction.
Contact your elected officials.
Citizen Weapon Inspector Teams
http://www.cwit.org/
corporate coverage
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030707/5301538s.htm
|
See also:
http://www.stlimc.org/stlouis/news/front.php3?article_id=11553&group=webcast
|
|
US To Miss Key Deadline For Chemical Weapons Destruction |
by AFP
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Sep 2003
|
The United States acknowledged it will miss -- by more than three years -- an important international deadline for destroying its arsenal of chemical weapons.
The US Defense Department said in a statement it will not to able to liquidate 45 percent of its chemical stockpile by April 29, 2004, as required by the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention.
"The United States is therefore requesting the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) grant an extension of the 45 percent destruction deadline," the statement said.
The military is now expected to reach the elusive milestone by December 2007, the Pentagon said.
No detailed explanation for the postponement was given. But the department pointed out that its chemical demilitarization program "has had several delays due to unresolved political and operational issues that forced operational shutdowns or postponed start-up dates."
All told, only about 23 percent of the US chemical stockpile have been destroyed thus far, the Pentagon admitted.
The Chemical Weapons Convention, which has been signed by more than 150 countries, bans production, acquisition, stockpiling, transfer and use of chemical weapons -- and compels its signatories to get rid of their arsenals by 2007.
At the time of the signing, the United States admitting having about 31,000 tonnes of such weapons, including 3.3 million bombs, rockets, artillery shells and cartridges and 315,682 binary munitions, in which chemicals are mixed in flight to produce deadly gas.
To ensure their destruction, the US Army is managing a network of incinerators and other disposal facilities, including the plants at Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean and near the town of Tooele in the western state of Utah.
More disposal facilities are operating in Maryland, Alabama, Kentucky, Indiana, Arkansas, Colorado and Oregon.
But defense officials have complained that the Tooele incinerator has stood idle for eight months due to an investigation of safety practices following an incident where a worker was exposed to a small amount of chemical agent during a maintenance operation.
Weapons destruction at Pueblo, Colorado, and Blue Grass, Kentucky, has been slow due to engineering and managerial problems, according to disarmament experts.
And the Army incinerator in Anniston, Alabama, was able to begin operating only last month due to technical delays and legal challenges raised by local residents concerned that an accident or a leak of chemical agents could have devastating consequences for the rural community.
According to disarmament experts, the program has been also plagued by serious cost overruns and miscalculations. Projections made in the mid-1980s held that the whole arsenal could be destroyed for only 1.5 billion dollars. Current estimates put the overall cost at about 20 billion.
As a result, the convention's final 2007 deadline is also likely to slip, say specialists inside and outside the government.
The Pentagon made it plain by saying that "the United States will address the extension of the 100 percent deadline at a later date, as allowed under the convention."
It gave assurances, however, that Washington fully intended to honor all of its commitments under the accord.
Copyright 2003 AFP
http://www.afp.com |
|
