|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Bush-Putin Treaty Will Prolong Nuclear Standoff |
Current rating: 0 |
by Natural Resources Defense Council
(No verified email address) |
24 May 2002
Modified: 07:42:59 AM |
|
NRDC Experts Call Treaty 'Political Theater' |
WASHINGTON, DC (May 20, 2002) -- The nuclear arms treaty being readied for signing at the upcoming Bush-Putin summit actually would impose a binding limit on operational U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear forces for only one day -- December 31, 2012, say experts at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council).
Before and after that date, the number of nuclear warheads mounted on strategic nuclear missiles and bombers may exceed the treaty's maximum "limit" of 2,200 warheads in operation. The treaty likewise contains no limit on the number of warheads that may be kept in storage as a "reserve" force, meaning that potentially thousands of weapons on both sides could be remounted on missiles and bombers within weeks or months. "The whole framework of restraint is so tenuous, it could unwind rather swiftly," said Matthew McKinzie, an NRDC staff scientist.
Moreover, the treaty does nothing to constrain or eliminate stockpiles of nonstrategic nuclear weapons deliverable by shorter-range systems, such as cruise missiles, battlefield missiles, artillery and tactical aircraft. Further, the treaty imposes no timetable for removing warheads from operational missiles, bombers or submarines. The United States and Russia must comply with the 2,200-warhead limit only on the last day of 2012, after which the treaty expires.
"President Bush's claim that this agreement will 'liquidate the nuclear legacy of the Cold War' is self-serving political hype," said Thomas Cochran, director of NRDC's Nuclear Program. "The proposed treaty imposes no additional permanent limits on either side's nuclear forces, and does not require the destruction of a single nuclear warhead, missile, silo, bomber or submarine. This treaty is a sham, and will do nothing to make Americans or Russians more secure."
NRDC Senior Policy Analyst Christopher Paine called the treaty "political theater." "This administration clearly regards nuclear arms control as just another venue for political theater, designed to grease the skids of Russia's integration into the U.S.-led free market system," he said. "But arms control should be more than fostering the illusion that you're doing something."
More than 30 years ago, countries with nuclear weapons pledged in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to move toward eliminating their arsenals, Paine said. "Regrettably, the proposed Bush-Putin treaty offers no way to get there. It will persuade other countries that they, too, must prepare to live in a nuclear-armed world for the indefinite future."
Robert S. Norris, NRDC's nuclear historian, noted that President Bush has already rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty signed by President Clinton and supported by the majority of the world's nations -- including Russia -- and intends to withdraw unilaterally from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in June. "This treaty is just another example of the Bush administration's desire to maintain the flexibility to use the unusable -- nuclear weapons," he said. "Meanwhile, Bush is single-handedly destroying the credibility of U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policies and commitments that preceding administrations worked hard to establish over the last 30 years." |
See also:
http://www.nrdc.org/
|
|
Bush's Nuclear Treaty 'About As Useful As a Sieve Is for Containing Water' |
by Peace Action
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 May 2002
|
WASHINGTON - May 23 - Friday's nuclear arms reductions treaty signing with Russia will allegedly reduce the number of nuclear weapons from approximately 7,000 weapon apiece to between 1,700-2,200 apiece. President Bush has hailed this treaty as "liquidat(ing) the legacy of the Cold War."
"Instead of liquidating the nuclear legacy President Bush is, at best, only rearranging it," said Kevin Martin, executive director of Peace Action. "His treaty doesn't require any weapons to be destroyed, merely set aside in storage where they will be vulnerable to theft or rogue use. Past performance and the Bush administration's penchant for unilateralism indicates that the majority of the weapons eliminations promised under the treaty will never come to pass."
Because there is no timeline or enforcement protocol for weapons elimination, each country can take up to ten years and do little or no actual weapons elimination. The treaty also allows for either country to withdraw from the treaty-for any reason, including non-compliance-on three months notice.
"The most direct route to a nuclear weapon would be to buy or steal one. Putting Russian nuclear weapons in storage instead of destroying them will make that poorly guarded arsenal even more attractive to terrorists and rogue nations," continued Martin.
"This agreement is further flawed for the obvious opportunities that it misses. It does not take the remaining weapons off hair-trigger alert-the most obvious way to thwart an accidental launch. It also fails to deal with the thousands of smaller, tactical weapons that are particularly vulnerable to theft. Finally, there will remain a massive overkill capacity in the form of up to 2,200 strategic nuclear weapons on each side-dangerously in excess of what could be construed as needed for deterrence.
"Far from ending the threat of nuclear war, President Bush is giving that threat new life. The recently leaked Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) pointed toward a more useable nuclear force. The Senate is currently debating the Administration's request for $15.5 million to research 'robust nuclear earth penetrators' -- new nuclear weapons the administration would potentially use in hopes of destroying hardened and deeply buried targets. By developing such a weapon, the administration puts the U.S. on the path to restarting nuclear testing-ending the moratorium put in place by the President's own father.
"How is developing new nuclear weapons liquidating the legacy of the Cold War?" asked Martin. "Even at the height of the Cold War, the nuclear arsenal was meant to be used only as a deterrent, not as a usable weapon. The only way to 'liquidate the legacy of the Cold War'-and to address the number one threat to U.S. and world security, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction-is for the U.S. to get serious about eliminating the scourge of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.
"If the intent of this treaty is to contain the nuclear threat, it will be about as useful as a sieve is for containing water," concluded Martin.
Peace Action (the merger of Sane and The Nuclear Freeze) is the nation's largest peace and disarmament organization. Web site: http://www.peace-action.org |
