|
Parent Article: "We Found The Weapons Of Mass Destruction - They're In The President's Budget" |
|
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
|
