We already HAVE new nukes. Bush wants more. New testing is the trigger

[bigtree]

A version of the B-61, modified to strike hardened and deeply buried targets, was added to the U.S. stockpile without nuclear testing in 1997. There is a serious question about the effectiveness of such a weapon on underground bunkers, and there is a concern that the neighboring effect of the radiation cloud would be devastating.

A nuclear strike on North Korea, for example, could generate deadly radioactive fallout, poisoning nearby countries such as Japan or Australia.

The Energy Department plans to assemble teams at three U.S. laboratories to begin constructing more of these new powerful "mini-nukes." Work on preliminary designs for the weapons known as "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators" would begin first at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. http://www.lanl.gov/

Lawrence Livermore's scientists will attempt to modify the existing B83, a hydrogen bomb designed for the B-1 bomber, while those at Los Alamos will work on the B61, which already has been modified for earth-penetrating use. http://www.nci.org/../02/06f/19-11.htm

Bechtel will benefit directly from efforts to expand testing and production of nuclear weapons. Bechtel is part of a partnership with Lockheed Martin that runs the Nevada Test Site for the U.S. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/env_rpt

Bechtel runs the Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge Tennessee, which makes critical components for nuclear warheads; and it is involved in the management of the Pantex nuclear weapons plant in Amarillo, Texas. http://geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/6180/blogger.html

Bechtel's $1 billion-plus in annual contracts for "atomic energy defense activities" are likely to grow substantially under the Bush nuclear plan. In 2002 Bechtel earned $11.6 billion.

The company has built more than 40% of the United States' nuclear capacity and 50% of nuclear power plants in the developing world. That's 150 nuclear power plants.

Bechtel is also in charge of managing and cleaning up the toxic nuclear waste at the 52 reactors at the Idaho nuclear test site from our '50's nuclear program, as well as two million cubic feet of transuranic waste buried on the site, such as plutonium-covered shoes, gloves and other tools used at the nuclear lab in Rocky Flats.

The Lockheed Y-12 National Security Complex would refurbish the secondary nuclear weapons; the Savannah River Tritium Facility would supply the gas transfer systems; Sandia National Laboratory will produce the neutron generators and certify all non nuclear components; Pantex plant will serve as the central point for all assembly and disassembly operations in support of the refurbishment work.; Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore will continue to certify nuclear warhead design. http://www.thebellcompany.com/bellconstruction.nsf/savannah
http://www.sandia.gov/
http://www.pantex.com/

The weapons will be shipped to the Pantex plant to remove the uranium and any parts which can be used in new weapons; then the remaining parts will be shipped back to the plant for further processing.

The National Policy Reviews's concept of a "New Triad" emphasizes the importance of a "robust, responsive research and development, and industrial base." The "old" triad is the combination of land, sea, and air-based nuclear delivery vehicles that were developed during the Cold War to offset a nuclear attack on America.

The New Triad calls for a "modern nuclear weapons complex," including planning for a Modern Pit Facility, and new tritium production to respond to what the administration believes are "new, unexpected, or emerging threats" to U.S. national security. http://www.downwinders.org/dod-npr.htm
http://www.mpfeis.com/

It also mandates the development of what they term a "credible, realistic plan" for a "safe, secure, and reliable" stockpile. Already, $40-50 million has been budgeted for the project.

According to the National Nuclear Security Admin.'s deputy administrator for defense programs, Everet Beckner, the designers would work to modify the weapons "to make them more powerful."

Beckner is a former Vice President of Lockheed. He served as the chief executive of Lockheed Martin's division that helped run the UK's Atomic Weapons Establishment, and is now charged with oversight of the maintenance, development, and production of U.S. nuclear warheads. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/agency/awe.htm

Beckner testified to a Senate committee that, "It is clear that if the nation continues to maintain a nuclear arsenal it will need to make new nuclear pits at some point."

Most modern nuclear weapons depend on a plutonium pit as the "primary" that begins the chain reaction resulting in a thermonuclear explosion. A pit is a critical component of a nuclear weapon and functions as a trigger to allow a modern nuclear weapon to operate properly.

The Department of Energy announced on September 23, 2002, its intent to begin an examination of several possible sites for a Modern Pit Facility to produce plutonium pits for new and refurbished nuclear weapons. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2002_register&docid=02-24076-filed

The United States is the only nuclear power without the capability to manufacture a plutonium pit. About three-fourths of the U.S. surplus plutonium is relatively pure in the form of so-called pits, which have been removed (and deactivated) from existing warheads.

The remaining fourth of the surplus was in the process pipeline, mostly as plutonium residues, when processing was suddenly discontinued. The Soviet government processed all of its material to completion, so now all of the Russian surplus is in the form of pits or its weapon-form equivalent.

The Foster Panel Report, also known as the FY2000 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile, found that it could take 15 years from the point of developing a conceptual design for a pit facility until the final construction of the facility is completed.

The report stated that, "If it is determined through the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program that one or more of our existing pit designs is no longer reliable, and therefore is not certifiable, our nuclear stockpile would, in effect, be unilaterally downsized below a level which could maintain a strong nuclear deterrence." http://www.cdi.org/issues/testing/sbss.html

That is the hook which supporters of an expanded nuclear program will use to justify an abrogation of the treaty ban, and begin their new-generation arms race. If they don't get their way - to fiddle with and refurbish the existing nukes - they will argue that deterrence is at risk; a preposterous notion, as our existing arsenal is more than enough to blow us all to Pluto.

Meanwhile, the DOE has requested $22 million for the MPF in its Fiscal Year 2004 budget request and Congress has funded the request in the House and Senate versions of the Defense Authorization bill. But, the House cut over half of the funding for the MPF citing the Bush administration's failure to issue revised stockpile requirements following the ratification of the Moscow Treaty.

Citing "classified analyses" the DOE claims it needs to have a new pit facility capable of producing 125-500 pits per year. The DOE's Notice of Intent for the MPF also states that one of the functions for the facility will be to have the ability to produce new design pits for new types of nuclear weapons.

If new money is released, the nuclear weapons laboratories are expected to refurbish the casings on the existing nuclear B-61 and B-83 warheads, according to Energy Department official Beckner, who testified before a Senate committee in March. Beckner claims that both weapons have yields "substantially higher than five kilotons," so he has determined that the study will not violate a 1994 U.S. law prohibiting research on "low-yield" nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration's nuclear program is a shell game with their ambitions hidden within the Energy and Defense bills, most under the guise of research. Their proposals originated in a position paper which is referenced in the Energy Policy Act of 2003, entitled, "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010". http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf

The nuclear industry, along with government supporters, developed a roadmap for the realization of these goals. They intend to portray nukes as a safe, clean alternative to CO2 based plants. The bill references the "Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Program." http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap

This is a determined, deliberate hard sell to get the nation back in the nuclear game. The nuclear provisions in the Energy bill, now in congressional conference are a tough read but they are designed to confuse. http://energy.senate.gov/

The legislation designates INEEL, The Idaho Engineering and Environmental Laboratories, as the lead facility for nuclear R&D. This has been the nation's primary lab for all of the nuclear madness since 1952. INEEL's primary function since the mid 70's was the clean-up of their own toxic waste. This clean-up is still going on. There is money allocated in this bill for that.

At the end of the decade support for nuclear energy was on the decline because of waste and safety issues and disarmament. Right before Bush II got in office, the industry, still fat from clean-up money sought to bolster their flagging industry. (INEEL gets 70% of their funding for waste disposal)

Waste storage had become so controversial that it had soured the public to the idea of more nukes and more nuke plants. (Yucca Mountain, storage sites in New Mexico, transportation, safety issues, etc.).

So, they began promoting the view that the 'spent' nuclear fuel from decommissioned weapons and nuclear power plants could be broken down and reconstituted for weapons (depleted uranium) and a new generation of nuclear plants which would accommodate (recycle) and use the waste instead of immobilizing it in glass and storing it. http://www.nci.org/../../0new/wpu-immob-dp52001.htm

The industry makes the dubious claim that the recycled waste keeps it out of the hands of terrorists and makes proliferation more difficult. It will more likely disperse the waste and create more opportunity for abuse or mishap. http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclearwaste/briefs/0004.asp

We import the spent fuel from Russian nukes and process it for the remaining uranium powered electric plants in the U.S. and abroad.

The program has been successful in the elimination of some 4,000 Russian warheads, but has created a dependence on the Russian uranium to power the U.S. plants; prompting the Energy Dept. to explore and pursue new sources of nuclear fuel for these plants.

New plants are contemplated in the Energy and Defense legislation which would utilize the new generation of recycled nuclear fuels (MOX mixed-oxide, hydrogen based, depleted uranium, etc.). These centers will almost certainly be formatted to accommodate the next generation of nuclear weapons, such as, mini tactical nukes and bunker- busters. http://www.greenpeace.org/~comms/nukes/nukes.html

INEEL will undoubtably be at the center of this effort.

The INEEL is operated for the DOE by Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC. Members of the LLC are Bechtel National, Inc., BWX Technologies Co. and INRA. INRA is a consortium of eight regional universities. The DOE field office is the Idaho Operations Office.

The INEEL consists of the eight major facility areas scattered across an 890-square-mile area in southeastern Idaho typically referred to as the "site." The ninth area includes several laboratories located approximately 30 miles east in the city of Idaho Falls.

INEEL's Facilities:

The Test Area North - TAN consists of facilities for handling, storage, examination, and research of spent nuclear fuel. TAN also houses the Specific Manufacturing Capability Project, which makes armor packages for Army tanks.

The Test Reactor Area - TRA is described as the world's most sophisticated materials testing complex and has extensive facilities for studying the effects of radiation on materials, fuels, and equipment.

The Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center - INTEC provides interim storage for government-owned spent nuclear fuels. INTEC currently develops new approaches and technologies to prepare spent fuel and other nuclear materials for eventual disposal in a national repository. It also is the center for the INEEL's high-level Waste treatment program.

The Waste Reduction Operations Complex/Power Burst Facility is housed in an area formerly used for reactor operations. WROC/PBF provides treatment, storage, and recycling of the INEEL's radioactive, mixed, and industrial/commercial wastes.

The Radioactive Waste Management Complex - RWMC studies the strategies for waste storage, processing, and disposal. Some 32,000 drums containing waste are stored at this facility.

The Naval Reactors Facility - NRF is the birthplace of the U.S. Nuclear Navy. NRF receives and examines Naval spent fuel, and works together with other INEEL facilities to improve and expand nuclear propulsion systems.

The INEEL Research Center - IRC is located in Idaho Falls, and is INEEL's primary research complex with applied R&D in science and engineering critical to national and DOE missions.

The Argonne National Laboratory-West - ANL-W is part of Argonne National Laboratory operated by the University of Chicago, conducts research and development and operates facilities for DOE in areas of our national concern including energy, nuclear safety, spent nuclear fuel, non proliferation, decommissioning and decontamination technologies, and nuclear material disposal.

Raytheon is the nation's producer of the Tomahawk cruise missile. Each one costs $2 million. The company also makes the Paveway series of laser-guided bombs which are used in Afghanistan, and the 5,000-pound GBU-28 "Bunker Buster, " the Pentagon's newest modified nuclear weapon.

Reuters, in October, reported that the Bush administration is proceeding with their plans to promote and push for the expansion of the nation's nuclear arsenal with the unveiling of an initiative produced by the ‘Defense Science Board'. http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb

The supporting document, named the “Future Strategic Strike Force”, outlines a reconfigured nuclear arsenal made up of smaller-scale missiles which could be targeted at smaller countries and other lower-scale targets. The report is a retreat from decades of understanding that these destructive weapons were to be used as a deterrent only; as a last resort. http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/R.20010300.The_Transformation/R.20010300.The_Transformation.htm
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-15039.htm

Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said earlier this year that developing new nuclear weapons could hamper efforts to reach agreement with other countries who might want to expand their nuclear programs; like Iran and Pakistan, for example.

In September the Senate went along with a White House push to reduce the preparation time required for nuclear testing in Nevada; clearing the way for a resumption of nuclear test explosions which have been banned since 1992. It seeks to cut the time it would take to restart testing nuclear weapons in the Nevada desert from three years to two years. The Bush administration wants the period cut to 18 months. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa071002a.htm

Congress plans to build the first permanent U.S. nuclear waste repository in the desert northwest of Las Vegas, scheduled to open in 2010 and would hold up to 77,000 tons of radioactive waste. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa071002a.htm

The Energy bill that has emerged from the recent Congress would provide $580 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal project in 2004 — around $11 million less than Bush had requested but far above a $425 million limit earlier endorsed by the Senate. http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/CRap111803.pdf

The bill would also provide $11 million for a new factory to make plutonium "pits" for the next generation of nuclear weapons. The last U.S. facility for manufacturing nuclear triggers closed in 1989.

President Bush recently signed into law a Defense bill for 2004 which includes $9 billion in funding for research on the next generation of nuclear weaponry. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031124-2.html

"It's an important signal we're sending," President Bush remarked at the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, "because, you see, the war on terror is different than any war America has ever fought."

"Our enemies seek to inflict mass casualties, without fielding mass armies," he cautioned. "They hide in the shadows, and they're often hard to strike. The terrorists are cunning and ruthless and dangerous, as the world saw on September the 11th, 2001. Yet these killers are now facing the United States of America, and a great coalition of responsible nations, and this threat to civilization will be defeated." http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_37/b3849012.htm

This is a posture usually reserved for nation-states who initiate or sponsor terrorists. The devastating neighboring effect of a potential nuclear engagement would contaminate innocent millions with the resulting radioactive fallout, and would not deter individuals with no known base of operations.

Yet, this administration, for the first time in our nation’s history, contemplates using nuclear weapons on countries which themselves have no nuclear capability, or pose no nuclear threat.

$8,933,847,000 has been provided in the 2004 Defense bill to the Department of Energy for the activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration, to be allocated as follows:
-For weapons activities, $6,457,272,000.
-For defense nuclear non-proliferation activities, $1,340,195,000.
-For naval reactors, $788,400,000.
-For the Office of the Administrator for Nuclear Security, $347,980,000.
-Test capabilities revitalization, phase I, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, $36,450,000.
-Exterior communications infrastructure modernization, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, $20,000,000.
-Project engineering and design, various locations, $2,000,000.
-Chemistry and metallurgy research (CMR) facility replacement, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, $20,500,000.
-Building 12-44 production cells upgrade, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, $8,780,000.
-Cleaning and loading modifications (CALM), Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $2,750,000.
-Mission relocation project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, $8,820,000.
-Project engineering and design, facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program, various locations, $3,719,000.
-$360,000,000 for defense nuclear waste disposal.

-Section 3136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 is repealed. (Law prohibiting nuclear tests)

The bill states that nothing in the repeal is intended to be construed as authorizing the testing, acquisition, or deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon.

"The Secretary of Energy is not to commence the engineering development phase, or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress," it says.

But, not later than March 1, 2004, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy is required in the bill to jointly submit to Congress a report assessing whether or not the repeal of section 3136 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 will affect the ability of the United States to achieve its non-proliferation objectives and whether or not any changes in programs and activities would be required to achieve those objectives.

In other words, if nothing catastrophic has occurred as a result of the repeal of the testing ban, and if there is no challenging escalation of nuclear tests by other nations, a resumption of testing of these low-yield nuclear weapons may be considered.

The act states that: "If as a result of the review the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear Security, determines that the optimal, advisable, and preferred readiness posture for resumption by the United States of underground nuclear tests is a number of months other than 18 months, the Secretary may, and is encouraged to, achieve and thereafter maintain such optimal, advisable, and preferred readiness posture instead of the readiness posture of 18 months.

This is authorization for the Defense Secretary to ignore the congressional approval process and manipulate the schedule for underground nuclear tests at his discretion.

The nuclear hawks are stepping out from behind their Trojan Horses of nuclear space travel and ‘safe', new nuclear fuels and are revealing a frightening ambition to yoke the nation to a new legacy of imperialism. President Bush has decided that America's image around the globe is to be one of an oppressive nuclear bully bent on world domination.

[bigtree]

1. So, everyone is up to speed on this?

Too hard to read? Indifferent? Cynical? Old news?

How the hell we've been able to hold them off . . . I just don't know.

Please try to get up to speed on this, if you haven't already. OUR next generation of living beings depends on you.

[TwilightZone]

2. You might want to give people more than 11 minutes to respond.

That's a lot of information.

[bigtree]

4. Look,

I work nights at a grocery store. I work 7 days a week. I took a year and a half off to commit myself to further issues like this. I get responses like, this is too hard, or a shrug. That's why we are on the verge of a new generation of nuclear madness. There is just a handful in Congress who stand in the way of this expansion. We can't afford to turn away and let the hawks have the floor to themselves. We must involve ourselves in every instigation of democracy to effect the change we wish for.

What I want is someone to echo my concerns here and elsewhere. I need support too. I need information. I need avenues of activism. I need thoughtful responses. Believe me, I feel almost alone in my concern where I live. Glazed over responses are the norm. I feel we will wait until we are on the verge of nuclear war to ask why someone didn't do anything to stop this.

You know as well as I do that if I don't badger, this thread will sink into oblivion and the issue likely will not be raised here until I plaster the board again.

Help!

[bigtree]

3. Strange How This Generation Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

People, my generation fought a valiant battle against nuclear weapons. Rightly so, given our youth spent crouching under our school desks every Wednesday or Friday as the air raid siren sounded its nuclear drill. 'Duck and cover!' counseled Bert the animated turtle in the '60's era filmstrip. I grew to fear and hate communists and dread the inevitable nuclear attack.

The Japanese antinuclear movement began in 1946 in response to the atomic bombing of Japan. Citizens' groups in Hiroshima started a mass movement after March 1954, when U.S. nuclear testing dropped radiation on the crew of a Japanese fishing boat, the Lucky Dragon and citizens of Bikini. An antinuclear petition was initiated and signed by 32 million people in the world's largest anti-nuclear protest. In August 1955 the First World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs met in Hiroshima. The Japan Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Gensuikyo) was simultaneously organized in Japan.

In the years that followed we saw the enactment of the Partial Test Ban Treaty; the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties (I and II); the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty; the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (I and II); and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

These important restraints on the proliferation and spread of nuclear weaponry did not occur in a vacuum. These restraints were the result of direct action by communities and individuals engaging in massive, worldwide campaigns of public protest, over the strenuous objections of ruling parties and government powers. Notable among the modern nuclear resistors in the United States, included the Federation of American Scientists, the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE), Women Strike for Peace, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign.

In 1980 Randall Caroline Forsberg, Executive Director of the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies, wrote the "Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race which launched the national Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign. In 1989 Forsberg briefed BushI and his Cabinet officials on US-Soviet arms control issues. In 1995 she was appointed by President Clinton to the Advisory Committee of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. In March 1981, representatives from over 30 states met at Georgetown University in a campaign for a comprehensive nuclear freeze between the U.S. and Soviet Union.

Although Reagan deployed nuclear missiles to Western Europe during his term, in October 1983, he proposed eliminating all nuclear weapons in a speech in January 1984. Earlier, in April 1982, obviously affected by the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, he had declared that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And he also declared, "To those who protest against nuclear war, I can only say: 'I'm with you!'"

Gorbachev subsequently initiated a unilateral Soviet nuclear testing moratorium, decided against building a Star Wars antimissile system. Reagan refused to abandon Star Wars, but the disarmament die had been cast. Gorbachev put the U.S. on the defensive by agreeing to remove all nuclear missiles from Europe (the zero option).

On November 13, 1984, twenty-two people were arrested for blocking the entrance to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center in Wake Forest, Illinois in a protest of U.S. naval activities in Central America and to protest the Navy’s part in nuclear weapons proliferation, such as stationing nuclear submarines in the Caribbean and supplying artillery with nuclear capability to Central America. Sixteen went to trial, charges against eight were dropped and a ninth was dismissed. Seven protesters stood trial in the People v. Jarka No. 002170 in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Waukegan, Illinois.

After a one-week trial defendants were found “not guilty” by the jury. The judge in the case, Alphonse F. Witt, gave the following instruction to the jury regarding international law:

— International law is binding on the United States and on the State of Illinois.

— The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is a war crime or an attempted war crime because such use would violate inter­national law by causing unnecessary suffering, failure to dis­tinguish between combatants and noncombatants, and poisoning targets by radiation.
(Source: Robert Aldridge and Virginia Stark, “Nuclear War, Citizen Intervention, and the Necessity Defense,” Santa Clara Law Review 26, no. 2 : 324—325.)

The Jarka trial served as the basis for the defense of subsequent actions and protests against the Reagan administration's escalating militarism, mindless military buildup, and meddling military interventions abroad.

In the years that followed the anti-nuclear activism, New Zealand banned nuclear warships from their ports, Australia banned the testing of MX missiles, India halted work on nuclear weapons, and called for nuclear disarmament, the Philippines voted for a no nuke constitution and closed down U.S. military bases harboring nuclear weapons. South Africa abandoned an infant nuclear weapons program. BushI was intimidated into unilaterally withdrawing short-range missiles from Western Europe.

Later there were the influential protests at the Nevada Test Site, sparking a Nevada-Semipalatinsk nuclear disarmament movement in the Soviet Union which led to the closure of the Soviet nuclear test sites.

In 1992 underground nuclear testing was halted for nine months, and stringent restrictions were enacted on further U.S. testing, and test ban negotiations and an end to U.S. testing by late 1996 were initiated.

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was obtained, despite resistance from Democrats including candidate Clinton during his presidential campaign. In spite of the resistance, anti-nuclear Congressmen and women organized a test ban and the Clinton administration extended the U.S. nuclear testing moratorium, encouraging a worldwide treaty. In September 1996, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed by several nuclear and non-nuclear countries.

Now we have been made to endure the mindless idiocy of BushII. For the first time since the U.S. banned the production of nuclear weapons in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; signed by the U.S. and Russia in 1968, entered into force in 1970; and since the moratorium on nuclear testing, which has been in place since 1992, the nuclear arms race has been restarted by the Bush administration, aided in part by an underground Pentagon campaign.

Gen. Lee Butler, of the Strategic Air Command, along with former Air Force Secretary Thomas Reed, and Col. Michael Wheeler, made a report in 1991 which recommended the targeting of our nuclear weaponry at "every reasonable adversary around the globe."

The report warned of nuclear weapons states which are likely to emerge." They were aided in their pursuit by, John Deutch, President Clinton's choice for Defense Secretary; Fred Iklé, former Deputy Defense Secretary, associated with Jonathan Pollard; future CIA Director R. James Woolsey; and Condoleezza Rice, who was on the National Security Council Staff, 1989-1991.

The new nuke report recommended that U.S. nuclear weapons be re-targeted, where U.S. forces faced conventional "impending annihilation ... at remote places around the globe," according to William M. Arkin and Robert S. Norris, in their criticism of the report in the April 1992 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ("Tiny Nukes").

At the same time, two Los Alamos (Lockheed) nuclear weapons scientists, Thomas Dowler and Joseph Howard, published an article in 1991 in the Strategic Review, titled "Countering the Threat of the Well-Armed Tyrant: A Modest Proposal for Smaller Nuclear Weapons." They argued that, "The existing U.S. nuclear arsenal had no deterrent effect on Saddam and is unlikely to deter a future tyrant."

They advocated for "the development of new nuclear weapons of very low yields, with destructive power proportional to the risks we will face in the new world environment," and they specifically called for the development and deployment of "micro-nukes" (with explosive yield of 10 tons), "mini-nukes" (100 tons), and "tiny-nukes" (1 kiloton).

Their justification for the smaller nuclear weapons was their contention that no President would authorize the use of the nuclear weapons in our present arsenal against Third World nations. "It is precisely this doubt that leads us to argue for the development of sub-kiloton weapons," they wrote.

In a White House document created in April 2000, "The United States of America Meeting its Commitment to Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," the administration stated that, "as the United States reduces the numbers of its nuclear weapons, it is also transforming the means to build them." http://g.msn.com/9SE/1?http://www.wslfweb.org/space.htm...

Over the past decade, the United States has dramatically changed the role and mission of its nuclear-weapon complex from weapon research, development, testing, and production to weapon dismantlement, conversion for commercial use, and stockpile stewardship.

That was his father's nuclear program. George II wants bombs.

"The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, and to build new, smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations," according to a classified Pentagon report obtained by the Los Angeles Times. http://www.clw.org/control/nukereview02press2.html

The report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Libya.

It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, in retaliation for attack with nuclear biological or chemical weapons, or in the event of ‘surprising military developments.'

The new report, signed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, is being used by the U.S. Strategic Command in the preparation of a nuclear war plan.

As reported by the World Policy Institute, report on the "rationale and requirements" for U.S. nuclear forces, was used as the model for the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which advocated an expansion of the U.S. nuclear "hit list" and the development of a new generation of "usable," lower-yield nuclear weapons. http://www.nipp.org/publications.php

Most observers do not believe that the new weapons can be developed without abandoning the non-proliferation treaty and sparking a new and frightening worldwide nuclear arms race.

Three members of the study group that produced the NIPP report - National Security Council members Stephen Hadley (assistant to Condi Rice), Robert Joseph, and Stephen Cambone, a deputy undersecretary of defense for policy - are now directly involved in implementing the Bush nuclear policy.

Stephen Hadley, who is to replace Rice as National Security Advisor, co-wrote a National institute for Public Policy paper portraying a nuclear bunker-buster bomb as an ideal weapon against the nuclear, chemical or biological weapons stockpiles of rouge nations such as Iraq. "Under certain circumstances," the report said, "very severe nuclear threats may be needed to deter any of these potential adversaries."

In September 2000, the PNAC drafted a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

The conservative foundation- funded report was authored by Bill Kristol, Bruce Jackson, Gary Schmitt, John Bolton and others. Bolton, now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was Senior Vice President of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

The report called for: ". . . significant, separate allocation of forces and budgetary resources over the next two decades for missile defense," and claimed that despite the "residue of investments first made in the mid- and late 1980s, over the past decade, the pace of innovation within the Pentagon had slowed measurably." Also that, "without the driving challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation had lacked urgency."

The PNAC report asserted that "while long-range precision strikes will certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S. military operations, American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers for decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons systems for a decade or more."

The PNAC document encouraged the military to "develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."

You can hear the pitch of former Lockheed executive Bruce Jackson, hawking in favor of his company's space weaponry:
-Control the new ‘International commons' of space and cyberspace, and pave the way for the creation of a new military service with the mission of space control. (U.S. Space Forces; eventually realized in the form of the Air Force-financed Lockheed Space Battle Lab) http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-03z.html

-Exploit the "revolution" in military space affairs to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces.
-Establish a two-stage transformation process which maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies.

The paper claimed that, "Potential rivals such as China were anxious to exploit these technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea were rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they sought to dominate. Also that, information and other new technologies – as well as widespread technological and weapons proliferation – were creating a ‘dynamic' that might threaten America's ability to exercise its ‘dominant' military power."

The Chinese would dispute the PNAC assertion that they pose a threat to the U.S.; as far as I know, there is still a normalization of relations between our two countries. Perhaps they are alluding to the transfer of weapon's technology between nations; or the threat to Taiwan. In any case, the conservative document's allusion to U.S. "dominant military power" sounds a lot like destabilization to me.

Between peaceful nations, parity and balance of our respective forces and weaponry is the maxim in our expressions of our defense and security goals. Any open declaration of the need for military dominance is an invitation to a dangerously competitive, world-wide arms race.

In reference to the nation's nuclear forces, the PNAC document asserted that, " reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself."

"The (Clinton) administration's stewardship of the nation's deterrent capability has been described by Congress as "erosion by design," the group chided.

The authors further warned that, "U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals –from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq – and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force."

In addition, they counseled, "there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries."

The PNAC ‘Rebuilding America' report was used after the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks to draft the 2002 document entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," which for the first time in the nation's history advocated "preemptive" attacks to prevent the emergence of opponents the administration considered a threat to its political and economic interests. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0920-05.htm

It states that ". . . we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country." And that, "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."

This military industry band of executives promoted the view, in and outside of the White House that, " must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. . . We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed."

‘Peace through strength’; big kid on the block,' is a posture which is more appropriately used to counter threats by nations; not to threats by rouge individuals with no known base of operations.

Their strategy asserts that "The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."

The 2002 PNAC document is a mirrored synopsis of the Bush administration's foreign policy today. President Bush is projecting a domineering image of the United States around the world which has provoked lesser equipped countries to desperate, unconventional defenses; or resigned them to a humiliating surrender to our rape of their lands, their resources and their communities.

President Bush intends for there to be more conquest - like in Iraq - as the United States exercises its military force around the world; our mandate, our justification, presumably inherent in the mere possession of our instruments of destruction.

We are unleashing a new, unnecessary fear between the nations of the world as we dissolve decades of firm understandings about an America power which was to be guileless in its unassailable defenses. The falseness of our diplomacy is revealed in our scramble for ‘useable', tactical nuclear missiles, new weapons systems, and our new justifications for their use.

Our folly is evident in the rejection of our ambitions by even the closest of our allies, as we reject all entreaties to moderate our manufactured mandate to conquer. Isolation is enveloping our nation like the warming of the atmosphere and the creeping melt of our planet's ancient glaciers.

Recentlt, it was reported that Russia's Putin plans to acquire new nuclear weapon systems that "other nuclear powers do not yet have and are unlikely to develop in the near future."

"We have not only conducted tests of the latest nuclear rocket systems," Putin said in televised remarks to a meeting of generals representing the various branches of Russia's armed forces. "I am sure that in the coming years we will acquire them."

He added: "Moreover, these will be things which do not exist and are unlikely to exist in other nuclear powers."

It was reported that Putin failed to specify what type of complex he was referring to, but Russia has been seeking to upgrade its nuclear arsenal after the United States announced plans in 2001 to develop a missile defense shield in abrogation of its 1972 ABM Treaty with Moscow.

Who will stand up against this new generation of nuclear madness? If we stand firm there is no limit to what we can achieve. If we refuse to stand up against this administration's push for new nukes, if we are indifferent, if we shrink away and accept their weak excuses and justifications we will undo a generation of resistance and activism.

This is our chance to make a difference. This is our moment to rise up against another mindless escalation into a new nuclear arms race. Where will you stand?

[bigtree]

5. twilight

[bigtree]

6. Off to work . . .