Faking Nuclear Restraint

Streetstraw · June 12, 2003

NEW U.S. NUCLEAR POSTURE

MoveOn Bulletin

Friday, June 6, 2003

Noah T. Winer, Editor

noah.winer@moveon.org Subscribe

online at:

http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/

SPECIAL FEATURE: GRASSROOTS INTERVIEW WITH DANIEL

ELLSBERG

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg was working at the Defense

Department.

Recognizing that the public was being deceived about Vietnam and anticipating that

President Nixon was about to escalate the war,

Ellsberg risked imprisonment to leak

the Pentagon Papers -- 7,000 pages of top-secret

memoranda -- to the New York Times. This would ultimately force Nixon to resign rather than face impeachment.

Ellsberg's recent book, "Secrets," undermines the

naive assumption of many Americans that political leaders' inexplicable actions in times of war are

based on accurate information from reliable sources.

"Secrets" provides much needed

insight for today's situation as many question the

information President Bush

used to base his claim that Iraq possessed weapons of

mass destruction.

Daniel Ellsberg will respond to five of the top questions written by MoveOn members. Post your questions at:

http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=257

------------------------------ CONTENTS

1. Introduction: The Nuclear Future

2. One Link

3. No More Hawks and Doves

4. Reviewing Nuclear Posture

5. Direction Since Sept. 11

6. Bush-Putin Treaty

7. Mini-Nukes

8. Nuclear Weapons Go Underground

9. Credits

10. About the Bulletin

------------------------------ INTRODUCTION: THE

NUCLEAR FUTURE

For years, the threat of nuclear catastrophe consumed

the energies of many

activists. Washington and Moscow both seemed willing

to risk the lives of

millions of human beings in order to maintain nuclear

superiority. And then the Cold

War ended. Once rhetoric shifted to understanding the

post-Cold War strategic environment, talk of nuclear expansion subsided. The assumption was that the weapons were no longer necessary and would be

cooperatively dismantled by the now-friendly nuclear powers. This was, after all, in

everyone's interest.

Yet de-escalation has not ruled the day. The focus has

shifted from communists to

terrorists and while there is no evidence that

terrorists have nuclear

weapons, there is evidence they are trying to procure

them. Precisely because

dismantling never occurred, Russia still possesses

nuclear weapons in great numbers, but they are now less securely protected. Once again,

nuclear weapons must be preserved as a deterrent. More frighteningly, smaller nuclear weapons must be

developed which would serve not as a deterrent, but as

a usable complement to

conventional weapons. These changes are immediate

history -- the Bush-Putin

nuclear arms treaty signed this week, the ban on

developing small nukes

lifted only last month -- and that history continues to

unfold. This week's bulletin will prepare you to participate in the history to come.

------------------------------ ONE LINK

If you read nothing else in this week's bulletin, read

this article from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

"[President Bush] should ask whether adopting a

military posture right now to

counter aggressive 'peer competitors' that might arise

in the invisible

future could create a self-fulfilling prophecy, while

also aggravating the dangers

that exist today.. He should, instead, move towards an

unambiguous and whole-hearted endorsement of the Nuclear

Non-Proliferation Treaty, and demonstrate

this commitment by asking the Senate to ratify the

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty."

http://www.moveon.org/r?444

------------------------------ NO MORE HAWKS AND

DOVES

"Forget hawks and doves. The post-Cold War political

struggle is between

'dominators' and 'conciliators.' Right now, thanks

especially to Osama bin

Laden,

those who believe U.S. national security lies in raw

military power, not

cooperative agreements, are in control."

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2003/jf03/jf03krepon.html

------------------------------ REVIEWING THE NUCLEAR

POSTURE

The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is a military

planning document Congress

mandated in 2000. The Bush administration delivered

the NPR in 2002, but its

contents were classified. Leaked versions reveal the

NPR recommends a greater role

for nuclear weapons and missile defense. The Natural

Resources Defense Council published an analysis of the NPR called "Faking Nuclear Restraint."

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/restraint.asp Analysis

from the engineering organization IEEE describes how the NPR conflicts with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Nonproliferation Treaty.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/resource/apr02/nuke.html

Or maybe we're just "nuclear alarmists." So say two research fellows at the National Defense University's Institute for National Strategic Studies.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/02031501.htm

------------------------------ THE DIRECTION SINCE

SEPT. 11

"While there is much the Bush administration might

have done to make nuclear

terrorism less likely, the path they have chosen

increases the risks of

nuclear terrorism. It also undermines our relationship

with countries we need in the fight against terrorism in general and nuclear terrorism in particular."

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.01/020114kriegernucpolicy.htm

------------------------------ THE BUSH-PUTIN TREATY

In 2002, President Bush met with Russian President

Vladimir Putin to

discuss

reducing deployable nuclear warheads. They drafted the

Treaty of Moscow

which

has since been ratified by the U.S. Senate and Russian

parliament. On

Sunday,

Bush and Putin signed the treaty in St. Petersburg,

bringing it into full

effect. Questions remain as to the seriousness of this

arms reduction.

This Chicago Tribune op-ed challenges Bush's claim that the

treaty will "liquidate the

legacy of the Cold War": "Moving [nuclear] weapons

from silos, where they are

extremely secure, to warehouses, where they may not

be, would be a gift to Al Qaeda and every other outlaw group that lusts after Russia's 'loose nukes.' If we want to reduce the danger, we have to persuade the Russians to destroy nuclear weapons so that no one can ever use them. But they won't do that unless we agree to do the same."

http://backfromthebrink.org/newsroom/tribunev2.html

------------------------------ MINI-NUKES

The Bush administration has lobbied for the repeal of

a 10-year ban on

research and development of "low-yield" nuclear

weapons. Opponents have

argued these

smaller nukes would blur the distinction between

nuclear and non-nuclear

weaponry, making nuclear warfare more palatable. In a

late May vote,

Senators Edward Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein were unable to

preserve the ban. On the Senate floor, Kennedy asked: "Is half a Hiroshima OK? Is a quarter Hiroshima OK?

Is a little mushroom cloud OK? That's absurd. The issue

is too important. If we build it, we'll use it."

http://www.moveon.org/r?445

Senator Feinstein on low-yield nuclear weapons:

"The political effects of U.S. pursuit of new nuclear

weapons could well be to legitimize nuclear weapons, and U.S. nuclear planning could serve as a pretext for other countries and, worse, terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, to build or acquire their own bombs."

http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-arms.htm

Slate magazine on the Pentagon's Dr. Strangelove, Keith Payne, whose nuclear infatuation is now

making policy. Of nuclear war, Payne once wrote: "an

intelligent United States

offensive [nuclear] strategy, wedded to homeland

defenses, should reduce U.S.

casualties to approximately 20 million ... a level

compatible with national survival and recovery."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2082846

------------------------------ NUCLEAR

WEAPONS GO UNDERGROUND

From Popular Science magazine: