Armed Services Strategic
Forces subcommittee this  week
had approved lifting the ban on low-yield weapons
research. May 2003
By KEN GUGGENHEIM WASHINGTON
(AP) -
A Senate committee said Friday it had voted to
lift a decade-old ban on the research and
development of low-yield nuclear weapons,
overriding Democratic arguments that repeal would
damage U.S. efforts to stop the spread of nuclear
arms."
This is a major shift in American policy,"
said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the panel's top
Democrat. "It just sort of makes a mockery
of our argument around the world that other
countries - India, Pakistan - should not test and
North Korea and Iran should not obtain."
But John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, said, "Without
committing to deployment, research on low-yield
nuclear weapons is a prudent step to safeguard
America from emerging threats and enemies."
The committee agreed to lift the ban as part of a
bill authorizing $400.5 billion in 2004 defense
activities. The measure was approved in closed
session Thursday, and details were released
Friday. The total is slightly more than the
amount requested by the Bush administration and
about 4.7 percent more than was appropriated by
Congress last year. The bill does not include the
cost of the Iraq war, part of which was included
in an $80 billion spending package approved last
month.The committee's bill also would ease
environmental restrictions that the Pentagon says
limits its training, would authorize $9.1 billion
for missile defense, and would increase military
pay by an average 4.15 percent. It now goes to
the full Senate. The House Armed Services
Committee is expected to complete its version of
the bill next week. On Friday, its readiness
subcommittees voted to cancel the 2005 round of
base closings, which the Pentagon is sure to
oppose.
On Wednesday, the Low-yield nuclear weapons: they
have warheads of less than five kilotons, or
about a third of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in
World War II. Combined with precision missiles,
low-yield weapons could be used to hit a target
without causing as much damage to surrounding
areas as other nuclear weapons would. Warner said
the committee has been assured by Secretary of
State Colin Powell that lifting the research and
development ban would not affect nuclear
proliferation."America has had a ban on this
research since 1993, yet that has done nothing to
stop other countries from seeking to acquire
nuclear weapons," Warner said
Opponents of the weapons question whether they
are needed, given the force of the United States'
conventional arsenal. Some fear they would make
presidents less reluctant to use nuclear weapons
in war. Nuclear weapons have been "so
onerous that you would not use them," said
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. "I think this
departure, or this lowering of threshold of
potential use, is a very dangerous
trend."The Senate committee's bill does not
authorize testing of low-yield weapons, but some
Democrats say it would be merely a matter of time
before tests would begin." I think this
opens the door that if you start developing new
low-yield nuclear weapons, basically the next
step after that is the testing of them,"
said Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida.
The low-yield issue was one of two nuclear issues
that divided Democrats and Republicans. On a
party line vote, Republicans rejected a Levin
amendment that would have required the Bush
administration to get congressional approval
before developing a nuclear earth penetrator. The
weapon would burrow into the earth and detonate,
making it potentially useful against deep
underground bunkers. The bill authorizes $15
billion to continue studying it.The environmental
exemption in the bill is a compromise between the
Pentagon, which wanted more sweeping changes to
laws its says restricts military exercises, and
environmental advocates who said exemptions were
potentially damaging to wildlife. The bill would
exempt the military from the Endangered Species
Act's requirement that it set aside undisturbed
"critical habitat" important to the
recovery of a rare animal or plant battling
extinction.
Congress Considering
Building
"Mini-Nukes" and "Bunker
Busters"
Tell Them There Are No "Usable" Nukes,
Stop This Dangerous And Expensive Folly(You can
send a free fax to your Senators and
Congressperson telling them to vote against this
link):
http://www.truemajority.com/index.asp?action=10013&ms=mnnks1&ref=97969
Note from Ben: For this alert I asked Retired
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan to
tell you what is going on. Here is his amazing
insight:
When I was on active duty in the Navy back in the
'60's and '70's we had
nuclear weapons on our ships that were designed
to be used in battle. The idea
was that if we ever got into real trouble we
could wipe out Soviet submarines
and bombers with a few nuclear depth charges and
nuclear surface to air
missiles - hopefully without igniting a full
scale nuclear holocaust.
The only problem was we all knew that was
hogwash. I actually simulated firing
off a bunch of these during military exercises
and the results were so
devastating I knew 3 things: First, these things
were so powerful we could
never really use them in battle without damaging
ourselves. One nuclear depth
charge would blind our submarine detection
instruments in an entire ocean, for
example. Second, once we went nuclear there was
no way the Soviets wouldn't.
And third, nuclear weapons are weapons of mass
destruction and it would always
be immoral to use them. Pres. Bush the elder
eventually removed these nukes
from our ships and out of the hands of at sea
operational commanders. Congress
finally made it illegal to create new
"mini-nukes" in 1993 when they passed
the
Spratt-Furse provision.
Now Pres. Bush the younger and Congress are
working to create a whole new
generation of "usable" nukes. They are
trying to repeal the Spratt-Furse
provision so they can build a bunch of
mini-nukes. They also want to spend
millions to create a new high yield nuclear
weapon to put on top of our
conventional bunker busters, a weapon that
already works fine.
The thought of this keeps me up at night for two
reasons. First, America signed
the global Non-Proliferation Treaty with over a
hundred other nations. The deal was simple: If
you don't have nuclear weapons, you can't build
them; in
exchange, those of us who do will work to get rid
of ours. How can we complain that countries like
North Korea shouldn't build new nuclear weapons
in violation of the treaty when the Bush
Administration proposes doing the very
same thing? Second, with a trigger-happy White
House that believes our country can win
"pre-emptive wars" on the cheap, those
folks might actually use these things if they
ever got their hands on them.
|
..It might be
usefulnow to refer to the Archive: July 2002
NEUTRONS AND
OTHER NUCLEAR IDEAS
Reflections
provoked
from a text by F.M.Kaplan, and a sculpture by Jacob
Epstein.
also STOP PRESS, May 2003 Handstand ,Mayor of
Hiroshima's letter to George Bush
This letter of protest from the
mayor of Hiroshima is great - but
even more, have a look at the mayor's many other
letters on nuclear
and other issues over the past few years, at the
Hiroshima city web
site - fantastic! = Ross,& Hilmi
Salem http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/index-E.html
Blue River
The river of diaphonous
waters
murmuring between its banks
would have you believe
it is a stream of pearls.
At midday tall trees
cover it with shadows
turning it the color of
metal.
So now you see it, blue,
wrapped in brocade,
like a warrior in armor
resting in the shade of his
banner.
Muhammed ibn Ghalib
al-Rusafi
Poets of Arab Andalucia (City Lights Books
1989). Translated by Cola Franzen, from the Spanish
versions of Emilio ....................Garcia Gomez.
|
