Department of Energy Calls for Public Comment on Complex Transformation SPEIS – Peace Action Responds with a call for Nuclear Abolition

(Washington, DC – 1/16/08) – The Department of Energy has dedicated a 90 day comment period to the Bush Administration’s proposed nuclear weapons production facility formally known as Complex 2030.  This comes despite Congressional action zeroing out funding for the reliable replacement warhead, a new nuclear weapon, associated with the $150 million nuclear complex.

Recent polls by World Public Opinion show 79% of the American people want to see the U.S. government do more to eliminate nuclear weapons.  Peace Action is among 68 other groups engaging the public to use this comment period to support nuclear abolition and U.S. compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

Across the nation, Peace Action Affiliates will hold community meetings to discuss the project and collect comments for the DOE.  Peace Action supporters in California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas will present their opinions at DOE hearings in those states.  The Peace Action online campaign is expected to reach over 100,000 nuclear abolition activists.

“Tens of thousands of Americans will write the Department of Energy in the next three months to tell them that they refuse to have nuclear weapons built in their backyard.  Instead it is time to dismantle nuclear weapons rather than build new ones,” claimed Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action’s political director.

The comment campaign will continue through the appointed 90 day period culminating in a final hearing in Washington, DC at which Peace Action’s national office will issue a statement on behalf of the network.  The statement will call for the U.S. government to: stop the Complex Transformation project, increase dedication to nuclear abolition, and invest resources into nuclear cleanup and renewable energy programs.

BACKGROUND

• The Nuclear Complex to be transformed is made up of facilities scattered across the country at 8 major locations with missions as diverse as laboratory work, explosives testing, and nuclear weapons component manufacturing. 
• Complex Transformation would include a major new facility—the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) at Los Alamos National Lab—to build 50-80 warhead cores (plutonium “pits”) per year, violating the spirit of U.S. commitments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Article 6 which encourages disarmament.
• The 2007 JASON pit lifetime study confirmed that existing pits could last 100 years or more making the Complex Transformation project an unnecessary expense for an indebted Federal Government.
• Legislative and Executive branches of the U.S. government have yet to complete mandated nuclear policy reviews necessary to assess how the U.S. should move into the future regarding nuclear weapons.
• Increased production of plutonium pits, through Complex Transformation, will lead to increased risk to national security, public health, and the environment.
• Expanding our current nuclear weapons program sends the wrong message to other Nations, like North Korea, with whom we are negotiating over nuclear disarmament.

 

###

Sex, god, nukes and babies

As a self identified progressive and spiritual person I find myself constantly perplexed by the contradictions I see in the Christian neoconservative movement.  I understand that because our views are different I will never fully understand their position on any issue but what has really gotten to me this week is the disconnect between their righteous indignation of sex and their tolerance of the current administration’s nuclear policy.

Let’s look at the argument for abstinence.  They say there is no such thing as safe sex but they have no trouble proclaiming the safety of new nuclear weapons.  Sex is never safe because condoms are only 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancy and the spread of HIV.  RRW is safe despite the 100% likelihood that testing these nuclear weapons will put more cancer causing uranium into our water shed system depleting our earth and spreading disease. 

What’s the likelihood these weapons will have to be tested?  I say the chances are as good as they are that at least 10 teenagers will engage in sex before they graduate high school; in other words, very high changes indeed.  New nuclear weapons will inevitably have to be tested because otherwise those who plan using them will have no idea how they work.  If neoconservatives believe the risk of sex with condoms is so great, how can they not see the risk in new nuclear weapons?

Of course, we know that the abstinence only program is not about disease it’s about god’s will.  God, apparently, does not think people should engage in sex unless it’s for procreation, the creation of life.  They believe the lives of people are the most important thing to protect.  They, neoconservatives, go so far as to say that a fetus is a life and must be protected by law.  This fetus, which must be protected at all cost, is most at risk from nuclear fallout and uranium seeping into the water system.  Look no further than birth defect rates in Ukraine for evidence.  Infant mortality, debilitating birth defects, and increased infertility have left this country with a declining population after the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl.  Even with all the horrible things nuclear material does to babies in the womb, I never saw Jerri Fallwell at an anti-nukes rally.

Only talking about sex and babies is really missing the main point.  Nuclear weapons, whether new or old, are designed to kill people; people who, according to the faithful, were put here by a god that loves them.  Neoconservatives seem to believe that god has favorites:  fetuses, Americans, and Christians.  They will tout the importance of saving lives from abortion and then proclaim we should use our nuclear weapons to kill the brown people for having nuclear weapons (which they are not sure they have).  

Do you see the disconnect here, or am I crazy?  I work with all sorts of religious types whom I respect for their beliefs, even if I don’t hold them myself.  My mother, the priest, believes that god put us on this earth to be in community with one another and in doing so we are in community with god.  All religious fundamentalists seem to believe the opposite – their sole purpose is to break up communities by drawing arbitrary lines to suit their taste.  Life is sacred – as long as it’s a life we agree with.  God created the earth – but, it is not our responsibility to be stewards of that earth.  Science goes against gods will – unless that science enables us to kill people who do not believe the same things as us.  It’s infuriating and I challenge any fundamentalist out there to hit me back with some of your hate speech – tell me why you think war is so good and nuclear weapons are so necessary.  Then tell me why god supports you.  I’d love to demonstrate your ignorance live and in blog.

Debunking RRW

The U.S. and Russia spent decades and billions of dollars building arsenals and fighting proxy wars to become THE hegemonic power of the world during the “Cold War”.   Finding Russia’s old and in many cases missing nuclear material is a top priority for our Representatives but it seems some in the Senate are still unsure what to do with our nuclear weapons.

If you read this blog you’ve heard of the reliable replacement warhead (RRW).  You know that Congress zeroed out funding.  That the Senate still needs to vote and there are some shaky suckers on the Senate who need a reality check.  Bush is touting RRW as a ‘security measure’ (like his friend Regan) saying we cannot have old nuclear weapons sitting around our country.  Bennett Ramberg, who served in the State Dept under George H. W. Bush, disagrees. 

In an article in the Baltimore Sin Bennett deconstructs Bush’s argument while outlining the hazardous consequences of this program.  Here’s a sampling.

• Myth:  stockpiles from the Cold War are aging and hazardous.
  • Both are true, nuclear weapons are hazardous and these particular weapons are aged but still deadly.  In 1993 the Clinton administration put forth the stockpile stewardship program to “ensure the preservation of the core intellectual competencies of the U.S. in nuclear weapons, including weapons design, system integration, manufacturing, security, use control reliability assessment in certification.”  Part of this program includes a lab that virtually replicates tests on the current stockpile and suggests fixes in the event problems emerge.
• Myth:  These weapons are ‘unreliable’
  • “In 2006, government scientists concluded that the stockpile’s plutonium cores will last at least 100 years.”  Those found to be deteriorating were found and replaced.
• Myth:  These RRW is based on weapons from the 1980’s so will not need to be tested.  The U.S. will remain in compliance with the Test Ban Treaty.
  • The RRW is not an exact replica of this older weapon therefore it WILL need to be tested somewhere.  We discovered back in the 1950’s how hazardous nuclear testing is to our planet.  Ask anyone from the Marshall Islands how they feel about nuclear testing and you’ll get a full idea of the human cost.

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) have introduced S.1914, a bill which stops funding the RRW until a new nuclear policy and posture review are completed.  This is the more sensible way to proceed than RRW.   Tell your Senator TODAY!

Taking Action for Peace: 50 years in the making

Below is our press release about the recently released book on Peace Action. We love to hear about your take on the peace movement over the past 50 years. Tell us how you have been active and how you would like Peace Action to continue for the next 50 years.

AMERICA’S LARGEST PEACE NETWORK PUBLISHES ANTHOLOGY

(Silver Spring, MD) Peace Action: Past, Present, and Future is a collection of lively essays written by prominent leaders and supporters of Peace Action and its two important predecessors—the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy and the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign.

Editors Glen H. Stassen and Lawrence S. Witter survey a half-century of the work in the peace movement by three of the largest and most influential peace organizations in American history. With a foreword by Representative Barbara Lee, this book provides a unique resource for understanding popular protest against nuclear weapons and war in the modern era. It also illuminates the local, national, and international role of Peace Action today.

Peace Action: Past Present and Future is published by Paradigm Publishers, and will be retailing for $16.95 through the publisher and Peace Action.

Glen Harold Stassen, Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics, Fuller Theological Seminary, in addition to Peace Action: Past Present, and Future has edited Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices for Abolishing War, and authored Just Peacemaking: Transforming Initiatives for Peace and Justice, Living the Sermon on the Mount, and Kingdom Ethics. He is a long respected activist and scholar and is a board member of Peace Action.

Lawrence S. Wittner, Professor of History at the State University of New York at Albany, is the author of Rebels Against War: The American Peace Movement, 1933-1983, Cold War America: From Hiroshima to Watergate, The Struggle Against the Bomb (an award-winning trilogy), and of numerous other books and articles. He is a prominent historian who serves on the national board of Peace Action.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee was elected to represent California’s ninth Congressional District in 1998. She is the Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, First Vice-Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and a Senior Democratic Whip.

This book is dedicated to the late William Sloane Coffin, Jr. and produced in conjunction with Peace Action’s 50th anniversary celebrations. Contributing authors: Sandy Gottlieb, Monica Green, Marcus Raskin, Andrea Ayvazian, Cora Weiss, Jim Wallis, David Cortright, Jon Rainwater and Kevin Martin, Peace Action Executive Director.

Peace Action, with over 100,000 members and nearly 100 chapters in 34 states, works to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, promote government spending priorities that support human needs.

One Step Forward and Two Steps Back: The U.S. Nuclear Policy

By: Barbra J. Bearden

We’ve had some great news in the past few months regarding non-proliferation and disarmament. Experts and activists agree that an amazing resurgence of the anti-nuclear movement, one not seen since the late days of the Cold War, is in part responsible for checking the Bush administration’s efforts to reinvigorate U.S. nuclear capabilities. This mobilization began with the fight against the ‘bunker buster” and “mini nukes.” Now, we are winning the fight against “reliable replacement warheads” (RRW) and the poorly conceived “complex 2030.” The House zeroed out funding for these White House initiatives and, hopefully, the Senate will follow.

At Peace Action, we are proud to be a part of this movement – prouder still that our efforts to mobilize citizens against nuclear weapons may become an archaic part of our mission. I received a story from the Associated Press trumpeting the success of the negotiations, lead by the U.S., with North Korea to shut down the county’s nuclear reactor. “Clearly, we’ve made a turn over the weekend…We’re away from these banking issues, back onto denuclearization issues (Associated Press).” The banking issues U.S. nuclear negotiator Christopher Hill is referring to are centered on U.S. foreign aid money promised to North Korea in exchange for disarmament back in February of this year. After an extensive debate over which state should take action first the U.S. finally agreed to free up the aid funds on the promise that North Korea would dismantle their reactor “within this year.”

Despite our government’s abhorrence of nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea we are still the most heavily armed nuclear power in the world. We are still first among nuclear proliferators – most recently assisting India in obtaining nuclear materials. Sadly, among our citizenry is a select group who believe that U.S. control of nuclear weapons is not only inevitable but necessary.

Frank Gaffney, of the Washington Times, said “once the technology to build nuclear weapons became widely available, there was no way to stuff the nuclear genie back in the bottle.” Thomas D’Agostino, deputy administrator for defense programs at the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration, said he was committed to funding RRW next year. It seems, despite the will of the people, and the commitment of our representatives, those whose careers are invested in nuclear weapons would like to stay that way. Department of Energy bureaucrats claim the bolstering of funds for nuclear armament in the U.S. and throughout the former Soviet Union is intended to thwart the “desire of al Qaeda ad other terrorist groups to gain nuclear weapons or improvised nuclear devices.”

What logic are these people following? Somehow they believe that investing new resources in nuclear sites will be more effective in preventing their ill use than eliminating them all together. I am not suggesting that expanding the Cooperative Threat Reduction program geographically is a bad idea. I simply own up to one fact – horizontal proliferation (across borders) isn’t the only kind; vertical proliferation (expanded nuclear capabilities within one country) can put the world at just as great a risk . With this in mind, our successes in North Korea are nullified by our own nuclear program.

Perhaps other countries might follow the U.S. non-proliferation model. If the U.S. can use economic exploitation to force a country like North Korea to disarm – some other country could do it to force us. A country like China, which is heavily invested in U.S. trade deficits could pull those investments and cripple the U.S. economy until we submit to disarmament of our nuclear weapons. Of course China will never do this, but, not because they are more benevolent than the U.S. in their foreign policy. They will never enact a policy to hurt trade relations with the U.S. because our love of cheap clothing and nick nacks fuels their own economy.

But it is an interesting thought. If the U.S. was not the global powerhouse it became after WWII what would our foreign policy look like? Would we still insist that some countries can and should have nuclear weaponry while others are terrorist states because they seek out a nuclear policy? Would we send our military all over the globe to unseat internationally recognized governments in the pursuit of resources or ideological interests? Or, would we fear invasion by a foreign army unhappy with our current regime? It’s just something to think about.