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.

 

###

Promoting REAL Security through International Cooperation and Democracy Building

This week we have all seen the horrors unfold the territory formerly known as Burma. It was renamed Myanmar in recent years by the ruling military junta.  Up until 2 weeks ago Myanmar was the internationally recognized and used name for this state much to the dismay of Democracy activists and Buddhist Monks.   Now, since the pictures of a dead Monk floating in the Inle Lake and the truth of the military dictatorship have immerged in mainstream media the international community has jumped on the ‘democracy for Burma’ bandwagon.

Isn’t it a little late to support these Democracy activists?  Would it not have been more productive to address this issue back in 1990 when a general election voted agianst the militaristic government and these results were thrown out by then State Peace and Development Council Chairman Than Shwe?  This is the man who responsible for the atrocities of recent weeks and for the renaming of this once democratic country. 

Pres. Bush, at the UN meeting declared that we must support democracy in Burma.  After our invasion he declared we must support democracy in Iraq, and after 9/11 he declared the Afghans ‘hated us for our freedom’.  Why, after we supplied AK47’s and rocket launchers to the Taliban to support our proxy war with the Soviets did they have such a change of heart against the U.S.? 

Surely, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism was a significant factor.  But how did this rise occur?  The Taliban, like the SPDC did in Bruma, took over Afghanistan with military might.  They terrorized Afghan citizens, created a huge refugee crisis, and institutionalized Madrasah educational systems to teach Islamic fundamentalism to the oppressed and disenfranchised population.  It is apparent to me that if we had supported a democratic movement and given non-military aid (in the way of education and basic necessities) to citizens in those early years we could have avoided the tragic events of 9/11.  Subsequently, we could have avoided the current international quagmire we find ourselves in today.  No one straps a bomb to their body if they are leading a fulfilling and secure life.

The only way to combat terrorism and promote grassroots democratic systems is to engage the population BEFORE the violence comes to a head.  We have the largest military in the world and yet we have no Peacekeepers.  We allocate 90% of our security budget to our own military and a fraction of it to international cooperation.  It is time we switched our priorities to secure a future for our children and children all over the world.

People in Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones

Yesterday, Iranian President Mahmouhd Ahmenajad spoke at Columbia University.  His appearance was met with controversy and intrigue around our country.  Everyone was so upset that Columbia would let a known dictator speak at their University.  None seem to respect the fact that he is a President of a country which is critical to the future of our foreign policy. 

As a Nation we condemned what were certainly archaic statements regarding the Holocaust and plainly idiotic statements about homosexuals in his country.  Without a doubt Ahmenajad is a dictator with bad ideas and a horrible human rights record.   

It bothers me that we point fingers at Iran for the human right violations there and never look to our own human rights record. 

Even if we refuse to look in our own backyard why was the same media frenzy not given to American University when we hosted the leaders from Saudi Arabia.  No doubt a country, like Saudi Arabia with well known violations of human rights would have garnered the same media attention; that is, if human rights and holocaust denial were why he was such a controversy.  But it did not.   

Now, what about his nuclear weapons?  We don’t know anything about his nuclear capabilities, because we have never actually sat down and worked with him directly.  The Bush administration continues to accuse Iran of developing nuclear weapons, but we know how accurate his intelligence on WMD’s is. 

So, what did Ahmenajad come to Columbia for?  He came to provide another perspective perhaps not one we agree with – but isn’t it time we learned to listen to, debate, and confront the views of other nations with diplomacy and intelligence.  I condemn human right violations, nuclear weapons, preemptive strikes and unresponsive non-democratic governments.  I know how hard it is to live under these conditions – because I have been living that way since Bush took office.  We have documented nuclear weapons that we proudly wave in the face of other states.  We have been waging war for a little over half a decade in a country that never attacked us.  I cannot make either statement about Iran.  Before we point fingers at Ahmenajad, let’s hold Bush accountable. 

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!

Reflecting 6 Years Later

It is hard to believe how much in our world has changed since the events of September 11^th. I do not intend this post to paint a rosy picture of the world before the towers fell, only to mark how that day exacerbated the oppression and violence in our world by playing to our fears and prejudices. Bush and Bin Laden have created a world in their image though the violence they met out on our global community. They have created a world where we see a ‘culture clash’ instead of a chance to learn one another. They have created a world where our fears of ‘an imperialist west’ or ‘a terrorist threat’ command us to abdicate our rights and responsibilities as human beings. They created a world where the threat of nuclear destruction is at its highest levels ever.

On this fateful and devastating anniversary I ask that we come together to mourn the millions lost since to violence: in Afghanistan, England, Guantanamo, India, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, Palestine, Spain, Sudan, United States & countless other locations.

• Afghanistan: After 9/11 the destruction of this country quelled Taliban power briefly while leaving millions without homes, jobs, or hope. They as a nation are still struggling with abject poverty, mounting violence, corruption, inequality, and oppression.
• England: On July 7^th London suffered a calculated attack to their transit system 52 people were killed and over 700 were injured. The horrors of that day were followed up by a less deadly attempt to destroy the Glasgow airport on June 30^th, 2007.
• Guantanamo: The camp has drawn strong criticism for its extrajudicial detention of captives and the possibility that captives held there were subjected to abusive interrogation techniques that constitute torture. The detainees held by the United States were classified as “enemy combatants” by executive order and without due process.
• India: On July 11, 2006 at least 200 people were killed when a train was bombed in an attack.
• Iraq: Too many deaths to count. Too much destruction to fathom. Too many soldiers used, abused, raped, manipulated, and martyred without one ounce of remorse from their Commander and Chief. Too many refugees scattered around the world. It makes me sick so I want you to check out this link for a realistic picture of the losses in Iraq.
• Israel & Lebanon: In July of 2006 Israel and Lebanon engaged in a deadly war. The violence began when Hezbollah forces crossed into Israel, killing three soldiers and abducting two others. After that cross-border raid, five more Israeli soldiers were killed, as well as two Israeli civilians. Two Lebanese soldiers and 45 Lebanese civilians were killed. Rocket fire to Israel was confined to the Haifa region while the air strikes on Lebanon destroyed the capital city of Beirut.
• Pakistan: On March 2, 2006 a car bomb killed 4 and injured 52 outside the Karachi Marriott – yards away from the U.S. consulate. In June 2002 a car bombing attack left 14 people dead, all Pakistanis outside the building, which lies in an upscale district of the sprawling city’s downtown.
• Palestine: Palestine, since 9/11, has deteriorated into wounded nation broken by rocket fire from Israel and sickened with civil war between 2 political parties. The violence mounts daily with civilians suffering the most.
• Spain: The 2004 train bombing in Madrid killed 191 people and wounded 2,050.
• Sudan: The genocide continues unabated while the world watches. Internationally, states make decisions about foreign priorities not based on resources but politics. The genocide continues because Africa is not priority in the war on terror.
• United States: On September 11, 2001 Al Qaeda orchestrated the most devastating attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. There were 2,974 fatalities, not including the 19 hijackers: 246 on the four planes (no one on board any of the hijacked aircraft survived), 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. Among the fatalities were 343 New York City Fire Department firefighters, 23 New York City Police Department officers, and 37 Port Authority Police Department officers. An additional 24 people remain listed as missing.

On this, the day as we recall the horrors of violence in our borders let us not forget the violence meted out since. We have a choice in this. We must learn to address violence with justice or we will always be fighting the terror campaigns raged by state and non-state actors. We must invest in humanity by rebuilding New Orleans, by investing in healthcare, by stopping atrocity with diplomacy. We have a choice; to unquestioningly follow our leaders to a new war with Iran or to say NO before the war starts. It is beyond time to take our democracy back and make progressive priorities American policy. Only peace and justice can end terror.

Misleading the American Public on Nukes

Earlier on this blog I commented on Sen. Hillary Clinton’s attack on Sen. Barrak Obama and his stance on nuclear weapons. Frankly, I believe (like many of you) that neither candidate has fully accepted a progressive platform. What strikes me though is the inconsistency with which they (all politicians) conduct their campaigns.

A recent article by the Boston Globe elaborates on Clinton’s stance on nuclear weapons – just a year ago she said nukes were ‘off the table’ for dealing with Iran. Not only are these candidates inconsistent but their constant threats of military action on states like Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan only reinforce the Bush administration’s assessment that they are part of a falsely constructed ‘axis of evil’. I am almost hesitant to criticize the top Democratic candidates because I would rather be condemning candidates like Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Brownback whose platforms are so far from my ideals. But, if I cannot look to either party to find my values I must keep pressure on those candidates who most closely reflect them.

Related to this is a recent paper published in the Atlantic Monthly. The paper presented a cogent argument that China was a more significant threat to the U.S. than any Arab nation. That if we were to use nuclear weapons, unlike most politicians would like you to believe, they would be used on China. This was not a political paper – it was written by a professor and a former DOD official. It lays out the tactical plan, the devastation, and the potential fallout (political and securities focused fallout) of a nuclear strike. As an activist, for me, the underling issue is clear. Nothing good can come from any nuclear attack from the U.S. or any other state in this world. It only brings destruction.

Senator Richard Lugar, Indiana Republican, and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, agrees. He has been a vocal advocate for the collection and destruction of fissile materials throughout his terms in office; passing the Nunn-Lugar bill to focus this work in the Former Soviet Union. He recently wrote a commentary on the success of this program. We can achieve nuclear abolition if we continue to understand and communicate the devastating implications of nuclear war.

Do you agree? Is there ever a reason to use nuclear weapons? Vote in Parade Magazine’s poll on this subject, here.

Presidential Canidates Callus on Nuclear Question

Barack Obama’s statement, last Thursday, that he would not use nuclear weapons “in any circumstance” to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan and drew criticism from chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and accolades from anti-nuclear activists.
It appears Sen. Obama is the only leading Presidential candidate who is willing to consider the multifaceted implications of a foreign policy where ‘all options’ are on the table.

During the Cold War the U.S. public was intimately aware of the threat nuclear war posed to the country and the world. While the bombs have become more powerful the country has become more complacent about our leaders threatening their use. It is a shame that in all the rhetoric condemning or applauding Obama’s statement no one has questioned the destructive position of Clinton and the other candidates.

Nuclear weapons are never an acceptable form of force, but especially in this circumstance would be devastating to our world and to our national security – moreover, they would be ineffectual in their purpose.

Nuclear weapons cannot weed terrorists out of the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nuclear weapons are designed to decimate a region or country – they have no purpose but to kill civilians for years after the initial explosion with cancer and birth defects. By definition, their use is in itself is a terrorist act because they so specifically target civilians. Our threats of a ‘nuclear option’ only further inflame a difficult diplomatic situation in the Middle East and radicalize new terrorist recruits.

Those candidates who would not take the nuclear option off the table are callus and arrogant – preferring to placate to the minority of the country who support the Bush administration than to stand up for a new direction in U.S. foreign policy. They are
naïve for believing the nuclear option should ever be on the table.

U.S. Weapons Proliferation

Yesterday, the Bush administration announced that they would give 20 billion dollars worth of arms to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. According to the party line this is a viable attempt to bolster our relationships in the Middle East. This deal of course was opposed by Israel so to accompany the deal with the Gulf States the U.S. has increased military aid to Israel by 43%, adding 9.1 billion more dollars. Bush believes that heavily arming the Sunni Saudi Arabia will help the U.S. isolate Iran, a county supportive of the Shiite sect. This move is more of the same political posturing that will only further inflame the violence in Iraq and in the Middle Eat as a whole.

My first question is why are we friends with Saudi Arabia? Human rights violations alone should be enough to consider it a difficult state. But there is more. Saudi Arabia has been a negative influence on our occupation in many of the same ways that the President accuses Iran. A New York Times article recently pointed to U.S. intelligence which said, “Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.” Adding to this a senior administration official says he has seen evidence that Saudi Arabia is providing financial support to opponents of Mr. Nuri al-Maliki. Despite this the Bush administration continues to point only to Iran and Syria as counter productive to peace in the region.

My second question – how is giving weapons to sworn enemies going to promote peaceful dialogue? Israeli military forces, disabled after their loss last summer to Hezbollah, now see an opportunity to reassert their military influence in the region. Iran sees another example of the U.S. destabilizing the region to our own advantage – this will only further inflame radical groups in Iran and all over the Middle East. Even if this military power is only a perception at this point it emboldens one state to try to undermine another.

My third question – will we as citizens let our government use our cries for peace to further promote violence? The U.S., for its part, is set on political posturing and weapons proliferation - perhaps in an attempt to extract ourselves from Iraq and let the larger states in the region fight for control. I am sure that Bush sees this as an opportunity to show his popularity with some states in the Middle East and a way to boost the U.S. economy. Our leadership in this deal will bring nothing but blood.

Despite the political players and their influence on our occupation of Iraq proliferating weapons will never foster peace. This is a basic principle. The only way to engage the regional players in Iraq is through conflict resolution dialogue. A cold or hot war with Iran will be devastating – our actions in the past week will do nothing but promote that war.