By William
D. Hartung and Frida
Berrigan, In
These Times.
May 23, 2007.
NNSA's planning documents call for the production of the first
RRW by 2012, and according to analysis by James Sterngold in
the San Francisco Chronicle, the work is already beginning.
He writes, "Lab officials said researchers not only have
produced extensive designs ... but they have already conducted
non-nuclear tests of the critical detonation devices and other
components. They have begun to plan in detail how the weapons
would be manufactured."
Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), the new chairman of the House
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, has criticized
the RRW project for its "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" approach. "There
appears to have been little thought given to the question of
why the United States needs to build new nuclear warheads at
this time," he says. "My preference is that the DOE
would have spent their resources reconfiguring the old Cold
War complex and dismantling obsolete warheads." He has
not ruled out slowing or eliminating the RRW if the administration
is unable to present a strategy "that defines the future
mission, the emerging threats and the specific U.S. nuclear
stockpile necessary to achieve strategic goals."
The 110th Congress and beyond
In an August 2005 speech to a symposium on post-cold war nuclear
strategy, Rep. Hobson described the administration's call for
research on new bombs and the Nuclear Earth Penetrator as "very
provocative and overly aggressive policies that undermine our
moral authority to argue that other nations should forgo nuclear
weapons."
Hobson's concerns are shared by a number of his colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, including Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.),
John Spratt (D-S.C.) and Lynne Woolsey (D-Calif.), all of whom
joined him in successfully leading an effort to defund the
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. Skepticism about the need
for massive investment in nuclear weapons at a time of huge
war bills and growing deficits, a growing sophistication about
nuclear issues, and a Democratic majority means that for the
first time in years the nuclear weapons complex is feeling
the heat.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) represents the state that
houses the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which recently
won the Reliable Replacement Warhead competition. In a press
release issued after the decision, she said, "While I
appreciate the fact that Lawrence Livermore was selected, this
in no way answers my questions about the Reliable Replacement
Warhead program" -- a program that she remains "100
percent opposed to."
Despite support from the White House, the DOE, key contractors,
and a number of powerful members of Congress such as Sen. Pete
Domenici (R-N.M.), Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Joe Barton
(R-Texas) -- all of whom have nuclear weapons facilities in
their states or districts -- the Complex 2030 plan to modernize
the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure may be scaled back
or rejected by congressional opponents, who will receive backing
from arms control and environmental organizations.
But it will take more than cutting a million here or a billion
there, more than gunning against a specific corner of the Complex
2030 plan, more than defunding the most aggressive or alarming
aspects of the nuclear weapons complex, to deal with nuclear
weapons in the 21st century. Members of Congress are going
to need to challenge the bedrock of administration foreign
policy -- that nuclear weapons should occupy center stage as
a guarantor of U.S. security.
But they will not do that without being pushed -- and pushed
hard -- by civil society. The urgency of the task creates opportunities
for a big tent of strange bedfellows to work together: Weary
cold warriors like George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger
and Sam Nunn, who in January co-authored a Wall Street Journal
op-ed titled "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons"; well-established
Washington organizations like the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace and the Arms Control Association; disarmament activists
like Helen Caldicott and the Abolition 2000 network; and members
of the international community from the United Nations on down
are all saying the same thing: The United States cannot insist
that other nations disarm or opt not to pursue nuclear technology,
while aggressively ramping up U.S. nuclear capabilities. This
hypocrisy cannot stand.
Global security through nuclear disarmament or a world awash
in nuclear weapons. The choice is obvious. And it is ours to
make.
<<< Previous
Page 1 - 2 - 3 -
4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. BadConcress.com has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is BadCongress.com
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
