Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Strange How This Generation Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 04:41 PM
Original message
Strange How This Generation Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Strange How This Generation Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb


We just had two elections stolen from under our indifferent noses, we wallow hapless while Bush packs the government with military industry cronies, and we shrug off the scrapping of a generation of nuclear disarmament without so much as a blink at Bush administration plans for a new generation of nuclear weaponry with new justifications for their use.

People, my generation fought a valiant battle against nuclear weapons. Rightly so, given our youth spent crouching under our school desks every Wednesday or Friday as the air raid siren sounded its nuclear drill. 'Duck and cover!' counseled Bert the animated turtle in the '60's era filmstrip. I grew to fear and hate communists and dread the inevitable nuclear attack.



The Japanese antinuclear movement began in 1946 in response to the atomic bombing of Japan. Citizens' groups in Hiroshima started a mass movement after March 1954, when U.S. nuclear testing dropped radiation on the crew of a Japanese fishing boat, the Lucky Dragon and citizens of Bikini. An antinuclear petition was initiated and signed by 32 million people in the world's largest anti-nuclear protest. In August 1955 the First World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs met in Hiroshima. The Japan Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Gensuikyo) was simultaneously organized in Japan.

In the years that followed we saw the enactment of the Partial Test Ban Treaty; the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties (I and II); the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty; the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (I and II); and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

These important restraints on the proliferation and spread of nuclear weaponry did not occur in a vacuum. These restraints were the result of direct action by communities and individuals engaging in massive, worldwide campaigns of public protest, over the strenuous objections of ruling parties and government powers. Notable among the modern nuclear resistors in the United States, included the Federation of American Scientists, the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE), Women Strike for Peace, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign.

In 1980 Randall Caroline Forsberg, Executive Director of the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies, wrote the "Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race which launched the national Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign. In 1989 Forsberg briefed BushI and his Cabinet officials on US-Soviet arms control issues. In 1995 she was appointed by President Clinton to the Advisory Committee of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. In March 1981, representatives from over 30 states met at Georgetown University in a campaign for a comprehensive nuclear freeze between the U.S. and Soviet Union.

Although Reagan deployed nuclear missiles to Western Europe during his term, in October 1983, he proposed eliminating all nuclear weapons in a speech in January 1984. Earlier, in April 1982, obviously affected by the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, he had declared that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And he also declared, "To those who protest against nuclear war, I can only say: 'I'm with you!'"

Gorbachev subsequently initiated a unilateral Soviet nuclear testing moratorium, decided against building a Star Wars antimissile system. Reagan refused to abandon Star Wars, but the disarmament die had been cast. Gorbachev put the U.S. on the defensive by agreeing to remove all nuclear missiles from Europe (the zero option).

On November 13, 1984, twenty-two people were arrested for blocking the entrance to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center in Wake Forest, Illinois in a protest of U.S. naval activities in Central America and to protest the Navys part in nuclear weapons proliferation, such as stationing nuclear submarines in the Caribbean and supplying artillery with nuclear capability to Central America. Sixteen went to trial, charges against eight were dropped and a ninth was dismissed. Seven protesters stood trial in the People v. Jarka No. 002170 in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Waukegan, Illinois.

After a one-week trial defendants were found not guilty by the jury. The judge in the case, Alphonse F. Witt, gave the following instruction to the jury regarding international law:

International law is binding on the United States and on the State of Illinois.

The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is a war crime or an attempted war crime because such use would violate international law by causing unnecessary suffering, failure to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants, and poisoning targets by radiation.
(Source: Robert Aldridge and Virginia Stark, Nuclear War, Citizen Intervention, and the Necessity Defense, Santa Clara Law Review 26, no. 2 : 324325.)

The Jarka trial served as the basis for the defense of subsequent actions and protests against the Reagan administration's escalating militarism, mindless military buildup, and meddling military interventions abroad.

In the years that followed the anti-nuclear activism, New Zealand banned nuclear warships from their ports, Australia banned the testing of MX missiles, India halted work on nuclear weapons, and called for nuclear disarmament, the Philippines voted for a no nuke constitution and closed down U.S. military bases harboring nuclear weapons. South Africa abandoned an infant nuclear weapons program. BushI was intimidated into unilaterally withdrawing short-range missiles from Western Europe.

Later there were the influential protests at the Nevada Test Site, sparking a Nevada-Semipalatinsk nuclear disarmament movement in the Soviet Union which led to the closure of the Soviet nuclear test sites.

In 1992 underground nuclear testing was halted for nine months, and stringent restrictions were enacted on further U.S. testing, and test ban negotiations and an end to U.S. testing by late 1996 were initiated.

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was obtained, despite resistance from Democrats including candidate Clinton during his presidential campaign. In spite of the resistance, anti-nuclear Congressmen and women organized a test ban and the Clinton administration extended the U.S. nuclear testing moratorium, encouraging a worldwide treaty. In September 1996, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed by several nuclear and non-nuclear countries.

Now we have been made to endure the mindless idiocy of BushII. For the first time since the U.S. banned the production of nuclear weapons in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; signed by the U.S. and Russia in 1968, entered into force in 1970; and since the moratorium on nuclear testing, which has been in place since 1992, the nuclear arms race has been restarted by the Bush administration, aided in part by an underground Pentagon campaign.

Gen. Lee Butler, of the Strategic Air Command, along with former Air Force Secretary Thomas Reed, and Col. Michael Wheeler, made a report in 1991 which recommended the targeting of our nuclear weaponry at "every reasonable adversary around the globe." The report warned of nuclear weapons states which are likely to emerge." They were aided in their pursuit by, John Deutch, President Clinton's choice for Defense Secretary; Fred Ikl, former Deputy Defense Secretary, associated with Jonathan Pollard; future CIA Director R. James Woolsey; and Condoleezza Rice, who was on the National Security Council Staff, 1989-1991.

The new nuke report recommended that U.S. nuclear weapons be re-targeted, where U.S. forces faced conventional "impending annihilation ... at remote places around the globe," according to William M. Arkin and Robert S. Norris, in their criticism of the report in the April 1992 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ("Tiny Nukes").

At the same time, two Los Alamos (Lockheed) nuclear weapons scientists, Thomas Dowler and Joseph Howard, published an article in 1991 in the Strategic Review, titled "Countering the Threat of the Well-Armed Tyrant: A Modest Proposal for Smaller Nuclear Weapons." They argued that, "The existing U.S. nuclear arsenal had no deterrent effect on Saddam and is unlikely to deter a future tyrant."

They advocated for "the development of new nuclear weapons of very low yields, with destructive power proportional to the risks we will face in the new world environment," and they specifically called for the development and deployment of "micro-nukes" (with explosive yield of 10 tons), "mini-nukes" (100 tons), and "tiny-nukes" (1 kiloton).

Their justification for the smaller nuclear weapons was their contention that no President would authorize the use of the nuclear weapons in our present arsenal against Third World nations. "It is precisely this doubt that leads us to argue for the development of sub-kiloton weapons," they wrote.

In a White House document created in April 2000, "The United States of America Meeting its Commitment to Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," the administration stated that, "as the United States reduces the numbers of its nuclear weapons, it is also transforming the means to build them." http://g.msn.com/9SE/1?http://www.wslfweb.org/space.htm...

Over the past decade, the United States has dramatically changed the role and mission of its nuclear-weapon complex from weapon research, development, testing, and production to weapon dismantlement, conversion for commercial use, and stockpile stewardship.

That was his father's nuclear program. George II wants bombs.

"The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, and to build new, smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations," according to a classified Pentagon report obtained by the Los Angeles Times. http://www.clw.org/control/nukereview02press2.html

The report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Libya.

It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, in retaliation for attack with nuclear biological or chemical weapons, or in the event of surprising military developments.' The new report, signed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, is being used by the U.S. Strategic Command in the preparation of a nuclear war plan.

As reported by the World Policy Institute, the National Institute for Public Policy's, January 2001 report on the "rationale and requirements" for U.S. nuclear forces, was used as the model for the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which advocated an expansion of the U.S. nuclear "hit list" and the development of a new generation of "usable," lower-yield nuclear weapons. http://worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/execsummar...

Most observers do not believe that the new weapons can be developed without abandoning the non-proliferation treaty and sparking a new and frightening worldwide nuclear arms race.

Three members of the study group that produced the NIPP report - National Security Council members Stephen Hadley (assistant to Condi Rice), Robert Joseph, and Stephen Cambone, a deputy undersecretary of defense for policy - are now directly involved in implementing the Bush nuclear policy. Stephen Hadley, who is to replace Rice as National Security Advisor, co-wrote a National institute for Public Policy paper portraying a nuclear bunker-buster bomb as an ideal weapon against the nuclear, chemical or biological weapons stockpiles of rouge nations such as Iraq. "Under certain circumstances," the report said, "very severe nuclear threats may be needed to deter any of these potential adversaries." http://www.acts2.com/thebibletruth/Nukes_Considered-IHT...

The nuclear hawks are stepping out from behind their Trojan Horses of nuclear space travel and safe', new nuclear fuels and are revealing a frightening ambition to yoke the nation to a new legacy of imperialism. President Bush has decided that America's image around the globe is to be one of an oppressive nuclear bully bent on world domination.

In September 2000, the PNAC drafted a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDef...

The conservative foundation- funded report was authored by Bill Kristol, Bruce Jackson, Gary Schmitt, John Bolton and others. Bolton, now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was Senior Vice President of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. The report called for: ". . . significant, separate allocation of forces and budgetary resources over the next two decades for missile defense," and claimed that despite the "residue of investments first made in the mid- and late 1980s, over the past decade, the pace of innovation within the Pentagon had slowed measurably." Also that, "without the driving challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation had lacked urgency."

The PNAC report asserted that "while long-range precision strikes will certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S. military operations, American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers for decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons systems for a decade or more." The PNAC document encouraged the military to "develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."

The paper claimed that, "Potential rivals such as China were anxious to exploit these technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea were rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they sought to dominate. Also that, information and other new technologies as well as widespread technological and weapons proliferation were creating a dynamic' that might threaten America's ability to exercise its dominant' military power."

In reference to the nation's nuclear forces, the PNAC document asserted that, " reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself."

"The (Clinton) administration's stewardship of the nation's deterrent capability has been described by Congress as "erosion by design," the group chided.

The authors further warned that, "U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force." In addition, they counseled, "there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries."

The PNAC Rebuilding America' report was used after the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks to draft the 2002 document entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," which for the first time in the nation's history advocated "preemptive" attacks to prevent the emergence of opponents the administration considered a threat to its political and economic interests. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0920-05.htm

It states that ". . . we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country." And that, "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."

This military industry band of executives promoted the view, in and outside of the White House that, " must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. . . We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed."

Their strategy asserts that "The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."

The 2002 PNAC document is a mirrored synopsis of the Bush administration's foreign policy today. President Bush is projecting a domineering image of the United States around the world which has provoked lesser equipped countries to desperate, unconventional defenses; or resigned them to a humiliating surrender to our rape of their lands, their resources and their communities.

President Bush intends for there to be more conquest - like in Iraq - as the United States exercises its military force around the world; our mandate, our justification, presumably inherent in the mere possession of our instruments of destruction.

We are unleashing a new, unnecessary fear between the nations of the world as we dissolve decades of firm understandings about an America power which was to be guileless in its unassailable defenses. The falseness of our diplomacy is revealed in our scramble for useable', tactical nuclear missiles, new weapons systems, and our new justifications for their use.

Our folly is evident in the rejection of our ambitions by even the closest of our allies, as we reject all entreaties to moderate our manufactured mandate to conquer. Isolation is enveloping our nation like the warming of the atmosphere and the creeping melt of our planet's ancient glaciers.

Who will stand up against this new generation of nuclear madness? If we stand firm there is no limit to what we can achieve. If we refuse to stand up against this administration's push for new nukes, if we are indifferent, if we shrink away and accept their weak excuses and justifications we will undo a generation of resistance and activism.

This is our chance to make a difference. This is our moment to rise up against another mindless escalation into a new nuclear arms race. Where will you stand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. No one?
Not one hit here?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
2.  Ripper proclaiming, "There's nothing you can do about this thing now!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zap Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I agree....and
..as a male in his late 20's, I think it's downright embarrassing to see my generation so easily fooled by Bush and his regime.

One thing I noticed in this past election was how a lot of males in particular just absolutely SHUT OUT any kind of questioning of Bush's agenda. ...any time anyone questioned anything, or promoted John Kerry they were called a wimp or a pussy or a bitch. A lot of people completely bought into (and still buy into) this weird notion that Bush is somehow a "man of the people"....like the same working people that would sneer at a rich corporate CEO driving down the street in his mercedes would just rally behind bush in a heartbeat...completely missing the irony in that situation. Bush's mercedes is the US and the street he's driving (recklessly) down is the world.

A funny conversation I heard the other day in a restaurant:

Two "manly" looking guys are sitting at a Vietnamese restaurant eating Pho....I hear them start talking about someone's sister's cousin saying, "Aww...he was a BITCH he voted for Kerry..."

a few minutes later one guy says to the other, "Hey what do you think the most romantic part of 'The Notebook' was?"


Wha...????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Hi Zap!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. thanks for looking in, and welcome to GD DU
maybe life has gotten too hard to handle.

I try to understand . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Nice piece, bigtree
The evolution of nukes without the use of one in 60 years has led folks into a complacency the PNACers are using to sail in under the radar.

Most folks have the idea that nukes will never be used, but as your article points out, plans are set to use nukes, somewhere, sometime. Once that happens, people will be pissed... it may be that that is the only reason we haven't used one yet in Iraq.

The sonofabitches are itching to blow one; lets hope their consciousnesses get the best of them, and a nuke is never used again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. complacency is an understatement
Edited on Sat Mar-05-05 06:50 PM by bigtree
I think there's a good deal of denial also. 'Useable' nukes are right over the horizon. Why would anyone trust this clown with anything nuculer?

Thanks for looking in . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freedom_from_Chains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I have thought for sometime
That we are never really going to be able to deal with the reality of nuclear weapons until a few are exchanged and several million people die.

Strange thing about human nature is that somethings just don't get our attention until it presents itself in a catastrophic form.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Yeah
Everything has to reach a crisis before the people revolt.

Another thing that worries me about this min-nukes: They will be small, like suitcase bombs. Now we know the ruskies had suitcase sized bombs - maybe still do - so if we proliferate the smaller bombs, it just makes it more likely for one to get 'lost'.

Presently, I feel that if a poll were taken, the American people would not be found to favor more nukes. One reason that reports such as this from bigtree are so important to keep kicked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. aint it the truth?
Hard for me to wait until then to protest though.

I'm a damn optimist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tnlefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Paging Dr. Helen Caldicott
If there was ever a person who tells the truth about the dangers of nuclear weapons this woman does it in a calm, common-sense way that people can relate to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I wonder if I can go over her house tonight and have a long chat
it's mighty cold in here . . .

thanks for looking in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-06-05 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. I got my chat, (even though I was really listening from my own home)
In Depth: In Depth: Dr. Helen Caldicott- Monday, March 7 at 12:00 am
http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=5478&sche...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
11. excellent post
too, many folks have become sudiced by the programming on the teeVee and think either everything is peaches or we NEED them... now even for 1 man :crazy:



peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. that's their plan
they know us well.

I didn't realize how indifferent folks were till I started digging for info though. I guess that's what activism and advocacy is for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tamtam Donating Member (450 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
12. Great post
might I add, I think my generation is not being hit hard enough. Until there is a draft or the Internet gets shut down my generation will never wake up. It will take a hard slap in the face and the threat of being sent to war before this generation will take to the streets.

There are quite a few of us that are awake. We see what is going on and we know the danger of this administration. I don't think we are as organized as the civil rights, Vietnam generation. Of course, there was a draft during the Vietnam war. I know the lack of a draft is hardly an excuse. I'm sure if this administration decided to start a draft you would see more young people suddenly aware.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dragonfly Donating Member (211 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
14. The people who are connecting the dots of
what is being done to us more diabolically every day by PNAC proponents + pals, and then sharing this knowledge with others of us on a similar flight path, are to be highly commended.

Your post is another clear example of why I believe that a huge alliance of folks who see harmony amongst nations as a great idea is poised to grow exponentially, because it eloquently portrays in public fashion an essential chronology of traitorous behavior by those acting in our name, yet really trying to destroy what has been a deep-down, thick vein of good existent for so long in the America formerly seen as the planet's chief advocate.

Thanks for your successful effort to send out a call for a less-veiled discussion of matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. you're more than welcome. PNAC is just a band of fools
But they're dedicated fools.

I feel so inadequate, yet I don't see many others in this era who are challenging me. I had one poster the other day who set me straight on some facts and it felt like a warm breeze in winter.

Thanks for looking in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dragonfly Donating Member (211 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-06-05 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. The straight-up perspective gleaned from your
initial post is one that many tend to shrink away from, unfortunately. My sense is that a lot of well-meaning contributors to this discussion board find daily life less stressful by dwelling on the fast-moving anecdotal periphery of what, to me, is a gigantic "asteroid" heading toward what remains of real freedom. Hence, the talk of "who is the best candidate for '08," while Spring of '05 cries out for intense participatory democracy temporarily defers vital core debate.

(tnlefty presents the notion that Dr. Helen Caldicott has had her finger on the scary pulse of nuclear weapon regeneration for a long time. On this, I totally agree. Her voice is still crucial in shaking off the powerful effects of apathetic brainwashing).

The crux of your well-researched outreach will gain more visibility in these forums up the road a spell, IMHO. Keep the faith.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anarchy1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-06-05 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
19. This is an amazingly well written post and it deserves front page for days
Thank you, BigTree. I'm left speechless. What an awesome job you have done. Only problem, you left out DU (as in Depleted Uranium) and how it is being used now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-06-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. DU is an outcrop or part of the glue that keeps defense $ and influence
Edited on Sun Mar-06-05 03:00 PM by bigtree

attached to every nuclear ambition that comes out of this administration. Without the defense application, this venture would certainly not have the money or the importance to rate any meaningful level of support in this administration and with their congressional supporters.

At the end of the decade support for nuclear energy was on the decline because of waste and safety issues and disarmament. Right before Bush II got in office, the industry, still fat from clean-up money sought to bolster their flagging industry. (INEEL gets 70% of their funding for waste disposal).

Waste storage had become so controversial that it had soured the public to the idea of more nukes and more nuke plants. (Yucca Mountain, storage sites in New Mexico, transportation, safety issues, etc.).

So, they began promoting the view that the 'spent' nuclear fuel from decommissioned weapons and nuclear power plants could be broken down and reconstituted for weapons (depleted uranium) and a new generation of nuclear plants which would accommodate (recycle) and use the waste instead of immobilizing it in glass and storing it. http://www.nci.org/../../0new/wpu-immob-dp52001.htm
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dlit.html

The industry makes the dubious claim that the recycled waste keeps it out of the hands of terrorists and makes proliferation more difficult. It will more likely disperse the waste and create more opportunity for abuse or mishap. http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclearwaste/briefs/0004.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-06-05 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
20. The "Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control",
Edited on Sun Mar-06-05 02:41 PM by bigtree

which served as a model for the Bush administrations Nuclear Posture Review, advocated an expansion of the U.S. nuclear "hit list" and the development of a new generation of "usable," lower-yield nuclear weapons:

http://www.nipp.org/Adobe/volume%201%20complete.pdf

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
Rationale and Requirements for
U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control
Volume I
Executive Report
January 2001



Participants
Dr. Kathleen C. Bailey
Dr. Robert Barker
Amb. Linton Brooks
Dr. Stephen Cambone
Amb. Henry Cooper
Lt Gen Stephen Croker, USAF (ret.)
Dr. Colin S. Gray
Kurt Guthe
Stephen J. Hadley
Amb. S. Read Hanmer
Dr. Fred C. Ikl
Amb. Robert Joseph
Amb. Max Kampelman
John J. Kohout III
Kristin Kolet
The Honorable Ronald F. Lehman II
Dr. Holger Mey
LTG William E. Odom, USA (ret.)
Dr. William Schneider, Jr.
Leon Sloss
Amb. David Smith
Willis Stanley
Dr. William R. Van Cleave
Bernard Victory
Dr. C. Dale Walton
The Honorable R. James Woolsey
Dr. David Yost
Dr. Keith B. Payne, Study Director

snips:

"To ensure that enemy facilities or forces are knocked out and cannot be reconstituted, attacks with nuclear weapons may be necessary. Indeed, in the future the United States may need to field simple,
low-yield, precision-guided nuclear weapons for possible use against select hardened targets such as underground biological weapons facilities."

______________________________________________________________________________

Bush's Nuclear Posture Review (Excerpts)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/np...

snips:

'North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies. All have longstanding hostility toward the United States and its security partners; North Korea and Iraq in particular have been chronic military concerns. All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and all have active WMD and missile programs." Ibid
------------------------------------

"Due to the combination of China's still developing strategic objectives and its ongoing modernization of its nuclear and non nuclear forces, China is a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency." (p. 16-17)
--------------------------------------

"Defeating Hard and Deeply-Buried Targets. DoD would implement a program to improve significantly the means to locate, identify, characterize, and target adversarial hard and deeply buried targets.
---------------------------------------

"The President has stated that the mission for missile defense is to protect all 50 states, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies against ballistic missile attacks. The Department has rerganized its ballistic missile defense program. The program is pursuing missile defense based an the following guidance:

"Other than the PAC-3, the United States has not yet chosen systems for deployment; that decision will depend on the evolution of both technology and the threat. The Department is exploring a wide range of alternative approaches. There are two dimensions to the missile defense program: near-term emergency capabilities; and improved variants of these capabilities leading to more robust, operational systems. Several near-term and mid-term options (2003-2008) that could provide an emergency missile defense capability are under consideration, including:

A single Airborne Laser for boost-phase intercepts may be available for limited operations against ballistic missiles of all ranges;
A rudimentary ground-based midcourse system, consisting of a small number of interceptors taken from the test program and an upgraded Cobra Dane radar in Alaska, could be available against longer-range threats to the United States; and

Based on the technical progress of these systems, the United States could deploy operational capabilities beginning in the 2006-2008 period including:

2-3 Airborne Laser aircraft

"DOD will develop the low-orbit constellation of SBIRS-Low satellites to support missile defense. This system will provide capabilities to track enemy ballistic missiles and to assist in the discrimination of reentry vehicles and other objects in flight." (p. 28)
---------------------------------

"New concepts for persistent surveillance - from air- and space-based platforms - including hyper-spectral imaging, are proposed in the FY03 budget. (ibid).
------------------------------------

"Underinvestment in the infrastructure - in particular the production complex - has increased the risks that if substantial problems in the stockpile are discovered, future options to refurbish or replace existing designs will be limited. For example, although an interim pit production capability will be established later in this decade, no current capability exists to build and certify plutonium pits, certain secondary components, or complete warheads." (p. 30)

"The need is clear for a revitalized nuclear weapons complex that will: ...be able, if directed, to design, develop, manufacture, and certify new warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume underground nuclear testing if required." (p. 30)

------------------------------------------

"Warhead Assembly and Disassembly:...Plans are underway to expand the capacity and capability of the Pantex Plant to meet the planned workload for dismantlement and remanufacturing of existing weapons." (p. 33)

"Uranium Operations: At least seven to eight years of effort will be required to restore the capability to produce a complete nuclear weapon secondary at the Y-12 Plant in Tennessee. Qualified processes for some material and manufacturing steps are not currently in place. Plans are underway to expand the capacity and capability of the Y-12 Plant to meet the planned workload for replacing warhead secondaries, and other uranium components." (p. 33)

"Plutonium Operations: One glaring shortfall is the inability to fabricate and certify weapon primaries, or so-called "pits". Work is underway to establish an interim capability at Los Alamos National Laboratory late in this decade to meet current demand created by destructive surveillance testing on the W88 warhead. For the long term a new modern production facility will be needed to deal with the large-scale replacement of components and new production." (p. 33)

"Other Component and Material Production:... Tritium production, halted since 1988, is programmed to resume in FY03 with first deliveries to the stockpile scheduled for FY06. Additionally, warhead refurbishment plans require modern facilities at Y-12's Special Materials Complex for manufacturing unique materials." (p. 14)

------------------------------------

The United States currently has a very limited ground penetration capability with its only earth penetrating nuclear weapon, the B61 Mod 11 gravity bomb. This single-yield, non-precision weapon cannot survive penetration into many types of terrain in which hardened underground facilities are located. Given these limitations, the targeting of a number of hardened, underground facilities is limited to an attack against surface features, which does not does not provide a high probability of defeat of these important targets." (p. 47)

"With a more effective earth penetrator, many buried targets could be attacked using a weapon with a much lower yield than would be required with a surface burst weapon. This lower yield would achieve the same damage while producing less fallout (by a factor of ten to twenty) than would the much larger yield surface burst. For defeat of very deep or larger underground facilities, penetrating weapons with large yields would be needed to collapse the facility." (p. 47)

"To defeat HDBT it is necessary to improve significantly U.S. means to locate, identify, characterize, and target HDBTs. This objective also requires deliberate pre-planned and practiced missions and the development and procurement of several types of conventional earth penetrating munitions. A number of Special Operations Forces and information capabilities will need to be developed to support this goal. Investment and organization will yield a new level of capability for the stated objectives by 2007, with new technologies deployed by 2012. One effort to improve the U.S. capability against HBDTs is a joint DoD/DOE phase 6.2/6.2A Study to be started in Apri1 2002. This effort will identify whether an existing warhead in a 5,000 pound class penetrator would provide significantly enhanced earth penetration capabilities compared to the B61 Mod 11." (p. 47)
------------------------------------

:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-05 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
23. Great post!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 06:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC