US scientists designing new generation of nuclear arms (Interested Yet?)

[bigtree]

US scientists designing new generation of nuclear arms

Mon Feb 7,10:48 AM ET U.S. National - AFP

NEW YORK (AFP) - US scientists are quietly starting work on a new generation of nuclear arms meant to be more rugged and reliable than warheads in the existing arsenal.

-About nine million dollars have been allocated so far for weapons designers at the three US nuclear weapons laboratories, the New York Times reported Monday, citing government officials and experts.

-The initiative is expected to grow and could produce finished designs in five to 10 years. Congress and a future administration would then have to approve the development of prototype warheads.

-Critics say the project could trigger a new arms race and topple bans on testing, while proponents say it could ultimately reduce the US nuclear arsenal, yet make it more robust.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&ncid=1506&e=8&u=/afp/20050207/ts_alt_afp/usnuclear_050207154839


I outlined this in my book, released Feb 2004-

Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (reported this week to be under fire by U.S. officials for his conciliatory stance towards Irans nuclear activities) said earlier this year that developing new nuclear weapons could hamper efforts to reach agreement with other countries who might want to expand their nuclear programs; like Iran and Pakistan, for example.

In September the Senate went along with a White House push to reduce the preparation time required for nuclear testing in Nevada; clearing the way for a resumption of nuclear test explosions which have been banned since 1992. It seeks to cut the time it would take to restart testing nuclear weapons in the Nevada desert from three years to two years. The Bush administration wants the period cut to 18 months. http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/testingtoresume.htm

Congress plans to build the first permanent U.S. nuclear waste repository in the desert northwest of Las Vegas, scheduled to open in 2010 and would hold up to 77,000 tons of radioactive waste. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa071002a.htm

The Energy bill that has emerged from the recent Congress would provide $580 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal project in 2004 — around $11 million less than Bush had requested but far above a $425 million limit earlier endorsed by the Senate. http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/CRap111803.pdf

The bill would also provide $11 million for a new factory to make plutonium "pits" for the next generation of nuclear weapons. The last U.S. facility for manufacturing nuclear triggers closed in 1989.


President Bush recently signed into law a Defense bill for 2004 which includes $9 billion in funding for research on the next generation of nuclear weaponry. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031124-2.html

"It's an important signal we're sending," President Bush remarked at the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, "because, you see, the war on terror is different than any war America has ever fought."

"Our enemies seek to inflict mass casualties, without fielding mass armies," he cautioned. "They hide in the shadows, and they're often hard to strike. The terrorists are cunning and ruthless and dangerous, as the world saw on September the 11th, 2001. Yet these killers are now facing the United States of America, and a great coalition of responsible nations, and this threat to civilization will be defeated."

This is a posture usually reserved for nation-states who initiate or sponsor terrorists. The devastating neighboring effect of a potential nuclear engagement would contaminate innocent millions with the resulting radioactive fallout, and would not deter individuals with no known base of operations.

Yet, this administration, for the first time in our nation’s history, contemplates using nuclear weapons on countries which themselves have no nuclear capability, or pose no nuclear threat.

$8,933,847,000 has been provided in the 2004 Defense bill to the Department of Energy for the activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration, to be allocated as follows:
-For weapons activities, $6,457,272,000.
-For defense nuclear non-proliferation activities, $1,340,195,000.
-For naval reactors, $788,400,000.
-For the Office of the Administrator for Nuclear Security, $347,980,000.
-Test capabilities revitalization, phase I, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, $36,450,000.
-Exterior communications infrastructure modernization, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, $20,000,000.
-Project engineering and design, various locations, $2,000,000.
-Chemistry and metallurgy research (CMR) facility replacement, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, $20,500,000.
-Building 12-44 production cells upgrade, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, $8,780,000.
-Cleaning and loading modifications (CALM), Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $2,750,000.
-Mission relocation project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, $8,820,000.
-Project engineering and design, facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program, various locations, $3,719,000.
-$360,000,000 for defense nuclear waste disposal.

-Section 3136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 is repealed. (Law prohibiting nuclear tests)

The bill states that nothing in the repeal is intended to be construed as authorizing the testing, acquisition, or deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon.

"The Secretary of Energy is not to commence the engineering development phase, or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress," it says.

But, not later than March 1, 2004, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy was required in the bill to jointly submit to Congress a report assessing whether or not the repeal of section 3136 of the National Defense.

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 will affect the ability of the United States to achieve its non-proliferation objectives and whether or not any changes in programs and activities would be required to achieve those objectives.

In other words, if nothing catastrophic has occurred as a result of the repeal of the testing ban, and if there is no challenging escalation of nuclear tests by other nations, a resumption of testing of these low-yield nuclear weapons may be considered.

The act states that: "If as a result of the review the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear Security, determines that the optimal, advisable, and preferred readiness posture for resumption by the United States of underground nuclear tests is a number of months other than 18 months, the Secretary may, and is encouraged to, achieve and thereafter maintain such optimal, advisable, and preferred readiness posture instead of the readiness posture of 18 months.

This is authorization for the Defense Secretary to ignore the congressional approval process and manipulate the schedule for underground nuclear tests at his discretion.


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.

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 Iklé, 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&&DI=293&IG=0e859bda8aaa43ea810c6eb7e9674a2b&POS=1&CM=WPU&CE=1

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/execsummaryaboutface.html

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.htm

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/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

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."

You can hear the pitch of former Lockheed executive Bruce Jackson, hawking in favor of his company's space weaponry:
-Control the new ‘International commons' of space and cyberspace, and pave the way for the creation of a new military service with the mission of space control. (U.S. Space Forces; eventually realized in the form of the Air Force-financed Lockheed Space Battle Lab) http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-03z.html

-Exploit the "revolution" in military space affairs to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces.
-Establish a two-stage transformation process which maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies.

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."

The Chinese would dispute the PNAC assertion that they pose a threat to the U.S.; as far as I know, there is still a normalization of relations between our two countries. Perhaps they are alluding to the transfer of weapon's technology between nations; or the threat to Taiwan. In any case, the conservative document's allusion to U.S. "dominant military power" sounds a lot like destabilization to me.

Between peaceful nations, parity and balance of our respective forces and weaponry is the maxim in our expressions of our defense and security goals. Any open declaration of the need for military dominance is an invitation to a dangerously competitive, world-wide arms race.

Two of the world's nuclear powers, Pakistan and China, signed a communique recently which described their cooperation as an "indispensable" factor in maintaining peace and stability in Asia.

The document was signed by Pakistani President Musharraf and China's Hu Jintao. In a speech to China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Musharraf described the partnership with China as, ". . . deeper than the oceans, higher than the mountains." http://www.rense.com/general44/asape.htm

"The past belongs to Europe," he said, "the present belongs to the United States, and the future belongs to Asia. China's role is critical . . . not only because of its economic strength and its performance, but also because of its geographic might."

Beijing has helped Pakistan initiate work on the Chashma nuclear power plant in Punjab province next to an existing 300 megawatt nuclear power plant also built with Chinese assistance. The CIA in a report this year cautioned that China, Pakistan, and Iran continue to work together on ballistic-missile-related projects. http://www.nuclearfiles.org/edcoursesyllabi/pk-weapons.html

Pakistan, as a non-signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty will have to obtain any future plutonium from China. Pakistan relies heavily on China for its military and nuclear materials since the U.S. first learned of its nuclear ambitions in 1990.


In reference to the America'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."

‘Peace through strength’; big kid on the block,' is a posture which is more appropriately used to counter threats by nations; not to threats by rouge individuals with no known base of operations.

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.




Download the book for free!
http://www.returningsoldiers.us/Power%20Of%20Mischief4.pdf

Here's my list of numbered, linked references for the book (253 links):
http://returningsoldiers.us/biblio.htm

[bigtree]

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

"There's nothing you can do about this thing now!"

http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/films/strangelove/audio/NOTHING.WAV

[bigtree]

2. oh no, not those pesky nukes

~~glaze~~
:eyes: