WAND Education Fund » nuclear

Putting the Bygone Nuclear Era Behind Us

Admin — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 17:07:46 +0000

Monday, December 3, 2012, in his first national security speech since winning reelection, President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to “a world without nuclear weapons.” At an event honoring the 20^th anniversary of the Nunn-Lugar program at the National War College in Washington, D.C., the President was thankful for the bi-partisan work and leadership for measures to reduce nuclear dangers - Nuclear Security Summits, New START Treaty and strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He was adamant about the work remaining to reach the ultimate goal of “a future where these weapons never threaten our children again.” He admitted that the work might be slow, but “missile by missile, warhead by warhead, shell by shell, we’re putting a bygone era behind us.”

Nuclear disarmament has been a key issue for President Obama since his time in the Senate and this affirmation is important to remind the country, Congress, and his own administration, that this problem is ongoing and is vital to national and global security.

Read the full speech here.

General asks cut in nuclear stockpile — what are we waiting for?

Admin — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:43:22 +0000

General asks cut in nuclear stockpile — what are we waiting for?

by Diane Aronson, former executive director of WAND

Published: August 10, 2012 by The Boston Globe

Thirty years ago I joined a band of women to work toward freezing and reversing the buildup of nuclear weapons, as the first executive director of an organization now called Women’s Action for New Directions. As mothers, we were concerned about the safety and future for our children. With current unrest in the world, awareness is as critical as the days during the Cold War and, today, we add concern for our grandchildren.

I commend General Norton A. Schwartz for speaking with sound reason and logic as outlined in the article “ US general asks cut in nuclear stockpile” (Page A1, Aug. 6). One would think that if military officials are in favor of reducing our bloated and old nuclear weapons stockpile, leaders in Congress would act. Yet Republicans, such as Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte, continue to claim that reducing this useless reserve would harm our national security and cost the United States jobs.

The United States has more nuclear weapons deployed than any potential foe, and economists have found that investing tax dollars in areas other than the Pentagon creates more jobs. It’s time to listen to military leaders. It’s time to reduce nuclear weapons and wasteful Pentagon spending.

No more Hiroshimas: Let’s end nuclear threat

Admin — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:30:36 +0000

GUEST VIEWPOINT: No more Hiroshimas: Let’s end nuclear threat

By Michael Carrigan and Susan Cundiff

Published: August 8, 2012 by The Register-Guard

This month marks the 67th anniversary of the only time nuclear weapons were used in warfare. The United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, 1945. An estimated 220,000 men, women and children had died in those two cities by the end of 1945.

We will gather on Monday at Alton Baker Park in Eugene to proclaim “Never again!”

The Hanford Nuclear Site on the banks of the Columbia River in Washington state played a pivotal role in the nuclear race that followed the creation of those weapons. Material for the Nagasaki bomb was made there, and Hanford was the site of the world’s first full-scale plutonium production reactor. Nuclear weapons tests — 2,056 of them — were conducted worldwide. At the peak of the Cold War, there were some 70,000 nuclear weapons.

The number has decreased since the Cold War, but 23,000 nuclear warheads are still intact globally, enough to blow up the planet. The U.S. and Russia possess more than 90 percent, of which about 2,000 are on high alert — meaning they are ready for launch in minutes. This reliance on nuclear arsenals encourages the spread of weapons and increases the possibility of an accidental launch or intentional nuclear attack.

The past 67 years of nuclear weapons production has cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars and required more than five decades of cleanup, and still there will be contamination at Hanford and other sites for hundreds of generations to come.

In December 2010, with support of our military leadership, 71 senators, including Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden from Oregon, voted to ratify the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. New START reduced U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals and established a process for verifying these and future reductions. It is in our country’s best interest to further this nuclear downsizing and to pursue the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.

As President Obama said in March, “We have more nuclear weapons than we need. I firmly believe that we can ensure the security of the United States and our allies, maintain a strong deterrent against any threat, and still pursue further reductions in our nuclear arsenal.”

Other security experts agree. In April, Gen. James Cartwright, former vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and commander of U.S. nuclear forces under President George W. Bush, called for an 80 percent reduction in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.

And Merkley, a former national security analyst at the Pentagon, says the START treaty “continues a long history of bipartisan support for nuclear arms control dating back to Presidents John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, demonstrating that safety and security is best achieved by reducing stockpiles of nuclear weapons, not by building them up.”

While these weapons are not making us more secure, they cost some $30 billion a year to maintain. With plans to spend more than $180 billion over the next decade, the federal budget significantly increases funding for nuclear weapons activities while cutting funding for dismantlement and environmental cleanup. For the same amount of money that Oregon taxpayers will shell out for nuclear weapons programs, we could fund 2,067 schoolteachers or cover the cost of medical care for 21,574 military veterans for one year.

Oregonians have a long history working to abolish nuclear weapons. In the 1980s and ’90s, hundreds of Oregon activists traveled to the test site in Nevada calling for an end to nuclear weapons testing. Their activism led the nation and former Sen. Mark Hatfield and Rep. Mike Kopetski to pass a moratorium in Congress on nuclear weapons testing in the U.S.

Building on that success, we call on the U.S. Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to permanently end nuclear testing worldwide. Our nation should lead by example, first by urging further reciprocal Russian reductions and then by engaging other nuclear nations to make reductions. Efforts must lead to the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons.

During its operations, Hanford has released significant amounts of radioactive materials into the air and the Columbia River, threatening human health and our Northwest ecosystems. This site, the most contaminated in the Western Hemisphere, continues to spread contamination.

We call on Congress and the Obama administration to redirect funding from nuclear weapons development to cleanup efforts at Hanford so we can protect our air, the Columbia River and the health of future generations. Let this be our legacy instead of the continued insanity of nuclear weapons development.

Michael Carrigan is peace organizer for the Community Alliance of Lane County. Susan Cundiff serves on the national board of Women’s Action for New Directions. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki commemoration will begin with a potluck at 6:30 p.m. and a program at 7:30 p.m. on Monday at Alton Baker Park in Eugene.

WiLL Vice President in JTA

Admin — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:10:13 +0000

Op-Ed: On Tisha b’Av, let’s usher out the nuclear era

By Sandy Pappas

Published: July 25, 2012 by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency

OPINION

MINNEAPOLIS (JTA) -- As July ends and we wind down the Three Weeks before Tisha b’Av, we mourn the destruction of both Holy Temples. Unfortunately, this is not the only destruction that bears remembrance.

This August marks the 67th anniversary of the only time that nuclear weapons were ever used in warfare. The United States tested the first nuclear weapon in July 1945 and dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug. 6 and 9 that year.

These events spawned the nuclear race, with 2,056 nuclear weapons tests conducted worldwide and new and more deadly weapons developed at a fast and furious pace. At the peak of the Cold War there were some 70,000 nuclear weapons.

Even though the numbers of nuclear weapons have decreased since the Cold War, enough of them are still around to blow up the planet. Ninety percent of the weapons are in the United States and Russia. America continues to rely on strategic plans, targeting and alert status settings that were conceived during the Cold War. We also spend billions of dollars each year to maintain our oversized arsenal.

In December 2010, the U.S. Senate approved the ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with the support of our military leadership and bipartisan support from 71 senators, including all 13 Jewish senators in office at the time. New START reduced U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals and established a foundational process for verifying these and future reductions.

It is in America’s best interest to further this nuclear downsizing.

The Obama administration has been working on a plan to establish new policy guidance for the purpose, size and structure of U.S. nuclear weapons. Further reductions and a change in strategies are needed to meet 21st century security needs. As President Obama said in March, “We have more nuclear weapons than we need. I firmly believe that we can ensure the security of the United States and our allies, maintain a strong deterrent against any threat, and still pursue further reductions in our nuclear arsenal.”

Other security experts agree. In April, Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and commander of U.S. nuclear forces under President George W. Bush, called for an 80 percent reduction in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. Further, Senate Armed Services Committee chair Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said in June, “I can’t see any reason for having as large an inventory as we are allowed to have under New START, in terms of real threat, potential threat. The more weapons that exist out there, the less secure we are rather than the more secure we are.”

Like Levin, I favor more security and fewer nuclear weapons. American leadership must take action to minimize nuclear dangers. Our nation should lead by example, first urging further reciprocal Russian nuclear reductions, then engaging other nuclear weapons countries to make reductions. We also should ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to permanently end nuclear testing worldwide. Taking these steps will position the U.S. to effectively lead the world in thwarting new nuclear weapons development and combating nuclear terrorism.

We ushered in the nuclear era 67 years ago. Now we must do our part to help the world find a safe exit.

(Sandy Pappas, a state senator from Minnesota, is a founding member with her husband, Neal Gosman, of the Shir Tikvah congregation in the Twin Cities.)

Defense Appropriations Bill Summary FY2013

Admin — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:59:55 +0000

On July 19, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Fiscal Year 2013 Defense Appropriations bill allocating funding for the Pentagon’s annual base budget ($518 billion) and war spending ($88.5 billion) with a vote of 326-90. Please see a summary of some highlighted amendments below.

Cutting the Overall Pentagon Budget /Cutting Pentagon Waste

The Good News – One Bipartisan Step Towards Budget Restraint

Thank you to those who made calls urging cuts to excessive Pentagon spending. We do have some positive news to report. The Mulvaney (R-SC) and Frank (D-MA) bipartisan amendment to freeze Pentagon spending at Fiscal Year 2012 levels was adopted 247-167 with 89 Republicans voting for it. This is the first time in more than a decade that Congress has been willing to apply any restraint to the Pentagon budget. While it is fair to note that this freeze amendment is a very modest restraint (in fact the Pentagon is still getting more money than the Administration requested), it is a hopeful first step. As Congress moves towards ever more intense end of the year budget battles, this vote should indicate that a strong majority in Congress is unwilling to exempt the Pentagon from fiscal discipline. See House debate on defense bill spending finds one bit of bipartisan light in the Washington Post.

Congressional Women Stars Shine, But Congress Doesn’t Follow the Light

We applaud the women in Congress who offered a number of amendments to make deeper cuts to overall Pentagon spending, or cut wasteful unnecessary programs, or even just require an audit of the Pentagon. Unfortunately, all of these amendments failed and showed a steep partisan divide:

Barbara Lee’s (D-CA) amendment, co-sponsored by Chris Van Hollen (D-MD and Ranking Member on the Budget Committee) and Adam Smith (D-WA and Ranking Member on the House Armed Services Committee), to reduce the overall spending in the bill by $7.6 billion, would have brought spending in line with budget caps that Congress agreed to last year. It was rejected 171-243, July 19, 2012. Barbara Lee’s (D-CA) amendment to reduce the overall spending in the bill by $19.2 billion was rejected 87-326, July 19, 2012.

Lynn Woolsey’s (D-CA) three amendments to cut Pentagon spending by specific amounts were all rejected: 114 - 302 (Roll Call # 481), 106 - 311 (Roll Call # 483), and 91 - 328 (Roll Call # 484), July 18, 2012. (Rep. Lynn Woolsey is retiring this year and noted that this was her last opportunity to offer amendments to cut excessive military spending and shift budget priorities.)

Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Jan Schakowsky’s (D-IL) amendment to withhold a portion of Department of Defense spending until the Pentagon is able to pass an audit fell by a point of order.

Betty McCollum’s (D-MN) amendment to cut funds for military bands, a reduction of $188 million, was rejected 166-250, July 18, 2012.

(And some good amendments to cut offered by men in Congress – also failed …)

Jack Kingston’s (R-GA) amendment, supported by Betty McCollum (D-MN) to cut funds for the military to advertise at NASCAR races was rejected 202-216, July 18, 2012.

Mike Quigley’s (D-IL) amendment to reduce funding for one DDG-151 Destroyer by $998 million was rejected 60-359, July 18, 2012.

Mike Coffman’s (R-CO) amendment to ensure that the President's proposal to remove two Army brigades from Europe and replace them on a rotational basis is upheld, which would limit funding for the continued permanent deployment of the 170th and 172nd infantry brigades in Europe, was rejected 123-292, July 19, 2012.

Cold War Time Warp

When it comes to nuclear weapons and related missile defense spending, it seems that Congress is firmly stuck in a time warp. Common sense amendments to cut back on Cold War era weapons system expenses failed. On top of that, retro amendments to restrict arms control efforts and block nuclear weapons reductions were adopted.

Ed Markey’s (D-MA) amendment to reduce funding for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) missile defense system by $75 million, bringing the funding level back to the President’s request, was rejected 150-268, July 18, 2012.

Ed Markey’s (D-MA) amendment to limit the fleet of land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) to 300 (currently there are 450 Minuteman III ICBMs) was rejected 136-283, July 18, 2012.

Michael Turner’s (R-OH) amendment to prohibit funds from being used to reduce U.S. nuclear forces to implement the Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Study, modify the Secretary of Defense Guidance for Employment of Force, or the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, was adopted 235-178, July 19, 2012.

Rick Berg’s (R-ND) amendment to prohibit use of funds to reduce the number of the nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of the United States including (1) Heavy bomber aircraft, (2) Air-launched cruise missiles, (3) Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, (4) Submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and (5) Intercontinental ballistic missiles, was adopted 232-183, July 19, 2012.

Mo Brooks’ (R-AL) amendment to prohibit funds from being used to share classified information about missile defense systems with Russia was agreed to by voice vote, July 19, 2012.

Afghanistan

While amendments to accelerate ending the war and bring home troops failed, other amendments to cut Afghanistan and Pakistan aid were successful. This confused approach indicates a bumpy road ahead for Afghanistan. Pushing a failed military solution will not work, and the funding and support for a transition doesn’t seem to be forthcoming. We note that Congress should put its focus on supporting a transition towards developing a sustainable peace and Afghan women should play a leading role.

Barbara Lee’s (D-CA) amendment to cut $21 billion from war funding to end the U.S. involvement in the Afghanistan war safely and responsibly, which would limit funding to bringing the troops home, was rejected 107-312, July 18, 2012.

John Garamendi’s (D-CA) amendment to cut $12.6 billion for the war accounts due to the “steady drawdown” of troops after the surge troops are withdraw in 2012 was rejected 137-278, July 19, 2012.

Walter Jones’s (R-NC) amendment to reduce funding for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund by $412,287,000 was agreed to by voice vote, July 18, 2012.

Ted Poe’s (R-TX) amendments to eliminate the entire $1.3 billion in aid to Pakistan under the coalition support fund program was withdrawn, but a second amendment to cut the account by $650 million was agreed to by voice vote, July 18, 2012.

Steve Cohen’s (D-TN) amendment to reduce the Afghanistan Infrastructure fund by $175 million was adopted 228-191, July 18, 2012.

David Cicilline’s (D-RI) amendment to strike the $375 million in funding for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund was rejected 149-270, July 18, 2012.

In addition to these amendments, on Wednesday, July 18^th, fifteen members of Congress spoke on the costs of the continuing war in Afghanistan and the need to bring the troops home now. The bipartisan effort, led by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC), included statements by four Republicans and 11 Democrats: Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Rep Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY), Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA). See excerpts on YouTube.

-Kathy Crandall Robinson, Public Policy Director

Women Leading at New START Hearing

Admin — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:52:11 +0000

A year and half after ratification, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) conducted a hearing on June 21, 2012 to assess the progress of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty’s (New START) implementation. Not only was the hearing yet another step in reaffirming just how important New START is to our security and U.S.-Russia relations, it also set the scene for further reductions and deliberation down the road.

Testimony was given by acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs Madelyn Creedon, and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration and Under Secretary for Nuclear Security Thomas D’Agostino.

In addition to Committee Chair Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Ranking Member Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), both strong supporters of New START, a few additional Committee members participated in the hearing. Notably, New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), champion of nuclear arms control and WAND’s 2011 Torchbearer Award recipient, was there to ask crucial questions on topics ranging from how the New START treaty increases Russian transparency to the future of nuclear weapons in the American security strategy. Emphasizing the need and benefits of reducing the American stockpile, Sen. Shaheen argued that, “The treaty increases transparency, strengthens international stability and gives the Department of Defense the certainty it needs to protect our security in an efficient and cost-effective way.”

We, here at WAND, want to especially recognize the women leading on the nuclear security issue who were prominent at this hearing - Sen. Shaheen for her excellent questions and leadership, and Under Secretary Gottemoeller and Assistant Secretary Creedon for their excellent testimony and continuing dedicated work to reduce nuclear dangers. In a field largely dominated by men, it is refreshing to see women leading so effectively on security issues.

See a video of the hearing on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee website.

-Mylinda McDaniel, WAND Research Fellow - Doctoral Candidate at West Virginia University