URGENT ACTION: PREVENT NEW NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Sample Letter | Action Response Form | Action Alert Announcement

[archived]

Section 3136 of the FY94 Defense Authorization Act is a prohibition on "research and development which could lead to the production by the United States of a low-yield nuclear weapon" of less than five kilotons. (The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of approximately 15 kilotons.)

Championed by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) and now-retired Rep. Elizabeth Furse (D-OR), the "Spratt-Furse prohibition" has remained in effect for almost a decade. This year, the Administration has sent Congress a draft Defense Authorization bill that includes a request to repeal the Spratt-Furse prohibition. The Republican House Policy Committee has also issued a report explicitly stating a desire to overturn this prohibition.

In addition to repealing the prohibition on developing low-yield nuclear weapons, the Administration and some Members of Congress want to develop a nuclear bunker-buster to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets that may contain military command centers and chemical and biological weapons. The Department of Energy is spending $15 million on a feasibility study of this new weapon. Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) is expected to offer an amendment on the House floor to cancel funding for the nuclear bunker-buster.

What are the key reasons to oppose the repeal of the prohibition on low-yield nuclear weapons and building of the nuclear bunker-buster?

• Possessing low-yield nuclear weapons increases the likelihood they will be used in conflict, breaking a taboo that has been in place since their use during World War II;
• Developing new or modified nuclear weapons sends the wrong message to other nations who may also view them as desirable;
• If the Spratt-Furse prohibition is repealed, the development of a new low-yield nuclear weapon could lead to the resumption of underground nuclear testing, overturning the 10-year moratorium on nuclear testing. This could lead other nuclear powers to also resume testing -- having a chilling effect on future arms control and non-proliferation efforts;
• There are other, non-nuclear, ways to destroy and disable underground bunkers.

How does the cost of nuclear weapons compare with other things we need?

At a time of growing budget deficits, we should be reducing the role that nuclear weapons play in our national security. Developing new nuclear weapons goes in the opposite direction of needed reductions.

U.S. taxpayers are paying $15.7 billion for nuclear weapons in FY04. Georgia taxpayers owe $403.9 million for them. For that same amount of money, 221,341 children could receive health care. Michigan taxpayers will spend $568.7 million for nuclear weapons, a sum that would buy 2,528 firetrucks. In Oregon, 3009 elementary school teachers could be hired for the $156.2 million taxpayers will spend on nuclear weapons.

(Find this and other information regarding your state from www.nationalpriorities.org)