|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arms Control Association
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 1, 2003
1:35 PM
|
CONTACT: Arms Control Association
Daryl Kimball, 202-463-8720 ext. 107
Christine Kucia, 202-463-8720 ext. 103
|
|
|
|
Senators, Scientists Say Congress Should Reject Bush
Administration's Proposals for New Nuclear Weapons
|
|
|
| WASHINGTON
- May 1 - The diplomatic and
security costs of the Bush administration's proposals to explore
new nuclear weapons far outweigh any marginal benefits such arms
might yield, an expert panel led by Senator Edward Kennedy
(D-Mass.) warned April 29. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
issued a statement with the same message in conjunction with the
panel discussion, sponsored by the Arms Control Association.
The Bush administration is asking Congress to continue
funding research on modifying existing types of nuclear weapons
to enable them to destroy deeply buried and hardened targets. It
is also seeking a repeal of a 10-year-old prohibition, known as
the Spratt-Furse Amendment, against research and development
leading to the production of low-yield nuclear weapons.
Kennedy took issue with both of the administration's
proposals. He noted that the "bunker buster" currently being
researched would have a destructive potential 10 times that of
the blast that destroyed Hiroshima and could "spew tons of
radioactive waste into the atmosphere, with a devastating plume
that could poison huge areas in its path." Kennedy also
dismissed the concept of low-yield weapons, saying, "The
precision-guided munitions and standoff weapons we have today
make these mini-nukes unnecessary. They would be no more
effective than conventional munitions, and would be far more
dangerous to our troops."
Led by Kennedy, the panel warned that the administration's
proposals send the wrong message to the rest of the world that
the United States believes nuclear weapons have a battlefield
role. The proposals threaten to breakdown the long-standing
firewall between conventional arms and nuclear weapons and
jeopardize what has become an international norm of the non-use
of nuclear weapons, according to the panel.
Kennedy declared, "A nuclear weapon is not just another item
in our arsenal, and it's wrong to treat it like it is."
Feinstein asked, "How can we effectively seek to dissuade
others from developing nuclear weapons while we are going
forward with the development of new nuclear weapons ourselves?"
She cautioned, "If we are not careful, our own nuclear posture
could provoke the very nuclear proliferation activities we are
seeking to prevent."
Dr. Sidney Drell, professor emeritus at Stanford University,
said that using nuclear weapons, either to respond to a chemical
or biological attack or in a tactical situation against a deeply
buried bunker is a "terrible idea." He added, "I think that's
the most dangerous idea in the world that we face."
The administration contends that making nuclear weapons more
"usable," by reducing their potential for causing civilian
casualties or improving their effectiveness in destroying sites
buried deep below the Earth's surface, would enhance the
deterrent value of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Drell and Dr. Matthew McKinzie of the Natural Resources
Defense Council contested the notion that a nuclear weapon could
be developed to destroy a deeply buried target, yet cause little
collateral damage. Drell said the concept is a "physical myth."
Both physicists noted a nuclear weapon exploded just beneath the
Earth's surface would actually create more fallout than one
detonated above the target because the former casts more
radioactive dirt and particles into the air. Drell noted that
for a five-kiloton weapon to produce no fallout, it would have
to be detonated about 350 feet deep, but "we don't know how to
go below 50 (feet)."
Drell argued that instead of investing in new nuclear
weapons, the United States would benefit more by improving its
conventional weapons capabilities and means to gather accurate
information and target suspected sites of concern.
Instead of approving the Bush administration's initiatives to
explore new nuclear weapons, Daryl G. Kimball, the executive
director of the Arms Control Association, recommended four other
actions:
-- Maintain the current prohibition on low-yield nuclear
weapons research.
-- Shift nuclear bunker buster funding to non-nuclear
munitions research.
-- Reaffirm the U.S. nuclear test moratorium and focus
stockpile stewardship efforts on surveillance and maintenance
activities most useful to ensuring the reliability of the
existing U.S. nuclear arsenal.
-- Clarify that as long as the United States possesses
nuclear weapons, their role is limited to the deterrence of
nuclear attack by other states.
These four recommendations are further detailed in New
Nuclear Policies, New Weapons, New Dangers -- a new Arms Control
Association report on the Bush administration's misdirected
approach to nuclear weapons. The report is available online at
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/newnuclearweaponsissuebrief.asp.
A full transcript of the briefing with Senator Kennedy is
also available online at
http://www.armscontrol.org/events/newnuclearweapons_apr03.asp.
The Arms Control Association is an independent, nonprofit
membership organization dedicated to promoting public
understanding of and support for effective arms control policies
to address security threats posed by nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons, as well as conventional arms.
###
|
|
|
Common Dreams NewsCenter is a non-profit news service
providing breaking news and views for the Progressive Community.
The
press release posted here has been provided to Common Dreams NewsWire by
one of the many progressive organizations who make up America's Progressive Community.
If
you wish to comment on this press release or would like more information,
please contact the organization directly.
*all times Eastern US (GMT-5:00)
Making News?
Read our Guidelines
for Submitting News Releases
© Copyright
1997-2003 Common Dreams.
www.commondreams.org
|
|
