Though the threat may have risen, policies that could help reduce the nuclear danger are being dismissed. A global system of nuclear restraints and agreements is being seriously weakened by the current Administration’s policies toward preemptive nuclear strikes, and its pursuit of “usable” nuclear weapons.

The United States has criticized Iran and North Korea for their nuclear weapons programs and has expressed concerns about the nuclear programs in Pakistan and India. There is also the growing fear that nuclear materials could fall into the hands of a terrorist group, such as al Qaeda. But U.S. research and development of “usable” nuclear weapons not only undermines U.S. demands that these countries not seek to acquire nuclear weapons, it also destabilizes the international system of nuclear nonproliferation.

Rather than seeking new uses for nuclear weapons, the U.S. should commit to its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, and pursue global disarmament. The new Bush Administration nuclear posture is a major step backward for security and disarmament and is leading to increasing instability.

Funding Bunker Busters and Mini-Nukes

While the Administration claims that the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP or “bunker buster ”) program is simply a study, Energy Department budget documents show that funding demands for RNEP increase dramatically after this year. The initial three-year study was to cost $45 million, but the Administration’s proposed spending in the next five years would total nearly $500 million and move RNEP into early development and engineering stages.*

This year the Administration requested $27.6 million for the design of the RNEP — an increase of $12.6 million from last year’s request and $20.1 million more than the FY2004 amount appropriated by Congress.* (DOE received $15 million for FY2003 and $7.5 million for FY2004.)

These bunker busters are not low-yield nuclear weapons. They are 70 times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. They would be designed to burrow into the ground and destroy underground military facilities that are protected by 100 to 300 feet of reinforced concrete or rock. Proponents of the project claim that it would be a “clean” nuclear weapon because it would detonate underground rather than on the surface. It is, in fact, a very deadly weapon that could kill tens of thousands of people if detonated in an urban setting.

As well as funding the bunker busters, the Administration has requested an increase of $3 million for the Advanced Concepts Initia- tive (from $6 million in FY2004 to $9 million in FY2005).* This program divides money between the three weapons laboratories to conduct studies on advanced concepts, ranging from modifications of existing weapons to the exploration of new nuclear weapons’ technologies and weapons for new missions.

The Administration has also requested $30 million to reduce to 18 months the time needed to prepare the Nevada Test Site (from the current three years). As do the other programs, this reduction in time needed before nuclear testing can be done signals to the world that the U.S. is scaling up its own nuclear activities and undermining the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), ultimately leading to instability, not security.

(From the Energy Department )

What We Can Do

Last year, in a big victory for disarmament, conferees for the energy and water appropriations bill cut half the funds for the nuclear bunker buster (down to $7.5 million). Unfortunately, the conferees fully funded $6 million requested by the President for advanced nuclear weapons concepts. ($4 million is unavailable until the Energy Department submits details on future nuclear reductions to Congress.)

Conferees for the Defense Authorization bill (HR 1588) chose to repeal the Spratt-Furse ban on low-yield nuclear weapons (the House version modified the ban instead of repealing it). While the final bill authorizes research into low-yield nuclear weapons, it prohibits the Energy Department from development work that may lead to their production. Thus, the ban on research and development was lost, but a new hurdle was enacted. A similar ban on development was imposed on the RNEP, or nuclear bunker buster.

While relatively small, these reductions are a significant political victory, given the current political climate. It will take several more years of congressional funding before these systems can be deployed. There are still opportunities to stop these new nuclear weapons from being developed. Opposition is growing.

Your Members of Congress will soon consider funding for new nuclear weapons and preparations for the resumption of nuclear testing. Please write to them and urge them to oppose funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, Advanced Nuclear Weapons Concepts and nuclear test site readiness. Emphasize that the development of new nuclear weapons will undermine international efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and will lead to major spending if implemented.

For a sample letter and information on your Members of Congress, please go to our action alert at the Presbyterian Leglislative Action Center.

New Landmines Policy

The Bush Administration has announced a new landmines policy that is a complete about-face on landmines policy and essentially drops the goal of eventually joining the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty.

In 1994, the United States was the first nation to call for the “eventual elimination” of all antipersonnel landmines. But the Administration’s new landmines policy discards what has been official U.S. policy since 1998 — to give up the use of all antipersonnel mines and join the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006 if landmine alternatives are in place.

The new policy does call for the destruction of older, “dumb” landmines, but not until four years after the previous deadline. And, in what human rights groups are calling the most disturbing aspect of this new policy, the Administration is maintaining the right to use self-deactivating or self-destructing antipersonnel (AP) “smart” landmines indefinitely.

While smart mines are somewhat better than dumb ones — as they are supposed to self- destruct or deactivate after a certain amount of time — they still put civilians and our own forces at risk. These smart mines are most often scattered from the air by the thousands. It is very difficult to make a clear map of where the mines are. De-mining teams have to treat smart minefields in the same way they treat dumb minefields because of potential malfunctioning of the mines or bad intelligence.

According to Human Rights Watch, the United States has not actually used antipersonnel mines since the 1991 Gulf War, has not exported them since 1992, and has not produced them since 1997. In addition, it has eliminated more than three million stockpiled antipersonnel mines, and has provided more funding for mine clearance, mine risk education and mine victim assistance than any other single nation.

Stephen Goose, executive director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch, stated: “The United States apparently found no military requirement to use antipersonnel mines in the recent conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq. This is a clear indication of the lack of utility of antipersonnel mines in modern warfare, and in post-9/11 warfare... The new policy shows the inability of the Pentagon to give up an outmoded weapon, and the lack of political leadership by the White House.”

The Mine Ban Treaty has been tremendously successful. The number of countries that produce landmines has dropped from 54 to 14 since the early 1990s, the sale of landmines has been almost entirely eradicated, and more than 52 million stockpiled antipersonnel landmines have been destroyed. Casualty rates from the weapon have dropped from approximately 26,000 people per year to 15,000-20,000 per year. But landmines are still present in more than 80 countries, and millions continue to suffer the consequences.

In a recent press release responding to the Administration’s new policy announcement, Gina Coplon-Newfield, the Coordinator of the U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines said that, “U.S. refusal to join this treaty sets a dangerous, isolationist example to mine-using countries such as Russia, India, and Pakistan that have laid hundreds of thousands of mines in recent years with devastating consequences to civilians.” In addition, the campaign fears that the new U.S. policy rejecting the Mine Ban Treaty will cause countries that have recently given up the weapon, to resume mine-laying activities.

Landmine Action Alert

Please contact the White House now and make it clear to President Bush that you are outraged at this decision to abandon U.S. efforts to join the Mine Ban Treaty and that you want the President to reconsider.

Call the White House Switchboard: (202) 456-1111.

White House Fax: (202) 456-2461

White House Email: president@whitehouse.gov.

Please submit a letter to the editor. Many papers around the country, and around the world, have published articles about this. Many seem to inaccurately portray self-deactivating or self-destructing mines as “smart,” though they cannot distinguish between the foot of a soldier and that of a child. Make your voice heard to policy-makers and the general public.

Sample Letter to the Editor:

The recent coverage of President Bush’s new U.S. landmine policy sugar-coats a major policy rollback. The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty has made a tremendous, life-saving impact throughout the world. More than 52 million mines have been destroyed from global stockpiles, trade of the stigmatized weapon has slowed to a trickle, hundreds of thousands of mines have been removed from the ground, most countries have given up use of the weapon, and casualty rates have declined dramatically. U.S. refusal to join this treaty gives political cover to countries such as Russia, India, and Pakistan, which have laid hundreds of thousands of mines in recent years with devastating consequences for innocent victims.

Though President Clinton failed to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, he did create a policy that would put the U.S. on track to join the treaty by 2006. The new Bush policy rejects any notion that the U.S. will join the treaty, puts off the destruction of “persistent” landmines until 2010, and asserts that our military may use self-deactivating “smart” mines indefinitely. These so-called “smart” mines cannot discriminate between the foot of a soldier and that of a child, tend to be scattered by air and are thus difficult to mark and map, pose tremendous challenges and costs for demining teams, and threaten the lives and limbs of innocent civilians and U.S. troops who step on the weapons soon after they’ve been planted.

Meanwhile, reportedly, the U.S. military hasn’t used antipersonnel landmines since 1991. Let’s join the majority of the world in giving up this cruel, outmoded, and indiscriminate weapon!

Sincerely,

Name
Address
General Assembly Policy

Since reunion in 1983 the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has repeatedly affirmed its long-standing call to end the arms race. General Assembly resolutions and statements of the Washington Office have gone on record to:

• Urge ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
• Oppose deployment of a missile defense system.
• Advocate adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Support negotiations for arms control and disarmament.
• Oppose expanded use of nuclear weapons.
• Oppose the development of new nuclear weapons.

Reexamination by the United States of both its domestic and international policies, and the seeking of informed public review of its foreign policy perspective and goals for the 21st century will be based on the extension of the rule of law, the development of strengthened instruments of nonviolent conflict resolution, not on the continued enhancement of technological instruments of destruction, shaped originally in the context of the cold war... (Minutes, 2000, Part I, pp. 280-281)

The 214th General Assembly directed the Stated Clerk to once again petition the president of the United States, the secretary of state and the members of the United States Senate to take every necessary step to assure United States ratification of the Ottawa Convention to join with the countries that have already taken the lead in the banning of antipersonnel land mines and are engaged in the removal of those antipersonnel land mines that have already been distributed. (Minutes, 2002, Part I, pp. 704-705)