THE SENATE’S NEXT TASK: RATIFYING THE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY
New York Times Op. Ed. — December 29, 2010
By Mikhail Gorbachev

Just a few weeks ago, the fate of the New Start nuclear arms treaty seemed to hang by a thread. But since last week, when the United States Senate ratified the treaty, which reduces the size of the American and Russian nuclear stockpiles, we can speak of a serious step forward for both countries. I hope this will energize efforts to take the next step to a world free of nuclear weapons: a ban on all nuclear testing.

In the final stretch, President Obama put his credibility and political capital on the line to achieve ratification. That a sufficient number of Republican senators put the interests of their nation’s security, and the world’s, above party politics is encouraging.

The success was not without cost. In return for the treaty’s ratification, Mr. Obama promised to allocate tens of billions of dollars in the next few years for modernizing the American nuclear weapons arsenal, which is hardly compatible with a nuclear-free world.

Missile defense remains contentious. During the ratification debate, many senators objected to the treaty’s language about the relationship between offensive and defensive arms, which the new agreement takes from the first Start treaty, signed in 1991. Others tried to scuttle ratification by complaining that New Start did not limit tactical nuclear weapons.

These attacks were fended off. Nevertheless, these problems clearly need to be discussed. There must be an agreement on missile defense. Tough negotiations are ahead on tactical nuclear weapons, and a realistic agreement is needed on the deployment of conventional forces in Europe. We shall see very soon whether all these issues were raised just for the sake of rhetoric, as a demagogical screen to maintain military superiority, or whether there is a real readiness to conclude agreements easing the military burden.

The priority now is to ratify the separate treaty banning nuclear testing. The stalemate on this agreement, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, has lasted more than a decade. I recall how hard it was in the second half of the 1980s to start moving in this direction. At the time, the Soviet Union declared a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. However, when the United States continued to test, we had to respond.

Even so, we insisted on our position of principle, calling for a total ban on nuclear testing under strict international control, including the use of seismic monitoring and on-site inspections.

In 1996 the United Nations General Assembly finally opened the test ban treaty for signing and ratification. But this pact has a particularly stringent requirement for its entry into force: every one of the 44 “nuclear technology holder states” must sign and ratify it.

As of today, 35 have done so, including Russia, France and Britain. Still, the list of countries that have not ratified remains formidable: It includes the United States, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, India, North Korea and Pakistan (the final three have not even signed). Each “rejectionist” country has its arguments, but all are not equally responsible for the stalemate. The process of ratification stalled after the United States Senate voted in 1999 to reject the treaty, claiming that it was not verifiable and citing the need for “stockpile stewardship” to assure the reliability of American weapons. The real reason was doubtless the senators’ desire to keep testing.

Nevertheless, in the 21st century only one country, North Korea, has ventured to conduct nuclear explosions. There is, in effect, a multilateral moratorium on testing. It is increasingly obvious that for the international community nuclear explosions are unacceptable.

In the meantime the preparatory committee for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization has built up a strong verification regime. Nearly 250 monitoring stations — around 80 percent of the number needed to complete the system — are now in operation. And the system proved its effectiveness by detecting the relatively low-yield nuclear explosions conducted by North Korea.

So should we, perhaps, be content with the virtual moratorium on nuclear testing?

No, because commitments that are not legally binding can easily be violated. This would render futile any attempts to influence the behavior of countries that have been causing so many headaches for the United States and other nations. The American senators should give this serious thought. As George Shultz, secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan, has said, Republicans may have been right when they rejected the treaty in 1999, but they would be wrong to do so again.

It is fairly certain that once the Senate agreed to ratification, most of the countries still waiting would follow. No country wants to be a “rogue nation” forever, and we have seen that dialogue with even the most recalcitrant governments is possible. Yet dialogue can work only if the United States abandons the hypocritical position of telling others what they must not do while keeping its own options open.

Universal ratification of the test ban treaty would be a step toward creating a truly global community of nations, in which all share the responsibility for humankind’s future.

Mikhail Gorbachev is the former president of the Soviet Union

Passed by the Senate yesterday as part of the new START ratification is
Kyl’s amendment for modernization, especially related to funding of CMRR
and UPF.

The amendment as proposed:
(Purpose: To require a certification regarding the design and funding of
certain facilities)
At the end of subsection (a), add the following:

(11) DESIGN AND FUNDING OF CERTAIN FACILITIES.–Prior to the entry
into force of the New START Treaty, the President shall certify to the
Senate that the President intends to–

(A) accelerate the design and engineering phase of the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) building and the Uranium
Processing Facility (UPF); and

(B) request advanced funding, including on a multi-year basis, for
the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement building and the
Uranium Processing Facility upon completion of the design and
engineering phase for such facilities.

The amendment was changed and was passed as follows:
(11) DESIGN AND FUNDING OF CERTAIN FACILITIES.–Prior to the entry
into force of the New START Treaty, the President shall certify to the
Senate that the President intends to–
(A) accelerate to the extent possible the design and engineering
phase of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR)
building and the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF); and
(B) request full funding, including on a multi-year basis as
appropriate, for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement
building and the Uranium Processing Facility upon completion of the
design and engineering phase for such facilities.

. Some highlights of Kyl’s rant in support of the amendment.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the
modernization of our nuclear weapons enterprise. It is a subject with
which we began this debate. As we get toward the end of the debate, it
remains a piece of unfinished business with which I think we need to
deal. Remember, the nuclear enterprise we are talking about consists
primarily of the facilities that are used to work on our nuclear
weapons, as well as the weapons and importantly the scientists who work
in those facilities. They represent our National Laboratories, as well
as other production facilities and related facilities.

The point I think is important for people to remember is that unlike all
of the other nuclear powers in the world today, the United States does
not have an active modernization program for our nuclear deterrent, a
program which enables us, for example, to remanufacture a component of a
weapon and replace an existing weapon with that.

At the crux of this modernization program is a need for a firm
commitment for the construction of two critical manufacturing
facilities. They are called the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Replacement, or CMRR, plutonium facility–that is at Los Alamos
Laboratory–and the Uranium Processing Facility, or UPF at the so-called
Y-12 facility at Oak Ridge, TN. Without these, the capacity to perform
stockpile maintenance will be lost by 2020 and there will be no
capability to modernize our aging stockpile.

To note something for our colleagues and of which the Presiding
Officer is very well aware, being one of the two Senators responsible
for the Los Alamos facilities, he will recall both he and his colleague
and others of us, in visiting Los Alamos, were told about the problems
of building a facility there where there theoretically could be an
earthquake in the near vicinity and the costs of construction have
increased dramatically because of the physical needs to protect that
facility against any conceivable kind of physical problem. That has
increased the cost of the facilities, and they are trying to get a
handle on how much they will actually be. They are pretty clear about a
ball-park estimate, but a ball-park estimate is not quite good enough
for these purposes, as we know.

I will conclude by saying I am a little distressed by the news
stories. We cannot expect the news media to have gotten into the detail
required to actually make policy. They put it in a political context
that the administration put another $4 billion into the pot and why
shouldn’t that satisfy people like me.

Of course, that is totally beside the point. We are simply trying to
get a better handle on how much money will be needed and to be able to
plan for that funding in a way that gets it to the facilities in the
most expeditious way possible so that, A, we can complete the work that
has to be done in time and, B, that will save a lot of money, about $200
million a year.

There is every reason to want to understand how much it will cost
and get it done quickly. It is not about adding $4 billion. That does
not begin to cover the cost of these items.

It is not a matter of some kind of negotiation that additional money
was thrown in the pot and is that not good enough. It is a matter of
continuing to focus as the cost of these facilities evolves and as the
requirements evolve, so that Congress, with the administration’s request
in its budgets, can provide the funding that is necessary when it is
necessary to get these facilities completed as quickly as possible in
order to achieve our modernization goals.

There is no dispute about the fact that there will be additional
money required. It is just a question of what to do about it.

The updated budget, while committing additional funds to repairing
these facilities, will not be able to eliminate even over 10 years, for
example, the more than $2 billion of documented maintenance issues.
There are some things that are simply outside the budget and need to be
dealt with.

My biggest concern in the updated modernization plan is actually
that it added to the delays. What we should be doing is trying to
telescope these projects as much as possible so we can meet the
deadlines for the refurbishing of our weapons–or maintenance of our
weapons, I should say–rather–than extending the time for the
completion of the facilities. But unfortunately, that is what the latest
report did. Instead of accelerating construction of these two most
critical facilities, the CMRR and the UPF, the updated plan now delays
completion to 2023 and 2024, respectively, rather than 2020.

As we recall from the executive session we had a couple of days ago,
there was information presented as to why these facilities absolutely
needed to be completed by 2020 in order to accomplish the life extension
projects for some of our weapons.

Delay in these facilities will hamper efforts to perform these
critical life extensions of our warheads and not inconsequentially add
significant costs, again, primarily to keep these aging facilities
operational.

As an example, we have to put a brandnew roof on the facility at Los
Alamos even though the facility in 10 or 12 years is no longer going to
be used because it will be replaced. But the roof is so bad that the
work we have to do in there is affected by the weather, and so we have
to build a roof. That is an expenditure one hates to make because in 10
or 12 years that building is not going to be used anymore. But that is
the state of repair we are in.

Each year of delay adds to those kinds of maintenance costs. Senator
Corker and I and Senator Alexander were told at the Y-12 facility that
it is about a $200-million-a-year cost to keep these aging facilities
going that we can eliminate if we can complete the construction of these
two large facilities.

One-fourth of the newest increase of this $4.1 billion, of which I
spoke, for the next 4 years does not even go to the buildings or the
facility. It simply meets an obligation for unfunded pensions that have
been allowed to accumulate over the years. The only good news about that
is, I guess, they would probably have stolen the money from one of the
accounts that directly deals with the modernization of our weapons in
order to meet those unfunded pension obligations. So I am glad we were
able to put the billion dollars in there. But when they talk about $4
billion more for science work on these weapons, that is not true. Fully
one-fourth of it goes to meet these unfunded pension obligations.

During the hearings that were conducted on this treaty, all 16
experts who provided testimony spoke of the requirement for
modernization. Many indicated it is a requirement irrespective of START.
That is a point that has been made by others as well.

The point was also made by the person responsible for this
modernization program–Deputy NNSA Administrator Tom D’Agostino. He
said: “Our plans for investment in and modernization of the modern
security enterprise are essential, irrespective of whether or not the
START treaty is ratified.”

So this has to be done whether the treaty is ratified or not, and I
think everybody acknowledges that fact.

Undoubtedly, the cost will increase above that, as has been
testified to. My guess is, just in terms of order of magnitude, you are
looking at roughly $20 billion over 10 to 12 years. We will know more
each year this goes forward. But to construct these two facilities, if
we could advance fund at least some money–let’s say, 3 years’ worth of
the money–then it will be possible for the people who are responsible
for the construction of those facilities, if they can get 15 months of
work out of the first 12 months and spend more than 12 months’ worth of
money to get that done, that is great. They will have been able to
accomplish their job more quickly. Each month that goes by adds costs to
the program. So if we can provide them advance funding of some
amount–we are not specifying it in here–they can probably get the
project done more quickly and less expensively, and that should be a
good thing. I think everybody agrees this would be the way to do it.

Having this advance funding could complete these facilities on time,
rather than with a 2- or 3-year delay, and we could save literally
hundreds of millions of dollars.

Other senators spoke on the Kyl amendment.

Mr. CORKER. I think people will realize, over the next decade, as a
result of Senator Kyl’s efforts–and Senator Kerry’s cooperation and the
appropriators and the President and others–that $86 billion will be
invested in modernizing our nuclear arsenal, and $100 billion will be
invested in those delivery vehicles that relate to our warheads. I think
people realize that while we are talking about 1,550 warheads being our
deployed limit, we have 3,500 other warheads that are stockpiled all
across our country and those also need to be modernized. We need to know
they are available.

I think the Presiding Officer and I were able to see where neutron
generators were going to expire, where the guidance system that guides
many of our missiles is far less sophisticated than the cell phones we
have today. In some cases, they still had tubes, such as we had in our
old black-and-white televisions.

Mr. ALEXANDER. In my view, under no circumstances should the START
treaty be ratified without doing this. That would be like reducing our
weapons and leaving us with a collection of wet matches. We need to make
sure what we have left works. But this is sort of the
showhorse/workhorse Senator distinction. This is an issue on the back
burner. It is an unpleasant issue. No one likes to talk about making
nuclear weapons, each one of which could be 30 times as powerful as the
bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and ended the war, but it is a part
of the reality in the United States and in the world today.

Worse than that, it is not just an inconvenience to the workers
there, it is a threat to their safety, and it is a waste of taxpayers’
money. As the Senator from Arizona said, after a certain number of
years–I am not sure of the exact number anymore, maybe 15 years, some
number of years–this pays for itself. The modernization of these
facilities, the bringing them up to date, means the taxpayers will pay
just as much to operate these old facilities as they would to spend $5
billion or $6 billion or whatever it is to improve these two big new
facilities and the other infrastructure and the other things we need to do.

Friends,

Our rejoicing is muffled and conditioned with the Senate ratification of New START treaty with Russia. We will now reinstate verification of a weapons compliance regime and further reduce deployed nuclear weapons, but bear in mind that this treaty is only with Russia. It is also notable that the thousands of nuke weapons that will still sit “undeployed” in ready-to-reassemble status and the non-strategic/tactical weapons are not affected or even counted by this treaty. Having “only” 1550 deployed nukes with 700 delivery vehicles each by Russia and USA, while good as real reductions is still massive overkill of the still threatened living earth. New START does not involve the most threatening and unstable non-NPT nuclear states of Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel, all of which are unpredictable actors and unstable states. Nor does it deal with wanna-be nuclear club states such as Iran, and rising military expenditures from China, nations that will still fear us and feel compelled to counter us due to the USA double talk. Nor does this deal with the antagonist attitudes from Israel’s cloud of doom threats that it uses against its neighbors. New START is a measured victory but so much more needs to be done to achieve nuclear sanity.

I and many others with good intentions lobbied hard to get the New START passed. I’m happy it has been ratified. Having achieved the ratifying of New START treaty out of our SENATE is clearly a good thing but only a partial step forward…… and now unfortunately is simultaneously stepping backward. At what cost was this treaty signed? The promises from Obama to the hard core senators that he caved in to is deeply troubling, all these capitulations designed to accelerate and perpetuate the building of more nuclear weapons capability in the USA. This continues the feeding of the monsters of paranoia of the cold war residing in the Senatorial senility factor, and injects more blood into the military industrial vampires that sap our strength. It punches more of our national treasure down this fiscal black hole, diverting the USA from investing in real peace and security, and denies the needs of the disadvantaged people of our nation. So much for the elusive peace dividend. So much for leadership toward a nuclear weapons abolition by sending such a mixed message to the world. So much for actually honestly honoring the requirements of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. So much for Nobel Peace prize hopes of clear paths of riddance of nuclear weapons. Ambiguous and disingenuous must be the watchword symbols for this “Faustian deal” with Senators Kyl, McConnell, McCain and a few other senators, who ALL in the end still voted against ratification.

This once again shows just how much deadly double talk we continue to get from our leaders, particularly from the occupant of the Oval Office and the occupants of the inside-the-beltway congressional fantasyland, whether it’s about pseudo universal health care, head-in-the-sand debt and deficits postures, (non)regulating and rewarding of the corrupt banksters, non-progressive taxes catering to the oligarchs/elites and further widening the wealth gap, or absolute failures in heading off climate change in cooperation with the world. We need honesty and a true unidirectional movement towards the realization of a nuclear weapons free world.

Our work is clearly not done! Don’t ease up just because of a “New START”. The drum beats of war and injustice are still being heard, likely even louder from the soon to be installed 112th Congress.

Rich Andrews

Another view of the rejoicing or not about the ratification of New START treaty from a TIKKUN editorial follows my message.

From: Tikkun [mailto:magazine@tikkun.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 8:03 PM
To: Rich@Zeoponix.Com
Subject: START TREATY is NOT a Step Toward Nuclear Disarmament

Tikkun Editor’s Note: In order to achieve this “deal,” the media told us for months, Obama “had to agree” to tens of billions in new funds for “modernizing” the US nuclear armaments. Feel safer?

“New START” Ratification Likely End of Obama’s “Disarmament Vision,” and of Arms Control Era, as New Political Alignments, Fresh Crises Loom

by Greg Mello,


Albuquerque, NM — What began as a business-as-usual replacement for a Cold War arms treaty, and then became a major legislative challenge for the Obama Administration, was finally ratified by the U.S. Senate today after unusually-involved negotiations with Senate Republicans. New START is a force-affirmation treaty, designed to clarify, but not change or disarm, U.S. and Russian nuclear arms. There is no disarmament required by the treaty. There is no indication that it is a “first step” toward “further” “disarmament.”
These negotiations resulted in extensive commitments by the Administration to new spending and upgrades to U.S. strategic armaments, including nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons infrastructure, missile defense research, development, and deployments, and continued development of conventional global strike weapons — much of which is applicable to nuclear delivery systems as well, being currently barred only by (mutable) law.

Ultra-accurate submarine-launched ballistic missile delivery systems have already been developed (but not deployed) under this last program.
The full cost of this treaty cannot yet be assessed, as not all the details of understandings reached have been made public, and the full import of some which have depends on future decisions and events. Just this week, and on top of announcements of two major increases in nuclear weapons spending, President Obama promised four senators (including two Democrats) that nuclear weapons complex spending would be exempt from any future fiscal austerity measures that might otherwise apply to appropriations in the Energy and Water subcommittees. The prior increases are posted here and analyzed here and elsewhere at www.lasg.org.

The long struggle to ratify the treaty, and its huge final cost in the very coin of arms control which the treaty purports to advance, signals just how weak the Cold War arms control consensus has become. Prospects for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), for example, appear nil for the foreseeable future. The U.S. will ratify this treaty, if it does, only when its progressive ratification by other states has reached a point of embarrassment wholly incompatible with U.S. geostrategic ambitions.
The way forward for arms controllers is not clear. Russia has made clear on numerous occasions that it has no intention of pursuing further nuclear cuts and has halted the financially-driven erosion of its nuclear forces. With Russia now the world’s largest oil producer and the supplier of a controlling fraction of natural gas to Europe — a fraction that is expected to grow considerably in the coming years — Russia is not the weak negotiating partner that it was during, say, the START II negotiations. The reality of Russian power — and U.S. weakness vis-a-vis military operations in the oil- and gas-rich regions south of Russia — was not lost on Republican ratification opponents.

While on their face most of the Republican objections to ratification appeared foolish and ill-informed, these objections also conveyed a deep unease about the future of American global power, which is hardly misplaced.

The makeup of the incoming House and Senate (112th) is likely to be much more hostile to arms control than the (111th) Congress now concluding.

Looking ahead, prospects for conventional arms control appear worse. There are 23 Democratic Senate seats up for election in 2012, including 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats, compared to only 10 Republican seats. In 2014 Democrats are currently expected to have 20 seats up for election, and Republicans 13, although obviously this could change. For these and other reasons, prospects for conventional arms control measures appear bleak for the foreseeable future.
At the same time fresh and far more severe crises are looming, which, in their earliest manifestations, have already begun to capture Congress’s (and voters’) attention.
The implications for the New Mexico laboratories are complex. As noted here, they will suffer from an unprecedented infusion of cash — about six times the total scale of the Manhattan Project in New Mexico, measured in constant dollars. But will this bring better morale, better science, better community relations, a more wholesome community in Los Alamos — or even better stockpile management? That is very far from assured. The reverse, I think, is very likely true. The best days of Los Alamos are in the past, and if the day ever dawns when excavation begins on the giant plutonium complex slated to cost a factor of ten more any federal or state project ever conceived for New Mexico, save the Interstate Highways, it will be a dark day.

As Robert Oppenheimer put it on the 16th of October, 1945, “If atomic bombs are to be added as new weapons to the arsenals of a warring world, or to the arsenals of nations preparing for war, then the time will come when mankind will curse the names of Los Alamos and Hiroshima. The people must unite, or they will perish.”
Now we know that it may or not be atomic weaponry which kills them, but rather the distraction they have brought, and misprioritization of scarce resources they incur. Today’s treaty ratification is not an occasion of joy for the world, but rather a somber warning of the failure of our political system to understand and defend against the true dangers we face.

——————————————————————————–

unsubscribe: Click here
if you are having trouble unsubscribing Click here

Copyright 2010 Tikkun Magazine. Tikkun is a registered trademark.
2342 Shattuck Avenue, #1200
Berkeley, CA 94704
510-644-1200
Fax 510-644-1255

Senate Passes Defense Authorization by Unanimous Consent
Laicie Olson – Dec 22, 2010 | 0

The Senate today approved the fiscal 2011 National Defense Authorization Act by unanimous consent, removing a provision that would have provided reparations to war survivors in Guam. The bill now goes back to the House for final approval.

Interestingly, no single Senator took the time to demand the reading of the new, over 900 page, bill, nor complain about a lack of time for debate, and neither Kyl nor DeMint complained that the bill was “jammed” through so close to Christmas.

The stripped down defense authorization came after House and Senate Democrats agreed to remove “controversial” elements, such as “don’t ask don’t tell” and a provision that would have allowed privately funded abortions in military hospitals. But even without those controversial provisions, the measure packs a punch.

The bill provides for $725 billion in defense spending, well over the President’s $708 billion request, including $158.7 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unlike in previous years, the House passed the defense bill Friday with almost no debate on Afghanistan, despite a recent White House review suggesting that tough combat in Afghanistan would continue for years and troop withdrawals in 2011 would be small.

The bill contains $75 million to train and equip Yemeni counterterrorism forces; $205 million for a program with Israel to develop its “Iron Dome” defense system; $11.6 billion for Afghan security forces; and $1.5 billion for Iraqi security forces.

In addition, the bill will provide for a 1.4 percent pay raise for troops and guarantee health care coverage for children of service members up to age 26. It would also continue restrictions on the Defense Department’s ability to close Guantanamo Bay, including prohibiting the transfer of detainees to the U.S.

The measure was sold as having been stripped of all controversy and is being lauded for its broad bipartisan support, but perhaps the Senate is simply busy playing politics elsewhere?

Nuclear Watch New Mexico

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 22, 2010
Contact: Jay Coghlan, Nuclear Watch NM, 505.989.7342, c. 505.920.7118, jay@nukewatch.org

With New START Ratified
It’s Time to Examine the National Security and Economic Costs of “Modernization”

Santa Fe, NM – Nuclear Watch New Mexico applauds Senate ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). While this arms reduction treaty is modest in scope, we nevertheless believe its ratification is an absolutely essential step toward subsequent treaties that 1) progressively make deeper cuts to strategic weapons; 2) cut tactical (battlefield) weapons, which are particularly prone to theft and diversion; and 3) lead to multilateral negotiations involving all nuclear powers.

But with ratification now accomplished, the nation should seriously question the national security and economic costs of so-called “modernization” of the nuclear weapons stockpile and its supporting research and production complex. New START ratification has come with a heavy price, that being the massive rebuilding of the production side of U.S. nuclear weapons complex and the future makeover of an extensively tested nuclear stockpile that is known to be reliable.

Critics in the Senate, led primarily by Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R.-AZ), claimed that multiyear funding commitments to “modernization” had to be made as a quid pro quo for ratification. Given the necessity to “buy” at least 9 crucial Republican votes, in February President Obama raised the fiscal year 2011 budget for the nuclear weapons programs of the Department of Energy’s semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) by 14%. In April, the Administration announced long range plans to increase funding for NNSA nuclear weapons programs from $6.4 billion in 2010 to just under $10 billion by 2020, nearly double the historic Cold War average of $5.1 billion. Still this did not satisfy Kyl et al, and in November the Obama Administration further pledged another $4.5 billion dedicated to “modernizing” the nuclear weapons complex, for a total of $85 billion over the next decade.

“Modernization” means expanded capabilities for more nuclear weapons production. In his now-famous April 2009 Prague speech President Obama declared a nuclear weapons-free world to be a critical long-term national security goal. We agree. At the same time, he also said that until then the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile must be rigorously maintained and guaranteed. We agree as well, but the best way to maintain nuclear weapons safety and reliability is “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

The existing nuclear weapons stockpile was physically tested, and has been certified to be safe and reliable every year since Bush Sr. signed the testing moratorium in 1992. A 1993 “Stockpile Life Study” by the Sandia National Laboratories stated, “It is clear that, although nuclear weapons age, they do not wear out; they last as long as the nuclear weapons community (DoD and DOE) desires. In fact, we can find no example of a nuclear weapons retirement where age was ever a major factor in the retirement decision.” [Parentheses in the original.]

Since then, a November 2006 study initiated by NukeWatch NM though Senator Jeff Bingaman found that the performance lifetimes of the critical plutonium pit “triggers” last more than a century, contrary to previous NNSA claims of around 45 years. Further, in December 2009 the same independent nuclear weapons consultants to the federal government (known as the JASONs) found that “Lifetimes of today’s nuclear warheads could be extended for decades, with no anticipated loss in confidence, by using approaches similar to those employed in LEPs to date.” LEPs are Life Extension Programs that are already being implemented within existing programs and existing facilities. Thus there is no need for the hyperbolic “modernization” that is part of the bargain of ratifying New START.

But to the contrary NNSA and the nuclear weapons labs are planning to make extensive changes to the stockpile, even possibly as radical as heavily modifying the nuclear explosive packages. There is a danger through endless make-work and progressively deeper modifications that ultimately confidence in stockpile reliability is lost. This can become a real national security issue, demanding that so-called modernization of the stockpile be seriously questioned now.

Concerning the rebuilding of the production side of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, NNSA’s FY 2011 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan calls for a “Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project (CMRR) Nuclear Facility” to be built at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. It will provide analytical capabilities to support expanding plutonium pit production from the currently approved rate of 20 per year to up to 80 per year by 2022. When first proposed to Congress in 2004 NNSA claimed that the CMRR Project would cost $660 million. Estimated costs are now $5 billion and rising.

NNSA’s FY 2011 SSM Plan also calls for building a new Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) at the Y-12 production plant near Oak Ridge, TN, to “ramp up to a production capability of up to 80 canned subassemblies [the thermonuclear secondaries] per year by 2022.” The original estimate for the UPF was around $1 billion, but is now as high as $6.5 billion. And even these staggering costs are not final because the designs of the CMRR-Nuclear Facility and the UPF are still only ~ 40% complete. NNSA is notorious for cost overruns, and its parent Department of Energy has been on the Government Accountability Office’s high-risk list for project cost escalations for nearly twenty years.

NukeWatch Director Jay Coghlan commented, “Wasting money on vastly expensive new facilities and serious modifications to already safe and highly effective nuclear weapons will undermine our own national security. It also means diverting funding from other programs that could help rebuild America and keep its citizens healthy and prosperous. Reducing the federal debt is in the real interests the nation’s security, not shoveling more money into unneeded, badly managed, provocative nuclear weapons programs.”

# # #

References:
1993 Sandia Stockpile Life Study at http://www.nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/Sandia_93_StockpileLife.pdf
2006 JASON Pit Life Study at http://www.nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/JASON_ReportPuAging.pdf
2009 JASON Life Extension Program Study at http://www.nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/JASON_ReportLEP.pdf
A two-page fact sheet on three new nuclear weapons production facilities is available at http://www.nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/NewUS-productionfacilities4-29-10.pdf.
A budget chart of historic and projected levels of funding for NNSA nuclear weapons research and production programs is available at http://www.nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/Weapons_Chart_All_Nov_2010.pdf .
The NNSA’s FY 2011 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan is available at http://www.nukewatch.org/importantdocs/index.html

Nuclear Watch New Mexico
551 W. Cordova Rd. #808
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505.989.7342 – phone and fax

Chairman Kerry’s Closing Floor Statement On New START SEe Vote Tally below.

Washington, D.C. – Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) today delivered closing remarks regarding the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) on the Senate floor.

The full text of Chairman Kerry’s remarks as prepared for delivery:

Mr. President, as we end our debate on the New START Treaty, I believe we can say the Senate has done its duty, and done it with diligence, serious purpose, and honor. And I am confident that our nation’s security-and that of the world-will be enhanced by ratifying this treaty.

We began providing our advice on this treaty a year and a half ago, when negotiations between the United States and Russia first began. Over the subsequent months we listened and questioned and pushed as the administration’s negotiators shaped this agreement. And once it was submitted for our review in May, we scrutinized it carefully through hearings and briefings and hundreds of questions. Three different committees reviewed this treaty, including of course the Foreign Relations Committee, which ultimately drafted the resolution of advice and consent that we have been considering. That resolution was the product of a bipartisan effort, and I am pleased to say that the resolution we are voting on now is the product of further bipartisanship, with amendments from our Republican colleagues that we accepted last night and this morning.

When we began this debate eight days ago, I quoted Chris Dodd’s farewell address, in which he reminded us that the Founding Fathers had designed the Senate with these moments in mind. I think over the past week we have lived up to our moment. Senators have had the opportunity to speak and debate. The fact is, we have considered this treaty-a less complicated or far-reaching treaty than START I-for longer than we considered START I and START II combined. But this time gave us the opportunity to explore the nuclear challenge in great depth in a Senate that has not considered arms control for some time. We have discussed the requirements of nuclear deterrence, the need for missile defenses, the importance of our nuclear weapons complex, the need to negotiate on tactical nuclear weapons, and the centrality of verification to arms control.

I know that we have not always agreed on all of these issues, but we have considered them with the gravity and the seriousness that the subject requires. In the end, I hope that most of us have come to agree that we should provide our consent to this critical treaty.

New START is a commonsense agreement to control the world’s most dangerous weapons and to enhance stability between the two countries that possess some 90 percent of them. For the past 40 years, the United States has used arms control with Russia to increase the transparency and predictability of both our nuclear arsenals. And it’s worked. That process has built increased trust between our two countries, reduced the chances of accident, and stabilized our relationship during times of crisis. That is why we negotiated START I, START II, and the Moscow Treaty. And that is why we negotiated the New START Treaty, building on that legacy.

But New START is not simply an agreement to address the lingering dangers of the old nuclear age. It is an agreement that will give us a crucial tool to combat the threats of this new nuclear age. New START will strengthen our ability to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to states like Iran. In May, at the conference reviewing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States was able to isolate Iran and prevent it from diverting attention from its own troubling behavior. And in just the seven months since President Obama signed this agreement, Russia has joined us in supporting harsher sanctions against Iran, and it has suspended its sale of the S-300 air defense system to Tehran.

This treaty will also help us keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The original START agreement was the foundation of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program-the single most successful nonproliferation effort of the last 20 years, created through the efforts of our distinguished and dedicated colleague Senator Lugar. It is impossible to overstate just how critical Nunn-Lugar efforts have been. And it is difficult to overstate the impact of even a small improvement in our nuclear security.

But I am convinced this treaty is more than a small improvement. That is why, over the past seven months, the overwhelming majority of America’s national security establishment, past and present, has stepped forward to support this treaty: every living former secretary of state; five former secretaries of defense; seven former commanders of Strategic Command; the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission; President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton; and of course the entirety of our uniformed military-from the director of the Missile Defense Agency to the commander of STRATCOM to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They all said that it will make us safer, that we can verify Russia’s compliance, and that it will enhance U.S. leadership on nonproliferation. Indeed, this treaty is significant enough that in the last few days alone, we have heard directly from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense, and the President of the United States.

Admiral Mullen summed up our interests in this treaty in a compelling way. He said:

I continue to believe that ratification of the New START Treaty is vital to U.S. national security. Through the trust it engenders, the cuts it requires, and the flexibility it preserves, this treaty enhances our ability to do that which we in the military have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States. I am as confident in its success as I am in its safeguards. The sooner it is ratified, the better.

I think that’s exactly right-and it’s important to keep our fundamental charge to protect America foremost in our minds.

But I think there is something more to think about now. In the back and forth of debates like this, as we dispute details and draw dividing lines, it is easy to lose sight of the magnitude of the decision we are making.

Because sometimes, when we repeat and repeat and repeat certain words and phrases they become routine and ritual-and their true meaning fades away. When we argue about the difference between 700 delivery vehicles and 720, we may forget that in the final analysis, regardless of where we stand on the START treaty, this is one of those rare times in the United States Senate, one of the only times in all our service here, when we have it in our power to safeguard or endanger human life on this planet. More than any other, this issue should transcend politics. More than any other, this issue should summon our best instincts and our highest sense of responsibility. More than at almost any other time, the people of the world are watching us because they rely on our leadership and because this issue involves not simply our lives and the lives of our children-but their lives and the lives of their children as well.

So it is altogether fitting that we have debated and now we decide not in a campaign season, but in a season that celebrates and summons us to the ideal of peace on Earth. Yes, we’ve contended about schedules. Yes, the constant chatter on cable speculates about whether we’d approve the treaty in time to get out of here for Christmas. But the question is not whether we get out of here for a holiday; the question is whether we move the world a little more out of the dark shadow of nuclear nightmare. For whatever our faith, the right place for us at this time of year, no matter how long it may take, is here in the United States Senate-where we now have a unique capacity to give a priceless gift not just to our friends and family, but to our fellow men and women everywhere. When Robert Oppenheimer left Los Alamos after the atomic bomb was dropped, he said, “The peoples of this world must unite or they will perish. This war, that has ravaged so much of the earth, has written these words. The atomic bomb has spelled them out for all men to understand.. By our works we are committed, committed to a world united, before this common peril, in law and in humanity.” Mr. President: This is what brings up to this moment.

Last night, a friend called my attention to the meditation of Pope John Paul II when he visited Hiroshima. He said that from the memory of those awesome mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki we must draw the “conviction that man who wages war can also successfully make peace.” Mr. President, this month in homes across this land, Americans are honoring moments in the history of faith that enshrine the values that guide us all regardless of faith. We in the Senate, only one hundred of us in a world of billions, should be humbled and proud that in this month we have the privilege of reducing the risks of war and advancing the cause of peace.

So think of what is at stake here and of the role we now have to play, not only in the governing of our country but literally in the life of the world. Here more than ever our power to advise and consent is more than some arcane procedural matter. The Framers of the Constitution created the Senate with a vision of statesmanship-that here narrow interests would yield to the national interest-that petty quarrels would be set aside in pursuit of great and common endeavor. The best of our history has proven the wisdom of that vision. There was that defining moment when Senator Daniel Webster stood at his desk in this chamber to address the fundamental moral issue of slavery. The words with which he started were stark and simple – and they should guide us today and every day. He said: “I speak not as a Massachusetts man, nor a northern man, but as an American.” This is the very definition of what it means to be a United States Senator. To speak not for one state but for one America. To remember that the whole world is watching. So it is now-and so it has been across the decades during which so many Presidents and Senators of both parties, citizens in every part of the country, have struggled and at critical turning points succeeded in pushing back the dark frontier of nuclear conflict. The efforts have not always been perfect; nothing in life or policy ever is. But as we end this debate now, let us take our own step forward for America and for the world. As stewards of enormous destructive power, we too can become the stewards of peace.

YEAs —71
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs —26
Barrasso (R-WY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kirk (R-IL)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting – 3
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-K

These amendments have been filed and will need to be considered before the vote to ratify the New START Treaty.

The Republicans continue to try every tactic and argument to delay and scrap the treaty. Please call your Senators offices on Monday and ask them to support the treaty. Even if you already called them, call again. Especially Republican Senators in key states. The vote will be on Tuesday now that Cloture has been filed.

Susan

Full list.

1. (Defeated) McCain Amendment 4814 to strike

“Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more importation as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.”

2. Inhofe Amendment 4833 VERIFICATION to increase the number of Type One inspections from 10 to 30 as well as increasing the number of Type Two inspections from 8 to 24.

3. (Defeated) Risch Amendment 4839 would insert the following into the preamble:

“Acknowledging there is an interrelationship between non-strategic and strategic offensive arms, that as the number of strategic offensive arms is reduced this relationship becomes more pronounced and requires an even greater need for transparency and accountability, and that the disparity between the Parties’ arsenals could undermine predictability and stability.”

4. Ensign Amendment 4840 RAIL MOBILE seeks to clarify that a self-propelled device means a railcar or flatcar (road mobile devices).

5. Thune Amendment 4841 WARHEAD LIMITS seeks to increase the limits on the number of deployed strategic delivery vehicles (ICBMs, SLBMs, and Heavy Bombers) from 700 to 720.

6. Thune Amendment 4842 WARHEAD LIMITS seeks to increase the limits on the number of deployed strategic delivery vehicles (ICBMs, SLBMs, and Heavy Bombers) from 700 to 800.

7. Vitter Amendment 4846 MISSILE DEFENSE would strike the section of the treaty that precludes the parties from converting ICMB launchers for missile defense use.

8. LeMieux Amendment 4847 TACTICAL NUKES would alter the treaty to include a provision that states that a year following the enactment of this treaty that both Parties will start negotiations on tactical nuclear weapons.

9. Kyl Amendment 4854 WARHEAD LIMITS would amend the treaty to insert the following language into Article 2 (which relates to the number of strategic weapons)

“Each Party undertakes not to produce, flight-test, or deploy silo-based ICBMs with more than one warhead. This limitation does not apply to existing types of ICBMs as of the date of the signature of this Treaty.”

10. Ensign Amendment 4855 RAIL MOBILE would amend Part One of the protocol to strike “the self propelled devise on which it is mounted” and insert “the self-propelled device or railcar or flatcar on which it is mounted.”

11. Ensign Amendment 4856 ROUGE REGIMES would amend the preamble of the treaty by inserting after “reduction in nuclear arsenals at the turn of the 21st century” the following:

“as well as the negative effect on the world situation of the proliferation efforts of rogue regimes such as North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and others.”

12. Ensign Amendment 4857 ROGUE REGIMES would amend the preamble of the treaty by striking “Expressing string support for on-going global efforts in non-proliferation” and replacing it with:

“Expressing the need for increased support for on-going global efforts in non-proliferation, especially in dealing with North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and other rogue regimes.”

13. Ensign Amendment 4858 RAIL MOBILE seeks to insert into Part One of the protocol after paragraph 57: “or railcar or flatcare” after “self-propelled device.”

14. Kly Amendment 4865 MISSILE DEFENSE TARGET VEHICLES would amend the treaty to provide an understanding that missile defense target vehicles do not count against the United States limit on deployed or non-deployed ICBMs or SLBMs.

Resolution of Ratification Amendments

Declaration

15. Sessions Amendment 4851 NUCLEAR ZERO would amend the resolution of ratification would state that it is the sense of the Senate that the US government will not pursue a policy of eliminating all nuclear weapons.

Condition

16. Thune Amendment 4852 BOMBER UPGRADES would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President first certifying that the USG will development a replacement for a heavy bomber that has nuclear and convention capabilities.

Condition

17. Cornyn Amendment 4835 INTERRELATIONSHIP B/W DEFENSE AND OFFENSE would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President submits to the Senate and notifies the Russia that the USG rejects the preamble as it relates to the interrelationship between offensive and defensive.

Sense of the Senate

18. Kyl Amendment 4859 PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE would amend the resolution of ratification by stating that it is the sense of the Senate that it is the “understanding of the United States that conventional prompt global strike systems that may be deployed by the United States will not be counted towards the central limits of the new START Treaty pertaining to either delivery vehicles or warheads.”

Condition

19. Kyl Amendment 4860 LIMITATION ON NUCLEAR ARMED SEA-LAUNCHED CRUISED MISSILES would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President negotiating a legally binding side agreement with the Russian Federation that states Russia will not deploy a significant number of nuclear sea-launched cruise missile during the duration of the START Treaty.

Condition

20. Kyl Amendment 4861 TREATY EXTENSION would amend the resolution of ratification to state that any extension of the new START Treaty could only be done so with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Condition

21. Kyl Amendment 4826 TELEMETRIC EXCHANGES ON BALLISTIC MISSILES DEPLOYED BY RUSSIA would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President shall certify to the Senate that Russia has agreed that it will not deny telemetric exchanges on new Ballistic Missile System it deploys during the duration of the New START Treaty.

Understanding

22. Kyl Amendment 4863 GLOBAL STRIKE CAPABILITIES would amend the resolution of ratification to state that the US Senate interprets that the Bilateral Consultative Commission does not have jurisdiction or can the United States complete any agreement limiting the conventional global strike systems of the United States or otherwise limit the conventional global strike systems of the United States.

Condition

23. Kyl Amendment 4864 STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY VEHICLES would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President certifying that the President intends to 1) modernize or replace the triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems (ICBM, SSBN. SLBM, Heavy Bomber) and 2) maintain the US rocket motor industrial base.

Understanding

24. Kyl Amendment 4866 TELEMETRIC INFORMATION ON MISSILE DEFENSE would amend the resolution of ratification to provide an understanding that the United States will not provide the Russian Federation telemetric information on its missile defense systems for the duration of the New START Treaty.

Understanding

25. Kyl Amendment 4867 BILATERAL CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION would amend the resolution of ratification to provide an understanding that no provision adopted in the Bilateral Consultative Commission can take effect until 30 days after it has been notified to the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee as well as the National security Working Group.

Condition

26. Kyl Amendment 4868 GLOBAL STRIKE CAPABILITIES would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President’s certification that the Department of Defense will deploy conventional prompt global strike systems during the duration of the New START Treaty.

Declaration

27. Kyl Amendment 4869 MODERNIZATION OF WARHEADS would amend the resolution of ratification by declaring that it is the sense of the senate that modernization of warheads must be undertaken on a case-by-case basis using the full spectrum of life extension options available based on the best technical advice of the United States military and the National Nuclear Weapons Laboratories.

Understanding

28. Kyl Amendment 4870 MODERNIZATION would amend the resolution of ratification to provide an understanding that the United States failure to fund the nuclear modernization plan would constitute a basis for United States withdrawal from the New START Treaty

Declaration

29. Kyl Amendment 4871 REDUCTIONS AND LIMITATIONS IN ARMED FORCES OR ARMAMENTS would amend the resolution of ratification to declare that any agreements obligating the United States to reduce or limit the Armed Forces or armaments, including the development and deployment of missile defense or of any offensive or defensive space capabilities, of the United States in any manner may be made only pursuant to the treaty-making power of the President.

Declaration

30. Cornyn Amendment 4872 MODERNIZATION would amend the resolution of ratification to declare that if the President submits an annual budget request that fails to meet the resource requirements set forth in the President’s 10 year plan to ensure the safety, reliability and performance of the US nuclear forces that would constitute an extraordinary event that has jeopardized the supreme interests of the United States under Article XIV.

Condition

31. Inhofe Amendment 4873 MILITARY SPACE SYSTEMS would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President certifying that the United States shall not be bound by any international agreement entered into by the President that would in any way limit the research, development, testing, or deployment of military space systems of the United States or that would limit the options of the United States military in operating such systems unless the agreement is entered pursuant to the treaty making power of the President.

Condition

32. Ensign Amendment 4874 CONSIDERATION BY THE DUMA would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President certifying that 1) the Russian Duma has completed the constitutional process necessary for ratification of the New START and 2) that the Duma has not adopted in its resolution containing any provision related to missile defense, prompt global strike, rail mobile, TREATY verification, or submarine launched cruise missiles.

Condition

33. Risch Amendment 4875 TACTICAL NUKES would amend the resolution of ratification to declare that it is the sense of the senate that

1) the number of strategic nuclear weapons, both operationally deployed and non-deployed, are reduced, the implication of non-strategic nuclear weapons for strategic stability becomes more important, and it is regrettable, therefore, that the imbalance in US and Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons was not addressed

2) Dealing with the imbalance in US and Russian tactical nuclear weapons is urgent

3) Until the Russia substantially reduces its tactical nukes in a transparent manner, the Senate shall not support future negotiations to further reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons or delivery vehicles

4) Recognizing the difficulty the US has faced in ascertaining with confidence the number of nuclear tactical weapons and the security of those weapons, the Senate urges the President to seek an agreement with the Russians with the objectives of

A) Establishing cooperative measures to give one another to improve accurate accounting and security of the weapons

B) Verifying that the Russians have fulfilled commitment made under the President’s Nuclear Initiatives in 1991 and 1992

C) Providing US or other international assistance to help the Russians ensure the accurate accounting and security of their tactical nukes

5) The advice and consent of the Senate to ratification of START is subject to the condition that the President may not permanently remove US tactical nukes in Europe until :

A) The Russian tactical nuclear weapons are substantially reduced

B) the Member of NATO decide by consensus in favor of removal.

Understanding

34. Risch Amendment 4876 GLOBAL PROMPT STRIKE would amend the resolution of ratification to provide an understanding that any additional NEW START Treaty limitation on the development and deployment of strategic-range, conventional weapons systems beyond those contained in Article II, including any limitation agreed under the auspices of the Bilateral Consultative Commission, would require an amendment to the START Treaty which may enter into force for the US only with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Declaration and Understanding

35. Risch Amendment 4877 MODERNIZATION OF STARTEGIC DELIVERY VEHICLES would amend the resolution of ratification to provide that it is the sense of the senate that

1) United States deterrence and flexibility is assured by a robust triad of strategic delivery vehicles

2) To this end, the US is committed to accomplishing the modernization and replacement of its strategic nuclear delivery vehicles, and to ensuring the continued flexibility of US conventional and nuclear delivery vehicles.

It would also amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President certifying

1) The President has made a commitment to develop and deploy a next generation nuclear capable bomber, a new nuclear capable air launched cruise missile and modernizing Minuteman III

2) That the President is taking actions to preserve the rocket and missile industrial base of the US and pursue steps to maintain the nuclear weapons in the US deterrent to the highest possible standards.

Condition

36. Risch Amendment 4878 STOLEN US MILITARY EQUIPMENT would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President certifying that Russia has returned all military equipment owned by the US that was confiscated during the Russian invasion of Georgia.

Condition

37. Risch Amendment 4879 WITHDRAWAL OF RUSSIANS FROM GEORGIA would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President certifying that Russia has fully honored its obligations under the ceasefire agreement of September 9, 2008 with Georgia and has withdrawn its military forces from Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Condition

38. Ensign Amendment 4880 RECOVERY OF SA-24 MISSILES TO VENEZUELA would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President certifying that Russia has recovered all SA-24 missiles delivered to Venezuela.

Condition

39. Ensign Amendment 4881PROHIBITION ON SALE OF S-300 MISSILE SYSTEM TO VENEZULEA would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President certifying that Russia has no plans to sell the S-300 missile system to Venezuela and that it has guaranteed the US that it will not sale them.

Condition

40. Barrasso-Enzi Amendment 4882 MODERNIZING ICBMs would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President certifying that the Department of Defense will maintain 450 Minuteman ICBMs as part of the 700 deployed and 800 deployed and non-deployed Strategic Nuclear Delivery Vehicles. The President must also certify that he will modernize command and control infrastructure to support existing ICMB launchers.

Condition

41. Barrasso-Enzi Amendment 4883 ICBM FOLLOW-ON would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President certifying that he will review alternatives for ICBM follow-on systems that do not consider continued reductions in our land-based strategic nuclear deterrent.

Condition

42. Barrasso-Enzi Amendment 4884 PRESERVING ICBMs would amend the resolution of ratification to condition the entry into force of the START Treaty on the President certifying that the President will deploy no fewer than 450 ICBMs and that the President has take action to maintain and modernize 450 ICBMs.

The Senate *just* filed a motion for cloture (see below) on New START, that means they could be voting for cloture (voting to officially vote) as soon as Tuesday! Statement from Sen Kerry below.

Republicans have filed 28 amendments already, so there is a lot to deal with before getting to the final vote, but it’s looking pretty close.

We also heard from top staff in Senators offices today that *the best* thing that we can do right now is to get constituent calls into Senate offices! They need to keep hearing from us. Call on Monday!
Katie Heald
Deputy Political Director
Peace Action West
510.830.3600 x122
kheald@peaceactionwest.org
www.peaceactionwest.org
Begin forwarded message:

United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
WASHINGTON, DC

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 19, 2010
CONTACT: SFRC Communications, 202-224-3468

Chairman Kerry On Motion For Cloture On The New START Treaty

Washington, D.C. – Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) today released the following statement after a motion for cloture was filed on the New START Treaty:

“We have now spent 5 days having a very good debate on New START and proposed amendments. That is as much time as the Senate spent on START I, and more than it spent on START II and the Moscow Treaty combined, but we are looking forward to continuing the debate this week.

“This is a big test of the Senate because this treaty is about our national security, not our politics. Our country and the world have watched a spirited exchange of views in the best traditions of the Senate, and there is more to come as we work to address senators’ concerns.”

Peace Train December 17, 2010

By JUDITH MOHLING

“Nuclear weapons play on our deepest fears and pander to our darkest instincts. They corrode our sense of humanity, numb our capacity for moral outrage, and make thinkable the unimaginable.” General Lee Butler, retired commander in chief, United States Strategic Command.

In the holiday hustle for fun and stuff, or just trying to make a living, it’s easy to forget Colorado’s 49 silent missiles and their missileers, hanging out in bunkers waiting for instructions to turn the keys that will send off the bombs to do the unimaginable destruction they are designed to do. It’s all part of the world’s capacity to bring life as we blithely count on, to an end.

Right now US Senators are debating partially easing the gigantic dangers of intentional or accidental nuclear war by possibly ratifying the New START Treaty. This past April President Obama and President Medvedev took a step towards protecting the whole world from the devastation of a nuclear war by signing the treaty which will reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons of both nations by about 30% and restore and improve safeguard and verification procedures. Now the treaty needs final approval from both the US Senate and the Russian Duma.

The rational for maintaining the thousands of nuclear weapons in the hands of the Russians and the US weapons in their silos and on their submarines has really disappeared. Nuclear war between Russia and America has become inconceivable—and that’s the original reason for having all of these weapons. Now, the reason for billions in maintenance and new billions on tap for “modernization” is really a political/industrial/financial reason—our economy might collapse without pretending there is still a reason for having any nuclear weapons at all.

If the treaty is ratified,and some US weapons decommissioned, why not here? Just imagine if Colorado could actually become a “nuclear-free-zone!” Our beautiful state could be a leader toward a safer more modern and up-to-date world.

The Colorado Coalition for the Prevention of Nuclear War has exactly this in mind as it launches a campaign to have the Colorado Legislature adopt a resolution to be sent to the US Senate recommending that all 49 Minuteman missiles located in Colorado be taken off of hair-trigger alert and then permanently decommissioned.

These weapons are so over. Today, the real nuclear threats facing both nations are small arsenals in the hands of weak governments and “loose” weapons that might fall into the hands of terrorists. Even some of the once proud missileers experience the humiliation of working hard for an obsolete endeavor. Let’s pass the New START Treaty, for goodness’ sake.

News Release

December 13, 2010

For Immediate Release

Jury Reaches Verdict in Disarm Now Plowshares Trial

Tacoma, Washington, Monday, December 13, 2010: The federal criminal
trial of five veteran peace activists that began December 7 ended today
after the jury found them guilty on all counts. The five defendants,
called the Disarm Now Plowshares, challenged the legality and morality
of the US storage and use of thermonuclear missiles by Trident nuclear
submarines at the Kitsap-Bangor Naval Base outside Bremerton Washington.

In their defense the peace activists argued three points: the nuclear
missiles at Bangor are weapons of mass destruction; those weapons are
both illegal and immoral; and that all citizens have the right and duty
to try to stop international war crimes from being committed by these
weapons of mass destruction.

The five were charged with trespass, felony damage to federal property,
felony injury to property and felony conspiracy to damage property. Each
defendant faces possible sentences of up to ten years in prison.

On trial were: Anne Montgomery, 83, a Sacred Heart sister from New York;
Bill Bischel, SJ, 81, a Jesuit priest from Tacoma Washington; Susan
Crane, 67, a member of the Jonah House community in Baltimore, Maryland;
Lynne Greenwald, 60, a nurse from Bremerton Washington; and Steve Kelly,
SJ, 60, a Jesuit priest from Oakland California. Bill Bischel and Lynne
Greenwald are active members of the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent
Action, a community resisting Trident nuclear weapons since 1977.

The five admitted from the start that they cut through the chain link
fence surrounding the Navy base during the night of the Feast of All
Souls, November 2, 2009. They then walked undetected for hours nearly
four miles inside the base to the Strategic Weapons Facility, Pacific
(SWFPAC). This top security area is where the Plowshares activists say
hundreds of nuclear missiles are stored in bunkers. There they cut
through two more barbed wire fences and went inside. They put up two big
banners which said “Disarm Now Plowshares: Trident Illegal and Immoral,”
scattered sunflower seeds, and prayed until they were arrested at dawn.
Once arrested, the five were cuffed and hooded with sand bags because
the marine in charge testified “when we secure prisoners anywhere in
Iraq or Afghanistan we hood them…so we did it to them.”

The eight Trident nuclear submarines home ported at Naval Base
Kitsap-Bangor each carry 24 Trident D-5 nuclear missiles. Each missile
carries up to eight warheads, each one having an explosive yield of up
to 475 kilotons, over 30 times the destructive force of the weapon
dropped on Hiroshima.

Additionally, Bangor is home to SWFPAC where nuclear warheads are stored
ready for deployment. Located just 20 miles west of Seattle, it is home
to the largest single stockpile of nuclear warheads in the U.S. arsenal,
housing more than 2000 nuclear warheads.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the 2,364 nuclear
warheads at Bangor are approximately 24 percent of the entire U.S.
arsenal, more than the combined nuclear warheads than China, France,
Israel, India, North Korea and Pakistan.

The jury heard testimony from peace activists who came from around the
world to challenge the use of Trident nuclear weapons by the U.S. Angie
Zelter, internationally known author and Trident Ploughshares activist
from the UK, testified about the resistance to Trident weapons in Europe.

Stephen Leeper, Chair of the Peace Culture Foundation in Hiroshima, told
the jury, “the world is facing a critical moment” because of the
existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Though prohibited from
testifying about the details of the death, destruction, and genetic
damage to civilians from the US nuclear attack on Hiroshima, he
testified defendants “have a tremendous amount of support in Hiroshima.”
When asked if he had encouraged the Disarm Now Plowshares defendants in
any way he said, “Yes, I told them, ‘Yes, do anything you possibly can
to bring this to the consciousness of the world, because Americans more
than any other people in the world are unconscious of what’s going on.’ ”

Retired US Navy Captain Thomas Rogers, 31 years in the Navy, including
several years as Commander of a nuclear submarine during the Cold War,
said of Trident, “strategic nuclear weapons on submarines… are kept on
alert, deployed, and if ever used, they are released with a coded
message that’s authenticated on board the ship, and the commander of the
ship shoots the missiles, delivers the weapons. Which, in my opinion, in
my knowledge, is contrary to the law of armed conflict which says a
commander is responsible for – - is responsible for following the rules
and principles of humanitarian law, and for not indiscriminately hurting
noncombatants and for not causing undue suffering or environmental
damage, and that commanding officer is powerless, and it’s an awful feeling.

The peace activists represented themselves with lawyers as stand by
counsel. Attorneys Anabel Dwyer and Bill Quigley also assisted the
defendants. Dwyer is a Michigan attorney and Board Member of The
Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP), and an expert in
humanitarian law and nuclear weapons. Quigley is the Legal Director for
the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York and Professor at Loyola
New Orleans.

Prosecutors said the government would neither confirm nor deny the
existence of nuclear weapons at the base, and argued that “whether of
not there are nuclear weapons there or not is irrelevant.” Prosecutors
successfully objected to and excluded most of the defense evidence about
the horrific effects of nuclear weapons, the illegality of nuclear
weapons under U.S. treaty agreements and humanitarian law, and the right
of citizens to try to stop war crimes by their government.

The Disarm Now Plowshares defendants tried to present evidence about the
presence of nuclear weapons at Bangor despite repeated objections. At
one point, Sr. Anne Montgomery challenged the prosecutors and the court,
“Why are we so afraid to discuss the fact that there are nuclear weapons?”

There were many indications that the jury found it difficult to convict
the Disarm Now Plowshares defendants. Jury questions,facial expressions,
body language and post-trial conversations all gave this impression. One
of the jurors said that from what he could tell, no one was ready to
convict right away.

After the verdict was read and the Judge Settle was about to dismiss the
jury, Steve Kelly stood and announced that the defendants would like to
bless the jury. Steve and all of his co-defendants stood with their
hands raised in blessing as he said, “May you go in peace and have a
safe, happy holiday.”

Sentencing is scheduled for March 28, 2011 at 9:00 am.

For more information on the trial and the Plowshares peace activists
please see the site for Disarm Now Plowshares
http://disarmnowplowshares.wordpress.com/ or Ground Zero Center for
Nonviolent Action http://www.gzcenter.org/index.html

Contact: Leonard Eiger (425) 445-2190
Media & Outreach Coordinator
Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action
subversivepeacemaking@comcast.net

###

Jackie Cabasso
Executive Director
Western States Legal Foundation