December Current Events

Throughout November the news in the US was all about the midterm elections—why the Democrats won and what will change. Of course, “what will change” means “what will change in Iraq.” We have done no survey of news topics, but we did not hear one word about “what will change in nuclear weapons policy.” Based on the news coverage it gets, a casual observer could be forgiven for assuming that the issue of nuclear weapons is neither salient nor important.

Meanwhile, during his confirmation hearing on December 6, Robert Gates, President Bush’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, stated unequivocally that he believes that President Ahmadinejad of Iran is lying when he says Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. If our new Secretary of Defense is right, we are still on that nuclear collision course. Iran is making nuclear weapons, and the US and Israel have declared that they will not allow that to happen. How is this going to have a happy ending?

It could have a distinctly unhappy ending. As far we know, the Divine Strake test is still scheduled for the “early months of 2007” in Lawrence County, Indiana because, according to an article by John Blair that appeared in Counter Punch on August 17, 2006:

“DOD theorizes that the limestone embedded in the earth in Lawrence County is similar to what would be experienced if a nuclear "bunker busting" bomb was dropped on the underground nuclear facilities in Iran.”

In other words, we will conduct our 700-ton chemical explosive test in Indiana because Indiana has a ground structure quite similar to that of Iran. In case you doubt that the Divine Strake test necessarily has anything to do with nuclear weapons, Doug Bruder, head of the Counter-Weapons of Mass Destruction program for the Defense Department was quoted in the Las Vegas Sun on April 28, 2006, saying:

“There are some very hard targets out there that right now it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to defeat with current conventional weapons. Therefore, there are some that would probably require nuclear weapons.”

Are you taking this in? The DOD is saying that they just HAVE to use nuclear weapons in some cases, and there are cases like that in Iran. In addition, DOD has a program trying to make Trident missiles ten times more accurate. They need more accurate Tridents because they are going to be carrying smaller nuclear weapons so they have to hit closer to the target.

Someone is planning to use a nuclear weapon in Iran. We don’t exactly know who. We don’t know how serious they are or whether they have the power to do it, and we don’t know if the Democratic win in the midterm elections will affect them at all. Maybe that’s why the possibility that the war on terror will go nuclear fails to make the news. It’s not a partisan issue.

And yet somehow it seems newsworthy that on November 9 a hearing was held in North Augusta, SC, inviting public comment regarding Complex 2030, a Bush administration plan for a new $5 billion to $10 billion plan to build the next generation of bomb plants to build the next generation of nuclear weapons. This next generation of nuclear weapons is specifically designed to be usable.

The NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration) handout at the November 9 hearing says the new bomb-making program is necessary because the “Current nuclear weapons complex is not sufficiently ‘responsive’ to address technical problems in the stockpile, or to react to adverse geopolitical changes.”

One of the goals listed in the handout is: “Maintain a capability to design, develop, and produce new or adapted warheads in the event of new military requirements.” There is nothing secret about this. They are absolutely planning to come up with new nuclear weapons, and they are not doing this to keep them on the shelf. They are planning to use them. Is this not news?

In October, North Korea managed to make the news by becoming a nuclear power. This news was, in fact, used quite effectively to make the Japanese want nukes of their own. Then, in November, the London Times reported that Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have announced plans to develop nuclear technology. They are all doing it only for peaceful purposes, of course, which is what North Korea was saying just a few years ago. We have not yet heard from our media what Israel thinks of all these Arab or Muslim nations having the capacity to build bombs. Will they dare to declare that none of these nations will be allowed to enrich uranium? Maybe that is why Israel bought those two new nuclear submarines from Germany in September.

Speaking of submarines, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), among others, has been waging a great struggle to keep Britain from replacing its aging fleet of Trident submarines and nuclear-tipped missiles. On December 4, Prime Minister Blair tossed them a bone by agreeing to reduce the number of nuclear warheads from 200 to 160, but he insists that Britain just can’t be safe without at least 160 nuclear bombs cruising around on brand new submarines. According to The Guardian:

“The white paper will also say the new Trident system will cost less than £25bn. But it will say this figure represents 5% of the annual defence budget, and about 0.1% of GDP,” Whitehall sources said yesterday. Ministers have rejected claims Britain no longer needs nuclear weapons to deter a potential enemy and have embraced the ‘insurance policy’ argument that it is impossible to predict the shape of threats in 20 years…. The white paper will say that a sea-based system is the only "credible" nuclear deterrent, rejecting arguments for land-based cruise missiles.

The government has also rejected the argument that a Trident submarine need not be continuously at sea. Instead it will suggest that advances in technology may allow Britain to manage on three rather than four submarines, which would save up to £2bn, one minister said last night.” (December 4)

Some cynics might say that the 25 billion pounds is the true and exclusive reason for this decision. After all, nuclear weapons are a tried and true way to separate taxpayers from their money. But if it is true that Britain can’t be safe without a bare minimum of 160 nuclear warheads continuously roaming the seas on three submarines, why is that not equally true for North Korea, Iran, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates? What Tony Blair is saying, in effect, is that all nations will be safe and the world will be peaceful only when all nations have at least 160 nuclear weapons roaming the seas on no fewer than three submarines.

But if that is what Tony Blair is saying, then what is the United States saying? The US has thousands of nuclear weapons and wants to make more. Moreover, the US has grown quite dissatisfied with giant hydrogen bombs that blow away whole cities and can’t be used. Instead, the US feels the intense need for some smaller nuclear weapons that can actually be used. The cynics would say, of course, that the true and exclusive reason for this is to hang onto the $40 billion now being spent on nuclear weapons and delivery systems, plus another $5 to $10 billion for Complex 2030. However, the US is actually saying, “We’re coming after you with nukes, so y’all better start working on your deterrents.” Sure enough, Blair and Bush are actually working toward the same objective—a world in which every nation has at least 160 nuclear warheads roaming the oceans on at least three nuclear submarines.

We have said this before in this column but it bears repeating. The human family is in the process of deciding whether to eliminate all nuclear weapons or let them spread uncontrollably through the world. At the moment, we are choosing to let them spread. You would think this decision, determining as it does the fate of our civilization and possibly our species, would get some attention. So far, you would be wrong, but it is far from over. Stay tuned.