Read online or subscribe at:
http://peace.moveon.org/bulletin.php3

CONTENTS
--------------
1. Introduction: The Most Terrifying War of All
2. One Link: Seven Minutes to Doomsday
3. Nuclear Powers: Fears & Realities
4. Nuclear Treaties and Testing
5. The Nuclear Posture Review
6. Reactions to the Nuclear Posture Review
7. Get Involved
8. About the Bulletin

 
INTRODUCTION: THE MOST TERRIFYING WAR OF ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Several weeks ago the conflict between India and Pakistan raised the dangerous possibility that the "war on terrorism" could have nuclear implications. Nuclear weapons have became an issue again last week, but this time, controversy is raging over the nuclear policies of the US itself.

The center of the controversy is a Pentagon document titled the "Nuclear Policy Review" or NPR. The document was leaked to the LA Times, which published the first report on it. The NPR advocates building and testing smaller nuclear weapons and raises the possibility of treating nuclear weapons as part of the regular military arsenal of the US. This policy flies in the face of ongoing international attempts to prevent another arms race, and as a result many world leaders have reacted with shock and horror to the document -- even some of those who are part of the Bush administration's international coalition. Particularly worrisome is the fact that the NPR lists several non-nuclear countries as possible candidates for nuclear strikes; the traditional US commitment to using nuclear weapons only in retaliation for a nuclear attack appears to have been abandoned.

The US has the largest and most sophisticated arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. The policies that it sets truly have global ramifications, and the NPR seems to be setting an extremely negative precedent. The NPR also has big implications for the current "war on terrorism", since Iraq is one of the countries listed as a possible nuclear target and it is also one of the most likely next targets of the current war.

The bad news is that despite President Bush's concern with the "axis of evil," it seems amply evident that the most dangerous nuclear rogue state at the moment may very well be America. The good news is that America's nuclear policy is not set in stone, and can still be revised. In this bulletin, we hope to explain the major nuclear issues that currently face the world -- not with the intent of causing fear and despair, but with the intent of giving you the information that you will need to speak out against the current threats. The best hope for our shared future lies with all of the citizens of the world who are willing to work for peace. And if the doomsday clock is at seven minutes to midnight, that means we still have time left to change things.

Next Week: Women and Peace

 
ONE LINK: SEVEN MINUTES TO DOOMSDAY
------------------------------------------------------
On February 27, 2002, the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the minute hand of the “Doomsday Clock,” which symbolically measures the likelihood of nuclear holocaust, from nine to seven minutes to midnight. This is the same setting at which the clock debuted 55 years ago. Read their thorough and important summary of the global nuclear threat to learn why they believe that the threat of destruction is so close, and what can be done about it. If you click on only one link this week, make it this one.
http://www.bullatomsci.org/media/current_print.html

 
NUCLEAR POWERS: FEARS & REALITIES
---------------------------------------------------
A briefing on the state of nuclear proliferation in 2001. This chart clearly shows which countries were acknowledged nuclear powers and which were unacknowledged nuclear powers, as well as which were under suspicion and by whom.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/statefct.asp

If you have the time to browse, take a look at this in-depth guide to nuclear forces. You can click on each country for information.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/index.html

Iran is one of the countries listed in President Bush's "axis of evil." However, according to several sources, Iran does not deserve this distinction.

According to the UN, Iran has no nuclear weapons, and is not sheltering al-Qaeda.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=3776365

Intellectuals in Iran say that in the wake of the last election, the country is slowly becoming more liberal.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemId=12980

Even Iraq's arsenal may not be as threatening as the Bush administration insists.

"Saddam's Rusting Arsenal."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1866000/1866944.stm

Meanwhile, Israel is one of America's closest allies, yet it may have a far more threatening nuclear arsenal than any of the countries in the "axis of evil." It is specifically stated in the Nuclear Posture Review that if Iraq attacked Israel, the US would consider attacking Iraq with nuclear weapons.

Israel is extremely secretive about its weapons capabilities, and has never really admitted to having them. However: "Israel is believed to possess the largest and most sophisticated arsenal outside of the five declared nuclear powers." This page outlines Israel's nuclear weapons program (as of 1997) through several short documents and pictures.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Israel/

This report from 2000 reveals that Israel may have 200+ nuclear weapons
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_892000/892941.stm

The first-ever public debate about Israel's nuclear weapons (Feb 2000) lasted less than an hour and only illustrated how reluctant everyone is to talk about them.
http://www.bullatomsci.org/bulletinwirearchive/BulletinWire000204.html

 
NUCLEAR TREATIES AND TESTING
------------------------------------------
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the most widely accepted arms control agreement. Only Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan are not members. This brief, cogent summary is a great introduction to the treaty, and includes links to other resources if you would like to find out more.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/

This chart summarizes nuclear testing from 1945 to 1998, showing which countries have tested nuclear weapons and how many tests have been run. The US tops the list.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_05/ffmy98.asp

In 1996, Greenpeace celebrated the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, after 25 years of campaigning to end nuclear weapons testing.
http://www.greenpeace.org/~comms/nukes/ctbt/sep24.html

The CTBT "bans all explosive tests that lead to a nuclear chain reaction." 44 nations need to ratify the treaty for it to come into force; as of November 2001, 31 nations had ratified.
http://www.basicint.org/ctbtmain.htm

Unfortunately, the testing that had already been done is still affecting the global environment today.

The nuclear test in Alaska (the one that Greenpeace was originally created to protest) may still be having effects on the surrounding environment. It was the largest nuclear blast in America, 400 times more powerful than the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima, and as it turns out, the blast was set off next to the Alaskan equivalent of the San Andreas fault.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1217-03.htm

USA Today recently reported that an unpublished study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that radioactive fallout from Cold War nuclear testing exposed virtually everyone in the United States, and has contributed to about 15,000 cancer deaths. The article includes charts, maps and other information on this important issue.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/02/28/usat-nuke.htm

The testing fallout study has yet to be officially released, despite the fact that many are eager to see the results.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/02/28/usat-nuke-sidebar.htm

America is the country possessing the largest and most sophisticated nuclear arsenal in the world. Unfortunately, the US has been opting out of important international agreements that help regulate and govern the use of such weapons, especially under the current Bush administration. "When the parties to the NPT meet again this April, the US is sure to come under heavy criticism for its notice of withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, its failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, its new strategy to make nuclear disarmament reversible, and its recent announcement that it is rescinding its security assurances to non-nuclear weapons states."
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.02/0226kriegernucter.htm

 
THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW (NPR)
-----------------------------------------------
The three most controversial elements of the Nuclear Posture Review are: 1) it advocates building and testing smaller nuclear weapons 2) it advocates the use of nuclear weapons such as these "mini-nukes" in a much broader range of situations (possibly including a first strike) 3) it lists China, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Russia and Libya as possible targets, although only two of these countries are defined as nuclear powers.

"In short, the Pentagon wants to make nuclear war fighting more thinkable, dramatically lowering the bar. It wants to reclassify nuclear weapons as offensive tools, not defensive ones. It wants to build more weapons, when the U.S. and Russia seek cuts. And it is reneging on a 1978 pledge: That the U.S. won't launch nuclear strikes against non-nuclear foes, provided that they don't team up with a nuclear ally to attack the U.S."

Read the rest of this Canadian article to get a succinct and easily understandable overview of the Nuclear Posture Review and what its implications are.
http://www.thestar.com/

The Guardian examines how the leaked report demonstrates that many of Bush's advisors now advocate the use of nuclear weapons. "Bush's advisers argue that by advocating the possible use of nuclear weapons, and abandoning the cold war concept of mutual assured destruction (MAD) -- replacing it by the prospect of 'unilateral assured destruction' -- they are simply offering a more effective deterrence."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,665914,00.html

The Nuclear Posture Review proposes violating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The US has yet to ratify this treaty, and the likelihood that the US will begin testing nuclear weapons again now seems almost inevitable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4371815,00.html

Threatening to use nuclear weapons will remove any reason for non-nuclear countries to stick to policies of non-proliferation.
http://www.iht.com/articles/50995.html

Robert W. Nelson, a theoretical physicist who is on the research staff of Princeton University, debunks the ideas of Bush's advisors. He reports that it is simply not possible for a kinetic energy weapon to penetrate deep enough to prevent widespread and intense local radioactive fallout from the nuclear explosion. Therefore the proposed bunker busters will increase rather than decrease civilian deaths.
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/briefv5n7.htm

"This is a very dangerous policy," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "The test is: How would we feel if other countries adopted the same policy? I'm not talking about rogue states. What if India developed nuclear weapons to go after terrorists in the Himalayas? Would we feel safer then?"
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-000018261mar12.story?coll=l

AIn response to the controversy, Colin Powell has said that the US will continue to follow its policy of using nuclear weapons only as a response to a nuclear attack initiated by another country. Powell has also attempted to address the strain that the NPR has put on relations between Russia and the US, and has stated that there are no missiles currently targeted at Russia (although he added that they could easily be redirected.)
http://www.thestar.com/

Would the US really consider a first strike? The answers have ranged from "not likely" to "no comment."
http://www.iht.com/articles/51688.html

 
REACTIONS TO THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW
------------------------------------------------------------
This article basically provides a summary of the initial reactions to the report from around the world; China was "deeply shocked."
http://www.nandotimes.com/world/story/296816p-2611312c.html

In a fairly obvious spin attempt, the Washington Post asserted that the European allies of the states were "unperturbed" by the NPR: "Reports that the United States is reexamining where to target its nuclear arsenal drew a subdued response this weekend, with some European leaders dismissing the project as routine military planning." However, the article does point out that both Iran and Russia reacted very strongly to the NPR, accusing the US of intimidation tactics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5824-2002Mar10.html

Various experts contend that the NPR undermines the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, and could very well lead to a new arms race.
http://atimes.com/front/DC13Aa01.html

British Labour MP Alice Mahon has since said: "The lunatics have taken over the White House. This report must be ringing alarms throughout NATO." This article reports that the international reaction to the NPR has been one of "horror".
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11691273&method=full&siteid=50143

UN Undersecretary General for Disarmament Affairs expressed "alarm and consternation" at the report.
http://www.unfoundation.org/unwire/2002/03/13/current.asp#24627

North Korea reacted strongly to the NPR, and has threatened that: "The DPRK will not remain a passive onlooker to the Bush administration's inclusion of the DPRK in the seven countries, targets of U.S. nuclear attack, but take a strong countermeasure against it." The article notes that North Korea's nuclear weapons program was "frozen" in 1994 in exchange for oil supplies and Western nuclear reactors.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20020313/ts_nm/korea_north_nuclear_dc_1015997829

North Korea has since more explicitly threatened to revive its nuclear program in response to the NPR.
http://news.ft.com/ . . .

China has accused the US of "nuclear blackmail."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020316/wl_nm/china_usa_dc_13

Russia is listed in the Nuclear Posture Review as a potential target, a fact that is threatening talks between the two countries.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/03/11/stories/2002031101891200.htm

Canada's former ambassador for disarmament calls for Canada to oppose the State's nuclear plan immediately, stating, "friends don't let friends drive drunk."
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.03/0313rocherethink.htm

Even conservative extraordinaire Pat Buchanan asks: "Is it for the United States to threaten atomic strikes against non-nuclear rogue states? Will that threat intimidate them –- or cause them to accelerate their efforts to acquire the bomb?"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26794

 
GET INVOLVED
-------------------
If you would like us to include an action, giving idea, news article, or source in the bulletin, please write to bulletin@peace.moveon.org and describe your item in the subject line.

The 9-11Peace.org bulletin is looking for volunteers to help us with research. If you think you've got the time, know-how, and energy to do this well, please write to Eli or Susan at editor@peace.moveon.org. Put "Volunteer" in the subject line, and add a brief paragraph summarizing your experience and interest.