| Say No to New Nuclear Weapons |
|---|
|
Support Cuts to New Nuke Programs |
| Nuclear Weapons: Speak Out at Public Hearings on the Future of Nuclear Weapons |
|
|
|
Commenting at a Public Hearing* Your oral
comments should be a summary of your major concerns, emphasizing and
explaining the most important points. It is a good idea to write down
what you plan to say. You should also submit comments in written form.
At the public hearing, you may hear others’ comments and want to
incorporate them into your written comments. There will be a sign up
sheet for people who would like to make oral comments, so sign in as
soon as you arrive. Don’t worry about having to give a long speech. You
will have a maximum of about 5 minutes to speak, and you can speak for
a shorter amount of time if you wish. Talking Points for Comments* According to the Department of Energy, Complex Transformation is their “vision for a smaller, safer, more secure and less expensive nuclear weapons complex that leverages the scientific and technical capabilities of [its] workforce and meets national security requirements.” In reality, Complex Transformation is a plan to spend $150 billion of taxpayer money to revamp the nuclear weapons complex and allow for production of new warheads, such as the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Investing in a project of this magnitude implies that the US will be relying on nuclear weapons as an integral part of its security strategy for decades to come.There is no rush to rebuild the nuclear complex. DOE has time to wait for a new administration to review US nuclear policy before moving ahead. • Among the various pieces of Complex Transformation is a plan to build a larger plutonium complex at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, allowing the capability to produce up to 80 plutonium bomb pits each year. A study by the JASON Defense Advisory Group has determined that the current pits have a lifetime of 85 to 100 years. This finding undermines the Bush administration’s argument that our current warheads may not be reliable and need to be replaced. There is no need to rush to build new nuclear weapons. • The Department of Energy is going ahead with this proposal in the absence of a national debate on the future of US nuclear weapons policy. It is unreasonable and premature to invest in a major overhaul of the nuclear weapons complex without a reexamination of the role of nuclear weapons in US security strategy. Major decisions made in the absence of a new policy review will prejudice decisions around nuclear weapons into the future. There is no need to “transform” the stockpile by building a new generation of nuclear weapons called the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). • Complex Transformation is being talked about by the Bush Administration and the Department of Energy as a way to reduce our nuclear arsenal. The current nuclear arsenal meets modern safety and reliability standards. Designing and building new warheads for safety and reliability reasons is therefore unnecessary—and dangerous. In a world without nuclear testing, abandoning well-tested warhead designs in favor of new, untested designs is asking for trouble. Even if technically feasible, the deployment of new, untested warheads may over time lead to political pressures to resume testing in violation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the US has signed but not ratified. Instead, we should be maintaining current warheads and extending their useful lifetimes, as is being done under DOE’s Lifetime Extension Program. • Since coming in to power, the Bush administration has attempted to take US nuclear weapons policy in an aggressive direction, requesting funding for new nuclear weapons such as the nuclear bunker-buster and raising the possibility of first nuclear strikes against non-nuclear countries. Fortunately, Congress recognized the extreme dangers of this approach and has consistently cut funding for such programs. While the administration claims that the RRW is a mechanism for reducing our nuclear arsenal, it is clear that this is another attempt to design a new generation of nuclear weapons. • The RRW program send a dangerous message to the international community. At a time when the US is attempting to dissuade other countries from developing nuclear weapons, producing a new nuclear weapon will undermine US credibility in the international community and violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Alternatives • There is no rush to move ahead with DOE’s plans for the nuclear weapons complex. Instead, we should take a “wait and see” approach. Rebuilding the complex sooner than necessary will only increase the chances that the complex will be larger and more expensive than necessary, wasting taxpayer dollars. To protect the taxpayer and national security to the maximum extent possible, DOE needs to consider the following alternatives to its current plans. • Before seeking to rebuild the complex and the arsenal, DOE and the Pentagon should review international nonproliferation efforts and current US nuclear policy and posture. Only after a fresh review of US nuclear policy by the incoming administration in 2009 would DOE have the information it needs to lead a successful restructuring of the weapons complex. • Rather than pursue the RRW program, it should be cancelled. Instead, DOE should continue to extend the life of the existing arsenal while pursuing stockpile reductions. Stockpile reductions can take place without Complex Transformation and are in accordance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. *Most talking points provided by the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
|
