Peace Farm Statement
for
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability's
2012 DC Days
Former Peace Farm Director Ellen Barfield
attended this year's DC Days.
"In the course of history, there comes a time when humanity is called to shift
to a new level of consciousness, to reach a higher moral ground.
A time when we have to shed our fear and give hope to each other.
That time is now." - WANGARI MAATHAI
President Obama proposes reductions to our nuclear arsenal
Since taking office Mr. Obama has emphasized reducing the role and number of nuclear weapons as part of a broader strategy for limiting the global spread of nuclear arms technology and containing the threat of nuclear terrorism. The Dallas Morning-News has reported in recent weeks a White House effort to renew disarmament negotiations with North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and countries in the Middle East in upcoming months. In his 2013 defense budget submitted to Congress in February, the White House proposed a two-year delay in the development of a new generation of ballistic missile submarines that carry nuclear weapons.
Most recently the President made public his desire to reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons. The White House proposed three options: cut the arsenal to between 1,000 and 1,100, cut to between 700 and 800, or cut to between 300 and 400. The latter would take us back to a level not seen since the 1950’s.
The idea of a 300-weapon arsenal is featured prominently in a paper written for the Pentagon by a RAND National Defense Project Institute analyst last October, in the early stages of the administration’s review of nuclear requirements. The author, Paul K. Davis, asserts that 300 weapons might be considered adequate for deterrence purposes if that force level was part of a treaty with sound anti-cheating provisions, if the U.S. deployed additional non-nuclear weapons with global reach and if the U.S. had “hypothetically excellent,” if limited, defenses against long- and medium-range nuclear missiles. Reduction could mean a historic reshaping of the American nuclear arsenal, which for decades has stood on three legs: submarine-launched ballistic missiles, ground-based ballistic missiles and weapons launched from big bombers. The traditional rationale was that this “triad” of weaponry was essential to surviving any nuclear exchange.
In congressional testimony last November, the Pentagon’s point man on nuclear policy, James N. Miller, made it clear that the administration was making a fundamental reassessment of nuclear weapons requirements. In unusually stark terms he said the critical question at hand was “what to do” if a nuclear-armed state or non-state entity could not be deterred from launching an attack. “In effect, we are asking: what are the guiding concepts for employing nuclear weapons to deter adversaries of the United States, and what are the guiding concepts for ending a nuclear conflict on the best possible terms if one has started?” he said.
Times are changing
National defense was simple for insecure baby boomers. It was nations against other nations. Armies fought, the winner emerged victorious, treaties were signed and that war ended. Times are different for the post-baby boom generation which has come to maturity since the beginning of the War on Terrorism. They don’t see big nuclear bombs as effective weapons against the Taliban. Young taxpayers understand that suicidal Al-Qaida operatives aren’t held at bay by “nuclear deterrence” and why nations like North Korea and Iran seek security and high international status by developing their own nuclear weapons.
A 2010 nuclear policy review by the Pentagon said the U.S. nuclear arsenal is actually
“poorly suited” to deal with challenges posed by “unfriendly regimes seeking their own nuclear weapons.” Those who favor cuts argue the US nuclear arsenal has no role in major security threats of the 21st century, such as terrorism. Diplomacy, trade sanctions, computer hacking and attacks against other nation’s economies like the Iran SWIFT (Society for World-wide Interbank Financial Telecommunications) eviction are destructive enough weapons.
Adequate Dismantlement funding is essential
A careful reading of The Pantex Fiscal Year 2011 - 2020 limited Ten-Year Site Plan makes it clear that the nation's top munitions plant is running on a shoestring budget. The first item on a section subtitled - NNSA/Pantex Accomplishments is Pantex's ability to meet or exceed all Defense Program deliverables and achieve High Reliability Organization status even "under constrained budgets and funding uncertainties." Another section titled - RTBF Operations of Facilities Funding reveals that over the past several years only Mission Critical activities received available resources. This was "at the expense of the rest of the plant and is evidenced by the increased rate of degradation of facilities and equipment" during the same period. Pantex requested $121 million for FY11 knowing it was $93 million less than they actually needed to sustain the infrastructure and operational needs of the plant. In FY12 the shortfall is $106 million. They were short $92 million for safety, security and compliant operations for the two years. The funding projection also predicts the separation of 395 people (in RTBF) by the end of 2012.
Pantex Funding Targets through 2016 show Life Extension Programs (maintaining and improving the current nuclear arsenal) and Stockpile Services/Product Support increasing from a current level of $110,184,000 to $127,180,000. Work for Retired Weapons Systems (the dismantlement of retired stockpiled nuclear weapons; sanitizing and disposing of components from dismantled weapons and interim storage of nuclear components from dismantled weapons) gets $32,120,000 today. Six years from now they are projected to receive $22,602,000.
Peace Farm Recommendations
