Keep Space for Peace!

Hey kids! Looking for a really cool job doing pretty much what you've been doing all these years - playing video games? Well, Uncle Sam wants you! After spending millions training pilots to fly really big, heavy, expensive jets and then sending them overseas, your United States government finally got smart. We realized that we could spend a whole lot less on pilot training AND even less on aircraft (both acquisition and operation). The upshot of the whole thing is that you can fly these cool remote controlled aircraft right from the comfort of your air-conditioned trailer each day, and then head home, crack open a beer and watch the latest reality show from the comfort of your own home. No more being away from home for months at a time in some hot desert; leave that to the grunts. And the best part is it doesn't even seem like work. Yes, it's just like playing those video games you are so used to.

Okay, so that's not exactly how the military recruiters are signing up the new generation of pilots to control drones (in Afghanistan) from exotic places like Creech Air Force Base in Las Vegas, Nevada. But it isn't all that far from the truth. The battlefield of the future is here today, and relies heavily on space - picture a swath of military satellites orbiting the Earth - to do everything from communications and targeting to controlling the remote controlled aircraft known as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or drones. What is really scary about drones is we are setting the stage for fighting wars quite literally from halfway around the globe. Will this make it easier for governments (like the U.S.) to start and continue wars? If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples, then we had better watch out! This is certainly a Pandora's Box, the likes of which we have never before seen.

Space is, as Captain Kirk of Star Trek called it, the final frontier. And if the Pentagon has anything to say about it, that frontier will belong solely to the United States, lock, stock and satellites. The current U.S. National Space Policy, an extension of the policy started by President Clinton in 1996 and expanded by the Bush Administration, says that, "“In this new century, those who effectively utilize space will enjoy added prosperity and security and will hold a substantial advantage over those who do not. Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power.”

That pretty much sets the tone, doesn't it??? While the National Space Policy does not explicitly endorse placing weapons in space or fighting in, through or from space, the U.S. is definitely using space (via satellites) to control drones as well as locate and destroy targets. The stage is being set, and it is creating a veritable feeding frenzy among defense contractors such as General Atomics, which can't create new ideas for drones fast enough to keep up with the Pentagon's destructive desires. This is, as with everything else "defensive", a full employment policy for defense contractors.

The old notion that space would be an arena for international cooperation ( lest we forget the token International Space Station) is being quickly replaced by a new era of competition (thanks to U.S. military efforts), and it is likely to become something rivaling the Cold War should we not put on the brakes right now. The Obama administration must work to negotiate a United Nations treaty to prevent an arms race in space.

This week is the International Week of Protest to Stop the Militarization of Space. Learn more about keeping space for peace at the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. You can also learn more at Reaching Critical Will's Outer Space Page and at the PAROS Working Group.

Bruce Gagnon at the Global Network has a sample letter to Congress calling on them to urge President Obama to negotiate a new space treaty to prevent an arms race in space. Click here to find Congressional contact information. Join me in asking Congress to Keep Space for Peace.

Peace,

Leonard

Read the 2006 U.S. National Space Policy.

More Nukes - It's the Pits!

Friends,

For all the talk coming from The White House, if you want to know where the U.S. is really (and always has been) headed, just listen to the talk coming from the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Of course the name alone should make us all shudder. Since when was there really any security in anything nuclear???

The NNSA is pushing ahead with its plans for "Complex Modernization", a program initiated by our previous President; you know, the one who said "nucular." The program would expand two existing nuclear bomb production facilities to essentially build new plutonium pits and other bomb parts out of enriched uranium. You may remember previous names for this plan; first there was Complex 2030, and then it was Complex Transformation. Heaven knows what they will come up with next.

Although the NNSA speaks of the plan in terms of "transforming... the complex into smaller and more efficient operations while maintaining the capabilities NNSA needs to perform its national security missions", what it really means is that NNSA wants to keep building bombs.

Los Alamos National Laboratories would be building the new plutonium pits (up to 80 per year), while the Y-12 facility in Oad Ridge, Tennessee would be engaged in enriched uranium processing. A fundamental question surrounding all this planning is how this will affect current disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. Will these pits be simply replacing "aging" pits in currently deployed warheads, or are we talking brand new weapons???

Everybody is currently waiting anxously to see whether they get the thumbs up or thumbs down regarding the go ahead for Complex Modernization. That will depend on the recommendations of the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). I suspect that the NPR will promote Complex Modernization; there seems to be strong support, primarily from the military side, for getting the biggest bang for our buck.

And therein lies the rub; just how long can those pits (even though plutonium has a very long half life, it still loses its original properties over time) sit in warheads before they will just fizzle (or at least lose a megaton or two in yield) when detonated. That very question brought the brightest minds in the U.S. weapons complex together in 2006 to determine the lifespan of plutonium pits in the U.S. arsenal. Their findings, which were peer reviewed by the JASONS, were that the plutonium in most nuclear weapons would be "reliable" for at least 100 years, and that "the majority of plutonium pits for most nuclear weapons types have minimum lifetimes of at least 85 years." Hmmmm...

The vast majority of U.S. deployed nuclear warheads are cruising the seven seas in Trident submarine launch tubes waiting patiently to unleash their hellish fury. The Trident D-5 missile was first deployed in 1990. The relatively young warheads on these missiles coupled with the fact that sea-based missiles are currently the "centerpiece" of the U.S. nuclear arsenal would counter any argument for a need to build new pits. We simply do not need them; the warheads of the U.S. premier "deterrent" force (Trident) are so new that you can almost still smell the fresh paint!

Tell President Obama that we have plenty of nuclear weapons (too many in fact), and that if we can't do away with all of them long before they reach their "use by" dates, the world will be in deep trouble. Now is the time to act decisively for disarmament and non-proliferation. And while you are at it, tell your members of Congress.

Email President Obama at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/.

Find your Congressional contact info at http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml.

Peace,

Leonard

Israel's Nukes - Mum's (still) the Word.

Friends,

I barely got out that last post (in which I discussed the hypocrisy of lecturing Iran about its nuclear intentions while not even acknowledging Israel's sophisticated nuclear weapons program) and now it's official; the U.S. President, Barak Obama, just as with every President before him, "does not intend to press Israel to give international monitors access to its nuclear weapons" (source: Global Security Newswire (GSN), Friday, October 2, 2009).

The agreement or "understanding", which allegedly began with U.S. President Richard Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meier in 1969, essentially says that the U.S. will look the other way so long as Israel doesn't do anything to flaunt its nuclear muscle (such as testing a weapon or having one of those big parades for which the Soviet Union was famous).

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems confident that President Obama will continue the treatment of the past 40 years, and that this "understanding" will continue as official/unofficial U.S. policy (albeit very quiet policy). It would seem self-evident that international treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which the U.S. is a signatory, would supercede any such "understanding", and that the President of the United States, having sworn to uphold the Constitution, would honor such treaties.

That President Nixon entered into such an "understanding" with Golda Meier would itself have been unconstitutional (assuming he did not have the consent of Congress), considering that the Constitution prohibits the President alone to commit the United States to any agreements with other nations.

The GSN article quoted a Senate staff member as saying that "the president gave commitments that politically he had no choice but to give regarding Israel's nuclear program." Aside from the fact that the President's entire non-proliferation agenda could end up in the trash can should he not deal with the issue of Israeli nuclear weapons, the President is bound by the Constitution to uphold the NPT, and therefore must deal directly and openly with Israel as a nuclear power (whether declared or undeclared).

I am calling on President Obama to uphold the Constitution and the spirit of the NPT, and asking him to publicly recognize the illegality of the 40 year-old "understanding" between Nixon and Meier. At the same time, I am thanking him for his leadership that past presidents have not demonstrated. I hope you will join me. Continuing the folly of the past 40 years will only serve to weaken global disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. You can send the President an email by clicking here.

Peace,

Leonard

Reference: U.S. Not Seeking Disclosure of Israeli Nuclear Arsenal, Global Security Newswire, Friday, October 2, 2009

Photo: President Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meier meeting in Washington in 1973. Photo from Getty Images.

What is the difference between Israel and Iran???

Friends,

I would hazard a guess that if one polled the people of the United States about what to do about the dreaded Iranian nuke threat, thanks in large part to the corporate media hype, a large percentage of people would recommend sanctions and direct military action and God knows what else. I have not heard one peep in the corporate press questioning the legitimacy of any of the claims made by the U.S. government, even the highly questionable hoopla over the planned enrichment facility near Qom, which the Iranian government announced to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a few days ago, or Monday's missile tests.

Tomorrow in Geneva, Switzerland, the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), hold talks with Iranian officials, led by Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. The P5+1 members will be wagging their fingers and, as they have for many years, chastise Iran for enriching uranium, something the nuclear nations have been doing since the dawn of the nuclear age.

Yes Virginia, uranium, if enriched well (and I mean really well) beyond the level required to produce electricity, can be used to make bombs. The jury is out on this one so far in terms of Iran. What is relevant, however, is why we are so focused on Iran as a potential proliferator of nuclear weapons when we have turned a blind eye to Israel's nuclear program for decades.

As with everything else with Israel, the U.S. continues to avoid the topic of its decades old nuclear program that has produced anywhere from 100 to 200 nuclear weapons that it continues to pretend it does not have. In the big picture of disarmament and nonproliferation we cannot isolate and focus on one politically expedient country (Iran) while ignoring (or should I say catering to) others that have flaunted the idea of nonproliferation (like Israel, India and Pakistan) and hope to acheive success.

Above all, until the longstanding members of the nuclear club demonstrate sincere efforts to cut back their arsenals as they work towards disarmament, they have no moral standing to call on other nations to abstain. The myth of deterrence is so strong that it continues to seduce otherwise sane people to lust after nuclear weapons. Even the vice president of Brazil said (in a recent interview) that "nuclear weapons would be a boon to the security of Brazil," and spoke of how they could be "used as an instrument of deterrence."

History makes dealing with Iran problematic, particularly in terms of U.S. engagement. The United States' significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh, and the subsequent rule by Shah Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi didn't help, and U.S. military aid to Saddam Hussein during Iraq's war with Iran was icing on the cake of bad foreign relations. It is easy to see how a sovereign nation such as Iran may be reluctant to want to listen to the U.S. on any level.

One final matter of critical importance is Israel's itchy trigger finger. They are ready to attack anything remotely resembling an Iranian nuclear facility, and such an action would not only be imprudent, but destabilizing to the Middle East. This is not the time for the United States to maintain its usual "hands off" stance with Israel. Allowing any military action by Israel would be tantamount to Israel acting as a U.S. proxy; not a good idea!!!

Commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, in the last paragraph of her September 28 commentary in The Independent, "Don't Israel's Weapons Count?", quoted Israeli human rights activist Gideon Spiro: "Rein in Israel, compel it to accept a regime of nuclear disarmament and oblige it to open all nuclear, biological and chemical facilities and missile sites to international inspection." Alibhai-Brown then summed things up: "The US has leverage because it maintains and funds Israel. If Obama shies away from this, there can be no moral justification to go for Iran or North Korea or any other rogue state. And the leader whose election and dreams gave hope to millions thereby hastens the end of the world."

Let's hope that President Obama takes the moral high ground.

Peace,

Leonard

Nuclear Abolition is Alive and Well

Friends,

We have been hearing a great deal in the news lately about nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. The world's elected leaders are starting to make what appear to be sincere efforts, and should they succeed, future generations could live without the nuclear Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads; it has hung over our heads for 64 years.

For all the hoopla about President Obama and other leaders engaged in the efforts, it has been the faithful few (outside of the traditional body politic) who have resisted nuclear weapons and worked tirelessly for decades to abolish them who should be applauded. Without the efforts of individuals and peace organizations - the writing, the speaking, the marches, the resistance, the plowshares actions - the pot would not have been kept simmering, and the topic of nuclear weapons (and their abolition) may have never come into the public sphere as they have recently.

I just read the October 2009 newsletter from Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, and it is full of wonderful stories of people actively engaged in the movement to abolish nuclear weapons. And as stories often do, these stories give us insights into the hearts and minds of the people, regular people like you and me, engaged in this long struggle. These everyday people breathe life into a movement that is so important to the very survival of life on Earth.

Ground Zero has been resisting Trident and working to abolish nuclear weapons for over 30 years, and some of its early members have stayed with it to this very day. These are the people who have been with the movement for the long haul, keeping the embers burning, always ready to share them with those who wish to light their own lamps and engage in the nonviolent struggle for a peaceful world, and above all a world without nuclear weapons.

As the headline in the October GZ Newsletter says (and I paraphrase), Nuclear abolition is, indeed, alive in organizations like Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action thanks to the efforts of these faithful abolitionists who have never given up on humanity's ability to eradicate nuclear weapons. I hope you enjoy the stories and find hope for the future in these pages, and are strengthened in your journey.

Peace,

Leonard

Click here to read the October 2009 Ground Zero Newsletter.

Missile Defense is So Offensive

Friends,

Well, well, well... The fallout (just had to use that one) over missile defense has gone global. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates got in his two cents in a New York Times editorial in response to criticism of the new U.S. plans: A Better Missile Defense for a Safer Europe. Gates' opening line speaks volumes, and not just about missile defense in Europe, but missile defense in general. "The future of missile defense in Europe is secure." Although missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic are history, in reality missile defense in Europe has only been deferred until a later date (as explicitly stated by Gates). So what's new? Nothing really.

One way to look at U.S. missile defense is from the perspective of Pentagon contractors. Boeing loses out (for now) as ground-based interceptors in Europe shift to ship-based interceptors (a huge boon for Raytheon). Boeing also lost out (for now) as the airborne laser (think of a 747 jet modified with a huge chemical laser to shoot down missiles) program that the Obama adminstration recently cancelled. Of course, you can imagine that Boeing is working on other uses for the airborne laser; they won't be letting this baby go any time soon.

In the big picture, these losses and gains are just another day in the life of "defense" contractors, part of an endless game, one that has no end but in which the score keeps changing in favor of one team and then another. There seems to be a "gentlemens" agreement in which all the teams know that they will ultimately get their share, so they don't play hardball to often. They all know how much (profit) is at stake, and how much they all need each other in this intricate web of defense projects.

Of course, there will always be members of the U.S. Congress protecting (missile) defense jobs in their home states just as with the F-22 Raptor or C-17 Globemaster. In the case of the C-17, with "more than 650 suppliers and 30,000 jobs in 43 states", Congressional support is pretty much guaranteed. Then again, the Secretary of Defense can simply throw out a few key phrases about what kind of missiles Iran may be capable of producing, along with his concerns over "outdated" intelligence assessments, and the future of missile defense is good as gold (a little fear works wonders).

Projects like the Airborne Laser are like sacred cows (excuse the analogy); once the government starts pumping money into the research and development phase of a program this massive it is pretty hard to put on the brakes, particularly once it's "airborne". Long before President Obama announced the cancellation of this project, Boeing had been "developing additional missions" [read "guaranteeing the survivability of this program through mission diversification"]. Essentially, Boeing will look for anything and everything to shoot at to ensure that this baby flies.

And that is the way of defense contracting in today's competitive market. They are just applying some old fashioned thinking - If at first you don't succeed, try, try again (and in every imaginable way). And try, they will. So, don't cry for Boeing for the loss of a few missiles in Europe. It will all come out in the wash, and their stockholders will be very, very happy down the road.

However, one has to wonder if the U.S. put a fraction of the money spent on missile defense into positive engagement with Iran - diplomacy, people to people exchanges and trade - might we get a better return on our investment, including a peace dividend? And might we be just a bit safer than in a world bristling with missiles, since missiles (defensive or not) seem to beget more missiles?

Peace,

Leonard