"The progressive leaders from the US and Europe who have come together to form 'Building Global Alliances for the 21st Century' believe there is an immediate need for a comprehensive, concrete effort to revitalize the world's nonproliferation efforts. As the leaders of the G8 gather for their annual summit, we urge a greater international focus on â?? and a stronger commitment to â?? addressing nuclear proliferation. We are deeply concerned the rhetoric of international leaders about the spread of nuclear weapons and materials has not been matched by enough concrete action... Just as the fight against terrorism calls for the marshalling of all elements of our military, political and economic arsenals, so does the fight against nuclear proliferation demand cooperation among the US, Europe and beyond. It also requires nuclear-weapon states to demonstrate their commitment to strengthening nonproliferation norms â?? if they want nations with nuclear aspirations to follow suit."

Spencer Abraham is vowing to rid the world of dirty nukes. But who will rid the world of the Bush administration's 'clean' (what a joke!) and potentially more deadly nukes? Hundreds of millions of dollars are being poured into this program, even though the scheme has been decalred unsound. Says the Brookings Institute's Michael Levi: "The study applies data generated by nuclear weapons tests in Nevada during the cold war. But in the Nevada tests, the hold above the bomb was carefully sealed to prevent fallout. By contrast, an earth-penetrating nuke would leave a large hole behind it, making containment difficult or impossible. "

"Britain is on the verge of abandoning its long-range nuclear missiles in favour of cheaper mini-nukes that could be used to strike rogue states...Ministers and MoD chiefs are understood to be in advanced negotiations with the United States over developing a new range of much smaller and cheaper nuclear weapons that could be used to launch first-strike attacks on enemies. More than 200 British scientists have visited American nuclear laboratories in the past year. The government has also taken on dozens of physicists to work at its top-secret Aldermaston nuclear plant ...Relatively small battlefield nuclear weapons can be delivered by aircraft, cruise missiles, and even artillery. Bush this month agreed a multi-million-dollar package to fund research into the new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons."

"The DOE program to compensate sick nuclear weapons plant workers has cost $74 million of taxpayers' funds - and only one worker has been paid. That one person in Washington state has received $15,000.The $74 million has gone to paperwork involved in deciding whether workers were sickened by radiation or toxic chemicals on the job." The compensation program was created under Clinton to aid nuclear bomb workers, including those at Rocky Flats, who put their lives on the line for the nation's defense. Many died young. Others ended up with huge medical bills for cancer and other illnesses they blame on their jobs. So guess who was overseeing this debacle of a program? Undersecretary of energy Robert Card, former senior VP of CH2M Hill and CEO of Kaiser-Hill, a joint venture between Kaiser Group Holdings and CH2M Hill that held a multibillion-dollar contract to clean up and close down the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant outside Denver.

"A powerful Senate appropriations chairman threatened this week to shut down the world's largest laser if the Bush administration falters in creating a miniature sun inside a California laboratory. At the same time, Republicans and Democrats are signaling even tougher scrutiny than last year of administration plans for a powerful bunker buster nuclear weapon. Sen. Dianne Feinstein suggested creating 'weapons systems that are so bizarre and so catastrophic goes beyond the moral code.' 'I'm going to oppose it at every step of the road because I do not believe the American people want to support a new generation of nuclear weapons,' she said... The administration's $6.6 billion spending proposal for nuclear weapons research and maintenance is coming under unusually rigorous attack early in an election year, and not from the rambunctious House but a less expected quarter, the ordinarily staid Senate."

"Recently, author David Albright obtained a copy of what is apparently a sales brochure from the A. Q. Khan Research Laboratories in Rawalpindi, offering both equipment and assistance spun off from the Pakistani gas centrifuge program -the program that made possible Pakistan's enrichment of uranium for nuclear weapons. Many of the items shown in the brochure are generally viewed as sensitive and in many countries would be subject to stringent export controls. It is not known what customers the brochure may have been designed to attract, but it has not been displayed at the customary trade fairs--raising questions about whether the items it offers may have been clandestinely sold to countries like North Korea. " Displayed at TRADE FAIRS and Musharraf is still pleading ignorance? Pul--EEZE!

Glen Milner writes, "For the past 40 years, U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines were deployed as a deterrent to nuclear war. The potential for provoking a full-scale nuclear exchange was too terrifying to consider the limited use of nuclear weapons. New U.S. war-fighting plans and the promotion of more useable nuclear weapons will affect the deployment of the Trident submarine system. Most notable is the doctrine of pre-emptive first strike, where any nation considered a threat to the United States could be attacked. The Bush administration favors a nuclear free-for-all, confident that it will be able to intimidate or destroy all adversaries with a varied arsenal of increasingly sophisticated weapons. Numerous international arms-control treaties, including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, have been abandoned or ignored by the United States."

"Russia's nuclear forces reportedly are preparing their largest maneuvers in two decades, an exercise involving the test-firing of missiles and flights by dozens of bombers in a massive simulation of an all-out nuclear war." Have the Bush policies made the world less safe and nuclear war more of a reality? This Russian exercise is for a war with the U.S.

"The head of the UN nuclear agency, Mohamed El Baradei, said in an interview released on Sunday that the underground trade in atomic technology means that the threat of nuclear war is greater today than it ever has been. In an interview with Der Spiegel magazine, ElBaradei said new controls are needed to prevent the black-market trade in nuclear materials and knowledge by 'smart nuclear experts, unscrupulous companies and possibly state organs.' 'Never was the danger as great as today. An atomic war draws nearer if we do not start thinking about a new international control system,' ElBaradei told the weekly newsmagazine'... He said, for example, that he was 'extremely concerned' about the possibility of a nuclear weapons programme in North Korea. 'I would be in no way surprised if Pyongyang already has an operational atomic bomb,' he said. The only solution, he said, was for North Korea to reopen its nuclear facilities to inspectors."

This is progress? America has gone from a nation that takes care of its children and elderly and leads the way in seeking world peace to one that has discarded the rights and needs of all those who are not wealthy, be they children, elderly, women, or any minority. In one week, Medicare was dismantled on paper and all progress made toward nuclear disarmament place in severe jeopardy. Where was the debate on giving this madman permission to pursue a new nuclear arsenal? Has everyone in Congress gone stark raving mad? Or do the marshmallows now outnumber real representatives of the American people?

NY Post reports: "Bush signed a huge new defense bill that includes millions of dollars for a small nuclear bomb designed to destroy deep, hardened underground bunkers. Among the many items tucked away in the $401 billion defense authorization act was a $15 million three-year research project by the Energy and Defense departments to create the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. The legislation repeals a decade-old ban on research into low-yield nuclear weapons."

This week is a major meeting of the Organization for the Prohibition of Nuclear Arms in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL). OPANAL Secretary General Edmundo Vargas of Chile says the meeting marks an important step in the implementation of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco). "During the meeting the region will be declared as the first nuclear-arm-free zone in the world. Vargas termed Cuba's adherence to the Treaty of Tlatelolco last year as a token of Havana's political will to strengthen the regional efforts for a safer world. In addition, relations with the five nuclear powers of the world -- the United States, Russia, France, Britain and China -- will be examined, in order to revise the declarations made on the occasion of the ratification of additional protocols years ago."

ABC News (Australia) reports: "Russia has announced it will consider the restricted use of small nuclear weapons to deal with regional conflicts and international terrorism in the future. Russia's Defence Minister, Sergei Ivanov, has submitted a revised doctrine to President Vladimir Putin, outlining the plans for modernising the country's military force. Observers say the Russian plan to use small nuclear arms mirrors the United States' declared strategy of being prepared to deploy its own low-yield nuclear weapons in a restricted way. Since the September 11 attacks, the US has been conducting research and development of so-called mini-nukes, aimed at destroying underground facilities of terrorist groups."

"Australian scientists are researching cheaper ways of enriching uranium - possibly a significant step on the road to making nuclear weapons. The revelation comes as the Federal Government considers tough new 'Vanunu-style' laws to gag nuclear whistleblowers. Israel jailed former nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu for 18 years in 1988 after he revealed details of Israel's secret nuclear weapons program. Scientists working for Silex Systems Ltd, which leases space at the Commonwealth Government's Lucas Heights reactor near Sydney, are developing techniques to enrich uranium with lasers."

"U.N. Undersecretary General for Disarmament Affairs Nobuyasu Abe said here today that a 'collapse' of the international nonproliferation regime is possible without concerted action, notably by the United States and Russia. Speaking to top experts and officials from 36 countries at a PIR Center-Carnegie Endowment for International Peace nonproliferation conference, Abe cited complaints that disarmament by nuclear weapon states 'proceeds at a snail's pace,' calling the charge 'legitimate' but adding that it should not serve as an excuse for other countries to 'renege on nonproliferation obligations.' He said the United States and Russian Federation 'bear a special responsibility as the world's two superpowers' to contribute to strengthening international norms of disarmament and nonproliferation. The recent Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty is a significant step, he said, 'but we want more.'"

"Saudi Arabia, in response to the current upheaval in the Middle East, has embarked on a strategic review that includes acquiring nuclear weapons, the Guardian has learned.... A strategy paper being considered at the highest levels in Riyadh sets out three options: To acquire a nuclear capability as a deterrent; To maintain or enter into an alliance with an existing nuclear power that would offer protection; To try to reach a regional agreement on having a nuclear-free Middle East. Until now, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella. But the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US has steadily worsened since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington: 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi. It is not known whether Saudi Arabia has taken a decision on any of the three options. But the fact that it is prepared to contemplate the nuclear option is a worrying development."

Dave Zweifel writes: "Is George Bush the most dangerous president in U.S. history? If you ask Professor John Swomley, he is. Swomley, who teaches Christian ethics at the St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, has authored an indictment of the Bush administration's foreign policy that includes actual plans to use nuclear bombs as pre-emptive weapons. It is essential, he says in a magazine article, for Americans to understand that the administration has directed the military to prepare plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries - China, Russia, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya and Iraq... Swomley quotes defense budget analyst Bill Donahue, who says that the United States is spending roughly $5.8 billion on nuclear weapons this year and that the Los Alamos National Laboratories have been told to begin developing 'earth penetrator' mini-nukes even before seeking permission from Congress."

"Senate Democrats failed to block funding for nuclear weapons research Tuesday that they said could trigger a new arms race and increase the likelihood of cataclysmic war. Republicans said the money was needed to examine how the nuclear arsenal could be adapted to protect Americans from threats in the post-Cold War era, such as terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. They stressed the money would be used only for research and not to build new bombs.... The vote puts the Senate at odds with the House, which cut most of the money for the nuclear weapons programs in its version of the energy bill. The two versions will have to be reconciled by House-Senate negotiators.... Opponents say [new 'mini-nukes', 1/3 the size of the Hiroshima bomb] would blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons and increase the likelihood that nuclear weapons might be used. Democrats said the research would undermine U.S. efforts to stop the worldwide spread of nuclear weapons."

Heather Wokusch writes: "China was the undisputed star of last week's Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) conference in Vienna, leaving Uncle Sam hiding in the wings. The US has always been somewhat impatient with international non-proliferation agreements. Despite a 1992 self-imposed moratorium, in the past six years the States has conducted 19 nuclear tests, dismissing them as sub-critical and therefore acceptable... Rumors had circulated that Beijing may be making a major announcement at the conference. Its diplomatic flurry in hosting recent six-way talks over North Korea's nuclear program suggested a newfound sense of urgency in confronting proliferation, so when China's Ambassador Yan Zhang assumed the podium, the room fell silent. Zhang began by issuing China's strong support for the CTBT... and then discreetly railed against the US and other countries that have withdrawn CTBT funding by demanding every member state pay 'in full and in time.'"

Paul Krassner relates a story from his source 'Ethan', a former US Marine: "The officer came around a row of missiles, and Ethan asked him, 'What the hell kind of missiles are these?' 'Those aren't missiles; they're cobalt jackets.... [T]hey are designed to slide on over most of our conventional ordinance. They're made out of radioactive cobalt, and when the bomb they're wrapped around detonates, they contaminate everything in the blast zone and quite a bit beyond.' ... 'Well, what? Does the radiation kill people?' 'Not immediately. Cobalt jackets will not likely ever be used. They're for a situation where the U.S. government is crumbling during a time of war, and foreign takeover is imminent. We won't capitulate. We basically have a scorched earth policy. If we are going to lose, we arm everything with cobalt - and I mean everything; we have jackets at nearly every missile magazine in the world, on land or at sea - and contaminate the world. If we can't have it, nobody can.'"

"This morning an international team of thirty citizens inspectors closed the three gates of Buchel air force base in Germany to carry out a war crimes inspection. It is a public secret that 11 US B-61 tactical nuclear weapons are stored on the base.... [T]he inspectors have been gathering information for the International Atomic Energy Agency as well as for the UN where their findings will be reported next year during the Non-Proliferation Preparatory Committee in New York.... The inspectors condemn the use of double standards by the German and U.S. governments with respect to weapons of mass destruction. The inspection follows the criticisms made earlier in the week by IEAE director Mohammed ElBaradei. 'The U.S. government demands that other nations not possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, it is arming itself.'...'There are no good or bad nuclear weapons. If we do not stop applying double standards, we will end up with more nuclear weapons. We are at a turning point,' he said."

"The International Atomic Energy Agency has decided to discuss Israeli nuclear capabilities in its next major conference. Diplomatic sources said the IAEA has placed on the agenda of its General Conference and Regular Session the subject of 'Israeli Nuclear Capabilities and Threats.' The subject will be discussed at the conference in Vienna in September. The sources said this is the first time in decades that the IAEA has placed Israel's nuclear programs on the agenda of its general conference.... The proposal to discuss Israel's nuclear programs came from the Arab League, the diplomats said.... In a recent meeting, the Arab League has asserted that Israel has stockpiled up to 300 nuclear warheads. The league said Israel now has the capability of producing hydrogen bombs. The sources said the Arab League plans to distribute a study on Israel's nuclear programs to participants at the IAEA conference. The league will also demand that Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Henry Sokolski writes, "Saudi Arabia, who helped bankroll Pakistan's bomb project and has medium-range rockets of its own, has already had officials visit Islamabad's bomb factory in Kahuta. There's even been talk about Pakistan loaning some of its nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia, keeping them under Pakistani control (like the U.S. does with its weapons in Germany). Egypt and Syria, meanwhile, are planning nuclear desalinization plants (i.e., big reactors producing material which could be used for nuclear weapons). Algeria, which was caught in 1991 covertly developing a reactor that might make bombs, now has it on line. Finally, Turkey, a close friend to Israel, has made it clear that Iran going nuclear would force Ankara to secure new 'security assurances.' Like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, which have either tried or considered producing nuclear weapons, all of these nations have or could quickly acquire nuclear-capable missiles."

Bush's "Modern Pit Facility" will crank out as many plutonium "pits" for WMDs EACH YEAR as China has in its entire nuclear arsenal. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists writes that "such bomb-making abilities don't just knock the moral-political props out from under efforts to stem bomb programs in North Korea, Iran, India, and Pakistan. They're a felonious frontal assault on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty itself. 33 years after that treaty's entry into force, U.S. conventional and nuclear forces vastly outstrip those of any other nation, and there is simply no way to reconcile a 17-year plan to build a 50-year nuclear bomb factory with the obligation to negotiate 'in good faith' on the 'cessation of the arms race' and 'nuclear disarmament.' Instead, the Bush team wants such nuclear superiority that, in Rumsfeld's words, 'would-be peer competitors' will realize 'the futility of trying to sprint toward parity with us.'" Heil Bushfeld!

Erich Marquardt writes for PINR: "States seek to acquire nuclear weapons not to use them as weapons, but to prevent nuclear and non-nuclear powers from attacking them or their interests. This explanation puts the conflict in North Korea and Iraq into perspective. Furthermore, the end of the analysis warns that if the United States decides to use 'tactical' nuclear weapons, that the distinction between using 'tactical' nuclear weapons and regular nuclear weapons will blur."

An independent panel of experts which monitors the development of the United States nuclear arsenal was dissolved by a simple email to members on July 30, 2003 rather than being officially gazetted in the federal register . "The decision to close down the national nuclear security administration advisory committee - required by law to hold public hearings and issue public reports on nuclear weapons issues - has come just days before a closed-door meeting at a US air force base in Nebraska to discuss the development of a new generation of tactical 'mini-nukes' and 'bunker buster' bombs, as well as an eventual resumption of nuclear testing."

Cheryl Seal writes: "When one hears of a 'chief weapons inspector' whose specialty is nuclear arms, whose responsibility is overseeing the search, detection, assessment/analysis of sophisticated weaponry and/or the often elusive evidence thereof, what does one automatically envision? Well, if you are a reasonable person with reasonable, even minimal, expectations of what is appropriate, then you probably envision a SCIENTIST. Better yet, a NUCLEAR SCIENTIST, right? Well, if you do, then you are dead wrong. Just like I was. I made the mistake of ASSUMING that David Kay, a former chief weapons inspector for the UN and now Bush's top pick for the job of turning up even traces of evidence that WMDs exist(ed) in Iraq, was a scientist. But Kay's pHd has nothing to do with any scientific discipline."

"Even as it strives to keep nuclear weapons from proliferating around the world, the Bush administration is moving toward research on a new generation of less powerful nuclear warheads. That effort, recently endorsed by Congress, unwisely overturns a decade of restraint intended to discourage development of a new nuclear arms race. The new weapons are portrayed as a way to meet emerging threats that the existing nuclear arsenal, aimed at obliterating the Soviet Union in an all-out war, was not designed for. Some would be relatively small, low-yield weapons that could be used against a variety of targets, ranging from mobile targets to underground bunkers. Others would be even larger bunker-buster warheads. The trouble is that the smaller weapons might be tempting to use in situations where no one would dream of dropping a more massively destructive nuclear bomb. That could speed the end of the 'nuclear taboo' that has kept the world free of nuclear warfare since World War II."

"The US strategic air command maintains a 'target list' for nuclear strikes in contingency planning against several countries, including Russia, China and North Korea, a defence expert has claimed. Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Algeria also figure among the countries, Bruce G Blair, President of Centre for Defence Information, a Washington-based nongovernmental think tank, said. He links contingency planning against deeply buried targets, especially those in Russia, with recent interest in developing 'mini-nukes,' with explosive power of below five kilotons. Congress has authorised research in these weapons but development and production would need their approval. President [sic] George W Bush has 'notion that US nuclear weapons can, and should, be adapted for use against a growing list of enemy weapons in a widening array of circumstances,' Blair said adding the 'top two candidates' for inclusion in the nuclear target list are located... in the central and southern Urals."

The SF Chronicle reports: "Senate Democrats launched an impassioned but ultimately futile effort Tuesday to prevent the Bush administration from lifting a 10-year-old ban on the development of smaller, more usable nuclear warheads and dramatically shifting the nation's defense policies. The procedural vote went 51-43 against the Democratic effort, which pushes the proposed repeal of the ban -- and a potentially historic resumption of nuclear weapons development -- to the House... The Democratic stance was put in the most graphic terms Tuesday by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts... 'Is half a Hiroshima OK? Is a quarter Hiroshima OK? Is a little mushroom cloud OK?...That's absurd. The issue is too important. If we build it, we'll use it'... 'It is a study. It is nothing more and nothing less,' Rumsfeld said... Feinstein dismissed his comments. 'Just a study? Baloney. Does anyone really believe that?' she asked."

"In a play on the deck of cards distributed to US troops in Iraq, anti-nuclear campaigners [have] issued their own most-wanted list -- with [GW] Bush replacing Saddam Hussein as the ace of spades. 'It's an exact copy (of the US deck) in terms of the design and layout,' said William Peden, spokesman for the disarmament campaign at Greenpeace. But while the US cards were meant to help soldiers capture...Iraqi leaders, the Greenpeace deck is meant to focus attention on the dangers posed by nuclear arsenals... The ace of spades notes that Bush has around 10,600 weapons. Russian President Vladimir Putin is the ace of hearts with around 18,000 nuclear weapons. French President Jacques Chirac is the ace of clubs, while Britain's Tony Blair is the ace of diamonds. The kings feature the leaders of China, Pakistan, India and Israel -- all countries with nuclear weapons." Reported by AP, with photos.

"Since the US and the UK are having such a hard time finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we thought we'd lend a hand by providing this easy guide to the nukes we know about. UN Weapons Inspectors and citizen weapons inspectors are welcome to use our map to check up on just where those elusive Weapons of Mass Destruction have been hiding. All information about these locations has been drawn from public sources, so we didn't have to worry about invading any countries, incurring civilian casualties, paying costly bounties for inside information or mess around with torture or illegal detention. And here's the best part: if the US and the UK want to dismantle some WMDs, they don't need to go on costly excursions to foreign countries. We found plenty in their own backyards."

SF Chronicles' James Sterngold writes, "As the United States moved closer this week to launching a war against Iraq -- in part to prevent it from developing a nuclear armory -- controversy grew over the Bush administration's efforts to develop new, 'usable' nuclear bombs that critics say may encourage the spread of these uniquely destructive weapons... 'The Bush administration has pushed a radical redirection of nonproliferation strategy,' said Joseph Cirincione, director of the nonproliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Cirincione and other critics warn that the evolving doctrine could start a whole new nuclear arms race, from Asia to Latin America. 'If the United States sends signals that we are considering new uses for nuclear weapons, isn't it more likely that other nations will also want to explore greater use or new uses for nuclear weapons?' Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich."

"Posing one of the 'what ifs' surrounding a U.S. invasion of Iraq, former U.S. Sen. John Glenn yesterday expressed concern that al-Qaeda could obtain nuclear weapons by toppling Pakistan's government. Mr. Glenn said U.S. military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power could 'inflame the whole Muslim community across the world' and threaten President Pervez Musharraf's control over Pakistan. 'Then you have al-Qaeda with a whole stockpile of nuclear weapons. That's a poor trade-off to me,' Mr. Glenn said, after a speech to the Ohio Newspaper Association."

"A leaked Pentagon document has confirmed that the US is considering the introduction of a new breed of smaller nuclear weapons designed for use in conventional warfare. Such a move would mean abandoning global arms treaties. The document, obtained by the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear weapons watchdog based in the US, describes plans for a gathering of senior military officials and nuclear scientists at the US Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska, during the week of 4 August. The Los Alamos Study Group also condemns the plans for threatening international non-proliferation agreements. Greg Mello, head of LASG, says: 'It is impossible to overstate the challenge these plans pose to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the existing nuclear test moratorium, and US compliance with Article VI of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which is binding law in the US.'"

Guardian reports that Bush "is planning a secret meeting in August to discuss the construction of a new generation of nuclear weapons, including 'mini-nukes', 'bunker-busters' and neutron bombs designed to destroy chemical or biological agents, according to a leaked Pentagon document. The meeting of senior military officials and US nuclear scientists at the Omaha headquarters of the US Strategic Command would also decide whether to restart nuclear testing and how to convince the American public that the new weapons are necessary... [Bush] is determined to overhaul [the US] nuclear arsenal so that it could be used as part of the new 'Bush doctrine' of pre-emption, to strike the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons of rogue states. Greg Mello, the head of the Los Alamos Study Group... that obtained the Pentagon documents, said the meeting would also prepare the ground for a US breakaway from global arms control treaties, and the moratorium on conducting nuclear tests."

"'A group of House Republicans proposed a fundamental shift in America's nuclear weapons strategy on Thursday, saying the GOP would push for the design and manufacture of a new generation of warheads, a more aggressive policy on their use and steps that would make it easier to resume nuclear testing. The group of 23 lawmakers, as members of the policy committee that helps set the House legislative agenda, specifically called for the repeal of a decade-old law that prohibits the development of smaller, low-yield weapons of less than 5 kilotons. The panel, known as the House Policy Committee, also urged that the U.S. government be allowed to initiate pre-emptive nuclear attacks against hostile nations with caches of biological or chemical weapons. It called upon the government to rebuild industrial sites for manufacturing key nuclear components and to speed up preparations for a resumption of underground testing after a 10-year moratorium.'"

Heather Wokusch writes: "Research conducted six months before the Gulf War found that short-term high doses of DU [Depleted Uranium] could result in death, and long-term low doses could lead to cancer. Regardless, American forces used DU weapons in the 1991 Gulf war, the 1999 Balkan conflict, and the recent hostilities in Afghanistan. It can be assumed that DU weaponry will be used in any upcoming attack on Iraq as well...Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld continually warns of rogue states holding 'America hostage to nuclear blackmail,' but fails to mention his own contribution: Rumsfeld was on the board of ABB, a company that sold hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment and services to North Korean nuclear plants. It's another intriguing coincidence that despite his administration's slamming 'axis of evil' nukes, Bush recently requested $3.5 million in funding for a consortium currently building nuclear reactors in North Korea."

Senator Ted Kennedy writes, "By raising the possibility that nuclear weapons could be part of a first strike against Iraq, the administration is only enhancing its reputation as a reckless unilateralist in the world community -- a reputation that ultimately weakens our own security... This policy also deepens the danger of nuclear proliferation by, in effect, telling nonnuclear states that nuclear weapons are necessary to deter a potential U.S. attack and by sending a green light to the world's nuclear states that it is permissible to use them. Is this the lesson we want to send to North Korea, Pakistan and India or any other nuclear power?... Last fall, Bush declared: 'The gravest danger our nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology.' On that he was surely right -- and the administration's radical consideration of the possible use of our nuclear arsenal against Iraq is itself a grave danger to our national interests, our nation and all that America stands for."

Tom Engelhardt writes about WashPost columnist Charles Krauthammer, who wants the US to give nuclear weapons to Japan to point at China to start World War III. "Krauthammer's suggestion is indicative of the general mood of proliferation that has gripped George W. Bush's Washington." Read how Bush nuked the Bioweapons Treaty.

Tom Engelhardt writes, "If one took one's eyes off North Korean actions for a moment, it might be clearer that something larger is going on, that a principle has, in fact, been loosed upon the world by our government and it goes something like this: Proliferate away -- and if we don't like you, we'll choose to shut you down by force. After all, what other power has withdrawn from a nuclear treaty in order to build its own missile system and moved actively to beef up its nuclear forces: us, of course. We withdrew from the ABM treaty with Russia; we're planning and building new generations of nuclear weaponry with renewed zeal, we've openly threatened to use nuclear weapons against 'rogue' states, and specifically against Iraq, and we're reportedly planning to take up nuclear testing again. We have been, in a sense, a role model for the North Koreans... The United States has managed to offer nuclear weapons a renewed life as the currency of national power."

"[Question]: What would actually be the effect... what would happen if these two countries [Pakistan and India] with these capabilities... we now know India has definitely got them... we think Pakistan has... if they started slinging this stuff [nukes] at each other?[Answer]: Environmentally we don't really know, to be honest, because nobody's done it. We know what happened when the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in Ukraine exploded... it sent radioactive particles into the atmosphere... they came down in places like northern Finland and Norway...even here in the United Kingdom, Welsh hill farmers could no longer sell their lamb because they were contaminated by fallout... " So Bush's nuke threat in essence, is bullying EVERYONE.

What is it with these two losers, anyway? First they want to unite forces against evil like Bushman and Robin (bet they wear their superguy tights under their power suits). Now while Bushman has declared Iran one of the "Evildoers" against whom he wants to reserve the right to attack on a slow news day, "Robin" decides it would be a good idea to sell the Evildoers what they will need to make their own nukes. Maybe he figures it'll add drama to the superhero script? In any case, the only reason this little bit of double dealing was revealed is because the British press (unlike its American counterpart) was doing its job: BBC radio 4 will be airing the shocking results of its investigation to a stunned world. Wonder how Robin will wiggle out of this one? Stay tuned.....

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) writes that "the only device that detects [gamma] rays [from a nuclear weapon] is a Geiger counter that must be held within two feet of the radioactive source," which makes it impossible to screen every container entering the US. But "the Geiger counter could be improved to detect nuclear devices 40 to 50 feet away. This super-Geiger counter should be installed on every crane that loads or unloads a container of cargo bound for the US, and above every toll booth that trucks pass under at the Mexican and Canadian borders." The pricetag for reducing the threat of nuclear attack is $1 billion - 1/100 the cost of conquering Iraq or building a Star Wars system that will never work.

Stephen I. Schwartz of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists comments on the dangerous folly of the Bush administration's cavalier nuclear posture, which encourages proliferation and sells out our safety and security to boost the military industrial complex that Bush loves so much. "It's as if all the really bad ideas of the last decade—many of which withered when subjected to public and congressional scrutiny—have been resurrected... Bush has frequently referred to accords like the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as relics of the Cold War. He is wrong. The real relics of the Cold War are nuclear weapons and the targeting doctrine and mindset that envisage them as militarily or politically effective instruments of national policy. [Bush's] acceptance of the NPR, created by the nuclear priesthood for the nuclear priesthood, demonstrates a profound lack of vision and of leadership."

"A decade after the end of the Cold War, the peril of nuclear destruction is mounting. The great powers have refused to give up nuclear arms, other countries are producing them, and terrorists are trying to acquire them... We call on the United States to: Renounce the first use of nuclear weapons... Permanently end the development, testing, and production of nuclear warheads... Seek agreement with Russia on the mutual and verified destruction of nuclear weapons withdrawn under treaties... Strengthen nonproliferation efforts... Separate nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles (de-alerting)... Initiate talks on further nuclear cuts." Sign the petition!

Peter Ferenbach writes, "When President [sic] Bush arrived in Moscow last Thursday, he ushered in a dangerous new era of false arms control. Typically, nations seek arms control agreements as a means to increase the security of the signatory nations. Sadly, this latest agreement is a cynical shell game designed to cover the perilous and aggressive new nuclear posture of the Bush administration. It also sets a new, destabilizing precedent for the future and threatens to undo decades of progress in nuclear disarmament."

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has sent a missile across the bow of the USS Bush. Biden wants changes to the treaty Bush negotiated with Pootie-Poot. "The treaty does not require the actual destruction of a single missile or warhead. Rather, each country may warehouse its weapons and redeploy them later. Unfortunately, persistent security shortcomings in Russia mean that warheads in storage are more likely to fall into the hands of rogue states or terrorists than if they remained attached to missiles. The treaty allows Russia to place multiple warheads on its intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), contrary to long-standing U.S. arms control goals. Multiple-warhead ICBMs are a cheap way to maximize Russia's forces, but they are vulnerable because an attacker can destroy many warheads with only one or two of its own. Russia is therefore likely to keep those missiles on hair-trigger alert, increasing the risk of accidental war." You go, Joe!

Peter Ferenbach writes, "This latest agreement is a cynical shell game…to cover the perilous and aggressive new nuclear posture of the Bush administration… The first challenge…is finding a way to destroy hardened underground 'enemy' facilities… Their solution is to develop a 'super' warhead… whose function is to burrow underground prior to detonating. The second challenge is to overcome the stigma of a nuclear first strike. [Bush's solution is] to develop lower-yield nuclear weapons, with less explosive power than the city-leveling capability… Under this new agreement, the US will de-activate a large number of less accurate, strategically irrelevant weapons while simultaneously pursuing… a new generation of highly destabilizing offensive nuclear weapons... Between now and our… withdrawal from the (ABM) treaty on June 13, we will be encouraged to believe that the Bush administration is genuinely committed to disarmament while its actions clearly indicate that it is not."

"At first glance, the U.S.-Russian agreement to reduce deployed nuclear weapons by two-thirds over the next decade seems like good news…Far from leaving the Cold War behind us, the new arms accord preserves the reality of 'mutually assured destruction,' even as it opens the door to what nuclear weapons analyst Richard Butler has described as a potential era of 'unilateral assured destruction, American-style.' …in the context of the Bush administration's bellicose Nuclear Posture Review, which endorses the development of new, more 'usable' nuclear weapons…expanding the circumstances in which the Pentagon would consider 'going nuclear' …the Bush-Putin accord represents a reorientation of the nuclear arms race, not a step toward nuclear disarmament... a revitalized nuclear arms production complex -- is slated to increase by more than $30 billion over the next five years. No wonder weapons makers like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Bechtel are not complaining about the Bush-Putin agreement."

The NY Times reports, "There is a reason the nuclear arms treaty President [sic] Bush plans to sign at the coming Moscow summit meeting is only three pages long. It is intended to provide maximum flexibility to the Pentagon. The new accord does not require the destruction of a single missile launcher or warhead. Each side can carry out the reductions at its own pace, or even reverse them and temporarily build up its forces. The only real constraint is that each side must have no more than 1,700 to 2,200 warheads at the end of 2012. At that point, the treaty is set to expire, leaving each side free to have as many weapons as it would like unless the accord is extended. 'What we have now agreed to do under the treaty is what we wanted to do anyway,' a senior administration official said today. 'That's our kind of treaty.'" Impeach Bush Now!

"Moments after the September 11 attacks, the U.S. Department of Defense was dangerously close to a nuclear launch. With the majority of the American public left in the dark, the Defense Department went on defcon 2, its second-highest state of alert, ready to launch thousands of weapons with only three minutes decision time." So that's why Bush was whisked into the air over low-target areas for 10 hours! Nobel Prize nominee Helen Caldicott's startling book "The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush s Military-Industrial Complex," reveals how arms dealers like Lockheed Martin have been able to advance their trade by manipulating and accelerating America s military to its present crisis.

A report from the Energy Department's inspector general has found that plutonium capsules distributed to third-world countries like India and Pakistan in the "Atoms for Peace" program are totally unaccounted for. There are enough missing capsules to make a "dirty" nuclear weapon. Why did the U.S. lose track of these capsules? Blame the Reagan Administration. In 1984, Reagan discontinued the Sealed Source Registry program that tracked the packets.

"The NPR undermines the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which 187 countries have signed and that commits the five major nuclear weapon states (the U.S., Russia, China, France, and the UK) to eventual nuclear disarmament. Instead, the Pentagon plan signals a new nuclear build-up that will undercut U.S. diplomatic efforts focused on stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorists or hostile states. The few countries already developing nuclear weapons will become more determined to do so. Countries that have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons under the NPT, already distressed by a growing trend of U.S. unilateralism, may abandon the treaty in the face of a U.S. buildup. If the NPR is made policy, it will undermine U.S. security by encouraging other states to pursue nuclear weapons, and thereby increase the likelihood that nuclear weapons will actually be used." So write Nobel laureates Hans Bethe (1967), Dudley Herschbach (1986), and John Polanyi (1986).

In a move that can only be described as obscene, the Bush administration is trying to sell the idea of "usable" miniature nukes as a good idea. Writes William Arkin and Robert S. Norris: "Whether these proposals stem from a genuine belief in the military need for new nuclear weapons, or from the perceived need to maintain political influence, they demonstrate indifference to the effects of holding the nuclear sword over the Third World, and the willingness to create deliberate ambiguity about the possible use of U.S. nuclear weapons in any future conflict. In any case, the damage may already be done. The mischievous proposals that have already been broached only reinforce the belief of would-be nuclear powers in the importance of the bomb. "

"With the public and much of the news media looking the other way, a small but influential group has been quietly paving the way for a nuclear revival. They want to build a variety of new and improved warheads, including a new generation of highly accurate, ground-penetrating, bunker-busting ["mini-nukes"]. The players in this drama include scientists at Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, Energy Department officials, right-wing analysts, former government officials, and a congressionally appointed oversight panel and their friends and allies in Congress. The group wants to make sure that the nuclear enterprise remains alive and kicking for at least another half century...Is this the last gasp of those who cannot envision a world without nuclear weapons—or is it the start of a new nuclear era, one based on the dangerous, destabilizing, and costly premise that nuclear weapons should be more usable?" - Stephen L. Schwartz, "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists."

Robert Scheer writes, "News that the Pentagon had secret contingency plans to fight terrorism with nuclear weapons has the marks not of considered military doctrine but rather of an infantile tantrum born of the Bush administration's frustration in making good on its overblown promise to end the terrorist scourge... We risk escalating a worldwide nuclear arms race to nuke a shadow terrorist enemy whose most effective military action to date was begun with box cutters. Clearly, that threat could have been met best by taking the modest steps of maintaining armed air marshals on civilian planes and employing better-trained airport security guards. Nuking our own or anyone else's airports would not have saved the World Trade Center and the human beings who were there Sept. 11. The hijackers succeeded because our $30-billion-a-year intelligence apparatus failed to perform and we consistently coddled Saudi Arabia's backers of religious hate even after their minions blew up our embassies."

Molly Ivins writes, "How pathetic is it that we're going to put another trillion dollars into the military while we cut back on childcare for women moving from welfare to work? We are, as we probably remind ourselves too often, the most powerful nation on earth. How do we want to use that power? What do we stand for Democracy, human rights and global prosperity? Do we really think we can make the world a better place by building a new arsenal of nukes? And how much money does that take away from building democracy, human rights and global prosperity?... Before the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, before we become a lion body with the head of a man, with a gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, before we become that rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouching toward Bethlehem to be born ... let's stop. And think. Because this may be our only chance to say no."

"If ever there was any doubt about the moral depravity of our leaders, then the news that the Bush administration has ordered the US military to 'prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries' should put the question to rest permanently. I tremble as I write this, whether in anger or fear is hard to tell. What we are dealing with, here, is a psychopathic clique of demented killers who pose the greatest threat to human survival since the Black Plague... This manifesto of nuclear madness rendered by an anonymous team of Dr. Strangeloves essentially states that we will use nuclear weapons just as we damn well please, no longer as a last resort when our national survival is at stake, but to put down regional revolts on the farthest frontiers of our global empire. In short, as a response to 'surprising military developments,' nukes will now be used as weapons of conquest." So writes Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com.

Since the US spends more on weapons than the next 10 nations combined, we can crush any country in the world at will with a terrifying assortment of non-nuclear weapons, including cluster bombs, cruise missiles, and "daisy cutters." But somehow that just isn't good enough for Bush The Barbarian (BTB). No, BTB won't be emotionally satisfied until he can press a button and use nuclear weapons to level countries in an instant while laughing pathologically - like Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. Never mind that Bush campaigned on slashing the number of nukes in the US arsenal - what fun is being a Dictator if you can't pile weapon upon weapon, terrifying the rest of humanity with your mindless savagery?

Bush has tried to glom undeserved credit (what else is new?) for "reducing nuclear arms" when he is really starting a "new and better" (as in more dangerous) arms race. Luckily for the US, when Bush's odious Nuclear Posture Review was released, the Dems saw right through the ruse. "By failing to destroy nuclear warheads, the Nuclear Posture Review would increase the threat of proliferation at the very time the al-Qaeda terrorist network is known to be pursuing nuclear weapons," said Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.), whose panel held the hearing. Another deceptive and destructive aspect of the "Review" is that destroyed weaponry would be replaced by new, more vicious weapons, like ground-piercing missiles.

Bush says national security is his first concern, but this is a blatant lie. If it were true, he would be doing something to make the over 100 nuclear reactors in the country safe from potential terrorist attack. But, despite pleas from experts and citizens groups, since 9/11, not one new security measure has been taken. Why? Bush doesn't want to all too much attention to nuclear facilities, most of which are aging, but which are being re-licensed on a recklessly fast track to keep the industry going full steam - despite the risks. Meanwhile, the spent fuel pools at these plants are a disaster the size of several Chernobyls just waiting to happen.

From Greenpeace: "The Bush Administration is considering an expedited plan to resume nuclear weapons testing. A return to testing nuclear weapons would not only defy U.S. obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but experts say it could bring about a new nuclear arms race and destroy the fragile nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation agreements negotiated in the last decade. Please send a letter to your Congressional members encouraging them to support an effort that is underway, led by Representative Markey from Massachusetts, to let President [sic] Bush know that a resumption of nuclear testing is not an option. Encourage your Congressional members to tell President [sic] Bush that at this crucial time in world history, our nation needs a leader who will work diligently to help eliminate, not encourage, the threat of nuclear weapons."

From a Newsday editorial: "A cloud of bad faith hangs over the once- promising negotiations between Russia and the United States to make deep joint cuts in their nuclear arsenals. As talks got under way in Washington yesterday, the main obstacle surfaced immediately: Moscow's valid objections to U.S. plans to put nuclear warheads in storage instead of destroying them. That plan - spelled out in the Pentagon policy study, the Nuclear Posture Review - goes against the spirit of President George W. Bush's pledge to Russian President Vladimir Putin to make deep cuts in the U.S. strategic arsenal. It's disingenuous; Bush should disavow it immediately. If the plan goes through, the United States would destroy a small portion of the nuclear missiles slated for reduction, but "decommission" thousands more - remove their warheads and store them separately, which the Pentagon argues would enable prompt reassembly if a threat were to arise."

"It's the leading nations that have created the world's huge arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, and if there's a danger in their use now by terrorists, it's only because those nations' stocks have been pilfered or sold and their scientists bribed. If Bin Laden possesses such weapons, it's through purchases on the black market or because he had the backing of nation-states, with Pakistan at the head of the list... The Pakistan-India nuclear arms race is the most dangerous confrontation in the world, yet we suddenly ended sanctions against those countries and will reward Pakistan's military dictator with $1 billion in high-tech military assistance for turning against his old buddies, the Taliban." So writes LA Times columnist Robert Scheer.