Duck and Cover!

“Los Angeles Times
March 9, 2002

U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms

Military: Administration, in a secret report, calls for a strategy against at least seven nations: China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria.
By PAUL RICHTER
Times Staff Writer

March 9 2002

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations, according to a classified Pentagon report obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments."

A copy of the report was obtained by defense analyst and Times contributor William Arkin. His column on the contents appears in Sunday's editions.

Officials have long acknowledged that they had detailed nuclear plans for an attack on Russia. However, this "Nuclear Posture Review" apparently marks the first time that an official list of potential target countries has come to light, analysts said. Some predicted the disclosure would set off strong reactions from governments of the target countries.

"This is dynamite," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "I can imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the U.N." Arms control advocates said the report's directives on development of smaller nuclear weapons could signal that the Bush administration is more willing to overlook a long-standing taboo against the use of nuclear weapons except as a last resort. They warned that such moves could dangerously destabilize the world by encouraging other countries to believe that they, too, should develop weapons.

"They're trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence," said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World. "This is very, very dangerous talk . . . Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon."

But some conservative analysts insisted that the Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapon development programs.

They argued that smaller weapons have an important deterrent role because many aggressors might not believe that the U.S. forces would use multi-kiloton weapons that would wreak devastation on surrounding territory and friendly populations.

"We need to have a credible deterrence against regimes involved in international terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction," said Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. He said the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent "the right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world."

A spokesman for the Pentagon, Richard McGraw, declined to comment because the document is classified.

Congress requested the reassessment of the U.S. nuclear posture in September 2000. The last such review was conducted in 1994 by the Clinton administration. The new report, signed by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, is now being used by the U.S. Strategic Command to prepare a nuclear war plan.

Bush administration officials have publicly provided only sketchy details of the nuclear review. They have publicly emphasized the parts of the policy suggesting that the administration wants to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.

Since the Clinton administration's review is also classified, no specific contrast can be drawn. However, analysts portrayed this report as representing a break with earlier policy.

U.S. policymakers have generally indicated that the United States would not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states unless they were allied with nuclear powers. They have left some ambiguity about whether the United States would use nuclear weapons in retaliation after strikes with chemical or nuclear weapons.

The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor, it said.

The report says Russia is no longer officially an "enemy." Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian arsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed warheads and perhaps 10,000 smaller "theater" nuclear weapons, remains of concern.

Pentagon officials have said publicly that they were studying the need to develop theater nuclear weapons, designed for use against specific targets on a battlefield, but had not committed themselves to that course.

Officials have often spoken of the advantages of using nuclear weapons to destroy the deep tunnel and cave complexes that many regimes have been building, especially since the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Nuclear weapons give off powerful shock waves that can crush structures deep in the Earth, they point out.

Officials argue that large nuclear arms have so many destructive side effects, from blast to heat and radiation, that they become "self-deterring." They contend the Pentagon needs "full spectrum deterrence"--that is, a full range of weapons that potential enemies believe might be used against them.

The Pentagon was actively involved in planning for use of tactical nuclear weapons as recently as the 1970s. But it has moved away from them in the last two decades.

Analysts said the report's reference to "surprising military developments" referred to the Pentagon's fears that a rogue regime or terrorist group might suddenly unleash a wholly unknown weapon that was difficult to counter with the conventional U.S. arsenal.

The administration has proposed cutting the offensive nuclear arsenal by about two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200 missiles, within 10 years. Officials have also said they want to use precision guided conventional munitions in some missions that might have previously been accomplished with nuclear arms.

But critics said the report contradicts suggestions the Bush administration wants to cut the nuclear role.

"This clearly makes nuclear weapons a tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them," said Cirincione.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

One thing heard over and over these days is how tight the Bush Administration is re: leaks. They leaked this document on purpose. The purpose of this leak is to justify Star Wars II followed by a resart of the production of theatre nukes.”

“Is it a coincident that the report was leaked AFTER it was sent to congress?”

“The government has a real problem in gaining support for the Star War Program as well as the biological and chemical programs without revealing classified information.”

“Has it been sent to congress? What's your source?

The thing is, now these countries can use this report to justify THEIR N/B/C programs and then we're off to the races. It's like a Cold War arms race all over again, but against NUMEROUS other countries instead of just the one. Then you have the terrorist groups, and they have no respect for borders. They aren't usually as cooperative as al Qaida, having an obvious base of operations.”

“Tilt, Don't you read this crap before you post it? Look at the second paragraph.”

“Sorry Tilt, I forgot. Liberals don't base their theories on fact.”

“Chuckle, chuckle.”

“Sorry, I missed it.

Thanks for the low blow.

Speaking of facts, the actual source of the leak is not revealed. It states that the report was 'provided to Congress'. That is an assumption on your part.”

“Tilt, I didn't assume anything. I just asked if it was a coincidence. You are the one cooking up goofy theories and making assumptions.”

“Gotta chime in on this one. This seems to fit with most everything else Bush is doing to erase any real control over weapons proliferation.

Missile defense: despite tons of evidence that this doesn't work (lastest being revelations about MIT's Lincoln Lab folks cooking reports to make it look successful, Rumsfeld's recent decision to eliminate any outside (read: objective) review of the program, etc.), billions are continuing to pour into this.

The *last* time Rumsfeld had governmental power (in Daddy's administration), he kept commissioning CIA reports on the alleged missile threat until he got one that backed his position on Star Wars- took 3 tries, as I remember- the first two didn't support his opinions. This is a guy who's tried (with some success) to kill every arms control program he's run into. This just looks like more of the same.

We now have a shadow government designed to pick up the pieces following a nuke being smuggled into DC- If that's a big/real enough threat to do this, are there any comparable funds going into prevention on this score? Nope, doesn't look like it. Gotta build more nukes instead.

Liberal conspiracy? Not.”

“I assume that the White House leaked the report. You assumed someone in Congress leaked it. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Do you have a response to the report itself? Perhaps not. You're nitpicking instead. You speak of facts while dodging the point and casting aspersions. After observing your technique for several months, this seems to be the pattern.”

“Democrats make peace. Godly. (Carter and Clinton)

Republicans make war. The devil's handiwork.
(Nixon, Reagan, Bush & Bush.)


On the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, International Court of Justice, July 8, 1996

On the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
International Court of Justice
The Hague, 8 July 1996

The opinion of the International Court of Justice ("World Court") came in response to a request from the United Nations General Assembly. The Court found that the threat or use of nuclear weapons "would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict." However, the Court was unable to make a determination "in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake."

In general, the Court based its ruling on the body of international law protecting civilian populations. Its analysis cited specifically Hague II and IV, the Nuremberg Principles, and the Geneva Conventions.

So even if terorists let loose a nukes or chemicals on NYC, the USA's survival would not be at stake.”

“"Borein' Sidney! BOREIN'!"

-Johnny Rotten”

“What is intellectual honesty? I know what and intellectual is and I know what honesty is. I have seen a few honest people on TT, but damn few intellectuals.

I think the report is what it is. A strategic defense plan. I served with an artillery battalion in the seventies. We had nuclear shells we could fire from a 155 Howitzer. I think it is only prudent that a plan exists on how and when to use them.”

“Radiation Fallout Exposures: Demand for Full Disclosure
By Trisha Pritikin



It is a little known fact amongst members of the public that people who were alive, and particularly, who were in childhood, during the late l940s, the 1950s, and into the l960s, were subjected involuntarily to multiple radioactive fallout exposures right here in the United States. Even worse, these radioactive fallout exposures added on top of one another, coming from several sources.

If one were to question a cross section of the public, chances are that few people would be aware of the fact that Nevada Test Site (NTS) fallout drifted across many portions of the United States. Adding to those NTS fallout exposures which began in l951 were further radioactive clouds from global fallout- fallout from atomic tests conducted in the l950s in the MarshallIslands, Chinese tests, and nuclear tests conducted in the former Soviet Union in the early l960s.

Most people are aware of the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear reactor accident and its resulting offsite radiation emissions which released an estimated 12-15 curies of I-131 (radioactive iodine) onto surrounding communities.

These exposures have been followed by reports of health problems in TMI exposed populations, by questions as to the validity of "official" I-131 release estimates, and inquiries as to whether other radioactive substances were also released. The Three Mile Island accident woke many Americans up to the possibility of health hazards of environmental radiation exposure from nuclear facilities close to home.

I now ask the reader to sit down- the following figures are shocking. Twelve to fifteen curies of I-131 is bad enough, particularly when exposures were suffered by infants and children, during their most radiosensitive period of life. Now try somehow to conceive of the fact that the Nevada Test Site atomic tests released 150 million curies of I-131, which deposited throughout many portions of the US, and into Canada. Add to that the 8 billion curies of I-131 from US tests conducted in the Marshall Islands in the l950s, some of which drifted over the US, and the 12 billion curies of I-131 which were released in the early 1960s from tests in the former Soviet Union. Add to that releases from individual former Atomic Energy Commission sites such as Oak Ridge, Hanford (released 900,000 curies of I-131), Savannah River, Idaho National Engineering Lab and others, all part of the Manhattan Project's atomic bomb building factory, for those who lived within the downwind areas of these sites. Then, once again, add to that staggering total, exposures to other radioactive substances within fallout which are known to be health harming (or, "biologically significant").

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this picture is the ethical/human rights issue involved. We have the right to expect a proper and adequate response from our government for these government-caused involuntary exposures and the painful health problems which may have resulted from these exposures. We should, at the very least, demand full disclosure of the extent of exposures- that is, our government should provide to us our added doses, and translation of these combined doses into health risk. This, at a very minimum.

The national media has paid much attention to the unprecedented efforts bythe Department of Energy (DOE) to gain compensation for certain nuclear workers who suffered exposures on the job which have resulted in health problems. I applaud Secretary Richardson, DOE Secretary, for doing the right thing for at least some of the nuclear workers.

And, now it is time for the public to know that one did not have to be a nuclear worker to receive significant, health damaging, combined exposures to radioactive substances, in this case, contained within fallout. Anyone who was alive during the period of atmospheric testing at the Nevada Test Site, in the Marshall Islands, and during Chinese and Russian tests, got the combined exposures to the range of radioactive substances which were airborne and deposited within the US.

If you were in childhood during that period of time, you were dosed even more than an adult due to increased radiation uptake of a developing child. If you drank milk (whether cow's or goat's milk), your dose was substantially increased over that which you inhaled or ingested due to I-131 deposits on your food. Some peoples' exposures, when the doses are added, were truly substantial, some peoples' were not as high. Right now, the public has no idea what their true dose from these combined radioactive substances was, or what health risk these fallout doses present. In fact, most Americans do not even know they were exposed. We don't even have an effort underway by the government to calculate the doses of those at greatest health risk from combined exposures to just one of the radioactive substances, I-131.

Why hasn't our government told us of these exposures? There is a program under development by the National Cancer Institue (NCI) to inform people of their I-131 exposures from the NTS, but that program will not provide combined I-131 doses and health risk from NTS I-131 plus other sources of exposure to the public. Neither will that program let people know their exposures to the other potentially health damaging radioactive substances released within NTS fallout.

From this NCI I-131 communications program, we will be given just one part of the picture- I-131 exposures, and just from NTS testing. There may not be translation of these I-131 NTS doses into health risk. Representative doses (not individual doses) that people may have received from just one of the radionuclides released, I-131, and from just one I-131 exposure source, NTS, are posted on the National Cancer Institute website, without health risk information. It’s a start, but this is only one small part of the big picture of fallout exposures and radiation induced disease that these exposures may have caused in this country.

Approximately $1.85 million was appropriated by Congress, thanks to the efforts of Senator Harkin's (D-IA) office, to address fallout issues- this has turned into what is called a "feasibility" study- that is, an assessment of whether it is possible to add doses from multiple exposures, and to translate that information into health risk. Congress mandated this report to be released by last year and it still isn't out, an obvious attempt to stall until the next administration is in power, an administration that might be far more industry friendly.

The fallout "feasibility" study will finally be released for public comment in February. This feasibility study was led by CDC (within its National Center for Enviromental Health), using experts from NCI and past DOE scientists. One question asked by these agencies, of public representatives like me is- why spend more money to provide added doses and health risk to the public? In response I ask, why hasn't this already been done? We have endured these exposures and the health consequences that often develop from these exposures which, for some, end in death. Why do we not, at a very minimum, have the right to know the full extent of our involuntary exposures, and the health risk accompanying these exposures? I should know- I have lost my entire family to what are believed to be radiation exposure induced cancers and other exposure health effects.

It is of significance to note that there are those within the scientific community who feel that doses can be added NOW, without a dragged out "feasibility assessment", and that health risk can be provided NOW. Why do exposed populations deserve any less? Why so much foot dragging by the government, keeping the public from essential information with direct impact upon their lives?

The reason that it is important to understand the full extent of combined exposures and health risk from multiple fallout exposures, is that people need to know whether they are at significant enough health risk from their exposures that they should be monitored and treated for radiation induced cancers and other debilitating and sometimes life threatening diseases which are plausibly linked to these exposures to I-131 or the other radionuclides released in fallout.

Some 300 radioactive substances were released from NTS atomic tests, some of which can cause cancers far more frequently lethal than thyroid cancer, which has been linked to I-131 exposure. People, once exposed, remain at lifetime risk for radiation induced cancers and other diseases linked to these exposures. Why hasn't the public been given this essential, lifesaving information on the other radioactive substances to which we have been exposed from fallout sources”

“I would be really p*ssed if the U.S. DID NOT have a nuclear weapon contingency plan. Good planning involves considering the full range of possibilities. Not having protocols and procedures in advance for using nukes would be criminal negligence and stupidity, regardless of the party in the White House.”