ACDN - Action of Citizens for Nuclear Disarmament
logo ACDN banniere ACDNVisiter ACDN
Accueil-Home ACDN Contact ACDN Consulter le plan du site - SiteMap Other Version
vous etes ici Homepage > News > External sources > Nuclear Posture Review: Rhetoric vs. Reality
ACDN, What is it ?

News
Communiqués
External sources
Letters from ACDN
News Articles

Actions
2nd RID-NBC
3rd RID-NBC
Campaign "The Very Last Atom!"
Gathering for a Livable World

Petitions

Correspondance
International

Medias

Background papers

EUROPE

French Elections
News of the Presidential Campaign

Nuclear Posture Review: Rhetoric vs. Reality
By Jackie Cabasso


Published 9 April 2010

Below is the first take on
the Nuclear Posture Review - excerpted
from a speech Jackie Cabasso gave yesterday in Brasilia to a hearing convened by the
Brazilian Senate Foreign Relations Committee.


Despite hopes for a dramatic change of course,
the long awaited U.S. Nuclear Posture Review
(NPR), released yesterday, reveals no substantial
changes in U.S. nuclear force structure,
retaining all three legs of the strategic triad:
heavy bombers; ICBMs and strategic
submarines. It only marginally reduces the role
of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security
policy, stating, “These nuclear forces will
continue to play an essential role in deterring
potential adversaries and reassuring allies and
partners around the world.” The NPR explicitly
rejects reducing the high-alert status of ICBMs
and strategic submarines (SSBNs), concluding that
“the current alert posture of U.S. strategic
forces - with heavy bombers off full-time alert,
nearly all ICBMs on alert, and a significant
number of SSBNs at sea at any given time - should
be maintained for the present.” It also reaffirms
the policy of extended deterrence and retains the
capability to forward-deploy U.S. nuclear weapons
on tactical fighter-bombers and heavy bombers,
including at NATO bases in Europe, while
proceeding with a modification of the B-61 bomb carried on those planes.

The NPR declares that the United States will not
use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT that
are in compliance with their non-proliferation
obligations - a “negative security assurance”
clearly meant as a warning to Iran and North
Korea. According to the NPR: “The United States
is... not prepared at the present time to adopt a
universal policy that the ‘sole purpose’ of U.S.
nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the
United States and our allies and partners, but
will work to establish conditions under which
such a policy could be safely adopted.” And it does not rule out first use.[1]

While the NPR pledges that the United States will
not develop new nuclear warheads and will not
support new military missions or provide for new
military capabilities, the Obama Administration’s
FY 2011 budget request, submitted on February 1
in anticipation of the NPR, proposes a 14%
increase in funding for the National Nuclear
Security Administration to modify and upgrade
U.S. nuclear weapons — a greater percentage
increase than planned for any other government agency.

Hoped-for US Senate ratification of new START and
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is being
conditioned on increased investment in new
infrastructure for building nuclear weapon
components, including their plutonium cores
(“pits”).[2]

The new facilities would provide the
capability to build-up nuclear forces should the
decision be made to do so and to produce modified
or new-design warheads. The Obama
administration’s FY2011 budget request includes
nearly $7.3 billion for the weapons complex, in
inflation adjusted dollars, the largest amount
ever.[3]

The request includes a massive increase,
to $225 million for FY2011 alone, for the
controversial project to build a facility to
produce pits at the Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab.[4]

Modernization of existing US warheads to extend
their lives is also ongoing, including in some
cases, adding new military capabilities. As
verified in the NPR, the Obama administration is
proposing that nearly $2 billion be spent from
2011 to 2015 on modernizing the B-61 gravity
bombs, now deployed in Europe, to make them
compatible with the next generation of
nuclear-capable fighter jets, among other
things.[5] Unlike other nuclear weapon states,
the United States is not now producing and
deploying new versions of missiles, bombers, and
submarines assigned to carrying nuclear warheads.
But it is intensively developing many other
aspects of its nuclear forces, such as command
and control and targeting capabilities. And it is
planning for eventual new generations of delivery
systems. For example, the administration is
proposing to spend $672 million in 2011 for
design of a new ballistic missile submarine, to be built in 2019.[6]

Remarks by Defense Secretary Robert Gates at a
March 26 White House briefing on the announcement
of US-Russian agreement on a new START treaty
pretty much sums up the direction of U.S. nuclear
weapons policy for the foreseeable future:
“America’s nuclear arsenal remains an important
pillar of the U.S. defense posture, both to deter
potential adversaries and to reassure more than
two dozen allies and partners who rely on our
nuclear umbrella for their security.

But it is clear that we can accomplish these
goals with fewer nuclear weapons. The reductions
in this treaty will not affect the strength of
our nuclear triad. Nor does this treaty limit
plans to protect the United States and our allies
by improving and deploying missile defense systems.
Much of the analysis that supported the U.S.
negotiating position was provided by the Defense
Department’s nuclear posture review, which will be released shortly.

As the number of weapons declines we will have to
invest more heavily in our nuclear infrastructure
in order to keep our weapons safe, secure and effective.”[7]

Jackie Cabasso, Brasilia, 8 April 2010


[1] http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf

[2] The US Congress has appropriated $32.5
million for work in 2010 on design of non-nuclear
components of refurbished nuclear bomb, the B-61,
currently deployed in Europe. Congress has also
appropriated $97 million for design of a new
facility to produce the plutonium cores of
warheads at Los Alamos Laboratory, the Chemistry
and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR)
Nuclear Facility, and $94 million for design of
the Uranium Processing Facility at Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, which would build secondaries for
warheads. Construction is slated to begin this
spring of a replacement Kansas City Plant in
Missouri for production of non-nuclear components of warheads.

[3] Dr. Robert Civiak, “Enhancing Nuclear Weapons
Research and Production to Enhance Disarmament?”,
February 22, 2010,
http://www.trivalleycares.org/new/reports/FY2011BUDGETRPT.pdf

[4] Department of Energy FY2011 Congressional
Budget Request, National Nuclear Security
Administration, Office of the Administrator, Volume 1, February 2010.

[5] Otfried Nassauer, “Washington Mulls
Modernization of Aging Bombs,” Spiegel Online, March 15, 2010.

[6] John M. Donnelly, “Cost of Nuclear Subs Could
Sink Navy Budget,” Congressional Quarter Today Online News, March 1, 2010.

[7]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/briefing-secretary-clinton-secretary-gates-admiral-mullen-announcement-new-start-tr


L'argent est le nerf de la paix ! ACDN vous remercie de lui faire un DON

Other versions
print Printable version
pdfPDF Version


Share through social networks

Also in this section

President Hollande, Speech on Nuclear Deterrence, 19 February 2015
Time For Clear Public Understanding of Iranian Threat
Fukushima Radiation Moving Steadily Across Pacific
War With Russia Is On The Agenda
A Blow to Nuclear Power in Chicago
Obama’s Big Budget
Bush’s World War Three
Toward a different nuclear policy
Turning point at Chernobyl
In full: Brown’s nuclear speech

navigation motscles

Barack Obama
Obama set to reject ‘nuclear posture’ on eve of Start deal with Russia
Worldwide nuclear disarmament is the only response to anarchic proliferation
The "Peace President" Wants To Keep America’s Nukes
For a Middle East without Weapons of Mass Destruction
President Obama: "The United States will take concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons"
Letter to President Obama
Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize
Democratic Nominee Barack Obama on Arms Control
Nuclear posture
The four-handed game of French nuclear policy
THE “KING” IS MAD. REMOVE HIM!
Voting against nuclear war with Iran
Strategy
Robert Gates: Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence in the 21st Century
Latest Vintage from Champagne: New Rafale jets now carrying new ASMP-A missiles and new TNA nuclear warheads!
The Farce of France’s Nuclear Strike Force
VIENNA DECLARATION
USA
StratCom already planning pre-emptive strike on Iran
Ballistic Missile Defense: the new Cold War
Implications of the US-India nuclear deal and the task for the peace movement
Leading Americans Ask U.S. Military to Refuse Orders to Attack Iran
Solving the Korean Stalemate, One Step at a Time
Toward a Nuclear-Free World
"Israel will not lower its guard." Nor will Bush and Sarkozy.
Signs of Change in the First Committee
April 6, 2007 : How the worst was perhaps averted
Russian Military Sources Warn Attack on Iran 6 April

visites :  898346

Home | Contact | Site Map | Admin |

Site powered by SPIP
design et fonction Easter-Eggs