"Those who love peace must learn to organize
as effectively as those who love war."
- Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.

• About the Campaign
• Sign the Petition
• The Pledge for a New Foreign Policy
• Three Steps to a Safer World

• International Cooperation
• Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Support Human Rights

Other Issues
Get Involved
About Us
Join Us
Contact Peace Action
Chapters
Home

Reduce & Control the Nuclear Threat

We face no greater threat than nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons are only effective as a means of terror - that can be aimed at us as well as others. The only way to be safe from this threat is to destroy the stockpiles and secure those facilities that make nuclear materials. Instead of leading efforts to secure and dismantle nuclear weapons, the Bush Administration wants to build new ones. Spending billions on a missile defense that won't work while building new nuclear weapons will only speed the pace of nuclear proliferation.

Our nation should lead a worldwide campaign to reduce and control the threat from weapons of mass destruction - a policy we could be proud of.

Talking Points

1. The Bush Administration has dangerously lowered the threshold regarding the use of nuclear weapons
2. The Bush Administration advocates building new nuclear weapons
3. The Bush policy encourages nuclear proliferation
4. We would be better off investing in a campaign to secure and dismantle nuclear weapons and nuclear material
5. Missile "Defense" will not produce security, but it will launch a new arms race
6. Building new nuclear weapons is a waste of money that produces no security
7. Missile defense, while destabilizing, ultimately won't work

1. The Bush Administration has dangerously lowered the threshold regarding the use of nuclear weapons.

The Bush Administration has pushed for radical changes in US nuclear policy. In March of 2002, the details of their "Nuclear Posture Review" were leaked to the Los Angeles Times. The Review calls for targeting China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria for a nuclear first strike. The report says nuclear weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or 'in the event of surprising military developments.' It suggests that the US may use nuclear weapons in a Middle East conflict or in a conflict between China and Taiwan. The Los Angeles Times has reported that the Administration has detailed plans for the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iraq.
Back to top

2. The Bush Administration advocates building new nuclear weapons.

		Find out more about US plans for new nukes

The Nuclear Posture Review articulates plans "to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations." The Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons labs are working to develop new "More usable" nuclear bombs as well as new "burrowing" warheads for use in a first strike against an underground bunker. The administration has signaled its intent to resume nuclear weapons testing and dismantle the larger fabric of nuclear arms control. Building new nuclear weapons will encourage other nuclear nations such as China to increase their investment in nuclear arms while simultaneously encouraging other non-nuclear countries to "go nuclear."

Back to top

3. The Bush policy encourages nuclear proliferation.

Announcing to the world that we are targeting other countries for a potential first strike while at the same time building new capabilities to enable that threat is certain to provoke an equal and opposite reaction. In the minds of other countries, the best way to avoid attack by the US is to build their own nuclear weapons. North Korea, for instance has explicitly stated that their nuclear program is meant as a deterrent to US attack. With every country that "goes nuclear" the pace of proliferation increases. As an example, Japan, South Korea and have the potential to "go nuclear" if North Korea continues its nuclear program. Similarly, if Taiwan determines that North Korea has deterred an invasion by developing nuclear weapons, then they may draw the conclusion that the best way to avoid an invasion by China is to develop their own nuclear arsenal.
Back to top

4. We would be better off investing in a campaign to secure and dismantle nuclear weapons and nuclear material.

Security experts agree that "loose nukes" and black market weapons of mass destruction represent the greatest threat to our security. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons facilities in Russia and former Soviet states have been under-secured. Many of the scientists that used to work on the Soviet nuclear complex are barely paid or not paid at all. There have been numerous attempts by terrorist organizations to buy both nuclear bombs and nuclear materials. It has been reported that as many as 80 "suitcase" bombs are unaccounted for. Despite this, the US spends a tiny $630 million per year on programs to secure and destroy these weapons. Invading Iraq, by contrast, is expected to cost $200 billion. We will spend 400 times more invading Iraq than we will spend addressing our greatest security threat.
Back to top

5. Missile "Defense" will not produce security, but it will launch a new arms race.

A surprise attack by another nation, using a ballistic missile is one of the least likely threats we face, if only because the attacking nation would face immediate destruction. On the other hand, missile defense will launch a new arms race.

The Bush administration's commitment to missile defense is inextricably linked to their new nuclear posture. A new offensive nuclear capability, coupled with a new defensive capability would give the US an advantage over other countries, both nuclear states and non-nuclear states. A planning document authored by Administration officials concluded, "Effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection of US military forces abroad."

In the words of Alexie Pushkov of the Presidential Foreign Policy Council in Moscow, "National missile defense is about American strategic hegemony. Even if I am wrong, this is how it is perceived all over the world."

In a report to the President, the CIA concluded that deployment of missile defense will trigger "an unsettling series of political and military ripple effects…that would include a sharp build-up of strategic and medium-range nuclear missiles by China, India and Pakistan and the further spread of military technology in the Middle East."

A group of 50 Nobel Prize-winning scientists concluded that deploying missile defense will set off a new arms race and "do grave harm" to American security.
Back to top

6. Building new nuclear weapons is a waste of money that produces no security.

Since 1945, the US has spent more than $5 trillion on nuclear weapons. The current federal budget for building and maintaining nuclear weapons is $35 billion. For all of that, we have not enhanced our security. In the words of Lt. General Lee Butler, the former head of US Nuclear Forces, "There is no security in nuclear weapons. It is a fool's game

The more nuclear weapons there are in existence, the more nuclear material is created by their production. They can be stolen, misplaced or launched by accident. Ronald Reagan's former chief arms negotiator Paul Nitze now argues that the US would be far better off if we pursued major reductions in our nuclear arsenal.
Back to top

7. Missile defense, while destabilizing, ultimately won't work.

The nation's largest association of physicists, the non-partisan American Physical Society, has issued a statement declaring that missile defense tests have been inadequate. The Federation of American Scientists and the Union of Concerned Scientists oppose the deployment of missile defense. The most common scientific critique is that the technology does not exist for missile defenses to distinguish between real warheads and cheaply produced decoys. The missile defense program is under investigation for fraud, both scientific and financial. Dr. Theodore Postol, a leading expert in missile technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, called claims that the system will work "a elaborate hoax."
Back to top

Peace Action of New York State
475 Riverside Drive
New York, New York 10115
212.870.2304