Background

Under the Bush administration, nuclear weapons have assumed a far more central role in US security policy. The administration has signaled its desire to overhaul the US nuclear arsenal by authorizing plans to develop and produce a new generation of nuclear weapons. The new, more “usable” role that the US has assigned to nuclear weapons is encouraging other nations to obtain nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in order to counter balance US military dominance. This will diminish current international attempts to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction, heightening the risk of new nuclear arms races and a devastating nuclear war, as well as increase risks of nuclear weapons being used against the US by other states and terrorist groups.

In an opportunity to reverse such policies, US citizens have the power to voice their concerns in holding the US government accountable to their commitments made under international treaties and to take leadership in creating a more responsible nuclear doctrine. The future deployment of the administration’s new nuclear strategy will depend upon the outcome of the next presidential election, as well as congressional debates over the next few years. These, in turn, will be critically dependent on US citizens engaging in a debate on future nuclear policies, and calling on presidential candidates and members of Congress to take principled positions against dangerous US nuclear policies.

Stay informed and find out more on:

1. The current status of US nuclear weapons policy

The recent passing of the Defense Authorization Bill and Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2004 included proposals to research a new generation of more “usable” nuclear weapons, construct a plutonium pit facility and shorten readiness for nuclear testing, revealing the current administration’s intent to rely on its nuclear forces for many decades to come.

The passing of the two bills included the authorization of

• Research towards the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) or nuclear “bunker buster,” approving $7.5 million in funds towards the project. Designed to withstand high-speed collision with the ground, the “bunker buster” is a nuclear bomb capable of boring through 20-30 feet of rock or concrete before exploding.\

• Research towards Advanced Nuclear Weapons Concepts for the development of low-yield nuclear weapons or “mini-nukes.” In November 2003, the Conference Committee on Defense Authorization voted to repeal the Spratt-Furse amendment, which prohibited the research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. $6 million was consequently approved for research on “mini-nukes” - small-scale nuclear warheads of under five kilotons.

• Design, building and environmental review of a new nuclear bomb plant known as the Modern Pit Facility (MPF). A plutonium pit is a steel encased plutonium ball that forms the explosive core of nuclear weapons. The US plans to produce up to 450 plutonium pits annually. $11 million has been allocated towards the project.

• Reduced Enhanced Test Readiness from between 24-36 months to 24 months, allocating $25 million towards this. Despite the current 11-year US test moratorium, the current administration is seeking to shorten the time for the recommencement of nuclear testing in order to prevent the “degradation” of the US nuclear arsenal. $34 million has been allocated towards the improvement of the Nevada Test Site.

For more information, go to “Congressional Bills Passed Support Bush Agenda for New Nuclear Weapons.”

Fiscal Year 2005 Nuclear Weapons Budget

In the FY 2005 budget request, the administration is seeking an increase in funding for Nuclear Weapons Activities by $332 million to $6.85 billion, exceeding Cold War spending levels. This reveals the US government’s continued ambitions to assign nuclear weapons a more usable role in national security policy.

Requests include:

• $9 million for Advanced Concepts, including research on low-yield nuclear weapons (or “mini-nukes”), 50% more than funds approved in the FY 2004 budget.
  
• $27.6 million for “Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators” (or “bunker-busters), 268% more than funds approved in the FY 2004 budget.
  
• $29.8 million for Modern Pit Manufacturing Facility, 176% more than funds approved in the FY 2004 budget.
  
• $30 million for Enhanced Test Readiness, 20.5% more than funds approved in the FY 2004 budget.. The administration is also advocating an 18 month test readiness posture over the current 24 months.
  
• $10.2 billion for the Missile Defense Agency, a 12% increase over funds approved in the FY 2004 budget.

For more information, go to "Proposed Energy Department Budget Would Boost Funds for Nuclear Weapons."

2. Statements from US presidential candidates on US nuclear weapons policy and national security issues.

> President Bush: “A National Security Strategy that Meets the Challenges of Our Time” and Excerpts of 2001 Nuclear Posture Review

> Senator John Kerry: Issue Statement on Foreign Policy, which includes arms control and non-proliferation measures and his 2004 Announcement Speech

> Representative Dennis Kucinich on nuclear weapons and weapons and non-proliferation

> Ralph Nader ‘s statement on “Toward a World of Peace, Justice, and Fulfillment of Human Possibilities within a Sustainable Environment”

For Responses from Presidential Candidates to Six Critical National Security Questions (including nuclear weapons) by Council for a Livable World, click here

For 2004 Presidential Candidate Profiles by California Peace Action, including questions on reducing and controlling the nuclear threat, click here

3. Quotes from past and present US Presidents on Nuclear Weapons

For quotes from past and present US Presidents on nuclear weapons, as well as from candidates running in this year's election, click here

4. Write to your presidential candidates and ask where they stand on US nuclear policy issues. Here are some sample questions:

• Do you support research and development of new nuclear weapons, including “bunker-busters” and “mini-nukes”? Please explain why or why not.
  
  
• Do you support a continuation of the current suspension in nuclear testing? Please explain why or why not.
  
  
• Do you support the allocation of funds to reduce the time to resume nuclear testing from between 24-36 months to 18 months? Please explain why or why not.
  
  
• Do you support continued funding for the building of a new plutonium pit facility to increase the stockpile of nuclear weapons triggers? Please explain why or why not.
  
  
• Do you support a US policy of No Use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states and non-state actors? Please explain why or why not.
  
  
• Do you support a US policy of No First Use of US nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapon states? Please explain why or why not.
  
  
• Do you support the US fulfillment of its international treaty obligations to achieve the multilateral phased elimination of nuclear weapons? Please explain why or why not.
  
  
• Do you support the redirection of nuclear weapons funding to meet more pressing social needs in education, health care and social services? Please explain why or why not.

Here are the contact details for the current presidential candidates: