Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 9. April 2007 / Time Line April 9, 2007
Version 3.004/09/2007
There It Goes Again: The Bush Administration's Latest Plan to
Build New Nuclear Weapons
By
Lawrence S. Wittner
The Bush administration's stubborn determination to prevail,
whatever the costs, is evident not only in its reckless military
venture in Iraq, but in its single-minded pursuit of new nuclear
weapons.
The U.S. government, of course, is supposed to be divesting itself
of its nuclear weapons under the provisions of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which it signed in 1968. As
recently as the NPT review conference of 2000, the U.S. government
joined other signers of the NPT in promising an "unequivocal
undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total
elimination of their nuclear arsenals."
Furthermore, when the Bush administration ignored these commitments
and pressed Congress hard for funding to build new nuclear
weapons—nuclear "bunker busters" and
"mini-nukes"—Congress dug in and rejected them as totally
unnecessary. With some 10,000 nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal,
members of Congress, both Democrats and some Republicans, seemed to
feel that enough was enough.
However, from the standpoint of the Bush administration, there are
never enough nuclear weapons—at least in its arsenal.
And so, administration officials are now back with another U.S.
nuclear weapons proposal: to build the Reliable Replacement Warhead
(RRW). "They've been running with RRW like you wouldn't believe,"
observed U.S. Representative David Hobson (Republican-Ohio). Hobson
ought to know for, until this January, he chaired the House
subcommittee on water and energy appropriations, which oversees
spending on nuclear weapons.
The alleged reason for building this newly-designed hydrogen bomb
is to maintain the reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile which, according to administration proponents of the RRW,
is deteriorating and needs to be replaced. But independent studies
by scientific experts have shown that the stockpile will remain
reliable for at least another fifty years.
Not surprisingly, the plan for the Reliable Replacement Warhead has
drawn sharp criticism. "This is a solution in search of a problem,"
remarked Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control
Association. "There is an urgent need to reduce these weapons, not
expand them." Much the same thing has been said by members of
Congress, who stress the provocative nature of the RRW. Despite the
fact that the contract for the nuclear weapon is slated to go to
the Lawrence Livermore lab in her home state of California, U.S.
Senator Diane Feinstein is a leading critic. "What worries me," she
said, "is that the minute you begin to put more sophisticated
warheads on the existing fleet, you are essentially creating a new
nuclear weapon. And it's just a matter of time before other nations
do the same thing."
Even more worrisome is the fact that the Reliable Replacement
Warhead is just the tip of the nuclear iceberg. This nuclear weapon
is merely a component of a larger Bush administration plan to
rebuild the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. Called Complex 2030 (and
dubbed by disarmament groups like Peace Action "Bombplex 2030"), it
calls for a massive reorganization and refurbishment of the
nation's nuclear weapons program. According to Thomas D'Agostino,
the deputy administrator for programs at the National Nuclear
Security Administration and a keen supporter of the proposal,
Complex 2030 will "restore us to a level of capability comparable
to what we had during the Cold War."
Like the Iraq War, this will be a very expensive program. The Bush
administration claims that Complex 2030 will cost roughly $150
billion. But the Government Accountability Office considers this
estimate far too low and has urged Congress to require that the
Department of Energy provide an accurate accounting of the real
costs.
Naturally, arms control and disarmament groups are horrified by
Complex 2030. Susan Gordon, director of the Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability, has remarked: "At a time when the Non-Proliferation
Treaty is in danger of unraveling, it is madness to be planning to
rebuild the U.S. nuclear weapons program with new warheads and new
military missions."
How warmly Congress will welcome the Bush administration's plan to
upgrade and expand the U.S. nuclear arsenal is anyone's guess, but
the odds are that it will receive a chilly reception—and not
only from Democrats.
In addition, the plan will certainly be seized upon by the
government of Iran. Currently assailed by the Bush administration
for allegedly building nuclear weapons and, thus, violating the
NPT, it merely has to point to the RRW and Complex 2030 to reveal
the administration's hypocrisy.
Indeed, if the Bush administration were really serious about
blocking nuclear proliferation—rather than enhancing its own
nuclear weapons supremacy—it would scrupulously abide by the
provisions of the NPT.
04/09/2007
LOCKHEED MARTIN
RECEIVES $135-MILLION CONTRACT MODIFICATION FROM THE NAVY FOR
TRIDENT II D5 MISSILE LIFE EXTENSION
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=18305&rsbci=0&fti=111&ti=0&sc=400
SUNNYVALE, Calif., April 9, 2007 -- The U.S. Navy has awarded
Lockheed Martin a $135-million contract modification for continued
work on the Trident II D5 Life Extension program. The award is in
addition to the $654.9-million contract awarded to Lockheed Martin
earlier this year for fiscal year 2007 production and deployed
systems support for the Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM)
program. The D5 Life Extension program will ensure a sufficient
inventory of missiles to support the service life of the
Navy’s Trident II Ohio-class submarines, which has been
extended to 2042. Lengthening the operational deployment of the
Trident II D5 weapons system by an anticipated 14 years, the
program will maintain a full force of operational missiles on the
submarines and allow for disarmed missiles to be expended in
routine test launches, providing continued assurance of safety,
reliability, readiness and performance. Deliveries under the
original D5 contract, which called for production of 425 missiles,
began in 1989, and the final two missiles are scheduled for
delivery this year. D5 Life Extension missile deliveries are
scheduled to begin in 2011, with up to 108 additional missiles
being delivered by 2017...
04/09/2007
How Many US Troops Are In Iraq? More Than You Think
by Don Monkerud
How Many Troops? Really!
How Many Troops? Really!
More Troops in Iraq Than Reported
The U.S. uses a number of deceptions, definitional illusions and
euphemisms, including counting only "combat forces" and "military
personnel," to drastically undercount the number of U.S. forces
involved in Iraq, which are at least twice the number as those
quoted in the media.
Even President Bush's January announcement of a "surge" of 21,500
U.S. troops, opposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has now morphed
into 30,000 troops with an additional "headquarters staff" of
3,000, although the currently reported total U.S. military in Iraq
is 145,000.
The number of U.S. forces reported by the government, required to
occupy a country slightly more than twice the size of Idaho, hides
the true extent of vast U.S. resources invested in personnel,
material and other costs. The real number is almost impossible to
find in government released information even with a great amount of
interpretation.
According to GlobalSecurity.org, a public policy organization that
provides background information on defense and homeland security,
keeping track of American forces has become "significantly more
difficult as the military seeks to improve operational security and
to deceive potential enemies and the media as to the extent of
American operations."
According to John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, there are a
number of other reasons affecting the accurate counting of the
number of military forces involved in Iraq. Large numbers of troops
are activated with unspecified duties to unspecified areas; many
small units from various locations are being mobilized from the
army and national guard, which count units differently; and groups
rotate in and out of Iraqi so quickly it's impossible for anyone
but the Pentagon to calculated how many are there. The Pentagon
tracks these numbers, but Pike says they aren't telling.
"We only try to nail the numbers down when we think Americans are
getting ready to blow someone up," Pike says. "The Pentagon knows
the numbers and we have certainly not done anything to highball it.
Certainly, if there's a chance to release or hold numbers, they are
parsimonious."
Additionally, private enterprise military "contractors" almost
double the number of U.S. forces in Iraq. After four contractors
were hung from a bridge in Fallujah in March 2004, the Bush
Administration stonewalled congressional efforts to force the
Pentagon to release information about the number of contractors in
Iraq. Finally, the Pentagon reported a total of 25,000.
In "The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing
Security," Deborah D. Avant, director for the Institute for Global
and Internal Studies at George Washington University, reports that
official numbers are difficult to find, but "This is the largest
deployment of U.S. contractors in a military operation."
In October, the military's first census of contractors totaled
100,000, not counting subcontractors, and in February 2007, AP
reported 120,000 contractors (which would put Bush's "surge" closer
to 50,000). Contractors, which some call mercenaries, provide
support services essential to maintaining the U.S. military
presence in Iraq. Ten times the number of contractors employed
during the Persian Gulf War, these contract mercenaries now cook
meals, interrogate prisoners, fix flat tires, repair vehicles, and
provide guard duty.
Military personnel formerly filled these types of jobs until former
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld instituted his "Total Force"
plan, which relies on a smaller U.S. military force with "its
active and reserve military components, its civil servants, and its
contractors." Senator Jim Webb of Virginia called this a
"rent-an-army."
What are the total of U.S. forces are in Iraq? The government
reported 145,000 U.S. military forces in Iraq but John Pike
estimates the current total at 150,000. Another 20,000 will arrive
as part of the "surge," a last gasp public relations effort to save
the operation from total failure.
John Pike estimates another 30,000 are "in the theater" to provide
"Operation Iraqi Freedom" support. The army and marines have
another 10,000 to 20,000 in Kuwait, and a nearby air force
wing-bombing group has 5,000. Current naval exercises in the
Persian Gulf, which represents a show of force against Iran for
kidnapping 15 British sailors, include 10,000 U.S. personnel, the
carrier groups Eisenhower and the Stennis, and 15 warships.
Add the 120,000 contract mercenaries and the forces involved in the
Iraqi operation and the total comes to 300,000 to 360,000, more
than twice the "official" figure of 145,000 troops. This isn't
counting the more than 5,000 British combat troops and navy, down
from a high of 40,000 during the initial invasion, or the rag-tag
remnants of the highly vaulted "Coalition of the Willing," which
has dwindled since the beginning of the occupation to 27 mostly
small countries such as Armenia, Estonia, Moldavia and Latvia.
Manipulated figures and private military contractors provide the
Bush Administration with political cover to escape public scrutiny
and keep injuries, deaths and secret operations out of the public
eye. A more accurate and honest view of participation in the Iraqi
occupation by the government could give Americans more reason to
oppose the waste of lives and resources on this ill-conceived,
poorly planned, and disastrous Keystone Cops venture.
04/09/2007
Japan's Military "Comfort Women" System
Congressional Research Service
On April 9, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report on the military comfort women, which Japan Focus presents here in full. Much of the report’s content will not be new to Focus readers. The research and reporting of scholars and journalists such as Yoshimi Yoshiaki, Yuki Tanaka, Sarah Soh, George Hicks, and Norimitsu Onishi contribute much to author Larry Nikch’s findings. But the report also draws extensively on responses to the issues by the Yomiuri Shimbun, Sankei Shimbun, Asahi Shimbun and other Japanese newspapers as well as successive Japanese government press conferences illustrative of the official disarray in the face of US Congressional pressures on the eve of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s first visit to the US since taking office. It also provides an extensive record of the Japanese government’s official handling of the comfort women issues, including apologies and unofficial reparations over a fifteen year period.
The CRS report is above all significant because it stands now as America’s official knowledge on the comfort women’s history. Given its tenor, this is staggering and also helps explain why South Korean news agencies among others have been collectively jumping up and down for joy that the CRS “rebutted” Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s series of denials during March 2007.
 |
 |