Ratifying START will be just a start unless U.S. begins to disarm

Ratifying START looks good on paper, but it may come at a heavy price, writes Alice Slater of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Abolition 2000. Obama has already promised the weapons labs $80 billion dollars to build  three new bomb factories and an additional $100 billion for new delivery systems. Then he threw in another $4 billion to try to win Republican votes for the treaty. In the meantime, assurances are being given that the futile missile defense system will move forward. Slater concludes: "But if the US persists in developing its nuclear infrastructure with new bomb factories while threatening Russia with proliferating missiles, having unilaterally pulled out of the US-Soviet 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, then it's unlikely that this modest New START will help us down the path to peace."

Update on December 22, 2010 by admin

The Senate ratified the START Treaty shortly after 3pm today. A nice black eye for Sen. Kyl who said there wasn't time in the lame duck session - a clear stalling tactic. And a pretty big feather for Pres. Obama who made this one of his top foreign policy agendas. Now it remains to be seen whether the U.S. will begin meaninfgul disarmament.

National coalition urges U.S. Senate Democratic leaders to pass New START Treaty this year

Beyond Nuclear has joined with a diverse coalition of arms control, non-proliferation, peace, religious, and other groups in sending a letter urging U.S. Senate Democratic Leaders Harry Reid of Nevada, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Chuck Schumer of New York to schedule floor action for, and win passage of, the New START Treaty with Russia concerning nuclear weapons before it is dismissed and a new Senate sworn in early next year. In addition to Beyond Nuclear, the coalition of signatories includes: Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, American Friends Service Committee, Federation of American Scientists, Hoover Institution, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Bipartisan Security Group, Global Security Institute, Ambassador Robert Grey (Former US Representative to the Conference on Disarmament), Center for American Progress, Methodists United for Peace with Justice, Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World, National Security Network, British American Security Information Council, Tri-Valley CAREs, Arms Control Association, Truman National Security Project, Union of Concerned Scientists, Citizens for Global Solutions, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Council for a Livable World, Jan Lodal (Former Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense), League of Women Voters of the U.S., Peace Action, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, WAND (Women's Action for New Directions), Americans for Informed Democracy, Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers), Global Green USA, Two Futures Project, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society.

A single armed guard was all that protected Libyan weapons-usable highly enrichment uranium for a month

AP has reported that leaked U.S. diplomatic memos have revealed that in late 2009, 11.5 pounds of highly enriched uranium (HEU) at a nuclear facility in Libya were guarded by only a single armed guard for about a month. The critical mass for 85% HEU is about 110 pounds, meaning that the Libyan HEU would have provided 10% of the HEU needed for a nuclear weapon. In addition to the inadequate security, the U.S. diplomatic memos fretted about a loading crane that could have been used to steal the casks containing the HEU, and warned that the HEU could leak out of its containers within a few months.