Regarding "Usable nuclear weapons"

March 17 letter to Senator Edwards

Dear Senator Edwards,

I am writing in behalf of the Committee for an Active Non-Violent Response to Terrorism of the Chapel Hill Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). We ask you to please write to the chairpersons of the Armed Services Committee and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, in the strongest terms possible, to oppose the idea of "usable" nuclear weapons and to cut funding from the Energy Department budget for the new nuclear warhead called the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator"

As you know, recent news accounts report that the Bush Administration plans to target non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons. This new nuclear policy is contained or implicit in the classified "Nuclear Posture Review" delivered to Congress on January 8, 2002.

The targeting of non-nuclear states with U.S. nuclear weapons could be expected to have the following consequences.

* A new, "usable" nuclear weapon, such as a bunker-buster, would be designed. The use of any such weapon would violate the U.S. commitment made in 1978 by Secretary of State Cyrus Vance at the UN Special Session on Disarmament. He stated that "...the United States will not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapons state [that is] party to the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) ..."

* Nuclear weapons testing will be resumed in order to test the design of this new nuclear warhead. This would break the ten-year international moratorium on nuclear weapons test explosions. It would violate U.S. obligations under Article VI of the NPT to work for the "...cessation of the nuclear arms race..." If the U.S. resumes testing, other nations, including Russia, China, India, and Pakistan, would almost certainly engage in new tests of their own, creating a new arms race. Forty years of work to achieve the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would be nullified.

* The U.S. could make a first strike with nuclear weapons. Such a strike could be made against a state (or non-state such as al Qaeda) if it is suspected of having the capability of creating weapons of mass destruction. The consequences, including massive civilian casualties and radiation victims, would constitute a crime against humanity. The successful Non-Proliferation Treaty, our first line of defense against nuclear war, would collapse.

The "Nuclear Posture Review" delivered to Congress January 8, 2002 lays out U.S. policy for developing and deploying nuclear weapons. The Energy Department?s budget request for 2003 includes an estimated $10 million to begin development of a "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator;" deployment estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars.

We have advocated for multilateral agreements to end nuclear testing and the removing of nuclear weapons from ?hair trigger? alert status. This would reduce the chance of a nuclear disaster and enhance global security. A new arms race would do the opposite.

I would appreciate knowing whether you wrote the chairs of these two committees and their responses.

Thank you for your time in considering our views on this issue.

Ruth Zalph for the Committee for an Active Non-Violent Response to Terrorism