Antiwarhirsch is iran in violation of the npt is
Download
1 / 36

(antiwar/hirsch) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


(www.antiwar.com/hirsch). Is Iran in violation of the NPT? Is Iran pursuing nuclear weapons?. Feb. 27, 2006: Report by the IAEA Director General:. Represents a radical departure from the past and the most fundamental rethinking of the roles and purposes of nuclear weapons in almost

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha

Download Presentation

(antiwar/hirsch)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


(www.antiwar.com/hirsch)


Is Iran in violation of the NPT? Is Iran pursuing nuclear weapons?

Feb. 27, 2006: Report by the IAEA Director General:


Represents a radical departure from the past and the most fundamental

rethinking of the roles and purposes of nuclear weapons in almost

a quarter-century.

Instead of treating nuclear weapons in isolation, it considered them as

an integrated component of American military power.

(Linton Brooks, National Nuclear Security Administration Director,

addressing Senate Armed Services Committee, 2004)

New US Nuclear Weapons Policies

*Nuclear Posture Review: delivered to Congress December 2001

*Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations: Pentagon draft document,

September 2003, March 2005

Military guidelines for implementation of new Nuclear Posture

*Washington Post article, September 2005


Excerpts from "Nuclear Posture Review" of 2001:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm

U.S. military forces themselves, including nuclear forces will now be

used to "dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs

or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and

friends." (p. 9)

Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to

withstand non-nuclear attack, (for example, deep underground

bunkers or bio-weapon facilities)." (p. 12-13)


NY Times March 2002


Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force

and provide US leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate

contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the

success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting,

minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation.

Combatant commanders may consider the following target selection factors to determine

how to defeat individual targets.... 1. Time sensitivity. 2. Hardness (ability to withstand

conventional strikes). 3. Size of target. 4. Surrounding geology and depth (for

underground targets). 5. Required level of damage...

More than 70 countries now use underground Facilities (UGFs) for military purposes...

Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack,

(for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities)." .

Desired capabilities for nuclear weapons systems in flexible, adaptable strike plans

include options for variable and reduced yields, high accuracy, and timely employment.

These capabilities would help deter enemy use of WMD or limit collateral damage,

should the United States have to defeat enemy WMD capabilities.

.

Nuclear

Non-nuclear


Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force

and provide US leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate

contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the

success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting,

minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation.

Combatant commanders may consider the following target selection factors to determine

how to defeat individual targets.... 1. Time sensitivity. 2. Hardness (ability to withstand

conventional strikes). 3. Size of target. 4. Surrounding geology and depth (for

underground targets). 5. Required level of damage...

More than 70 countries now use underground Facilities (UGFs) for military purposes...

Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack,

(for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities)." .

Desired capabilities for nuclear weapons systems in flexible, adaptable strike plans

include options for variable and reduced yields, high accuracy, and timely employment.

These capabilities would help deter enemy use of WMD or limit collateral damage,

should the United States have to defeat enemy WMD capabilities.

.

Nuclear

Non-nuclear


Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force

and provide US leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate

contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the

success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting,

minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation.

Combatant commanders may consider the following target selection factors to determine

how to defeat individual targets.... 1. Time sensitivity. 2. Hardness (ability to withstand

conventional strikes). 3. Size of target. 4. Surrounding geology and depth (for

underground targets). 5. Required level of damage...

More than 70 countries now use underground Facilities (UGFs) for military purposes...

Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack,

(for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities)." .

Desired capabilities for nuclear weapons systems in flexible, adaptable strike plans

include options for variable and reduced yields, high accuracy, and timely employment.

These capabilities would help deter enemy use of WMD or limit collateral damage,

should the United States have to defeat enemy WMD capabilities.

.

Nuclear

Non-nuclear


Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force

and provide US leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate

contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the

success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting,

minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation.

Combatant commanders may consider the following target selection factors to determine

how to defeat individual targets.... 1. Time sensitivity. 2. Hardness (ability to withstand

conventional strikes). 3. Size of target. 4. Surrounding geology and depth (for

underground targets). 5. Required level of damage...

More than 70 countries now use underground Facilities (UGFs) for military purposes...

Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack,

(for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities)." .

Desired capabilities for nuclear weapons systems in flexible, adaptable strike plans

include options for variable and reduced yields, high accuracy, and timely employment.

These capabilities would help deter enemy use of WMD or limit collateral damage,

should the United States have to defeat enemy WMD capabilities.

.

Nuclear

Non-nuclear


Real life example: Iran

Suppose a military confrontation starts:

Iran is accused by US State Department

of having chemical and biological weapons

Iran has missiles that can reach Iraq and Israel

Missiles could potentially have chemical warheads

Iran has very large (>106) conventional forces

U.S. has 1.5x105 conventional forces in Iraq


FAS January/February 2001

By Greg Mello May/June 1997 pp. 28-32 (vol. 53, no. 03) © 1997 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

The B61 "mod-11" gravity bomb is the first new nuclear capability added to the U.S. arsenal since 1989.

It was developed and deployed secretly, without public or congressional debate, and in apparent contradiction to official domestic and international assurances that no new nuclear weapons were being developed in the United States.

The B61-11's unique earth-penetrating characteristics and wide range of yields allow it to threaten otherwise indestructible targets from the air--or, in Pentagonese, to hold such targets "at risk." That makes the B61-11 a uniquely useful warfighting tool.


Are tactical nuclear weapons (B61-11) deployed in the

Persian Gulf region?

National Security Presidential Directives (NSPD)

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/

NSPD 26Intelligence Priorities

NSPD 27U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Space Policy25 April 2003

NSPD 28Nuclear Weapons Command, Control, Safety, and Security (source)20 June 2003

NSPD 29[Transition to Democracy in Cuba]30 November 2003

NSPD 31["Vision" for NASA and Goals for Space Science]

NSPD 32[Latin America Policy]

NSPD 33Biodefense for the 21st Century28 April 2004

NSPD 34Fiscal Year 2004-2012 Nuclear Weapons Stockpile PlanMay 2004

NSPD 35Nuclear Weapons Deployment AuthorizationMay 2004

NSPD 36United States Government Operations in Iraq11 May 2004

NSPD 40U.S. Space Transportation Policy21 December 2004

NSPD 41Maritime Security Policy21 December 2004

NSPD 43Domestic Nuclear Detection15 April 2005


Who decides whether nuclear weapons will be used?

NSC-30 of 1948:

"the decision as to the employment of atomic weapons in the event of war is to be made by the Chief Executive when he considers such decision to be required."

Congress has no say in this

Who advises the President?


Basis for 'Nuclear Posture

Review' (2001)

(2001)

Director, National Nuclear Security

Administration

Undersecretary of Defense for

Intelligence

National Security Advisor

Undersecretary of State for

Arms Control and International

Security Affairs

Chairman, Pentagon's

Defense Science Board

NBC News 12/12/05


Basis for 'Nuclear Posture

Review' (2001)

(2001)

Director, National Nuclear Security

Administration

Undersecretary of Defense for

Intelligence

National Security Advisor

Undersecretary of State for

Arms Control and International

Security Affairs

Chairman, Pentagon's

Defense Science Board

NBC News 12/12/05


US "negative security assurance" to non-NW states, 1995:

"Legal" foundations to "justify" US attack and nuclear use

Doctrine for Joint

Nuclear Operations

UN SC Resolution 1540


The targets:


Why would the US want to use small nuclear weapons

against Iran

* Deter a response to the attack

* Destroy underground facilities that can't be destroyed otherwise

* Establish the credibility of the US nuclear "deterrent" against

non-nuclear states

Nuclear Posture Review, 2001:

U.S. military forces themselves, including nuclear forces will now be

used to "dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs

or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and

friends." (p. 9)


Why it would be catastrophic if the US uses nuclear weapons

in an attack on Iran:

* US waging a nuclear war of aggression

* No more Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty:

182 non-nuclear nations current signatories of the NPT,

many will rush to get nuclear weapons as a deterrent to attack

by nuclear nations

* No longer a "taboo" against use of nuclear weapons

* Any regional conflict could explode into all-out nuclear war

* Nuclear weapons are 106 times more powerful than other weapons

* An escalating nuclear war can wipe out humanity


Nuclear Weapon Effect Calculator

Largest US bomb: 15 megatons

Hiroshima bomb: 15 kilotons

The Hiroshima bomb killed 100,000 human beings

World's nuclear arsenals > 200,000 Hiroshima bombs

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html

There are at least 20,000 nuclear bombs today,

of average power 150 kilotons = 10xHiroshima each

http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=nd02norris


http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/

Petition by physicists on nuclear weapons policy, September 2005

As physicists we feel a special responsibility with respect to nuclear weapons; our profession brought them into

existence 60 years ago. We wish to express our opposition to a shocking new US policy currently under c

onsideration regarding the use of nuclear weapons. We ask our professional organizations to take a stand on this

issue, the Congress of the United States to conduct full public hearings on this subject, and the media and public

at large to discuss this new policy and make their voices heard.

This new policy was outlined in the document Nuclear Posture Review delivered to Congress in December 2001,

part of which has been made public, and is further defined in the unclassified draft document Doctrine for Joint

Nuclear Operations dated March 15, 2005, which is in the final stages of being adopted and declared official policy

by the US government, according to reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times (9/11/05). It

foresees pre-emptive nuclear strikes against non-nuclear adversaries, for purposes which include the following (

Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, Page III-2):

.......................................................................

This dangerous policy change ignores the fact that nuclear weapons are on a completely different scale than other

WMD's and conventional weapons. Using a nuclear weapon pre-emptively and against a non-nuclear adversary

crosses a line, blurring the sharp distinction that exists between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, and heightens

the probability of future use of nuclear weapons by others. The underlying principle of the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is that in exchange for other countries forgoing the development of nuclear weapons, the

nuclear weapon states will pursue nuclear disarmament. Instead, this new U.S. policy conveys a clear message to the

182 non-nuclear weapon states that the United States is moving strongly away from disarmament, and is in fact

prepared to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries. It provides a strong incentive for countries to

abandon the NPT and pursue nuclear weapons themselves and dramatically increases the risk of nuclear

proliferation, and ultimately the risk that regional conflicts will explode into all-out nuclear war, with the potential

to destroy our civilization.

We urge members of Congress, professional organizations and the media to raise public awareness and promote

discussion on these issues, and we express our repudiation of these dangerous policies in the strongest possible

terms.

1796 physicists have signed the petition as of Mar, 15 2006 3:26 PM PST


What can be done today:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power:

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Congress could pass a law regulating the Armed Forces:

"The Armed Forces of the United States shall not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-weapon state in the absence of prior Congressional authorization to that effect"

As members of the UC community we have a special moral

responsibility.

Congress should limit the authority of the President to order

the use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state


ad
  • Login