Although none of the candidates have exactly been shouting it from
the rooftops, this is the first presdiential campaign in memory where
all of the candidates have called for nuclear disarmament in one fashion
or another. As noted in my recent post regarding John McCain's position,
some concrete actions -- like opposing plans for new nuclear weapons --
would speak a lot louder than some fine words. But we should at least
call McCain on his rhetoric, and support calls by Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton for the elimination of nuclear weapons (Obama's call
is clearer and cleaner, but both have promised to pursue deep cuts
and a comprensive test ban in their first term).

What can the candidates do NOW to back up their rhetoric? A good
start would be to speak out loudly and clearly -- at every opportunity --
against the Department of Energy's Complex Transformation initiative,
which would spend $200 billion or more in the next two decades to
build new nuclear weapons and new nuclear weapons factories.

Last Tuesday, I spoke at a Washington, DC hearing on the Department of
Energy's "Draft Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
on Complex Transformation" (if you think this title is unwieldy, you should
see the thousands of pages the DOE has created in support of its ill-advised
plans!). A summary of the arguments I made in my testimony at the hearings
follows. For information on how to weigh in against the plan (comments on
the environmental impact statement are being accepted through April
10th) consult the web sites of the Friends Committee on National Legislation
or the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability.
A full version of the report that my testimony was based on is available here,
on the web site of the New America Foundation.

The Department of Energy's (DOE) plan to build new nuclear weapons and invest in new bomb factories is provocative, premature, and unnecessary -- not to mention a massive waste of taxpayer dollars.

It is provocative because it will spur nuclear proliferation

It is premature because the decision on how and whether to proceed
should be made by the next president, who is likely to revise the
current U.S. nuclear posture

It is unnecessary because there is no technical or strategic reason
to be building new nuclear weapons or weapons factories at this point
in our history

And it is wasteful because the DOE's own analysis suggests that any
of the complex transformation options under consideration will cost
over $200 billion between now and 2030 -- funds that could be far
better used for other purposes.

Former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger,
former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former Senate Armed
Services Committee chairman Sam Nunn are at the front of a growing
line of distinguished former government officials calling for "a world
free of nuclear weapons." Two of the three remaining presidential
candidates have also called for elimination or deep cuts (Obama and
Clinton), while the third (McCain) recently called for nuclear disarmament as
at least a long-term goal. Why isn't this option being considered
by the DOE?

The DOE claims that it is only investigating "existing and
reasonably foreseeable national security requirements." Or, as the
full quotation from Chapter 2 of the SPEIS puts it:

"The fundamental principle underlying [the] evaluation of
alternatives is that the [weapons complex] must continue to support existing
and reasonably foreseeable national security requirements. This is
NNSA's [the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration] obligation
and responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act and the National Nuclear
Security Administration Act. This SPEIS does not analyze alternatives
to the United States' national security policy. Rather, it examines the
environmental effects of proposed actions and reasonable alternatives
for execution of the program based on the existing policy and foreseeable
changes in this policy."

This raises the obvious question: WHAT IS a reasonable alternative?
Isn't it reasonable to consider how and why proceeding with the
production of new nuclear weapons and new nuclear weapons factories is
likely to provoke other countries to begin or accelerate efforts to
seek their own nuclear arsenals?

Furthermore, as the advocates of eliminating nuclear weapons have
noted, in a world in which terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear
weapon may be the greatest threat we face, won't we be MUCH safer with
as few nuclear weapons and the smallest amount of bomb-making
materials possible? Isn't looking at the prospects of deep
reductions or elimination of nuclear weapons the most reasonable
alternative of all?

Doesn't the fact that we are on the verge of a new administration
that could well decide to move towards a posture of zero nuclear
weapons constitute a "reasonable alternative" that should be explored
in the SPEIS? In fact, isn't it reasonable to wait for guidance from
the next president rather than rushing ahead with a plan that may be
rendered irrelevant and obsolete in a few years time?

The DOE has the audacity to claim that building new
nuclear weapons and bomb-making facilities will SAVE money. I guess
that depends on what you mean by the word "save."

DOE's own economic consultants suggest that there will be at a
minimum $40 to $60 billion in additional investments needed for
"Complex Transformation." On top of the ongoing operating costs for
the complex of $170 billion between now and 2030, that would put the
price tag at $210 to $230 billion.

As for offsetting "savings" from a more "efficient" nuclear weapons
complex, the DOE's consultants acknowledge that these are unlikely to
have a major impact until 2060, or more than 50 years from now, if
then. By then, we shouldn't be deploying or building nuclear weapons -
they should have long since been eliminated.

Complex Transformation represents a bailout for a nuclear weapons
industry that is increasingly irrelevant to the emerging threats that
we face as nation and as a global community. The funds proposed for
building a new nuclear weapons complex would be far better spent
addressing threats like the need to clean up the environmental hazards
caused by past nuclear weapons production; finding new technologies
and processes for verifying a world of "zero nuclear weapons"; and
investing in dealing with overarching threats like climate change. By
comparison, wasting funds on sustaining a provocative and unnecessary
nuclear weapons complex is an unacceptable use of the money supplied
to our government by American taxpayers.