Transcript Document

Why are physicists silent?
The Dangers of New US Nuclear Weapons Policies
*Nuclear Posture Review: delivered to Congress December 2001
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)
*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
NY Times March 2002
Why should physicists worry about this?
* Physicists discovered E=mc2
* Physicists discovered fission and fusion
* Physicists created the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb
* Physicists benefit from defense department funding
* Physicists educate other physicists that will work in the defense
industry building and managing bombs using their physics knowledge
* Physicists understand better than most non-physicists why nuclear
weapons are very dangerous
If nuclear bombs end up killing a lot of people,
it's (at least partly) our fault!
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.
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.
WMD fallacy:
Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty
1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any
circumstances:
(a) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain
chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical
weapons to anyone;
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological)
and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction
Are nuclear weapons not WMD?
The US reserves the right to develop, produce, stockpile AND threaten
to use WMD (nuclear) against non-nuclear states suspected of
having other kinds of "WMD's"
solution? nuclear proliferation!
The Un ited States Senate
W ash i ngton, DC 20510
February 21, 2003
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President :
We are writ ing you to convey our grave concern about recent public revelat ions
that sugge st that your administration considers nuclear weapons as a mere extension of
the cont inuum of convent ional weapons open to the United Stat es, and that your
administ rat ion may use nuclear weapons in t he looming military conflict against Iraq.
We note with grave concern the Los Angeles Times report of Jan. 25 and 26 that
your administ rat ion is act ively considering the use of U.S. nuclear weapons in the event
that Iraq attacks with chemical or biological weapons, or to preempt ively st rike sit es
believed to store or manufacture chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
What is more, according to a Jan. 31 Washington Tim es art icle, you approved a
nat ional security direct ive that specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in
response to biological or chemical att acks, apparent ly changing decades-old U.S. policy
of deliberate ambiguity. According to the art icle, Nat ional Security President ial Direct ive
17 states, “T he United Stat es will cont inue to make clear that it reserves the right to
respond with overwhelming force - including potent ially nuclear weapons – to t he use of
[weapons of mass dest ruct ion] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends
and allies.” Such language sugg ests that the administ rat ion is prepared to use nuclear
weapons first to respond to non-nuclear WMD t hreats, thereby increasing reliance on
nuclear weapons.
Why all this is not just 'theory'
Basis for 'Nuclear Posture
Review'
(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
Why all this is not just 'theory'
Basis for 'Nuclear Posture
Review'
(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
What has the APS said about all this?
Why is it important that it says something?
*Scientists are listened to,physicists know most about nuclear weapons
*Help senators oppose these policies
* Raise public awareness
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.
Why these policies are wrong
* Nuclear weapons are a million times more powerful than any other
weapon
* An escalating nuclear war can destroy all of humanity
* The new US nuclear weapons policy encourages nuclear
proliferation
* The 'nuclear taboo' has served humanity well for 60 years
* The nuclear threshold should not be crossed in the scenarios
envisioned in the new policy
* Planning according to these policies forecloses alternative
planning
* Nuclear 'deterrence' is a fallacy. There is no deterrence unless one
is prepared to do it
http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/
...
(600 US physicists)
What can be done?
* Get APS to issue a strong statement against these policies
Is it within APS' purview?
Imagine german biologists had developed a new deadly virus in 1940, that
spreads rapidly and kills millions, and Hitler was about to deploy it.
Would it have been right for the German Biological Society to issue a
statement of opposition?
* Raise public awareness (letters to newspapers, lectures, statements ...)
* Lobby Congress to have public hearings on this matter, oppose
these policies
* Get these policies reversed before they
are implemented
What can be done?
* Get APS to issue a strong statement against these policies
Is it within APS' purview?
Imagine german biologists had developed a new deadly virus in 1940, that
spreads rapidly and kills millions, and Hitler was about to deploy it.
Would it have been right for the German Biological Society to issue a
statement of opposition?
* Raise public awareness (letters to newspapers, lectures, statements ...)
* Lobby Congress to have public hearings on this matter, oppose
these policies
* Get these policies reversed before they
are implemented