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 almosta quarter-century.Instead of treating nuclear weapons in isolation, it considered them asan integrated component of American military power.

*Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations: Pentagon draft document,September 2003, March 2005

*Washington Post article, September 2005

(Linton Brooks, National Nuclear Security Administration Director,addressing Senate Armed Services Committee, 2004)

Military guidelines for implementation of new Nuclear Posture

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.

.

Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty1. 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

WMD fallacy:

Are nuclear weapons not WMD?

The US reserves the right to develop, produce, stockpile AND threatento use WMD (nuclear) against non-nuclear states suspected ofhaving other kinds of "WMD's"

solution? nuclear proliferation!

The United States SenateWashington, DC 20510

February 21, 2003

The Honorable George W. BushPresident of the United States1600 Pennsylvania AvenueWashington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you to convey our grave concern about recent public revelationsthat suggest that your administration considers nuclear weapons as a mere extension ofthe continuum of conventional weapons open to the United States, and that youradministration may use nuclear weapons in the looming military conflict against Iraq.

We note with grave concern the Los Angeles Times report of Jan. 25 and 26 thatyour administration is actively considering the use of U.S. nuclear weapons in the eventthat Iraq attacks with chemical or biological weapons, or to preemptively strike sitesbelieved to store or manufacture chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

What is more, according to a Jan. 31 Washington Times article, you approved anational security directive that specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons inresponse to biological or chemical attacks, apparently changing decades-old U.S. policyof deliberate ambiguity. According to the article, National Security Presidential Directive17 states, “The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right torespond with overwhelming force - including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of[weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friendsand allies.” Such language suggests that the administration is prepared to use nuclearweapons first to respond to non-nuclear WMD threats, thereby increasing reliance onnuclear weapons.

(2001)

Why all this is not just 'theory'

Director, National Nuclear Security Administration

Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence

National Security Advisor

Undersecretary of State forArms Control and International Security Affairs

Chairman, Pentagon'sDefense Science Board

Basis for 'Nuclear PostureReview'

NBC News 12/12/05

(2001)

Why all this is not just 'theory'

Director, National Nuclear Security Administration

Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence

National Security Advisor

Undersecretary of State forArms Control and International Security Affairs

Chairman, Pentagon'sDefense Science Board

Basis for 'Nuclear PostureReview'

NBC News 12/12/05

What has the APS said about all this?

*Scientists are listened to,physicists know most about nuclear weapons

*Help senators oppose these policies

* Raise public awareness

Why is it important that it says something?

Iran is accused by US State Departmentof having chemical and biological weapons

Iran has very large (>106) conventional forces

U.S. has 1.5x105 conventional forces in Iraq

Iran has missiles that can reach Iraq and Israel

Missiles could potentially have chemical warheads

Real life example: Iran Suppose a military confrontation starts:

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.

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

FAS January/February 2001

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

* Nuclear 'deterrence' is a fallacy. There is no deterrence unless one is prepared to do it

* Planning according to these policies forecloses alternative planning

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?

* Lobby Congress to have public hearings on this matter, oppose these policies

* Raise public awareness (letters to newspapers, lectures, statements ...)

* Get these policies reversed before they are implemented

Imagine german biologists had developed a new deadly virus in 1940, thatspreads rapidly and kills millions, and Hitler was about to deploy it. Would it have been right for the German Biological Society to issue astatement of opposition?

What can be done?

* Get APS to issue a strong statement against these policies Is it within APS' purview?

* Lobby Congress to have public hearings on this matter, oppose these policies

* Raise public awareness (letters to newspapers, lectures, statements ...)

Imagine german biologists had developed a new deadly virus in 1940, thatspreads rapidly and kills millions, and Hitler was about to deploy it. Would it have been right for the German Biological Society to issue astatement of opposition?

* Get these policies reversed before they are implemented