This Echo is READ ONLY !   NO Un-Authorized Messages Please!
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 77: June 19, 2003

Senators Debate Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons Initiative

Part 2 of 2

SENATOR WARNER:

"Mr. President, I oppose the amendment.

"Research on precision low-yield nuclear weapon design is prudent in
today's national security environment. Why would we want to prevent
any type of research on weapons that might contribute to improving
our national security? Authorizing the research does not authorize
the production, testing, or deployment of a low-yield nuclear
weapon. Congress reserves the right to decide that as a separate
matter, should such a step be requested by this or any future
Administration.

"I have received three letters on this matter: two from top military
leaders, Admiral James Ellis, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command
and General John Jumper, Chief of Staff to the U.S. Air Force, and
one from Secretary of State Colin Powell. All three of these
distinguished leaders urged support for repealing the ban on
low-yield nuclear weapons research.

"In the current international environment, with many new unexpected

threats, it is prudent to allow research on low-yield nuclear
weapons to learn whether such weapons could add to the deterrent
value of our nuclear force. A repeal of the ban on low-yield nuclear
weapons research and development would permit the scientists and
engineers at our national laboratories to consider whether these
types of weapons are feasible and for what purpose. For instance,
could such a weapon destroy a laboratory with biological and
chemical agents without disbursing them as a conventional weapon
would do? What would be the collateral effect?

"I do not agree with those who assert that even allowing this
research to go forward would undermine our nuclear non-proliferation
efforts. The United States is steadfast in its determination to
prevent nuclear proliferation through many means including
diplomacy, multilateral regimes to control the export of sensitive
technologies, and interdiction of illegal exports. The U.S. also has
a proven record of nuclear reductions.

"Secretary Colin Powell confirmed this view in his letter sent to me
on May 5th, 2003. In that letter, Secretary Powell stated: 'I do not
believe [repealing the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research and
development] will complicate our ongoing efforts with North Korea.'

"Over the past decade--while the current prohibition on this type of
research has been in place--the United States has taken thousands of
nuclear weapons out of the active stockpile, abided by a moratorium
on underground nuclear tests, designed no new nuclear weapons, and
refrained from research on low-yield nuclear weapons.

"Some might argue that these activities served the purpose of
encouraging other countries not to develop or proliferate nuclear
weapons. But let's examine the record.

"Over the past decade, India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons for
the first time. Other nations have continued to seek nuclear weapons
capabilities, including Iraq, Iran and North Korea. And many nation
are pursing chemical and biological weapons capabilities. I believe
this shows that other nations make decisions about whether or not to
acquire nuclear and other WMD capabilities based on their assessment
of their own national security need--not based on U.S. action in
this area. The argument that some make that if U.S. refrains from
certain types of activities, others will follow, just does not stand
the test of time.

"Some would also argue the authorizing of this research would lower
the nuclear threshold. I disagree. As Ambassador Linton Brooks,
Administrator of the Nuclear Security Administration, testified
before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, on April 8, 2003, the
'[n]uclear threshold is awesomely high.'  If wars of the future are
about winning hearts and minds, about liberating rather than
conquering, then the threshold for using nuclear weapons remains
very high indeed. But as long as we maintain a nuclear deterrence
force, we would be remiss if we did not keep it safe, secure and
reliable, and if we did not maintain our research capabilities both
for ourselves and to understand what other countries might be
exploring.

"It is worth noting that the United States had a large number of
low-yield nuclear weapons in our inventory during the '50s, '60s,
and '70s which have now been removed from the inventory. During each
of these decades there were significant national security challenges
to the United States. None of those challenges came close to
reaching the nuclear threshold, notwithstanding the availability of
low-yield nuclear weapons.

"We have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all
Americans. We should not place artificial limits on the intellectual
work of our gifted scientists to explore new technologies, to
understand what is possible as well as what potential adversaries
could be exploring. Should threats emerge which cannot be deterred
or destroyed with conventional weapons, our President must have
other options available to protect the citizens of the United
States, our interests and our allies. This has been the policy of
the United States for almost sixty years.

"The provision in the Senate bill merely permits the research that
will inform future decisions as to whether such weapons would
enhance the national security of our country overall. It does not
prejudice how Congress would decide that question in the future. Let
us not fear greater knowledge to inform our future decisions."

###############
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi{at}aip.org    http://www.aip.org/gov
(301) 209-3094
##END##########

 - END OF FILE -
==========

@Message posted automagically by IMTHINGS POST 1.30
---