PNA interviewed Dr. Helen Caldicott, who will receive the Fourth Haas International Peace and Justice Award on March 29, 2012, at WHYY-TV’s Hamilton Commons.  Here are some excerpts.
 

PNA: President John F. Kennedy once said:  “We must put an end to nuclear weapons, before they put an end to us.”  Do you agree with that statement?
 
HC: Absolutely.  Why can’t the world agree on this?  Diplomats go on and on talking rationally about how abolition must be done carefully and slowly, as if by giving up their ultimate weapons they may lose their sense of masculinity.  In defense they will probably accuse me of being emotional; however if one is not emotional when dealing with the ultimate threat, then one needs psychiatric treatment, methinks.
 
PNA: Helen, please tell us about nuclear weapons targeting, what it means—and can it be ended?
 
HC: It is terrible to contemplate, but every town and city in the US with a population of 50,000 or more is targeted by at least one hydrogen bomb.  Indeed, there are about 40 such monstrosities targeted on New York City alone, 60 on Washington.  The same holds true of Russian towns and cities, with Moscow targeted with 60, by us.  Since the Cold War ended, the Pentagon in its wisdom decided to target China, while Russia targets all major cities in Australian, Canada, Europe and Britain. But no one has said—at least no one in authority in government—“Why not just stop targeting?”  That is one way to begin.
 
People seem unaware that we nearly—very nearly—reached a point in 1987 where abolition of nuclear weapons between the two superpowers could be achieved at a seminal meeting in Reykjavik [Iceland] between Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev – two mere mortals over a weekend almost did the unthinkable. The initiative failed because Reagan was attached to Star Wars [missile defense] and Gorbachev refused to allow this fantastical system to proceed even though he knew it was doomed never to work.
 
PNA: How do we know we could actually accomplish ending all nuclear weapons?
 
HC: We can abolish nuclear weapons, as we did with chemical and biological weapons.  What it takes is leadership, and political will.  We have not tested them since 1992, because the truth is we don’t need them.
 
Politicians are obsessed with terrorists. I would ask the obvious question, who are the rogue states, who hold the world at nuclear ransom every second of every day? Russia who targets the US with more than a thousand hydrogen bombs on high alert, ready to be launched with a press of a button by [Vladimir Putin],  and the US who would retaliate or initiate in a similar deadly fashion.  No wonder we cannot control the acquisition of nuclear weapons by other countries when Russia and the US own 97% of the 23,000 H-bombs in the world today.
 
It has been said, “See not the mote in the other persons’ eye, look instead for the mote in your own eye.” Humility, simple humanity, courageous commitment and basic common sense must now prevail if indeed we have a future to contemplate.
 
PNA:  Thanks, Helen, we will see you at WHYY-TV, on March 29^th!
 
_______________________________________________

Dr. Helen Caldicott is a physician, a pediatrician and a life-long advocate of complete nuclear disarmament by all nations of the world, and an advocate of combating climate change.  She wrote If You Love This Planet (Norton, 2009, 2d ed.); War in Heaven: Preventing an Arms Race in Outer Space (New Press, 2007), with Dr. Craig Eisendrath, and five other books.  Dr. Caldicott will receive Philadelphia’s 2012 Haas International Peace and Social Justice Award, which she will accept at WHYY-TV’s Hamilton Commons on March 29, 2012, presented by the Project for Nuclear Awareness, co-hosted by PSR and Envision Peace Museum. Helen is the host of a weekly radio program, If You Love This Planet. She was named one of the “most influential women of the century” by the Smithsonian Institution.  She was National President of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a US peace and justice group which along with other international organizations was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985, and she founded Women’s Action for Nuclear Disarmament.

This year, according to the New York Times, “Pentagon spending will
total $531 billion. In 2017, it will rise to $567 billion.” So, while Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta’s talk of $487 billion reductions over 10 years is
impressive, most of the cuts are reductions in the rate of growth. In fact,
after inflation, the cuts are less than 2%/year in real dollars.

What does that mean for the American people? And what does it mean for
President Obama’s promises of real cuts, including in nuclear weapons and
their costs?

First the good news—the last time we had real cuts in military spending,
in the mid-to-late 1990’s, it was good for the economy, helped to create
balanced budgets and the longest period of real economic growth and
low unemployment in a century. That’s nothing to sneeze at, and we can
achieve this again.

From the point of view of smart power, this is a view of foreign policy
which says: “Spend only what you must for a strong defense, and build your
capacity to use economic, political, and development efforts to advance
our interests.” This pays off in many ways, making the US a country which
is seen as an assist, not a hindrance, as a great but friendly power, not a
power to be feared.

So what can President Obama do to emphasize smart power? PNA and
friends sent the White House a letter on January 19, 2012, which gives
some important ideas, shared by many in the arms-control community.
The president will be submitting a budget soon. Now is the time to
examine further cuts, such as these:

Cut the nuclear arsenal’s budget. As the Times notes (Jan. 30), there
is no reflection in the Panetta budget plan of the President’s stated
commitment to nuclear arms control, and cutting actual numbers of
nuclear weapons. This can save some $25 billion or more.

Cut the number of ballistic missile submarines projected in the
budget. This could save some $50 billion.

Cut F-35 fighter jets planned by over half, saving $150 billion. This
still leaves many more advanced fighters (1000) than anyone else,
including China’s projected fleet of advanced fighter jets.

Cut the number of ICBM’s, saving $79 billion.

Cut U.S. forces in Europe. The Cold War ended in 1989. Save at
least $25 billion by bringing more troops home from Germany and
England, where they’re not needed. Let them do work at home,
fighting natural disasters, floods and hurricanes, when not in service
abroad.

 
There are additional ways. At a recent meeting of the Arms Control
Association, a leading US expert group, Dr. Hans Kristensen and others
spoke of going from a “triad” (three-prong) nuclear attack force to a “dyad”
(two-prong force). It seems we mainly keep a three-prong force so each
branch of the armed services feels it has a role. This is no way to spend
hundreds of billions of dollars, when we need money for education,
infrastructure, and cutting the deficit.

As the Times editorial concluded:

“We know that it is politically easier to continue programs that outlive
their usefulness or outrun their cost estimates… But the country
cannot afford to continue on this way. And there is no strategic
argument for doing so.”

 
If that is the case, and we agree that it is, then the President’s work is
cut out for him. If we make the tough cuts now, as we have already done
for health and human services, we will be much stronger tomorrow—in
our economy, in our balancing of budgets, and in the employment and
advancement of our people.

___________________________
Written by Ed Aguilar, co-founder of the Project for Nuclear Awareness,
and is the program and development coordinator for PNA.

Project for Nuclear Awareness’ Program Coordinator, Edward Aguilar, participated in The New York Times Sunday Dialogue, “Ideas for Cutting Military Spending,” on November 12, 2011. PNA’s ideas on nuclear spending cuts received a welcome response from readers and Congress. Please find the article here:

2009 Haas Award recipient and former Secretary-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Dr. Hans Blix recently attended a preparatory conference for the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Blix is 4^th from left, below, behind former president of India, Abdul Kalam (foreground center), and the conference host, President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea (right).

Dr. Blix attended the conference as a member of the Eminent Persons Group for the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Summit. The purpose of the summit is to strengthen international commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Dr. Blix accepted PNA’s Haas Award for International Peace and Social Justice in October, 2009 (below). The 2012 Haas Award will be presented to Dr. Helen Caldicott on March 29^th.  Keep checking our website for details!

Dr. Hans Blix with PNA’s Chairman Craig Eisendrath, Executive Director Ed Aguilar and PNA staff at 2009 Haas Award Ceremony

On November 7, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was quoted in the New York Times about the Super Committee and the defense budget. He noted that– given how much needs to be cut– we must consider deeper cuts in nuclear weapons than were being planned. He also stated we can safely cut some US bases in Europe. This is welcome news, and conforms to proposals that have been made, among others, by Ambassador Tom Graham, Jr., a PNA leader. We appreciate Tom’s leadership on these issues– it seems that Secretary Panetta has found these ideas very useful, as well.
 

New York Times: Panetta Weighs Pentagon Cuts

Major news outlets are endorsing principles of nuclear arms spending reductions that PNA, PSR, and the Campaign for a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World have supported, among many other friends. Highlights from the NY Times editorial, “The Bloated NuclearWeapons Budget.”

“Twenty years after the end of the cold war, the United States still has about 2,500 nuclear weapons deployed and 2,600 more as backup. The Obama administration, in an attempt to mollify Congressional Republicans, has also committed to modernizing an already hugely expensive complex of nuclear labs and production facilities. Altogether, these and other nuclear-related programs could cost $600 billion or more over the next decade. The country does not need to maintain this large an arsenal. It should not be spending so much to do it, especially when Congress is considering deep cuts in vital domestic programs.
“A war with Russia is now unthinkable, conventional weapons are increasingly capable, and the main nuclear threat comes from Iran and North Korea. To have the credibility to try to contain their ambitions, the United States needs to be weaning itself from its reliance on nuclear weapons. Reducing the number of weapons, scaling back unnecessary modernization programs, and delaying or scrapping plans to replace some delivery systems will save billions and help make the world safer.” NY Times, Oct. 30, 2011.
____________________________________________________

In fact, our friends in PNA, as well as in allied groups such as Coalition for Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the ACA—Arms Control Association—have supported nuclear spending cuts, and have been calling and Emailing Congress to support it. Go to Email Congress, to participate. (If we call our Super Committee members now, especially Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, we have time to influence the vote on the Federal Budget, which must be trimmed by Thanksgiving under the current schedule. Sen. Toomey is at 215-597-7200, and anyone who answers can record your position as a PA voter, on this issue.)
What can be safely cut, without jeopardizing national security, freeing up money for health, education, and student loan needs, among other things, in the Super Committee? We can:

• Cancel a new fleet of nuclear submarines. Savings: $125 billion.
• Cancel the overhauling of thousands of old nuclear weapons; Army War College studies show we can “safely reduce” to below 1000 deployed weapons (one study says down to 331 is perfectly safe). Gen. James Cartwright said in July we should re-examine the whole program. Savings: $65-80 billion.
• Don’t build 100 new bombers and a new ICBM nuclear missile. Any new missile we build should be for space exploration, now being neglected, not for nuclear warheads, a relic of the 1980’s Cold War. Savings: over $20 billion.

These measures alone can save over $200 billion. And not only Rep. Ed Markey, a Democrat, has led the way on nuclear cuts. Here’s Republican Sen. Tom Coburn’s plan:

“Senator Tom Coburn, one of the few Republicans to support nuclear reductions, has called for cutting the number of deployed strategic warheads to 1,220, the ballistic missile submarine fleet to 11 from 14, and intercontinental ballistic missiles to 300 from 500. He also favors delaying the purchase of new bombers until the mid 2020s. Total savings, according to Mr. Coburn, would be at least $79 billion over the next decade. It is a smart beginning.”

_____________________________________________________________________________
Tom Coburn (R-OK) is one example of a Republican who combines fiscal prudence with a strong defense. We should ask Senator Toomey to follow his lead, and cut nuclear weapons spending by $200 billion in the Super Committee.
_____________________________________________________________________________

For the full NY Times editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/the-bloated-nuclear-weapons-budget.html?_r=1

Tell Congress to Cut $200 Billion, Use the Money for Important Priorities and Human Needs

Dear Friends,

First, thanks to all who helped send 5000 petitions to the Department of Energy to stop a new plutonium-pit facility, which could lead to new nuclear weapons, if a future president should order them.  Our action, with many partners from coast-to-coast, helped spur the Congress to cut funding for this facility.  (“Stop Nuclear Plant, Earthquake Zone”)

But there are plans for yet other new nuclear facilities.  So, now PNA supports the Ed Markey Letter (D-MA), seeking co-sponsors to sign on to cut $200 Billion, over the next ten years, from the nuclear budget. (Markey Letter).  We, and allies at PSR and other national organizations seek your help to send another 5000 letters in support to your Member of Congress.  In Pennsylvania, so far none of our Congressional delegation have joined the House members from 17 states, to sign on to the Markey Letter.

Please call, or send your personal email or fax, through this easy link –just Click Here, to join this important campaign.

Finally, on Thursday, October 27, PNA will co-host with PSR/Philly, a Phone Bank Pizza Party, to get together to stop the large increases in nuclear spending. As Rep. Ed Markey has said: “That money should instead be funneled to protect social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and the Federal Pell Grant program” for college scholarships. We’re calling on the Super-Committee to cut such spending by $200 billion over 10 years– but they’re voting soon, so please join us this Thursday at 5:00- 7:30 PM! We will also ask people to call their Senators, to support the CTBT, or Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. PNA and PSR have supported early ratification of this treaty, which strengthens national security, and has been ratified by all our European allies, plus Russia and over 140 countries. The international monitoring system (IMS), already running, is not only preventing illicit nuclear tests from being carried out in secret, but detected the Fukushima tsunami and earthquake as well, in time to save many additional lives from being lost. We need to ratify the Test Ban, and you can help, by attending the October 27^th Phone Bank Pizza party, 5:00 PM, at the PSR/PNA building, 704 N. 23^rd Street, in Philadelphia.  You can sign on for this, by calling PNA at 215-546-3030, or by Emailing infopna@gmail.com, by October 25^th.

Thanks, and don’t forget you can also support PNA’s efforts financially, at Online Contributions.

We’ll look for your letter, and see you at the Pizza Party!

In this eloquent tribute to the Spirit of Reykjavik, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev calls on the growing, world-wide movement to end nuclear arms to redouble its efforts. The Project for Nuclear Awareness has since its founding made it its missions to help build a world that does not want, need, or rely upon nuclear weapons, which create a danger of world annihilation. On March 29, 2012, we will honor Helen Caldicott—who also helped end the Cold War arms race—at our Haas-Eisendrath Peace Award. We commend President Gorbachev for his continuing commitment to the cause of peace and nuclear disarmament. We thank Paul Walker of Green Cross International for sharing this important statement.
 

Mikhail Gorbachev, Chairman, Green Cross International
October 10, 2011

MOSCOW – Twenty-five years ago this month, I sat across from Ronald Reagan in Reykjavik, Iceland to negotiate a deal that would have reduced, and could have ultimately eliminated by 2000, the fearsome arsenals of nuclear weapons held by the United States and the Soviet Union.

For all our differences, Reagan and I shared the strong conviction that civilized countries should not make such barbaric weapons the linchpin of their security. Even though we failed to achieve our highest aspirations in Reykjavik, the summit was nonetheless, in the words of my former counterpart, “a major turning point in the quest for a safer and secure world.”

The next few years may well determine if our shared dream of ridding the world of nuclear weapons will ever be realized.

Critics present nuclear disarmament as unrealistic at best, and a risky utopian dream at worst. They point to the Cold War’s “long peace” as proof that nuclear deterrence is the only means of staving off a major war.

As someone who has commanded these weapons, I strongly disagree. Nuclear deterrence has always been a hard and brittle guarantor of peace. By failing to propose a compelling plan for nuclear disarmament, the US, Russia, and the remaining nuclear powers are promoting through inaction a future in which nuclear weapons will inevitably be used. That catastrophe must be forestalled.

As I, along with George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger, Sam Nunn, and others, pointed out five years ago, nuclear deterrence becomes less reliable and more risky as the number of nuclear-armed states increases. Barring preemptive war (which has proven counterproductive) or effective sanctions (which have thus far proven insufficient), only sincere steps toward nuclear disarmament can furnish the mutual security needed to forge tough compromises on arms control and nonproliferation matters.

The trust and understanding built at Reykjavik paved the way for two historic treaties. The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty destroyed the feared quick-strike missiles then threatening Europe’s peace. And, in 1991, the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) cut the bloated US and Soviet nuclear arsenals by 80% over a decade.

But prospects for progress on arms control and nonproliferation are darkening in the absence of a credible push for nuclear disarmament. I learned during those two long days in Reykjavik that disarmament talks could be as constructive as they are arduous. By linking an array of interrelated matters, Reagan and I built the trust and understanding needed to moderate a nuclear-arms race of which we had lost control.
In retrospect, the Cold War’s end heralded the coming of a messier arrangement of global power and persuasion. The nuclear powers should adhere to the requirements of the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty and resume “good faith” negotiations for disarmament. This would augment the diplomatic and moral capital available to diplomats as they strive to restrain nuclear proliferation in a world where more countries than ever have the wherewithal to construct a nuclear bomb.

Only a serious program of universal nuclear disarmament can provide the reassurance and the credibility needed to build a global consensus that nuclear deterrence is a dead doctrine. We can no longer afford, politically or financially, the discriminatory nature of the current system of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots.”

Reykjavik proved that boldness is rewarded. Conditions were far from favorable for a disarmament deal in 1986. Before I became Soviet leader in 1983, relations between the Cold War superpowers had hit rock bottom. Reagan and I were nonetheless able to create a reservoir of constructive spirit through constant outreach and face-to-face interaction.

What seem to be lacking today are leaders with the boldness and vision to build the trust needed to reintroduce nuclear disarmament as the centerpiece of a peaceful global order. Economic constraints and the Chernobyl disaster helped spur us to action. Why has the Great Recession and the disastrous meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan not elicited a similar response today?

A first step would be for the US finally to ratify the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). President Barack Obama has endorsed this treaty as a vital instrument to discourage proliferation and avert nuclear war. It’s time for Obama to make good on commitments he made in Prague in 2009, take up Reagan’s mantle as Great Communicator, and persuade the US Senate to formalize America’s adherence to the CTBT.

This would compel the remaining holdouts – China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan – to reconsider the CTBT as well. That would bring us closer to a global ban on nuclear tests in any environment – the atmosphere, undersea, in outer space, or underground.

A second necessary step is for the US and Russia to follow up on the New START agreement and begin deeper weapons cuts, especially tactical and reserve weapons, which serve no purpose, waste funds, and threaten security. This step must be related to limits on missile defense, one of the key issues that undermined the Reykjavik summit.

A fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT), long stalled in multilateral talks in Geneva, and a successful second Nuclear Security Summit next year in Seoul, will help secure dangerous nuclear materials. This will also require that the 2002 Global Partnership, dedicated to securing and eliminating all weapons of mass destruction – nuclear, chemical, and biological – is renewed and expanded when it convenes next year in the US.

Our world remains too militarized. In today’s economic climate, nuclear weapons have become loathsome money pits. If, as seems likely, economic troubles continue, the US, Russia, and other nuclear powers should seize the moment to launch multilateral arms reductions through new or existing channels such as the UN Conference on Disarmament. These deliberations would yield greater security for less money.

But the buildup of conventional military forces – driven in large part by the enormous military might deployed globally by the US – must be addressed as well. As we engage in furthering our Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) agreement, we should seriously consider reducing the burden of military budgets and forces globally.

US President John F. Kennedy once warned that “every man, woman, and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment.” For more than 50 years, humanity has warily eyed that lethal pendulum while statesmen debated how to mend its fraying cords. The example of Reykjavik should remind us that palliative measures are not enough. Our efforts 25 years ago can be vindicated only when the Bomb ends up beside the slave trader’s manacles and the Great War’s mustard gas in the museum of bygone savagery.

Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the USSR, founded Green Cross International, the independent non-profit and nongovernmental organization working to address the inter-connected global challenges of security, poverty eradication, and environmental degradation.

By Melvin A. Goodman

CIA Director Leon Panetta becomes secretary of defense Thursday, taking over Washington’s largest and most powerful bureaucracy  with a budget that amounts to nearly 60 percent of discretionary federal spending. He will be stepping into the shoes of the most influential member of the Obama administration, Robert M. Gates, who has been canonized for his efforts over the past five years. For the past two months, Secretary of Defense Gates has been on a farewell tour of U.S. think tanks, univeristies and military academies, advocating policies that will make Mr. Panetta’s job extremely difficult.

Mr. Gates’ recent advocacy will complicate the tasks of his successor: continuing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and beginning the withdrawal from Afghanistan; significantly reducing the defense budget; and reforming the Pentagon’s weapons acquisition process.  President Barack Obama is committed to completing the withdrawal from Iraq by the end of the year and beginning the withdrawal from Afghanistan next month.  He also hopes to bring the defense budget under control.  In recent weeks, Mr. Gates has traveled to both Baghdad and Kabul, where he has called for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq and a token withdrawal from Afghanistan — and no significant cuts in defense spending.

Mr. Gates favors a continuation of current force levels in Afghanistan to move the Taliban to the negotiating table.  He ignores the fact that the Taliban have demonstrated no interest in negotiations.  He hopes to forget the signing of an unprecedented accord at the White House in November 2009 that committed the Obama team to significant withdrawals from Afghanistan.  The document was designed both to limit the ability of the Pentagon to drag its heels on withdrawal and to reduce the power and influence of the uniformed military.  Mr. Panetta, having been undercut by Mr. Gates, will now have to deal with this tension between the White House and the uniformed military on troop withdrawals.

In his recent lectures, Mr. Gates warned against any freeze in defense spending, leaving Mr. Panetta to deal with weapons systems and military missions that the United States can no longer afford.  As the former director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Panetta presumably understands that the United States, with less than 25 percent of the world’s economic output and more than 50 percent of the world’s military expenditures, will have to curtail certain weapons and missions.  The defense budget has grown more than 50 percent in the past 10 years and now exceeds the pace of spending of the Cold War era, including the wars in Korea and Vietnam as well as the peacetime buildup of President Ronald Reagan.

A reexamination of current troop deployments must include the tens of thousands of troops in Europe and Asia more than six decades after the end of World War II; hundreds of bases and facilities the world over; and the excessive willingness to project power in areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, where vital national interests are not at stake.  The United States needs to abandon the chimera of national missile defense at home and the need for a regional missile defense in Eastern Europe.

Mr. Panetta also will have to reform the weapons acquisition process that Mr. Gates has ignored for the past five years.  This process has been beset with military mismanagement, huge cost overruns, and little congressional scrutiny.  At the start of the Obama administration, Mr. Gates, who labels himself a cost-cutter, sponsored 91 defense acquisition programs at a cost of $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years; he will leave the Pentagon with 95 programs at a cost of $1.7 trillion.  Mr. Panetta will have to deal with increasingly expensive weapons systems such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a new class of ballistic missile submarines, and a new fleet of aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force.  The Marines want a new amphibious vehicle even though they haven’t conducted an amphibious landing since 1951.  Mr. Gates calls all these systems “absolutely critical” for the nation’s defense, but these weapons no longer reflect a balance between cost effectiveness and our national security.

Fifty years after President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s warning about the “military-industrial complex,” it is time to address the “undue influence” of the Pentagon and the “misplaced power” of the military-congressional lobby.

Melvin A. Goodman is senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor of government at the Johns Hopkins University.  He is the author of the “Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA” and the forthcoming “National Insecurity: The Threat of American Militarism.”  His email is goody789@verizon.net.

Copyright © 2011, The Baltimore Sun

[Link to Article]

Because of Fukushima and other less-well-known breeder reactor accidents, these in S.W. Japan, the Department of Energy has admitted that there are newly-understood risks of earthquakes, as a result of the planned building of a new CMRR, the innocently-named “chemistry and metallurgy research replacement center”—actually, a plan to go ahead with a nuclear weapons plant, on an earthquake fault line, in New Mexico.

There is government research by the NNSA going back to 2010 which clearly shows the risk of nuclear meltdown is greater than believed on the East Coast as well, because we now know the history of previous earthquakes much better, than we did when plants were built such as Plymouth Yankee, MA, Indian Point in NY, Three Mile Island, Shippingport, and Limerick, latter three all in PA.  These are within the top ten at-risk plants, a crisis in the making. So what can we do?  As it happens, right now there’s a golden opportunity.

-Number one, a small victory—the House, June 22nd, cut $100 million form the budget for the New Mexico facility, which will allow for the production of new plutonium pits, for 20-80 nukes each year, when built.  This will slow it down, and we should congratulate the sponsors of the cut in the House. Check Web-site for details.

-Second, the 2004 plans for the New Mexico plutonium facility are now seen to be seriously flawed.  When this happens, the Department of Energy by law has to file a new SEIS, or Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; this new SEIS has admitted some of the flaws, but not taken action to solve them.

-As proposed, the CMRR project will cost close to $6 billion, a 1,000% increase over initial cost estimates. Beyond this, the DOE now recognizes that there is a greater risk of damage to such a facility from earthquakes.

WHAT WE CAN DO, TODAY: The National Environmental Policy Act is one of the few laws that allow the public– that’s you, the citizens– to comment, for or against, and to give all your reasons.  The deadline for citizen comments is Tuesday, June 28^th, so we have five days left.  If you’re interested in commenting, you’ll be able to complete a form with a sample letter, and submit it to the Dept. of Energy, in your own words by clicking here. This link will redirect you to a form containing a sample letter.