Should an Environmental Impact Statement be required for nuclear weapons?

[bananas]

Poll question: Should an Environmental Impact Statement be required for nuclear weapons?

Interesting question:

"Moreover, in the United States, there appears to be a legal basis to force the Defense Department to evaluate the likely consequences of its nuclear arsenal. ... If that's the case, why not require Defense to create an Environmental Impact Statement for the more than 1,000 U.S. strategic nuclear weapons now on high-alert?"

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/the-climatic-consequences-of-nuclear-war

The climatic consequences of nuclear war
By Steven Starr | 12 March 2010

Article Highlights
* Nuclear war of any kind would devastate the Earth's environment and cause incredible cooling in surface temperatures.
* Yet these climatic consequences are never considered by the nuclear weapon states when they are formulating their nuclear doctrines.
* To change this dynamic, the scientific community should pressure countries such as the United States and Russia to better consider the catastrophic potential of their nuclear arsenals.

Although the ongoing Nuclear Posture Review is supposed to include all aspects of the strategy and doctrine that govern the use of U.S. nuclear weapons, it once again will not consider one crucial question: What would be the long-term consequences to Earth's environment if the U.S. nuclear arsenal were detonated during a conflict?

This isn't a question to be avoided. Recent scientific studies have found that a war fought with the deployed U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals would leave Earth virtually uninhabitable. In fact, NASA computer models have shown that even a "successful" first strike by Washington or Moscow would inflict catastrophic environmental damage that would make agriculture impossible and cause mass starvation. Similarly, in the January Scientific American, Alan Robock and Brian Toon, the foremost experts on the climatic impact of nuclear war, warn that the environmental consequences of a "regional" nuclear war would cause a global famine that could kill one billion people.

<snip>

Moreover, in the United States, there appears to be a legal basis to force the Defense Department to evaluate the likely consequences of its nuclear arsenal. According to the EPA's website, "The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision-making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. To meet NEPA requirements, federal agencies prepare a detailed statement known as an Environmental Impact Statement."

If that's the case, why not require Defense to create an Environmental Impact Statement for the more than 1,000 U.S. strategic nuclear weapons now on high-alert?

<snip>