Iran says progress on nuclear proliferation doomed by Bush's new nukes

[bigtree]

Iran condemns 'propaganda' against nuclear programme
30/03/2006

The Iranian minister praised the (UN) body for successes it achieved in the 1990s, including the writing of treaties banning chemical weapons and tests of nuclear weapons, but he said the progress was "doomed because one single state party" abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.

"New nuclear weapons were built and new doctrines were devised to lower" the threshold to their use, he said.

Mottaki didn't name the U.S., but it was clear that much of the criticism was aimed at the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, which pulled out of the ABM treaty with Russia so it could develop defenses against an attack from a "rogue" nation.

"We've seen that certain countries do not feel committed to attaining the objectives of the NPT," designed primarily to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that don't already have them, he said.

full report:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/03/30/story251715.html



Iran is correct. The US push to develop more nuclear weapons, and Bush's abrogation of the Non-Proliferation treaty makes all of this action against Iran, demanded by the U.S., bizzare.


Jimmy Carter: "The United States is the major culprit in this erosion of the NPT. While claiming to be protecting the world from proliferation threats in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea, American leaders not only have abandoned existing treaty restraints but also have asserted plans to test and develop new weapons, including antiballistic missiles, the earth-penetrating "bunker buster" and perhaps some new "small" bombs. They also have abandoned past pledges and now threaten first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states."
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0502-28.htm


In a White House document created in April 2000, "The United States of America Meeting its Commitment to Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," the administration stated that, "as the United States reduces the numbers of its nuclear weapons, it is also transforming the means to build them." http://g.msn.com/9SE/1?http://www.wslfweb.org/space.htm&&DI=293&IG=0e859bda8aaa43ea810c6eb7e9674a2b&POS=1&CM=WPU&CE=1


"The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, and to build new, smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations."

The report says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Libya. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, in retaliation for attack with nuclear biological or chemical weapons, or in the event of ‘surprising military developments.'
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/03/09/MN124394.DTL


As reported by the World Policy Institute, the National Institute for Public Policy's, January 2001 report on the "rationale and requirements" for U.S. nuclear forces, was used as the model for the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which advocated an expansion of the U.S. nuclear "hit list" and the development of a new generation of "usable," lower-yield nuclear weapons. http://worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/execsummaryaboutface.html

Three members of the study group that produced the NIPP report were National Security Council members Stephen Hadley, Robert Joseph (Undersecretary of State), and Stephen Cambone (now serving as Pentagon Intelligence director).


Stephen Hadley, co-wrote a National institute for Public Policy paper portraying a nuclear bunker-buster bomb as an ideal weapon against the nuclear, chemical or biological weapons stockpiles of rouge nations such as Iraq. "Under certain circumstances," the report said, "very severe nuclear threats may be needed to deter any of these potential adversaries." http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra004.htm


Mohammed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said (in 2002) overall disarmament is hampered by adherence to nuclear weapons as a key tenet of several countries’ security policies, including the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, which earlier this year raised the prospect of using nuclear weapons both against non-nuclear states and in pre-emptive wars against new threats from terrorists and rogue states (see GSN, Mar. 14).

“I should note that some non-nuclear weapon states are hedging on their willingness to conclude required additional protocols to their safeguard agreements by pointing to the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament,” ElBaradei said (see GSN, Sept. 25).

The Bush administration has indicated plans to study whether to develop a new nuclear penetrator for deeply buried targets (see GSN, Oct. 10) and whether to lift the moratorium on underground nuclear tests in the future to assure the viability of new nuclear weapon designs (see GSN, Oct. 22).

The lack of progress in nuclear disarmament “can be traced in general to the continuing reliance on the doctrine of nuclear deterrence and the lack of an overall disarmament strategy,” ElBaradei said.

In an apparent critique of the Bush administration, he added: “Some nuclear weapon states have reversed direction, by stressing the continuing value of nuclear weapons in defense of national security interests, including discussions of the feasibility of developing new types of nuclear weapons, and scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states.”
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/newswires/2002_11_14.html#5

[bigtree]

1. OMG!!WTF!!!

should've put these in the title

[bigtree]

2. pot and kettle

:kick:

[Yupster]

3. I don't think Iran ever needed an excuse.

They were going to keep their program regardless of what Europe offered them.