Why is this Dem willing to believe the Bush administration . . . about nukes?

[bigtree]

02/03/2007 02:44:19 AM PST

Democrat(s) may consider a new nuclear arsenal

{snip}

The latest signals of a Democratic willingness to consider new nuclear weapons came last week as U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, the new chair of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, suggested a political linkage with the test ban treaty that the administration so far has rejected.

Tauscher, D-Alamo, took the stage as keynote speaker before a Washington, D.C., conference sponsored by Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos nuclear weapons labs and stressed that she thought the administration's case for nuclear bunker busters and other new kinds of nuclear weapons was "unpersuasive."

But Tauscher said she backed replacing the current U.S. arsenal with newly designed bombs called "reliable, replacement warheads" or RRWs, that would be manufactured and fielded without explosive nuclear testing.

"As many of you know, I am strong believer in RRW, because I am a strong believer in you and the work that you do," she told an audience of weapons scientists, government officials and defense contractors at the Strategic Weapons in the 21st Century conference in a speech first reported in Thursday's edition of InsideDefense.

As benefits of the new bombs, she cited rejuvenation of the factories and labs that maintain U.S. nuclear arms and eliminating doubts about the reliability of existing Hydrogen bombs as an obstacle to ratifying the test ban treaty.

If new warheads can't be made and fielded without testing, Tauscher said, "I see no alternative but to terminate funding for the program."

But if, as Bush administration and lab officials have promised, the new warheads can be deployed without live explosive testing, she said, "then ratifying the CTBT should be a central objective of our nation."

http://origin.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_5150955


these scientists don't think the new warheads can be developed without testing, and thereby abrogating the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which the Bush administration disregards anyway:


Below is a statement by Dr. Robert Nelson, a physicist and senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program.

"There is no technical reason to replace existing U.S. nuclear warheads, because they are already highly reliable. According to the Energy Department's own research, the core plutonium components in current weapons will last at least 85 years and possibly much longer. New designs are more likely to introduce new uncertainties.

"It is dangerous that the Energy Department wants to pay for the new warheads by cutting funds for maintaining the existing stockpile, a strategy that will make current weapons less reliable.

"Building these new warheads also will increase pressure to test them. The United States has never deployed a new nuclear warhead without conducting a nuclear explosive test. Since 1992, we've had a moratorium on nuclear testing, but this new weapons program opens the door to new testing.

"Building these new warheads will restart the Cold War cycle of designing and producing new nuclear weapons. Instead, the United States needs a thorough review of its outdated nuclear weapons policy, under which it keeps thousands of warheads on high-alert status. Rather than building new nuclear weapons, the United States should be looking for ways to reduce its reliance on them."

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/commentary/new-nuclear-warhead-design-0012.html

[MADem]

1. I'd imagine she's looking at the issue from a number of perspectives

1. We aren't going to unilaterally disarm, so that's just a nonstarter.
2. Old bombs have 'issues' while new bombs shouldn't.
3. She includes the caveats about no testing AND linkage with the test ban treaty.
4. Jobs, jobs, jobs...

That said, we know BushCo lies. They always have, they always will. But she's supporting the measure (can't be weak on defense, that's a sure way to lose your next election) while at the same time imposing caveats that BushCo won't agree to.

[bigtree]

2. she should know all they want to do is resume testing

AND, get money for construction of new dual-use facilities which would be formatted to facilitate their next-generation of nukes. Besides, there are a number of independent scientists who question the science that says the existing warheads are degrading.

I don't think the administration has earned the ground to put their foot in the door. Her position is even less credible in the face of cuts in Bush's budget for the maintenance of the existing arsenal.

It has to be about money for her district or however the industry pays her off. Disgusting.

[MADem]

3. She probably does, which is why she laid down all those caveats.

It's a way of INOCULATING herself if she votes against something a majority of her constituents might agree with.

I'm not in the woman's head, so I refuse to assume the worst. It seems to me she has a number of conditions for approval. I would imagine that her endorsement is tied to those conditions, otherwise she wouldn't have articulated them. Time will tell, I guess.

[bigtree]

4. I hear you, but, the Livermore nuclear lab is in her district

[MADem]

5. Then my point stands. She's saying she'll support the idea, with

these conditions. In that environment, with that constituency, it's a smarter way to deal with the matter than saying "Not only no, but hell no."

[bigtree]

6. she's actually held the line on developing new nukes

. . . and fought against what she called the 'corporatization' of the two nuclear labs in her district. To me, though, she's asking for trouble signaling she'd approve of the warheads if they didn't require testing. She could easily give cover for the administration to engineer another round of tests. They got closer to testing in 2004.

In the 2004 Defense bill, $8,933,847,000 was provided to the Department of Energy for the activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration. In that bill, Section 3136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 is repealed. (Law prohibiting nuclear tests)

The bill states that nothing in the repeal is intended to be construed as authorizing the testing, acquisition, or deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon.

"The Secretary of Energy is not to commence the engineering development phase, or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress," it says.

However, the act states that: "If as a result of the review (that the bill authorizes) the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear Security, determines that the optimal, advisable, and preferred readiness posture for resumption by the United States of underground nuclear tests is a number of months other than 18 months, the Secretary may, and is encouraged to, achieve and thereafter maintain such optimal, advisable, and preferred readiness posture instead of the readiness posture of 18 months.

This is authorization for the Defense Secretary to ignore the congressional approval process and manipulate the schedule for underground nuclear tests at his discretion.

I just don't think they need any more encouragement. Also, I don't like the way she seems willing to replace her objection to new nukes with a 'refurbishment' program. There are many other ways to address any 'deterioration' of the stockpile without starting up this new particular infrastructure which the Bush regime clearly intends to format for new nukes in the future.

Wrong is wrong, and this "Reliable Warhead" initiative is a false one designed to cover the administration's drive for their new mini-nukes, plain and simple. She says she supports it and that's a dangerous position, no matter if she's sincere or playing some political game.

[MADem]

7. Well, I didn't hear her speak, but from her words, I take from them that she's

carefully constructing a checklist of provisos that give her room to back away without being painted with that "Kiss of Death" No Nukes/Peacenik paint. But then, I'm not close in on the ground vis a vis this issue, or this legislator.

All I do know is that I've seen this sort of "speechifying" and positioning before. Some people get furious at it, and call it doublespeak, some are afraid that the legislator is heading towards the dark side, and others call it flip-flopping. I call it a way of articulating a general viewpoint to a constituency while maintaining personal integrity with regard to a vote. Her statement there does have conditions attached. It does have a boatload of wiggle room and built-in reasons to back out without being called out as working against her constituency. It's not a "Sure, whatever George wants" declaration by any stretch.

What will tell, at the end of the day, is whether she's in the AYE or the NAY column. I'm not sufficiently familiar with her record to be able to predict that, though.