* Military Study urges irrational streak
in nuclear policy.
* DOE wants to leave oldest nuclear waste
in ground.
* Santa Fe City Council bars WIPP
transport on St. Francis.
* The United States should threaten
nuclear retaliation with an "irrational and vindictive streak,"
in order to discourage would-be attackers, according to an
internal military study made public this week. The study,
"Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence," was written by the
Strategic Command of the Defense Department, a multi-service
agency responsible for the nation's strategic nuclear arsenal.
An arms control group obtained the study under the Freedom of
Information Act and published it Sunday in a report on U.S.
Strategies for deterring attacks by antagonistic nations. "It
hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-
headed," the 1995 study says. "That the U.S. may become
irrational and vindictive should be a part of the national
persona we project to all adversaries."
The British-American Security Information Council cited the
report as an example of the Pentagon's attempt to maintain a
mission for its nuclear arsenal after the disappearance of the
Soviet threat, fighting--and winning--an internal bureaucratic
battle with liberal Clinton administration officials who favor a
drastic reduction in nuclear weapons. The report shows how the
U.S. has shifted its nuclear deterrent policy from the former
Soviet Union to so-called "rogue states" such as Libya and Iraq,
using Cold War language to defend the relevance of nuclear
weapons as a deterrent to such potential attackers.
In 1997, President Clinton's U. S. nuclear policy directive
upheld the assurance that the United States will refrain from
first use of nuclear weapons against signatories to the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, a list that includes Iraq, Iran, Libya
and North Korea. The policy includes certain exceptions,
however, that would allow responding with nuclear weapons to
attacks by nuclear-capable states, states not in good standing
under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or states allied with
nuclear powers. Iraq, viewed by the U.S. as violating
international atomic weapons restrictions, could be such an
exception. During the recent crisis in Iraq, there have been
many references to a "bunker-busting bomb" that could be used by
U.S. Forces. This may possibly be the recently deployed earth-
penetrating weapon designed by Los Alamos National Laboratory,
use of which would overturn 50 years of nuclear weapons non-use.
Advocates of arms control are worried that states without nuclear
weapons who signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty will abandon it
if they see the existing nuclear powers preserving and finding
missions for their weapons.
* The latest plan from the U.S.
Department of Energy, called "Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to
Closure," proposes that the Los Alamos National Laboratory keep
85 percent of the wastes buried from 1944 to the early 1970s in
the ground. According to the new plan, LANL won't be able to
clean up some of its oldest waste dumps for at least 10 years,
possibly forever. The new plan delays the end of the cleanup,
projected for 2005, until 2008, and says the federal government
will have to watch some waste-burial sites indefinitely. The
early wastes were packed in cardboard and plywood boxes, thick
plastic bags and steel drums, and then dumped from trucks into
trenches and shafts. Lab officials say that digging it out would
be too expensive and possibly unsafe. Environmentalists say the
government is evading responsibility for the Cold War's
radioactive garbage. In the new plan, cost estimates for caring
for the oldest waste through 2070 have dropped from $3 to $1
billion. At the same time, LANL will spend approximately $10.6
billion to dispose of new wastes created by ongoing weapons work
and research. "It's a budget gimmick," said Jay Coghlan, program
director at Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety of Santa Fe.
"This will short-change cleanup at LANL while continuing to pour
money into weapons programs." Environmentalists expect to fight
the plan, because it will leave some of the most dangerous wastes
in the U. S. nuclear weapons complex in place. Dozens of waste
burial trenches and shafts, holding enough radioactive hazardous
waste to fill more than 28,000 dumpsters, will either remain
untouched, or be "capped" with clay, to prevent rain and snowmelt
from seeping radioactive waste into the ground water.
* Early Thursday morning on February 26,
the Santa Fe City Council rescinded an agreement with DOE
officials, and an ordinance limiting the time when the federal
government could transport nuclear waste through the heart of the
city--but the Department of Energy says it will abide by the
original agreement anyway.
The council also approved 2 resolutions barring nuclear
waste from being trucked along St. Francis Drive, until the
completion of a two-lane relief route later this year.
The DOE plans to begin shipping waste from Los Alamos
National Laboratory to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
near Carlsbad, New Mexico as soon as the plant is given
permission to open, said George Dials, the DOE's project manager
for WIPP. In a letter this week, Dials told the council that
even if they withdrew from the agreement "it will not change our
plans to begin shipping these wastes once we receive the final
certificate of compliance from the EPA. "
When asked whether shipments of materials which have waited at
LANL for 40 years could wait a few months more, until the
completion of the bypass, Mr. Dials said no. He did, however,
agree to consider an alternate route if it was properly
designated.
Councilors said that rescinding the agreement would send a
strong message to Washington. "It's not too late to say we made
a mistake," said Councilor Patty Bushee, who sponsored the
original ordinance in October, limiting transuranic waste
shipments on St. Francis. "We knew then we needed to do
something. I think we're doing the right thing now. "
Santa Fe city attorney Mark Basham said that under federal
regulations, "it appears that the DOE could do what it wants to
do. But there also appears to be a chance to challenge the DOE on
the grounds that what they are doing amounts to environmental
action. "
