[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Bush Budget weaken's DOE anti-terrorism protections
Viviane Lerner wrote:
> http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13006
> HUFFINGTON: Penny-Wise, Dirty Nuke Foolish
> Arianna Huffington, AlterNet
> May 2, 2002
>
> If President Bush's goal is to make the United States a safer
> country, he's got an odd way of doing it. In a desperate attempt
> to trim the budget and minimize the projected $100 billion
> deficit, the Bush administration has slashed by 93 percent a
> Department of Energy (DOE) request for $379 million to better
> secure America's storehouse of nuclear weapons and waste -- the
> number one item on every terrorist's shopping list.
>
> What makes this latest bit of budgetary bloodletting particularly
> confounding is that it strikes at the heart of the president's
> highest priority. "Nothing," he proclaimed, "is more important
> than the national security of our country. Nothing is more
> important." Well, apparently something must be.
>
> Otherwise how can one explain the White House's massive reduction
> of funds that Bush's own Energy Secretary, Spencer Abraham, called
> "a critical down payment to the safety and security of our nation
> and its people"? The money had been earmarked for such essential
> front line items as fortifying protective barriers and fences at
> atomic storage sites, ramping up cyber security on Energy
> Department computers, and installing equipment to detect
> explosives being smuggled into nuclear facilities.
>
> We know from the diagrams, computers, and "Jihad for Dummies"
> manuals found in the bombed out caves of Tora Bora and
> Mazar-e-Sharif that the madmen of Al-Qaeda have their black hearts
> set on unleashing weapons of mass destruction on the people of
> America -- and would love nothing better than turning our own
> nuclear materials against us.
>
> The vast amounts of nuclear weapons and radioactive waste stored
> at Energy Department facilities are enough to make a terrorist's
> mouth water, but, evidently, not enough to stay the red pens of
> Mitch Daniels and the ruthless number-crunchers in the White
> House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who clearly have a
> very different definition of homeland security than the rest of
> us.
>
> The Bush administration has been shameless in its willingness to
> play the national security trump card to promote the things it
> most cherishes -- from tax cuts to drilling in ANWR to the drug
> war to subsidies for corporate fat cats. So it's more than a
> little ironic that when it comes to doing something that will
> actually protect us, the president is suddenly unwilling to put
> our money where his mouth is.
>
> "I have submitted a budget that prioritizes homeland defense and
> our national security," he announced grandly. "A budget that puts
> ample amounts of money in place.to respond should the enemy hit us
> again." Unless, of course, the enemy decides to hit us again by
> stealing enough weapons-grade plutonium to cook up a suitcase
> nuke.
>
> Imagine the devastation if suicidal terrorists were able to break
> into a DOE facility, quickly construct a down-and-dirty homemade
> atomic bomb, and set it off inside the lab, blasting tons of
> radioactive material into the atmosphere.
>
> "These labs," OMB director Mitch Daniels told me in defending his
> decision, "are probably the most secure sites we have. This was
> one place where Gov. Ridge and others have established that we are
> in pretty good shape. There are other places where more catching
> up has to be done."
>
> If the labs are in such good shape, why did the energy secretary,
> who after all has jurisdiction over the labs, not know about it?
> And if things are so peachy, how come, according to government
> documents unearthed by the Project on Government Oversight,
> federal agents posing as terrorists made it past security forces
> guarding nuclear labs more than half the time? Even though
> security officials were often notified that the mock attacks were
> coming, they still weren't able to keep the "terrorists" from
> claiming their deadly prize.
>
> Such sieve-like security is eerily reminiscent of the woeful
> results airport screeners chalked up for years in similar tests,
> routinely failing to detect knives, guns, and bombs before the
> horrors of September prompted Washington to finally get serious
> about airport security. Are we going to have to wait until we have
> a nuclear 9-11 before our leaders do all that they can to protect
> our nuclear sites?
>
> It's not like we're talking about an outrageous amount of money:
> $379 million to keep the ingredients of nuclear devastation out of
> the hands of mass murderers. That's only a few million more than
> the $250 million rebate the president's beloved rollback of the
> alternative minimum corporate tax would have given to Enron alone.
> And it pales beside the billions Bush wants for Star Wars.
>
> "The administration," says Rep. Ed Markey, a longtime critic of
> the security at nuclear facilities, "has requested almost $8
> billion for missile defense, which won't do anything to prevent
> suicidal terrorists from attacking nuclear facilities and blowing
> up dirty bombs or homemade nuclear weapons."
>
> Since the mid-90s, there have been over 50 reports, commissions
> and congressional hearings highlighting the vulnerability of
> America's nuclear facilities.
>
> It's well past time to stop the studying -- and start the
> spending. "We are storing vast amounts of materials that remain
> highly volatile and subject to unthinkable consequences if placed
> in the wrong hands," warned Spencer Abraham in goading the White
> House to loosen the purse strings. "Failure to support these
> urgent requirements is a risk that would be unwise."
>
> To say the very, very least.
>
> =========
> *** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
> material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
> a prior interest in receiving the included information for
> research and educational purposes.***
>
>
> * NucNews Archives (by date) at http://prop1.org/nucnews/ *
>
> *In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107*
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave.,
Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8583 or 609-601-8537; ncohen12@comcast.net
UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE: http://www.unplugsalem.org/ COALITION FOR PEACE AND
JUSTICE WEBSITE: http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org The Coalition
for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
"First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then you
win. (Gandhi) "Why walk when you can fly?" (Mary Chapin Carpenter)
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/