Like landmines and cluster bombs, DU weapons fit into a class of weapons that continue to maim and kill long after the conflict is over.

Canada has a history of opposition to nuclear weapons, from participating in nuclear sanctions against India (as I mentioned previously, now revoked) to having Vancouver declared a “nuclear weapons free zone”.  Interestingly, UBC’s own recently retired poli-sci professor Michael Wallace was a key figure in bringing the latter campaign to fruition.

Yet while Canada is officially opposed to nuclear weapons and a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, many of us are unwitting beneficiaries from their production.

The Canadian Pension Plan invested millions in military corporations according to 2003 research by the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade.  Among these General Dynamics, Alliant Techsystems, and BAE Systems produce DU weapons.  BC Provincial government pensions are also invested in General Dynamics.  Lockheed and Boeing, also recipients of our pension investments, manufacture nuclear bombs.

Criticism of the CPP’s management was quietly dismissed way back in 2004.  The head of the CPP’s board, John A. McNaughton, told a critic:

“Pension funds are not vehicles for advocacy groups to advance their aims, however worthy.”

tangled official trailer

After scouring high and low across the internet I found no evidence to suggest that the situation has changed since then.  This means that by virtue of having a job, most Canadians are making an indirect contribution to nuclear arms production.

Depleted uranium munitions have been used in both Iraq wars, the conflict in former Yugoslavia and allegedly in Afghanistan.  The World Health Organization reports that the negative effects from DU are negligible, yet in 2006 the BBC reported that research proving otherwise has been suppressed.

For the most part, I have been quite impressed with Obama’s record and agenda regarding nuclear weapons.  But if he has an opinion in DU, I can’t seem to find it.

Here’s hoping that the upcoming International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons conference will lead to some productive mainstream dialogue on the issue.

Obama’s stated plan for Iran is to engage in tough diplomacy, meeting Iranian leaders without preconditions and employing economic carrots and sticks to bring about nuclear transparency.

Not part of Obama’s plan, and surprising given Obama’s stated penchant for moderation and uniting adversaries, is seriously re-evaluating the US’s relationship with Israel.  According to Obama’s campaign website:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the US-Israel relationship, believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America’s strongest ally in the Middle East. They support this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.

The site further elaborated on Obama-Biden’s unyielding support of Israel in a fact sheet which promises $30 billion in aid over the next decade.

Obama does not address the double standard of Israel’s flagrant US supported violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Former US President Jimmy Carter claims that Israel has at least 150 nuclear weapons in its arsenal.  This is unverifiable, as the US will not officially acknowledge Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, let alone allow the International Atomic Energy Association to inspect Israeli facilities.

It is hard to know if an offer of entry into the World Trade Organization could influence Iran to overlook the disparity of the US supporting its well armed adversary.  So far the evidence suggests no; just days ago Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that ending US support for Israel was a prerequisite for progress.  If Obama is serious about diplomacy with Iran and nuclear non-proliferation, he will need to seriously re-evaluate the US’s relationship with Israel.

Prominent Washington adviser Aaron David Miller argues exactly that in a recent Newsweek article.  He said that it makes no sense for Israel to punish Hamas by making life unbearable for people of the Gaza Strip.

Then there’s the settlements issue. In 25 years of working on this issue for six secretaries of state, I can’t recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity-including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions-does to the peacemaking process. There is a need to impose some accountability.

I find Obama’s unwavering support for Israel disconcerting, particularly the lack of acknowledgement about the message its nuclear program sends to the international community.  However, a scholar in international affairs recently told me that he believes Obama is being strategic.  “Only Nixon could go to China” he told me, referring to President Nixon’s diplomacy with China after a prolonged fiery anti-communist campaign.  The diplomacy went unchallenged by other fierce anti-communists because they trusted Nixon.  He is hoping that Obama will be able to inspire similar trust in Israeli hardliners, which will make them more amenable to change.

Thus far it is too early to tell what approach Obama will take with Iran, or even to estimate what the most effective policy will be.  Obama says that he supports a two state solution for Israel and Palestine.  In his first week of office he authorized $20.3 million in aid for Palestinians in the Gaza strip, following three weeks of devastating Israeli attacks.

Portions of this entry were adapted from Erin Empey’s “US Nuclear Weapons Policy:Under New Management”, a student policy research paper for the Simons Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Research, Liu Institute, UBC.

Russia’s announcement this week that it was shelving plans to deploy missiles in Kaliningrad could signify a welcome change in global nuclear politics.  Russian President Dmitri Medvedev had threatened to install them within spitting distance of Bush’s proposed missile defence system in Poland and Czechoslovakia, the day after Barack Obama won the election.  A former professor of mine referred to it as a “peace race”; Obama said the defence system was up for review and Medvedev responded in kind.

The psychology behind the tit-for-tat strategy that has historically informed nuclear policies is toxic.  Jesse Bering over at Scientific American has some pretty interesting things to say about the psychology of vengeance:

“You may think you’ve restored justice by inflicting the punishment. But from the other person’s perspective, you’ve gone overboard and now it’s their turn to punish you. So, guess what? Now you’ve made a real enemy and have to be vigilant about them returning the retaliatory favour.”

Referring to several studies, his blog concludes that although thinking about revenge brings about satisfaction, actually carrying it out can leave a person worse off.

For decades the Mutual-Assured-Destruction stalemate has allowed Russians and Americans to sleep at night, knowing that the opponent wouldn’t dare risk vengeance.  Insecurity and the satisfying thought of vengeance have such appeal that the MAD doctrine has spread to other countries.  If you’re going to build 10 new warheads, well then we’ll just have to build 20. This satisfaction has cost untold billions, tragic enough for American taxpayers but absolutely criminal when you consider the impoverished masses in North Korea, India and Pakistan.

Bush’s defenders claim that the Polish missile defence system was never about threatening Russia, or even enacting violence against any country.  It was purely for defence.  Even if that was true, it still fed the revenge psychology that has plagued US-Russian relations.

This week’s development between the two countries illustrates that if you can up the ante, you can bring it down too.  If this truly is going to be Obama’s style when it comes to international relations, perhaps the other armed countries will learn from his example and consider giving their revenge fantasies a rest.

The purpose of the plant is supposedly to provide energy to Alberta residents and businesses, and in particular to the Alberta tarsands to aid in bitumen extraction.  Proponents argue that it will create jobs and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  The claim that a process that creates nuclear waste and accelerates production in the tarsands is good for the environment is, of course, laughable on its face.

At least one community group has been reading the fine print on Bruce Energy’s plans.  Bruce Energy’s partner TransCanada has plans to run a transmission line from central Alberta to the Pacific Northwest, where it will connect with lines to California.  The community group’s website also cites an obscure study that suggests the proposed plants won’t even be able to serve the needs of the oil sands.

One has to wonder why neither company is explicit about the California plan.  TransCanada’s website only claims that the infrastructure will

“enable large-scale development of environmentally attractive power generation projects, including wind, hydro and low emission cogeneration.”

download divx alice in wonderland movie

Neither Bruce Energy nor TransCanada have been forthright about the link between the planned nuclear plant which would produce more energy than Alberta needs and the multi-state transmission line.  Wouldn’t the sale of “green” energy to California be less repugnant from a PR standpoint than using the energy to feed the monster that is the Athabasca oil sector?  I do not see the logic in this strategy.

At any rate, environmental arguments for nuclear power remain dubious.  This week Scientific American published an article on uranium mining.

“For every metric ton of uranium ore pulled from McArthur River, roughly one metric ton of waste rock, often radioactive and rich in toxic heavy metals, is produced-and other mines produce even more waste rock per ton of ore.”

After the enrichment process, a further 90% of that metric ton of uranium ore becomes nuclear waste.

According to research from the Pembina Institute, claims that nuclear energy produces zero greenhouse gas emissions have been exaggerated.  Although emissions produced are lower than that of fossil fuel production, they still occur from the construction of plants, uranium mining & processing, and plant decommissioning.  The amount of GHGs increase as the quality of the uranium mined decreases, which is likely to happen as global demand for uranium goes up.

Although arguments for nuclear energy in Alberta can be persuasive, they just don’t make ecological or economic sense for the long term.  Public money will subsidize these privately owned nuclear projects.  This comes at the expense of investing in new technologies that truly are sustainable and efficient.  Supplanting (or supporting) a bitumen disaster with a uranium one is hardly the way forward.

The global nuclear industry is poised to reap a windfall since the United States Congress approved a nuclear deal with India in October.  The deal ends a decades long moratorium on trade of nuclear materials with India, imposed following a 1974 nuclear weapons test.

India is seeking to build 30-40 new reactors. Bloomberg.com reported that India will spend $175 billion over the next 30 years on nuclear technology.   US electronics firm Westinghouse is preparing to invest tens of millions of dollars in a public-private partnership with Indian firm Larsen & Toubro.  General Electric was part of a US delegation that visited India last week in an effort to cut through legal red tape.

It isn’t just the US that will benefit.  Russia and France already have deals in place, and now Canada and the UK are also clamouring for a share.  Canadian trade minister Stockwell Day also visited India this week, accompanying a delegation of executives from three of Canada’s largest nuclear companies.  One of those companies, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., is a crown corporation.

Nuclear energy has the potential to offset India’s increasing greenhouse gas emissions from its growing economy.  However, details of the deal affirm a troubling status quo.  Countries outside of the original five (Russia, the US, the UK, France and China) are supposed to agree to nuclear disarmament before they receive foreign aid or trade for their nuclear power programs.  This deal does not force India to disarm or open up its nuclear weapons facilities to inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency.  The big five is essentially now six.

Some experts believe this could gut the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or increase tensions between India and Pakistan.  Pakistan and North Korea could lose any incentive they had to sign on to the treaty. This is unfortunate because it has stymied proliferation in the past, such as playing a role in ending the weapons programs in Libya and South Africa.  The new relationship with India certainly weakens the case against nuclear Iran, which is still claiming to be developing nuclear technology for civilian purposes.  Louis Werner ventured onto the slippery slope today with a column that argues that a nuclear armed Iran could be a force for peace.  He can’t be the only one to recognize that “sinning against the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty can be forgiven fairly quickly”.

It’s a shame that big nuclear and the international community have decided to treat India like the Klondike.  This deal looks especially appealing during an economic downturn coupled with the global warming crisis.  However, the opportunities lost now in restricting nuclear arms could prove to be a lot more expensive in the long run.

The US sought to abandon the treaty to develop nuclear defences against “rogue” states and terrorists since at least 1999.  On September 11, 2001 it finally found justification and by December President George W. Bush announced a withdrawal from the ABM treaty.  Russia’s initial reaction was measured.  Hostilities had long subsided, bi-lateral agreements on reducing stockpiles and securing nuclear materials were in effect, and Russia had a long list of domestic problems to focus on.

This was before the US made plans to deploy missile defence in Poland and Czechoslovakia, ostensibly as a defence against Iran and North Korea.  Russia is now responding with plans for a massive re-armament program.  Despite conflict over Georgia, it is unlikely either country would engage in nuclear warfare.  The  missile defence system is pitiful in the face of Russia’s arsenal.  The US has a hungry military industrial complex to feed, and Russia is looking for bargaining power in reducing the very arms it is acquiring.  In short, both countries are just burning money.

Investment into American missile defence since its inception is estimated to be around $150 billion.  As Bush leaves office he is asking for $13.2 billion for missile defence programs in 2009 and $62.5 billion over the coming five years.

A global recession is the wrong time to be investing in a system that has an underwhelming success rate in the threats it was designed for.  Missile defence is useless against the threats that are most likely to face the United States.  Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton claims that

“the emerging threats from rogue states possessing a few nuclear-capable ballistic missiles required that we develop adequate defences –especially because many emerging nuclear-weapons states do not accept the same calculus of deterrence that maintained the Cold War’s uneasy nuclear standoff.”

Really?  North Korea or Iran could be so hell-bent on testing their toys that they would risk the wrath of a country with a 2000+ stockpile of warheads? There is no rogue state that America could not wipe out of existence within minutes.

Presumably the real threat is the martyrs, the terrorists who are willing to sacrifice their own lives to further an ideological agenda.  Osama bin Laden has reportedly attempted to acquire nuclear weapons.  But terrorists are not rogue states.  They are non-state actors, who do not possess the technological know-how or the financing to successfully launch an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile at the United States.  A nuclear attack on the US is far more likely to occur in the form of a “dirty bomb,” nuclear material smuggled into the states and packed into conventional explosives.  Any group resourceful enough to bring a country to its knees with box-cutters could surely figure out how to spread nuclear terror at a discount.  Missile defence is useless against this type of threat as well as biological weapons.  Not to mention natural disasters, obesity, poverty, gun violence and other mundane domestic issues that seem to claim a lot more American lives than terrorism.

Barack Obama has been reported as saying that he would support missile defence if it could be proven to work.  If he is anywhere near as reasonable as his reputation suggests, then that statement makes it evident where he will stand on the issue.  Diplomacy is cheap, and development is effective.  The significance of development was mentioned in a new report released by the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism titled World at Risk.  Rather than endorsing missile defence, it proposed increasing development funding for impoverished regions of Pakistan, the “crossroads of terrorism”.  It also called for strengthening international treaties and securing loose nuclear materials.

Sixty-two and a half billion dollars over the next five years can buy a lot of school books and dig a lot of wells, which would have a much more profound and lasting counter-effect on radicalism.  Arms races have no finish line.

1.       The Cold War. “That’s crazy talk” you are thinking to yourself.  “That’s sooo 1988″.  Well actually neither Russia nor the US has found an opportunity over the last twenty years to remove its nuclear arsenal from a 5 minute hair trigger alert.  Did you know that Russia’s decrepit monitoring system once mistook a weather balloon for a nuclear attack?

2.       Treaty Busting. The Bush administration was not fond of multi-lateral treaties.  By appointing renowned treaty hater John Bolton as ambassador to the UN, the US successfully dodged ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CBTB) and reneged on the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. 

3.       Missile defence. Withdrawing from the ABM treaty has allowed the United States to revisit Ronald Reagan’s dream of missile defence.  Sure it costs a few billion dollars, and is re-invigorating an arms race with Russia.  But it will hypothetically protect America and its allies!  As long as the enemy gives advance warning!  And only fires one missile at a time!  And doesn’t paint it white first!  And isn’t an Al-Qaeda operative smuggling radioactive materials through the former Soviet Union and Pakistan to be detonated out of a suitcase on New Year’s Eve in Times Square!

4.       Lowering the nuclear threshold. The US has been using depleted uranium in the current Iraq war.  According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

“The Pentagon and United Nations estimate that U.S. and British forces used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of armour-piercing shells made of depleted uranium during attacks in Iraq in March and April [2003]– far more than the estimated 375 tons used in the 1991 Gulf War.”

Depleted uranium packs an awesome strategic punch.  It slices through tanks.  The long term effects on health from exposure to DU are still unknown, and Pentagon officials say that the effects are negligible.  I repeat: it slices through tanks.

The Bush admin’s refusal to ratify the CBTB was part of a strategy to develop new “bunker buster” nuclear weapons.  Bunker busters are low yield nuclear weapons designed to strike hardened targets beneath the Earth’s surface.  The project has been abandoned since 2006, but the message to nuclear wannabes has been pretty clear: not possessing a nuclear weapon no longer guarantees protection from a nuclear first-strike.  Might as well arm yourself.

5.       Nuclear Proliferation. North Korea joined the nuclear weapon’s club under Bush’s watch and Iran is supposedly working on it.  Rather than quell the Pakistan/India arms race, the US has entrenched it through a treaty with India.    With the Taliban and Afghan conflict spilling over Pakistan’s border, the last thing the world needs is Pakistan’s nuclear program to run amok.

6.       Nuclear. Nuclear.  Nuclear.  One more time, all together now, it’s pronounced new-clee-ar.  Hopefully the next President will pass legislation to quit nuking the English language.