Posts Tagged ‘Atomwaffensperrvertrag’

Marshall-Inseln: Erneuter US-Atomwaffen-Test droht

Donnerstag, Mai 10th, 2012

“May 16 ICBM nuclear weapon capable missile test set

there will be a protest of the launch at a time still to be announced. call MacGregor Eddy 831 206 5043 to confirm location and time before going to the vigil. There is always a chance of last minute cancellation or postponement.

 

The LGM-30G Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, is an element of the nation’s strategic deterrent forces under the control of the Air Force Global Strike Command. The “L” in LGM is the Department of Defense designation for silo-launched; “G” means surface attack; and “M” stands for guided missile.

 

The Minuteman is a strategic weapon system using a ballistic missile of intercontinental range. Missiles are dispersed in hardened silos to protect against attack and connected to an underground launch control center through a system of hardened cables. Launch crews, consisting of two officers, perform around-the-clock alert in the launch control center.
An extensive life extension program is underway to keep the remaining missiles safe, secure and reliable well into the 21st century. These major programs include: remanufacture of the solid-propellant rocket motors, replacement of standby power systems, repair of launch facilities, and installation of updated, survivable communications equipment and additional security enhancements.
Today’s Minuteman weapon system is the product of almost 40 years of continuous enhancement.
The current Minuteman force consists of 450 Minuteman III’s located at the 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo.; the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom AFB, Mont.; and the 91st Missile at Minot AFB, N.D. all data from http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=113

 

(Quelle: Peace Protest at Vandenberg Space Command / Air Force Base.)

Siehe auch:

May 15 peace vigil and protest ICBM launch 3:45 pm to 6 pm

Global: Nein zum US-Atomraketentest (KAMPAGNE)

Montag, Februar 13th, 2012

Oppose Nuclear Missile Test Launches

Please sign the petition below to register your opposition to the planned test-launch of a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base on February 25, 2012. The last test-launch, fired in July, was a unique failure, and we believe that our previous petition effort helped lead to the cancellation/delay of the subsequent test-launch that was originally planned – paradoxically – for the International Day of Peace, September 21, 2011.

We will submit this petition to the White House three days before the scheduled launch or every time we gather 1000 signers.

You can also click here to download a paper version of the petition to collect signatures in your community.

The United States regularly test-launches nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, to the Marshall Islands.

Each test costs tens of millions of dollars — money which is desperately needed to meet domestic needs and contribute to genuine security here at home. As important as the budgetary implications, such tests also foster international distrust and sow the seeds of future, potentially nuclear-armed conflicts.

The continued testing of Minuteman III nuclear-capable missiles is a clear example of U.S. double standards. The U.S. government hypocritically believes that it is fine to test-fire these missiles time and again, while expressing criticism and even outrage when other countries conduct tests of relatively primitive, shorter-range missiles. Such double standards may encourage nuclear proliferation and make the world an even more dangerous place.

The testing of these missiles undermines the credibility of President Obama’s stated commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons and United States obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and other international agreements.

The American people cannot afford the current level of U.S. military spending, which roughly equals the military spending of the rest of the world combined. A recharged and expanded nuclear arms race will further compound the problem. I call on President Obama to take the following steps:

1. Cancel the February 25, 2012 ICBM test-launch.

2. Fulfill the legal requirement, binding on the United States under the 1970 Nonproliferation Treaty, to end the nuclear arms race “at an early date” and to negotiate “in good faith” the elimination of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery.

 

Wenn Sie die Petition unterzeichnen möchten, klicken Sie bitte hier.

 

(Quelle: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.)

USA: Test von atomwaffenfähiger Trägerrakete

Samstag, Juli 9th, 2011

Vandenberg

Naher Osten/Mittlerer Osten: Atomwaffenfreie Zone jetzt!

Samstag, Mai 21st, 2011

“Zoning Out on Nukes in the Middle East

By Kevin Martin

My essay on the prospects for a Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone in the Middle East, in which I also take a whack at one of my favorite pinatas, deterrence theory. Thanks to Foreign Policy in Focus and its terrific co-director, John Feffer, for his editing and for publishing the article. (Be sure to click the link which takes you to a report by our Japanese friends Peace Boat, who did a citizen diplomacy boat tour in the Middle East in March to promote the idea of a nuclear-free zone).

Deterrence is the officially stated reason that the United States maintains a nuclear arsenal of over 9,000 total warheads. The other nuclear weapons states have more or less adopted deterrence theory as their own. The basic tenet of deterrence theory is that no rational leader would threaten the United States with a nuclear attack for fear that the United States would retaliate by obliterating its attacker.

Although the headlines coming out of the Middle East are about revolutions and repressions, nuclear weapons remain a key problem in the region. The nuclear issue that has gotten the most attention has been Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons any more than the current nuclear weapons states should. But military threats against Iran’s nuclear sites should be abandoned for a host of reasons (starting yet another war in the Middle East and killing more innocent civilians and further disrupting the world economy, just for starters).

However, Israel and the United States have consistently left open the threat of military action against Iran to stop its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapons capacity. But if deterrence theory applies,

Israel’s nuclear arsenal of at least 200 weapons, not to mention the much larger U.S. arsenal, should dissuade Iran from launching any nuclear attacks of its own.

The only reason that deterrence theory might not apply is that Iran’s ruling mullahs are somehow irrational and therefore can’t be deterred like the ‘rational’ rulers of other countries. That’s just plain wrong. They, along with other allegedly ‘crazy’ regimes such as those in Libya, Burma, and North Korea) act rationally to maintain their power. We may not like the decisions they make, but they are quite rational actors of self-preservation.

Zoning Out Nukes

The point is not to somehow shore up deterrence theory but to make it obsolete by pursuing the global elimination of nuclear weapons. In the Middle East context, a 2012 conference will be under the auspices of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to establish a Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone in the region (similar zones are already in force in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, the South Pacific and Antarctica). South and Southwest Asia are the only portions of the Global South not currently part of a NWFZ.

Perhaps ironically given the current situation and the fact its nuclear program at the time was receiving U.S. assistance, Iran was the first country to call for a Middle East Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone in 1974. It still advocates for one, as do all the other countries in the region except Israel. But Israel’s position is not entirely fixed. In September 2009, Israel supported an International Atomic Energy Agency resolution calling for such a zone. And rumors have arisen that Israel might participate in the conference, if only not to be seen as obstructionist. A WMD-Free Zone would surely benefit Israel, as it doesn’t want to see a nuclear arms buildup in the region.

The problem of nuclear weapons in the Middle East extends beyond just Israel and Iran. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and perhaps other countries in the region could go nuclear as well. A Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone, which appears unrealistic given Israel’s refusal to even officially acknowledge its nuclear arsenal and the U.S. support for this stance, would be much better than an unfettered nuclear arms race in the region. The new, more democratic governments that emerge from the current Arab Spring, to the extent that they are more transparent and accountable to their citizens than their predecessors, could help to address the challenging regional security issues.

Washington and the Zone

It’s unlikely that the United States, in a presidential election year, will engage the issue of a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East in a frank manner. Indeed, the United States might set low expectations or provide leadership in convening the conference only to protect Israel. Still, international civil society groups and peace activists, including many from the region, are working to mobilize public support — either at the official conference or at a separate meeting — for establishing such a zone.

As the relative decline of U.S. power and the rise of other regional powers continue to shape a more multi-polar world, the United States and Israel cannot expect to continue to ignore the other countries in the region — and not just on this issue. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and regional security mechanisms must be strengthened, but not merely on U.S. and Israeli terms, as is now the case.

The establishment of a WMD-Free Zone in the Middle East might have ripple effects for regional peace. The zone could provide a regional security confidence boost for Israel via increased transparency (and perhaps a decreased sense of isolation on Israel’s part). It would also bolster the effort to abolish nuclear weapons worldwide. This month, the Obama administration submitted two protocols establishing similar zones in Africa and the South Pacific to the Senate. Now it’s time to turn to the Middle East, where a WMD-Free Zone could help avert awful alternatives — a potential Israel-Iran conflict, a regional arms race, or a catastrophic world war.

Kevin Martin is executive director of Peace Action and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. Founded in 1957, Peace Action (formerly SANE/Freeze) is the largest U.S. peace and disarmament organization.”

 

(Quelle: Peace Action Blog.)

Grossbritannien: 100 Milliarden (!) Pfund für neue Atomwaffen

Samstag, Mai 7th, 2011

“Make love and make war

Von Dr. Klaus Heidegger
Kommission für Sicherheit und Abrüstung von Pax Christi Österreich

Abermillionen ergötzten sich über die Fernsehschirme oder live am königlichen und nur vordergründig unpolitischen Treiben zwischen Buckingham Palace und der Westminster Abbey, wo sich Kate und William das „Jawort des Jahres“ gaben. „I will“ sprachen sie, „I will“ sprach David Cameron vor einem Monat und 10 Tagen und gab den Befehl, dass britische Tornados Seite an Seite mit den französischen Mirage Ziele in Libyen ins Visier der tödlichen Luft-Boden-Raketen nehmen sollten. Der blutige Bürgerkrieg wurde entfacht. 30.000 Tote, die x-fache Summe an Verstümmelten, zerstörte Städte und Dörfer nach 40 Kriegstagen. „I will“ hatte der militärische Prinz vor nicht allzu langer Zeit gesprochen, als er die britischen Truppen medienwirksam in den Afghanistaneinsatz begleitete. Stolz prangte an seiner Heldenbrust während der hochzeitlichen Feierlichkeiten eine Verdienstmedaille aus diesem Kriegseinsatz. Eigentlich wäre der Medienhype um die Hochzeit des möglichen englischen Thronfolgers und die damit einhergehende massenhafte Militarisierung des kollektiven Bewusstseins am Beispiel der „Royal Wedding“ leicht zu durchschauen. Nach dem „Ereignis des Jahres“, dem zarten Kuss, flogen wie zur Bestätigung Kampfflugzeuge der Royal Air Force in Formation über dem Paar und der ekstatischen Masse. Der Colonel William stand in Militäruniform Händchen winkend da und strahlte. Da war kein Blutfleck auf seinen blendend weißen Handschuhen. Blutbefleckt sind die Handschuhe der Ärzte in den Spitälern von Libyen. Der Prinzensohn setzte bewusst auf ein militärisches Äußeres, wurde er doch in allen drei Bereichen der britischen Kriegsmaschine ausgebildet. Sein Herz, so meinte er kürzlich, sei bei der Armee. Ob Kate da nicht eifersüchtig sein müsste? Jedenfalls möchte er – genauso wie sein kriegserprobter Bruder Harry – möglichst schnell zu einem Kampfeinsatz nach Afghanistan abkommandiert werden. Oftmals hatte HRH William bedauert, aus Sicherheitsgründen noch nie in erster Front kämpfen zu können. Hat er während der Hochzeit an die 364 Kameraden aus den britschen Streitkräften gedacht, die seit den ersten Tagen von „Enduring Freedom“ auf den Schlachtfeldern von Afghanistan getötet worden sind?

Kenner der Szene interpretierten seine Uniform bei der Hochzeit als bewusste Ehrung des Ersten Bataillons, das gegenwärtig in einer afghanischen Provinz im Einsatz ist. Gegenwärtig fungiert Leutnant William als Hubschrauberpilot der RAF. Seine Kollegen hätten ihn lieber in der RAF-Uniform gesehen als in dem traditionellen Outfit der Irisch Guards, auf dem das RAF-Signet nicht fehlen durfte. Das Protokoll sieht es vor, dass der Prinz in der Uniform jenes Teils der Streitkräfte heiraten muss, in der er den höchsten militärischen Rang bekleidet. Hier ist er Oberst, dort ist er Leutnant. Freilich hat er, so könnte noch positiv gesehen werden, auf das Tragen eines Schwertes verzichtet. Dieses Kampfutensil wurde durch eine als Schwert stilisierte Schärpe ersetzt. Angepasst an die heutige Zeit wäre eine stilisierte Trident-Rakete mit einem atomaren Sprengkopf angepasster gewesen. Auch die anderen männlichen Royals sparten nicht an militärischem Glanz. Prinz Charles in der Admiralsuniform der Marine, sein brüderlicher Trauzeuge in der Uniform eines Infanterieregements. Die militärische Trias war komplett. Die Royal Marine ist gegenwärtig im Besitz von vier nuklearen Unterseebooten, von denen jederzeit Atomwaffen abgefeuert werden könnten. Jedes dieser Unterseeboote hat zumindest 48 Trident-Atomsprengköpfe, die wiederum mit 100.000 Tonnen Sprengkraft die 8×48-fache Sprengkraft der Atombombe von Hiroshima haben. Dies sind Fakten, die die Weltöffentlichkeit mehr bewegen sollten, als die Frage, wer das Hochzeitskleid von Kate geschneidert hatte.

Aus christlicher Sicht ist tragisch – oder vielmehr blasphemisch, wie sehr die offizielle Kirche Englands diesem ganzen Treiben einen scheinbar göttlichen Segen verleiht. Eine Kirche, die sich auf den gewaltfreien Jesus von Nazareth beruft, wird zum Aufmarschgebiet militärischer Eitelkeiten. Da passt es dazu, dass Bischöfe der Anglikanischen Kirche den Kriegseinsatz in Libyen befürworteten. Die Stimme von Pax Christi England, die gemeinsam mit den friedensbewegten Organisationen auf der britischen Insel für Frieden auf dem Verhandlungsweg in Libyen oder Afghanistan eintritt, bleibt ungehört. Über „Kiss me Kate“ weiß die Welt Bescheid. Dass es vor einem Monat eine große Demonstration in London gegen die Modernisierung der britischen Atomwaffen gab, bewegte die Weltpresse kaum. Mit der Modernisierung der Trident-Nuklearwaffen untergräbt das Königreich den Nicht-Weiterverbreitungsvertrag und ermuntert Nicht-Atomwaffenstaaten der Zweiten und Dritten Welt selbst zu Nuklearwaffenstaaten zu werden. Großbritannien hat bereits beschlossen, 100 Milliarden Pfund für ihr Trident-Programm auszugeben – angesichts der Kürzungen im Sozial- und Bildungsbereich und der dringend notwendigen Investitionen im Bereich alternativer Energiequellen ein unglaublicher Skandal! Make love, not war. Dafür freilich müsste der Prinz seine Uniform ausziehen und sich das Königreich von seinen Atomwaffen befreien.”

 

(Quelle: Pax Christi Österreich.)

Indien: Atomare Abrüstung – psssssst!

Freitag, September 3rd, 2010

‘No seminar on nuclear disarmament’

NAGPUR: In an apparent move to curb an ‘unwanted’ congregation, the ministry of external affairs (MEA) has struck down the application by a city-based activist known for his left leaning to hold a global seminar on nuclear disarmament in city.

The Centre for Cultural Educational, Economics and Social Studies had planned to hold an international seminar on ‘Achieving A Nuclear Weapons and Missile Defence Free Asia’, from October 9 to 12. The application for clearance was sent in February but on July 27, the MEA wrote back saying the issue of getting a political permit for the seminar had been carefully examined and the ministry did not recommend holding this conference.

The centre’s secretary J Narayana Rao who corresponded with the vario us ministries said it appeared after the interaction with various bureaucrats that he had almost got the approval, until he received final letter of rejection last month.

A senior official in the MEA said it would be difficult to respond about any one case in particular. He hadded that it was rare to reject an application. Such a decision is taken only when the case appeared problematic. He said the approvals were given on the basis of inputs by various divisions in MEA which handle different countries.

They were held back if the topic was too sensitive topic or persons invited to speak were categorized as risky or there were problems with countries they were coming from. The organiser could write to the MEA asking for reasons for rejection but it was up to the ministry to respond.

Rao wondered how could nuclear disarmament be a sensitive topic. “An academic discussion would hardly have any political ramifications,” he said. Rao felt the rejection might be because the seminar was being held to close to the date of US president Barack Obama’s visit to India during November. “May be the government did not want to annoy Uncle Sam,” he mused.

He added that US wanted to push India into an arms race as it wanted a market for its defence industry.

Interestingly, he also stressed that India need not increase its nuclear stockpile keeping China in mind. Rao said China’s nuclear arms were not meant for India but were a defence against the US. “Since China is not going to attack India with nuclear weapons there is no reason for us to enter into an atomic arms race with it,” he added.

 

(Quelle: The Times of India.)