Joshua Smith by accinent


									                          APPENDIX I – PETITION

To the President of the United States and members of the Senate
assembled. The petition of the undersigned call on members of the Senate
to support the position of opposing those elements
advocated by the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that involve the
possible development and testing of low-yield earth penetrating nuclear
weapons as practical complements to a conventional arsenal.

We believe that the practices of actively testing, targeting or using such
weapons constitute a breach of international humanitarian law, and create
further regional and global insecurity.

In the alternative, we call on the Government of the United States to lead
the diplomatic pursuit towards nuclear disarmament worldwide.

              NAME                       ADDRESS                SIGNATURE
        (please print clearly)

                            Please return this petition to
                       The Partnership for Active Disarmament



August 7, 2003

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

As a committed member of the global security community and a representative of
the xxxx unique individuals to have signed the enclosed petition, I am contacting
you on this day in order to express the deep concern held by the Partnership for
Active Disarmament in relation to the nuclear weapons policies proposed by your
Administration in early 2002. This letter will argue that many of the policies
outlined within the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) threaten to compromise not
only the security and integrity of the United States of America, but to derail
decades of progress made towards the mutual reduction of nuclear assets globally.

In an environment requiring ever-presence on behalf of security and intelligence
forces in the face of unpredictable threats posed by terrorist groups and
governments opposed to American interests, containing the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction is essential. Numerous analysts have suggested that
the greatest threat to nuclear security comes from the degrading protection offered
physical and intellectual assets of the Cold War age, and that securing Russian
fissile materials, in particular, is an essential step in preventing unmonitored
proliferation of weapons to rogue elements. Despite this, the budget designated
towards the Cooperative Threat Reduction program by your administration is
dwarfed by increased investments into unproven missile defense systems and the
new homeland defense scheme.

Security through diplomacy is also at threat as a result of the naming of seven
contingent targets within the NPR document, several of which are known non-
nuclear states. Targeting non-nuclear states is not only of questionable strategic
value, but risks breaching humanitarian law. Furthermore, it threatens the position
of moral leadership maintained by the United States in regards to upholding the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other international arms reduction
agreements. When considered in conjunction with investments into ballistic missile
defense, these actions risk triggering an arms development race.

That the NPR also proposes the possible development of new low-yield nuclear
weapons is especially troubling. Doing so serves no strategic deterrent purpose,
and risks blurring the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. The
claim that conventional weapons are incapable of containing or destroying
hardened and deeply buried targets is in defiance of scientific evidence to the
contrary, much of which actually suggests that tactical nuclear devices are less well
suited to this purpose, both in terms of effective penetration and the risks of
containing fallout.

To this end, we recommend that your administration demonstrate a leadership role
in reducing the nuclear threat by advocating an international protocol to ban
research and development into low-yield nuclear weapons. Furthermore, we ask
that you assure the international community of the United States’ position to use
nuclear weapons only in a case of defense by formally affirming a non-first use
policy, and advocating for the same in your engagements with other nations.

Unless the root causes of disagreement and security threats are addressed, no new
technology will serve as an all-pervasive solution. Walls, both in the metaphorical
and physical senses, will just be built higher and tunnels deeper. Nuclear
proliferation, it has been argued, is more likely to increase than diminish in the
presence of a missile defence systems and a threatening posture maintained by the
world’s biggest nuclear power. This in turn increases the probability of WMD
acquisition by rogue non-state players that aren’t bound by the same limitations of
accountability and compliance to international law as those governing the
leadership of countries.

For these reasons, a path that prioritises active diplomacy and disarmament over
deterrence and proliferation is not only in the best interests of the world, but
provides far greater contextual security to the people and institutions of the United
States and its allies.

Thank you for your consideration of our views. We would appreciate the
opportunity to meet with you and your senior advisors to discuss these issues.
Please reply to: Joshua Smith, Founder, The Partnership for Active Disarmament,
PO Box xxxx, Arundel, Queensland, 4214, Australia, telephone +617-5555-5555.


Joshua Smith
The Partnership for Active Disarmament


The Hon. Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State
The Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Condoleezza Rice, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
The Hon. John R. Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
The Hon. Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Stephen J. Hadley, Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs


Dear Senator,

As advocates of global security through active disarmament, we are writing on
behalf of both The Partnership for Active Disarmament and the xxxx signatories to
the enclosed petition to urge you to re-implement the Spratt-Furse law banning
development leading to the production of nuclear weapons with yields of less than
five kilotons. This request is in response to the release of the 2002 Nuclear Posture
Review (NPR), and the subsequent elimination of the Spratt-Furse law under its

There is little basis in scientific, political or strategic arguments in support of efforts
to develop new nuclear weapons for practical battlefield use. Doing so endangers
the nuclear taboo and the principle of deterrence by blurring the distinction
between conventional and nuclear weapons. It also defies scientific evidence
suggesting that conventional weapons are more effective in bunker-busting
application than low-yield earth penetrating nuclear weapons.

The pursuit of new nuclear weapons threatens to undermine international arms
reduction agreements and, in turn, to increase the probability of WMD proliferation
by and to those states named within the NPR document. This is a risk too great for
the United States to bear, both in economic terms (given that this renders
investments into Cooperative Threat Reduction and the anti-ballistic missile
defense system redundant) and political terms. Allowing for the researching and/or
development of new weapons of mass destruction by the very Administration
whose foreign policy has depended on arousing international opinion against such
weapons is self-defeating.

We urge the Senate to enact a law that demonstrates a lasting commitment to the
moratorium on nuclear development and testing, in the interests of global security
and the maintenance of America’s position of moral leadership on the world stage.


Joshua Smith
The Partnership for Active Disarmament

             APPENDIX V – WEBSITE
The official website of The Partnership for Active Disarmament
          is presently accessible via the following URL:

This online store is presently accessible via the following URL:


To top