Care2 make a difference

10

10 log in or sign up to start earning Butterfly Credits today!
learn more »
earn credits for web search

community & fun

groups

get together & make a difference

Groups > MAYORS FOR PEACE > Discussions > Topic: Costs of Nuclear Weapons to Tax Payers
Topic: Costs of Nuclear Weapons to Tax Payers

powered by Care2.com • Care2 Home • E-cards & Fun • Shopping • Healthy Living • News Network • Petitions • Click to Donate


Jouni Y.	Costs of Nuclear Weapons to Tax Payers May 27, 2005 5:27 AM Monday, May 23rd, 2005 -- Greater Boston PSR (GBPSR) and Massachusetts Peace Action were invited by Vice Mayor Marjorie Decker of Cambridge, Massachusetts (a member of the Mayors for Peace) to formally present the city council with a “big check'” from a local tax day event. Shelagh Foreman of Massachusetts Peace Action and Dr. David Rush of PSR took a few moments to speak to the council before presenting the check. The tax day event in April was organized by GBPSR, with support from the national office of PSR, and Massachusetts Peace Action and held on the steps of Cambridge City Hall to protest expenditures on nuclear weapons and other weapons' systems. For a copy of the article published in the Cambridge Chronicle, please go to GBPSR’s web page, http://psr.igc.org/events-gbpsr-protests-nuc-weapons-spending.htm http://www.c-p-r.net/nuke_check.htm CALCULATE THE COST TO YOUR COMUNITY If you don't live in Ventura County you can calculate the cost of nuclear arms to your community using the following formula: $137.14 X pcim X your population = community cost or let cpr do it for you! just contact us at mail@c-p-r.net we're happy to help ~ we think it's important for you to know! Dear Members, when you decide to take action, for example to count the costs in your community, please, let us know. I urge you to count and find ways to protest because it is up to us, in the end, if the money is used more and more to military than for example healthcare, education and welfare of children, young people, old people and retired alike. We are talking here lifelong learning, awareness, of our choices and decisions, and even self-pity, frustration and disappointments. If one think that i can't affect the outcome because it is the decision makers who have the responsibility and decide then it is that reality we are living: yes, we can find reasons to build billions of dollars missile defence system and sending armsystems to the space against the rest of the world around us, like the threath of terror, rising of China, UN, European Union and France, Russian democracy going backwards, North Korea, Iran, Finnish parliament dumbfounded in horror, what is going on, the President and government members not contacting personally, and with lousy wording after Terrorist attack 9/11 etc. etc. ...But if we talk about it with our closest friends, at working places, at home with our spouses, we express the opinion locally, we can contact and arrange happenings with societies like mentioned above, protest, kind and firm in our actions, contact people by phone, letters and postcards, governments, we can sign petitions , we can donate money to the organisations to rally around these projects.. ...and what is most important too we can create health, inner silence, happiness, fun, energy, cooperation, togetherness and love simply DEEP BREATHING, how cheap and effective, we are one , human beings, animals and plants, we all breathe [ send green star]
Jouni Y.	January 19, 2006 12:44 PM "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." -- President Eisenhower, in his Farewell Address Dear: Thirty five years ago this week, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made his famous Farewell Adress to the nation, in which he popularized the phrase "military-industrial complex." The following 35 years have shown us that Ike didn't know the half of it. Including war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan and mandatory defense related spending, America's defense budget is over $750 billion. Our national priorities have been shaped in part by this spending. Yet many Americans remain ignorant of the costs of our defense establishment. That's why director Eugene Jarecki wrote and filmed 'Why We Fight.' The documentary won the prestigious Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival, and has been called "absorbing" by the New York Times. Entertainment Weekly's Owen Glieberman called it "nimble" and "brilliant," and said, "I defy anyone not to be staggered by it." The film is a look at our national military culture. It weaves unforgettable personal stories with commentary by a "who’s who" of military and beltway insiders. Featuring John McCain, Gore Vidal, William Kristol, Chalmers Johnson, Richard Perle and others, 'Why We Fight' launches a bipartisan inquiry into the rise of the American Empire. But 'Why We Fight' is not really focused on the Washington insiders we've come to expect. In the film, we meet Wilton Sekzer, a former NYPD Sergeant and Vietnam Veteran who lost his son on 9/11. We meet Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was at her desk in the Pentagon's Middle East Desk on that day. From stealth bomber pilots to the CEO of the company making the stealth bombers, from designers of the new generation of weapons, to those firing those weapons, to Iraqis who face the devastation those weapons cause, we see the effects of our $750 billion military budget. Perhaps most impressively, it manages to examine these issues without falling into the trap of polemics. Jarecki quietly, calmly and beautifully lays out the costs and the reasoning for war. Not just our current war, but all of the wars of the past half century. No US President in that period has managed to avoid sending troops to a shooting war zone. Jarecki simply asks, "Why?" 'Why We Fight' is opening this week in New York and Los Angeles, and around the country starting February 10. And because we think 20/20 Vision supporters are bound to be interested in it, we've gotten the release schedule and posted it here. I believe that this film is going to be one that is talked about for years to come. I was lucky enough to see a screening, and I personally consider it one of the finest films I've seen in the last year. I can't recommend it strongly enough. I urge you to make plans now to see this during its limited release, and to tell your friends and neighbors about it. I think you'll find yourself discussing it long after you've left the theater. Ron Zucker Film Web Site: http://www.whywefight.com Contribute: https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/shop/2020vision/ Change your membership info: http://www.2020vision.org/login.jsp Sign Up For Alerts! http://www.2020vision.org/signUp.jsp Unsubscribe: http://www.2020vision.org/unsubscribe.jsp [ send green star]
Jouni Y.	May 13, 2006 11:30 PM "...If we fail to build a new economy before decline sets in, it will not be because of a lack of fiscal resources, but rather because of obsolete priorities. The world is now spending 975 billion dollars annually for military purposes. The U.S. 2006 military budget of 492 billion dollars, accounting for half of the world total, goes largely to the development and production of new weapon systems. Unfortunately, these weapons are of little help in curbing terrorism, nor can they reverse the deforestation of the Earth or stabilize climate. The military threats to national security today pale beside the trends of environmental destruction and disruption that threaten the economy and thus our early 21st-century civilization itself. New threats call for new strategies. These threats are environmental degradation, climate change, the persistence of poverty, and the loss of hope. The U.S. military budget is totally out of sync with these new threats. If the United States were to underwrite the entire 161 billion dollars Plan B budget by shifting resources from the 492 billion dollars spent on the military, it still would be spending more for military purposes than all other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization plus China and Russia combined. Take a look Film Web Site: http://www.whywefight.com Of all the resources needed to build an economy that will sustain economic progress, none is more scarce than time. With climate change we may be approaching the point of no return. The temptation is to reset the clock. But we cannot. Nature is the timekeeper. It is decision time. Like earlier civilizations that got into environmental trouble, we can decide to stay with business as usual and watch our global economy decline and eventually collapse. Or we can shift to Plan B, building an economy that will sustain economic progress. It is hard to find the words to express the gravity of our situation and the momentous nature of the decision we are about to make. How can we convey the urgency of moving quickly? Will tomorrow be too late? One way or another, the decision will be made by our generation. Of that there is little doubt. But it will affect life on Earth for all generations to come. " Brown is president of the Earth Policy Institute--whose Web site is http://www.earth-policy.org/--and author of "Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble." [ send green star]
Marc G.	May 14, 2006 1:05 AM http://www.nwtrcc.org/ NWTRCC (National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee) Statement of Purpose The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee (NWTRCC) is a coalition of groups from across the U.S., formed in 1982 to provide information and support to people involved in or considering some form of war tax resistance (WTR). Affiliate organizations and individual supporters are joined together in a common struggle for a more just and peaceful society. We oppose militarism and war and refuse to complicitly participate in the tax system which supports such violence. NWTRCC sees poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia, economic exploitation, environmental destruction and militarization of law enforcement as integrally linked with the militarism which we abhor. Through the redirection of our tax dollars NWTRCC members contribute directly to the struggle for peace and justice for all. NWTRCC promotes war tax resistance within the context of a broad range of nonviolent strategies for social change, and is firmly embedded in the peace movement. NWTRCC's goal is to maintain and build a national movement of conscientious objectors to military taxes by supporting, coordinating and publicizing the WTR actions of groups and individuals. These actions include: war tax resistance, protest, and refusal; the redirection of military taxes to meet human needs; support of the U.S. Peace Tax Fund Bill; and adjustment of lifestyle to avoid tax liability. WTR actions are undertaken in accordance with each individual's moral, religious or political conscience, and are hoped to contribute toward changing the priorities and policies of the U.S. government. http://www.warresisters.org/wtr_menu.htm War Tax Resistance WAR TAX RESISTANCE ... War Resisters League: “Believing war to be a crime against humanity, the War Resisters League, founded in 1923, advocates Gandhian nonviolence as the method for creating a democratic society free of war, racism, sexism, and human exploitation.” “Let them march all they want, as long as they continue to pay their taxes.” —Alexander Haig, U.S. Sec. of State, June 12, 1982 “If a thousand [people] were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them and enable the state to commit violence and shed innocent blood. ” —Henry David Thoreau, during Mexican-American War of 1846-48 [ send green star] [ accepted]
Jouni Y.	Global nuclear stockpiles, 1945-200 July 03, 2006 5:18 AM NRDC: Nuclear Notebook Global nuclear stockpiles, 1945-2006 By Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen July/August 2006 pp. 64-66 (vol. 62, no. 4) ) © 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Excessive secrecy prohibits the public from knowing the exact number of nuclear weapons in the world. Each nation shields the details of its own nuclear arsenal and generally knows few precise details about the size and composition of other countries' stockpiles. Despite the uncertainty, we know that the total global nuclear weapons stockpile is considerably smaller than the 1986 Cold War high of 70,000-plus warheads. Through a series of arms control agreements and unilateral decisions, nuclear weapon states have reduced the global stockpile to its lowest level in 45 years. In the same period, the number of nuclear weapon states has grown from three to nine. We estimate that these nine states possess about 27,000 intact nuclear warheads, of which 97 percent are in U.S. and Russian stockpiles. About 12,500 of these warheads are considered operational, with the balance in reserve or retired and awaiting dismantlement. We are able to make our estimates by monitoring all known nuclear weapon developments, by studying long-term trends, and by tracking the implementation of arms control treaties. Estimating the arsenal sizes of the smaller nuclear powers--Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea--poses special difficulties, considering how minuscule they are compared with Russian and U.S. stockpiles. India and Pakistan have about 110 nuclear warheads between them, fewer than the number of warheads carried on a single U.S. Trident submarine, and the North Koreans could have around 10. Though Israel has not acknowledged it possesses nuclear weapons, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) estimates it has between 60 and 85 warheads. More than 128,000 nuclear warheads have been built since 1945, according to our calculations, and all but close to 3 percent were built by the United States (about 55 percent) and the Soviet Union/Russia (about 43 percent). Since the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia have moved an increasing percentage of their warheads from operational status to various reserve, inactive, or contingency categories, as arms control agreements traditionally have not required the destruction of warheads. For example, the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (the "Moscow Treaty") contains no verification provisions and ignores nonoperational and nonstrategic warheads altogether. With any number of warheads in indeterminate status, nuclear stockpiles are becoming more opaque and difficult to describe with precision. It's a situation that will only worsen after 2009 if the United States and Russia do not extend the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I, which requires biannual reporting on the status of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and bombers. United States. The Pentagon has custody of approximately 10,000 stockpiled warheads, of which about 5,735 are considered active or operational. The remaining are categorized as reserve or inactive. Details from an Energy Department 2004 stockpile plan indicate that some 4,000 warheads will eventually be retired, returned to Energy's custody, and disassembled at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas, though that task could take many years to accomplish. Refurbishments and upgrades to existing warheads will take priority over disassembly in terms of man-hours for the foreseeable future. Of the more than 70,000 warheads produced by the United States since 1945, more than 60,000 have been disassembled by mid-2006. More than 13,000 of these warheads have been taken apart since 1990, but Energy retains more than 12,000 intact plutonium pits from dismantled warheads and stores them at Pantex. Russia. Moscow has released very little information about the size of its stockpile, and its future plans are not known with a great deal of certainty. We estimate that since 1949 the Soviet Union/Russia produced some 55,000 nuclear warheads and that about 30,000 warheads existed in 1991 at the end of the Cold War. A few statements from Russian officials provide an occasional benchmark to help roughly calculate stockpile size and trends. But these statements typically lack detail, and the referenced dates are often ambiguous. In 1993, Victor Mikhailov, then minister of atomic energy, revealed that in 1986 the Soviet Union had 45,000 warheads in its stockpile. A decade later, Mikhailov said that nearly half of these warheads had been dismantled. [1] The Defense Department and the CIA estimated that Russia dismantled slightly more than 1,000 warheads per year during the 1990s, though how firm those estimates were is unknown. Of the 16,000 intact warheads we estimate to be in Russia's possession today, around 5,830 are considered operational. Because Russia has removed warheads from its deployed and operational forces faster than it could dismantle them, there is a backlog of warheads awaiting dismantlement. [ send green star]
Jouni Y.	July 03, 2006 5:20 AM The Moscow Treaty limits Russia's "operationally deployed strategic warheads" to no more than 2,200 by 2012, but its arsenal could shrink below this limit. Russia's production of new systems has been slow, and it is uncertain whether it can maintain such a large number of warheads because of limited resources and funding. Russia had previously pressed for a limit of 1,500 operational strategic warheads as part of the treaty, but the United States rejected this limit. Britain. Since 1953, Britain has produced approximately 1,200 warheads, according to our estimates. The British arsenal peaked in the 1970s at 350 warheads and has mostly declined since. The current stockpile consists of some 200 strategic and "sub-strategic" warheads for delivery by Trident II SLBMs aboard Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). The Labour government declared in July 1998 that it would maintain "fewer than 200 operationally available warheads," of which 48 would be on patrol at any given time on a single SSBN. France. The current French stockpile includes approximately 350 warheads, down from some 540 in 1992. We estimate that France produced more than 1,260 nuclear warheads since 1964. In the past decade, France dismantled its land-based ballistic missiles and retired its nuclear bombs intended for delivery by naval strike aircraft. France initially planned to arm its M51 sea-launched ballistic missile, which is scheduled for deployment in 2010, with an entirely new warhead, the Tête Nucléaire Océanique (TNO), but the missile will instead be equipped with a more robust version of an existing design, probably the TN-75. China. We estimate that China has an arsenal of some 200 nuclear warheads, down from an estimated 435 in 1993. This change is due to new information about the arsenal. China is thought to have produced some 600 nuclear warheads since 1964, and U.S. intelligence and defense agencies predict that over the next decade, China may increase the number of warheads targeted primarily against the United States from 20 to about 75-100. India and Pakistan. Neither India nor Pakistan has released any official information to the public about the size of its nuclear arsenal. Combined, the two are thought to possess as many as 110 warheads, some of which may not be operationally deployed. Independent experts estimate that India has produced enough fissile material for between 60 and 105 nuclear warheads but may have assembled only 50-60 warheads. In contrast, these experts believe that Pakistan has produced fissile material sufficient for between 55 and 90 weapons and has assembled 40-50 warheads. [2] Both countries are thought to be increasing their stockpiles. Israel. Although Israel has neither confirmed nor denied that it possesses nuclear weapons, the DIA concluded in 1999 that Israel had produced 60-80 warheads. Israel is estimated to have produced enough fissile material for between 115 and 190 warheads. The DIA projected that Israel's stockpile would increase only modestly by 2020. North Korea. North Korea has a 5-megawatt-electric (MWe) graphite-moderated, gas-cooled reactor that began operations in 1986. Independent experts estimate that it has produced about 43 kilograms of separated plutonium, give or take 10 kilograms. [3] Depending upon the North Koreans' technical capability and the desired yield of the bomb, Pyongyang could have as few as five weapons or as many as fifteen. Ten weapons seems to be a reasonable estimate, with the addition of about one weapon per year. It is unknown if North Korea has weaponized its nuclear capability and made a deliverable or usable weapon that can be mated to a missile, for example. If North Korea completes an under-construction 50 MWe reactor in a few years, it could produce about 60 kilograms of plutonium per year, which could potentially grow the stockpile by 10-15 weapons per year. The future. All five original nuclear weapon states continue to insist that nuclear weapons are essential to their national security, which translates into substantial global nuclear weapon stockpiles for the foreseeable future and the possibility that more nations will want the Bomb as well. India has committed to possessing a triad of nuclear forces including land-based ballistic missiles, nuclear-capable aircraft, and sea-based missiles that will probably require an arsenal of 100-150 warheads. Not to be outdone, Pakistan will likely keep pace with a similarly sized arsenal. Whether Israel's nuclear arsenal remains opaque will likely depend on the development of Iran's nuclear program, which appears to be about three to ten years away from joining the nuclear weapon club. Despite nuclear weapon states' progress in reducing global stockpiles, convincing nations to abandon their nuclear arsenals altogether remains a formidable task, one that will likely remain impossible until the nuclear powers themselves renounce their weapons. [ send green star]
Marc G.	July 03, 2006 5:46 AM Someone uploaded the film 'Why we fight' to google. People with a small wallet, like I, can watch it there. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1422779427989588955 [ send green star] [ accepted]
Jouni Y.	July 03, 2006 8:36 AM Nuclear weapons states, 1945-2006 Year U.S. Russia Britian France China Total 1945 6 6 1946 11 11 1947 32 32 1948 110 110 1949 235 1 236 1950 369 5 374 1951 640 25 665 1952 1,005 50 1,055 1953 1,436 120 1 1,557 1954 2,063 150 5 2,218 1955 3,057 200 10 3,267 1956 4,618 426 15 5,059 1957 6,444 660 20 7,124 1958 9,822 869 22 10,713 1959 15,468 1,060 25 16,553 1960 20,434 1,605 30 22,069 1961 24,126 2,471 50 26,647 1962 27,387 3,322 205 30,914 1963 29,459 4,238 280 33,977 1964 31,056 5,221 310 4 1 36,592 1965 31,982 6,129 310 32 5 38,458 1966 32,040 7,089 270 36 20 39,455 1967 31,233 8,339 270 36 25 39,903 1968 29,224 9,399 280 36 35 38,974 1969 27,342 10,538 308 36 50 38,274 1970 26,662 11,643 280 36 75 38,696 1971 26,956 13,092 220 45 100 40,413 1972 27,912 14,478 220 70 130 42,810 1973 28,999 15,915 275 116 150 45,455 1974 28,965 17,385 325 145 170 46,990 1975 27,826 19,055 350 188 185 47,604 1976 25,579 21,205 350 212 190 47,536 1977 25,722 23,044 350 228 200 49,544 1978 24,826 25,393 350 235 220 51,024 1979 24,605 27,935 350 235 235 53,360 1980 24,304 30,062 350 250 280 55,246 1981 23,464 32,049 350 274 330 56,467 1982 23,708 33,952 335 274 360 58,629 1983 24,099 35,804 320 279 380 60,882 1984 24,357 37,431 270 280 415 62,753 1985 24,237 39,197 300 360 425 64,519 1986 24,401 45,000 300 355 425 70,481 1987 24,344 43,000 300 420 415 68,479 1988 23,586 41,000 300 410 430 65,726 1989 22,380 39,000 300 410 435 62,525 1990 21,004 37,000 300 505 430 59,239 1991 17,287 35,000 300 540 435 53,562 1992 14,747 33,000 300 540 435 49,022 1993 13,076 31,000 300 525 435 45,336 1994 12,555 29,000 250 510 400 42,715 1995 12,144 27,000 300 500 400 40,344 1996 11,009 25,000 300 450 400 37,159 1997 10,950 24,000 260 450 400 36,060 1998 10,871 23,000 260 450 400 34,981 1999 10,824 22,000 185 450 400 33,859 2000 10,577 21,000 185 470 400 32,632 2001 10,527 20,000 200 350 400 31,477 2002 10,475 19,000 200 350 400 30,425 2003 10,421 18,000 200 350 400 29,371 2004 10,358 18,000 200 350 400 29,308 2005 10,295 17,000 200 350 400 28,245 2006 10,104 16,000 200 350 200 26,854 as outlined in the NPT Treaty [ send green star]

New Topic Back To Topics

Read Code of Conduct

This group:
MAYORS FOR PEACE
1437 Members

View All Topics
New Topic

Track Topic
Mail Preferences

Copyright © 2009 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved