US Arms Race - Against Ourselves?--Talking Points

Arms Sales and Transfers

Countries worldwide agreed to nearly $26 billion in new arms purchases last year and made actual transfers worth almost $29 billion.
The United States accounted for more than half of all new arms sales agreements in 2003, as global arms sales declined for the third year in a row, while U.S. sales rose for the second year running.
According to the Congressional Research Service, between 2000 and 2003 -- the last year for which accurate figures are available -- worldwide arms sales totaled $148 billion. The US share amounted to $76 billion, more than the rest of the world combined
Since 1996, the United States has concluded $105 billion in arms sales, while its closest competitor, Russia, amassed only $40 billion in new deals.
Although Russia has orchestrated an upswing in its arms sales since the late 1990s, China and India account for most of the deals, and they are increasingly looking to produce their own weapons and exploring new partners with which to do business. New Delhi is testing the waters with Israel and the United States, while Beijing is trying to persuade Europe to scrap its almost 15-year-old arms embargo on Beijing. (See ACT, September 2004.)
While the president criticizes Europe for wanting to sell arms to China, which still has an egregious human rights record, the United States consistently exports arms to some of the worst human rights offenders. In 2003 alone, 46.2 percent of US arms sales went to the developing world, many to regimes in volatile regions with poor human rights records.
For example, the Middle East: In the last four years, the United States sold more than $12 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Kuwait, none of which meets any criteria for democratic governance or has a sterling record on human rights.
In the last four years it delivered $3 billion in arms to Israel, the second largest arms provider to China after Russia. It has never put pressure on Russia to reduce its arms sales to China.
In 1999, Congress passed the International Arms Sales Code of Conduct Act, which required the administration to begin negotiations on international agreement criteria for arms transfers. But the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration before it, has made little progress. Instead, most of their efforts in this area appear to involve relaxing export controls.
Our arms transfers have indirectly strengthened violent groups and problematic regimes in Afghanistan, Colombia, Haiti, and Liberia, contributing to widespread human rights violations and instability. Many of the weapons used by the Taliban and Al Qaeda to fight US troops during military operations in Afghanistan were originally sold to insurgents by the United States in the 1980s.
Small Arms kill an estimated 500,000 people every year, injuring many times more. There are approximately 500 million small arms in circulation around the world

For more information on global arms sales, see “Global Arms Market Still U.S. Domain” by Wade Boese http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_10/Grimmett.asp?print

And, “US Should Set Example on Limiting Arms Exports” by Lawrence Korb and Caroline Wadhams http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/03/27/us_should_set_example_on_limiting_arms_exports/


Intelligence and ‘The Strategy’

The National Defense Strategy released March 18, 2005: cites four major threats to the United States: traditional, irregular, catastrophic and disruptive.
Traditional challenges are posed by well known and recognized military powers using "well-understood' forms of war.
The irregular threats come from forces using "unconventional" methods to counter stronger power.
The catastrophic challenge concerns the use of weapons of mass destruction by an enemy.
Disruptive refers to potential adversaries utilizing new technologies to counter U.S. advantages.
The paper outlined four major strategic objectives.
Securing the United States from direct attack is first on the list.
Securing access by the United States and its partners to key regions and lines of communications is the second major objective.
The third objective stresses strengthening alliances. "We will help partners increase their capacity to defend themselves and collectively meet challenges to our common interests," the document reads.
The fourth objective urges the creation of a favorable international system, which would help to foster, "a common appreciation of threats, the steps required to protect against these threats and a broad, secure, and lasting peace."
The strategy calls for four implementation guidelines. The first step calls for an active, layered defense.
Two of the main threats will come from "problem states" and "non-state actors." The document refers to "problem states" as those who "disregard international law and violate international agreements." The non-state actors are described as "a diverse collection of terrorists, insurgents, paramilitaries and criminals who seek to undermine the legitimate governance of some states and who challenge the United States and its interests."

For more information see “Pentagon plans new defense strategy for nation” by Dennis Ryan at: http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/10_12/national_news/33962-1.html

Nuclear Weapons and Space

Dollars the US spends per day on maintaining its nuclear arsenal: $100 Million
Number of nuclear weapons in the world: 30,000
8 countries (US, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, Pakistan, India and Israel) possess nuclear weapons. In the worst case scenario, a nuclear weapon launched could reach the US within minutes.
Number of countries capable of developing nuclear weapons: 44
More than 4,500 warheads remain on hair trigger alert.
The US and Russia possess over 95 percent of all nuclear weapons. More than 4,500 warheads remain on hair-trigger alert.
Pounds of fissile material necessary to build a crude nuclear bomb: 8-10
As little as 8 lbs of plutonium is needed to build a bomb. A missile is not needed to deliver such a device; a tugboat or truck could be used.
Number of accidents, false alarms, and malfunctions involving U.S. nuclear weapons before 1980 according to the U.S. government: 32 . Several of these have put us on the brink of accidental nuclear war.
The Pentagon is developing a suborbital space capsule that could hit targets anywhere in the world within two hours of being launched from U.S. bases. It also is developing systems that could attack potential enemy satellites, destroying them or temporarily preventing them from sending signals.
Krepon last week attended a conference in Geneva organized by the Chinese and Russian governments on preventing an arms race in outer space. Moscow and Beijing have for years promoted a new treaty to govern arms in space, since the current international agreement prohibits only nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction in space.
Analyzing the proposed Pentagon fiscal 2006 budget just sent to Congress, Theresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense Information, and her colleagues pointed to $60.9 million for an experimental XXS spacecraft whose "microsatellite payloads" could attack enemy satellites. Another $68 million is earmarked for a Near Field Infrared Experiment that would use infrared technology to disable enemy satellite transmissions.
As another defensive measure, the United States last October announced deployment of its first mobile, ground-based system that can temporarily disrupt communications from an enemy satellite. The Counter Communications System uses electromagnetic radio frequency energy to silence transmissions from a satellite in a way that is reversible. Two more units are due later this year.

For more Nuclear Facts, see: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/broken.arrows/intro.html

For more on weapons in space, see: “Plans by U.S. to Dominate Space Raising Concerns Arms Experts Worried at Pentagon Push for Superiority” By Walter Pincus
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7995-2005Mar28.html

The US and the Non-Proliferation Treaty

Renewal talks for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are scheduled for May, yet the United States and other nuclear powers seem indifferent to its fate. This is remarkable, considering the addition of Iran and North Korea as states that either possess or seek nuclear weapons programs.
So far the preparatory committee for the forthcoming NPT talks has failed even to achieve an agenda because of the deep divisions between nuclear powers that refuse to meet their own disarmament commitments and the nonnuclear movement.
Until recently all American presidents since Dwight Eisenhower had striven to restrict and reduce nuclear arsenals -- some more than others. So far as I know, there are no present efforts by any of the nuclear powers to accomplish these crucial goals.
While claiming to be protecting the world from proliferation threats in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea, American leaders not only have abandoned existing treaty restraints but also have asserted plans to test and develop new weapons, including anti-ballistic missiles, the earth-penetrating "bunker buster" and perhaps some new "small" bombs. They also have abandoned past pledges and now threaten first use of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states.

For more on the NPT see, “Saving Nonproliferation” By Jimmy Carter http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5754-2005Mar27.html