Class Crash- Talking Points

Long Term Joblessness

According to the Economic Policy Institute’s National Employment Law Project, There has been a significant rise in long-term joblessness (6 months and more), especially among women.

Three and a half years into this recovery, one in five unemployed Americans has been out of work for six months or more – marking the first time ever that so many jobless have been out of work for so long while the unemployment rate is relatively low and falling, according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and the National Employment Law Project (NELP).

· Women represented 43% of long-term jobless workers from 2001-2004, up from 35% from the comparable period in 1990-1993, creating a direct impact on children and families, especially for single mothers.

· After experiencing historic labor market gains during the late 1990s, African-American long-term unemployment was still worse than during the 1990-1993 period.


· Long-term unemployment is hitting occupations more broadly. From the 1990s recovery to the 2001 recovery, the average share of long-term unemployed white-collar workers grew by 6 percentage points.

See the full text: The rising stakes of job loss: Stubborn long-term joblessness amid falling unemployment rates
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp162


Income Distribution Trends

CBO has just released its income and tax information for 2002. This information underscores the degree to which income gains have been concentrated at the top of the income scale over the past two-plus decades. Between 1979 (the first year the CBO data cover) and 2002:
The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population more than doubled, rising from $298,900 to $631,700, for a total increase of $332,800, or 111 percent. (CBO adjusted these figures for inflation and expressed them in 2002 dollars.)
By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose a relatively modest 15 percent, or $5,700, reaching $43,700 in 2002.
The average after-tax income of the poorest fifth of the population rose just 5 percent, or $600, over the period.
Because incomes grew fastest among the most affluent, this group’s share of the total national income grew as well.
The top one percent of the population received 11.4 percent of national after-tax income in 2002, up from its already-large 7.5 percent share in 1979. (Each percentage point of after-tax income is equivalent to $62 billion in 2002 dollars.)
In contrast, the shares of national income received by various groups of low- and middle-income people all fell. The middle fifth of the population received 16.5 percent of the national after-tax income in 1979, but 15.8 percent in 2002. The bottom fifth received 6.8 percent of such income in 1979, but 5.1 percent in 2002.
See the full report titled, WHAT NEW CBO DATA INDICATE ABOUT LONG-TERM INCOME DISTRIBUTION TRENDSBy Isaac Shapiro
http://www.cbpp.org/3-7-05tax.htm

The Have-Nots

· Today…nearly 1 in 5 American households has zero net worth or actually owes more than it owns.

· 1 in 4 households does not own enough to support itself - even at the poverty line - for three months.

· The picture is worse for most minorities and women: 1 in 3 minority households has zero net worth or is in debt (compared with the average of 1 in 5).

· Black families have, on average, only one-sixteenth the net assets of white families.

· For every dollar of net worth of a household headed by a man, households headed by a woman have less than 40 cents.

· Some 30 percent of families don't have bank accounts.

See entire CSMonitor article, The American Dream gains a harder edge
By David R. Francis
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0523/p17s01-cogn.html

Iraq: More Casualties, Who Cares?—Talking Points

Terrorism on the Rise

· The U.S. count of major world terrorist attacks more than tripled in 2004…
· The number of "significant" international terrorist attacks rose to about 650 last year from about 175 in 2003
· The State Department last year initially released erroneous figures that understated the attacks, fatalities and casualties in 2003 and used the figures to claim the Bush administration was prevailing in the war on terrorism.
· The State Department last week unleashed a new debate about the numbers by saying it would no longer release them in its annual terrorism report but that the newly created National Counterterrorism Center that compiles the data would do so.

For more information see the entire article: World Terror Attacks Tripled in 2004 by U.S. Count Arshad Mohammed, Reuters, 26 April 2005.

American and Iraqi sentiments regarding the War and Occupation

· Support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since the campaign began in March 2003, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.
· 41% say the war was worth it; 57% say it wasn't.
· Public support peaked as Saddam Hussein's regime fell in 2003 when 76% of those polled said the war was worth it.

See the entire article: Support for Iraq War at Lowest Level: 35-percentage-point drop from high in '03 by Bill Nichols and Mona Mahmoud, Published on Wednesday, May 4, 2005 by USA Today

· An examination of Iraqi public opinion data and interviews suggests that coalition military activity may be substantially contributing to Iraqi discontent and opposition. A “vicious circle” is indicated, whereby actions to curtail the insurgency feed the insurgency.

· Polls show that a large majority of Iraqis have little faith in coalition troops and view them as occupiers, not liberators. There is significant support for attacks on foreign troops and a large majority of Iraqis want them to leave within a year.

· Kurds are uniquely positive about the occupation and postwar order. Sunnis express the strongest opposition. Shiites often represents a midway position. Like the Kurds, Shiites felt very positive about the 2005 election. However, regarding foreign troops: Shiite opinion is closer to Sunni, although it varies in accord with coalition military action.

· Overall: there is a correlation between Iraqis’ experiences of violence, negative appraisals of US troops, and support for insurgent attacks. The geographic pattern of coalition military activity corresponds with the distribution of these attitudes, which peak in Sunni areas and Baghdad. As much as 80 percent of US military activity during the occupation has focused on Baghdad and Sunni areas.

· Polls in June 2004 showed that the chief reasons for the sharp negative turn in Iraqi opinion were (in order): Abu Ghraib, the Falluja attack, “bad” or violent behavior by troops, and the failure to provide security.

See the entire article: Vicious Circle: The Dynamics of Occupation and Resistance in Iraq. Part One. Patterns of Popular Discontent.
Project on Defense Alternatives Research Monograph #10. http://www.comw.org/pda

Inconsistent Polls in Iraq

(This is a free-standing version of Appendix 1 from PDA Briefing Report #17, January 2005: The Iraqi election "bait and switch": faulty poll will not bring peace or US withdrawal.)

1. When Should Forces Leave?

· February 2004: 33 percent want withdrawal within a year; 40 percent, withdrawal once an Iraqi government is in place; 27 percent, a longer or more open-ended stay. (Oxford Research International)

· March-April 2004: 57 percent, "leave immediately"; 36 percent, "stay longer". (Gallup)

· June 2004: 41 percent, "immediate withdrawal"; 45 percent, withdrawal after election of a permanent government; 10 percent, 2 years or longer. (Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society/CPA).

· June 2004: 30 percent desire immediate withdrawal, 51 percent want withdrawal after a government is elected, 13 percent said that Coalition forces should remain until stability was achieved. (Iraq Centre for Research & Strategic Studies)

· June 2004: 53 percent say leave now or "within a few months" or "until an Interim Government is in place" or "in six months to a year"; 33.5 percent allow "more than one year" or "until permanent government is in place"; 13.6 percent, even longer if necessary. (Oxford Research International)

· January 2005: 82 percent of Sunni Arabs and 69 percent of Shiites favor US withdrawal either immediately or after an elected government is in place.ä (Zogby)

2. Attitudes toward US forces

· February 2004: 56.3 percent of Iraqis somewhat or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. "Strongly oppose" versus "strongly support" is 2.5-to-1. (Oxford Research International)

· March-April 2004: 58 percent say US forces have behaved very or fairly badly; 34 percent say US forces have behaved very or fairly well. The ratio between those saying "very bad" and those saying "very well": 3-to-1. (Gallup/CNN/USA Today)

· March-April 2004: 30 percent say that attacks on US forces were somewhat or completely justified; another 22 percent said they were sometimes justified. (Gallup/CNN/USA Today)

· May 2004: 87 percent express little or no confidence in US coalition forces; 92 percent view coalition forces as occupiers, rather than liberators or peace keepers. (Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society/CPA)

· June 2004: 67 percent of Iraqis strongly or somewhat oppose the presence of Coalition troops; 30 percent support. (Iraq Centre for Research & Strategic Studies)

· June 2004: 58 percent of Iraqis somewhat or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. Strongly oppose versus strongly support is 3-to-1. (Oxford Research International)

· June 2004: 70 percent say Coalition troops are an occupying or exploiting force; 30 percent say a liberating or peacekeeping force. (Oxford Research International)

· June 2004: Invasion of Iraq was absolutely right say 13.2 percent; somewhat right, 27.6 percent; somewhat wrong, 25.7 percent; absolutely wrong, 33.5 percent. (Oxford Research International)

· January 2005: 53 percent of Sunni Arabs say ongoing attacks are a legitimate form of resistance. (Zogby)

3. Attitudes toward the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi government

· February 2004, Oxford: 31 percent express confidence in CPA, 69 percent do not. 43 percent express confidence in Iraqi government, 57.3 percent do not. (Oxford Research International)

· March-April: 42 percent of Iraqis judge CPA behavior to be fairly or very bad; 25 percent say it was fairly or very good. The ratio between those saying "very bad" and those saying "very good" is 4-to-1. (Gallup/CNN/USA Today)

· May 2004: 85 percent of Iraqis express little or no confidence in the CPA; 66 percent express little or no confidence in the Iraqi Governing Council. (Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society/CPA)

· June 2004: 25.6 percent express confidence in CPA, 74.4 percent do not; 42.7 percent express confidence in IGC, 57.3 percent do not. (Oxford Research International)

· October 2004: 55 percent say Interim Government does not represent the interests of people like them "very much" or "at all". Nearly 50 percent find the government to be ineffective; 43 percent find it to be effective - a sharp decline since the government took office in June 2004. (International Republican Institute.)

4. Is life better or worse?

· March-April 2004: 46 percent say the US invasion has done more harm than good; 33 percent say more good. (Gallup)

· March-April 2004: 42 percent say Iraq is better off today than before the invasion, 39 percent say worse, 17 percent say the same. (Gallup)

· August 2004: 46 percent of Iraqis say their situation has improved since the fall of Hussein, 31 percent say it has grown worse, and 21 percent say it is unchanged. (International Republican Institute)

For more information, see: What do Iraqis want? Iraqi attitudes on occupation, US withdrawal, governments, and quality of life. Project on Defense Alternatives Compiled by Carl Conetta 01 February 2005

US Casualty figures as of May 10th, 2005

Source: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

American Deaths Total In Combat
Since war began (3/19/03): 1601 1248
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) 1464 1138
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 1134 942
Since Handover (6/29/04): 735 615
Since Election (1/31/05): 169 142

American Wounded Totals Official Estimated
11664 15000 - 38000



Iraqi Civilian Casualties: Who is keeping track?

Iraqi Civilian Count (According to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ )
Minimum Maximum
21447 24324


· Iraqi civilians who have suffered from U.S. military operations face steep obstacles in obtaining compensation for the deaths of their loved ones or material damage, human rights analysts say.

· Marla Ruzicka, a humanitarian-aid worker, campaigned to persuade the U.S. military to keep and release civilian casualty figures and helped persuade Congress to authorize $20 million for families of Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. forces.

· Ruzicka herself died on April 16 when her car was caught in an insurgent attack.

· The United States allows Iraqis to seek compensation for material damage, death or injury, but claims must be due to a "non-combat situation" and prove wrongful action or negligence.

· An investigation by the Dayton Daily News in October analyzed 4,611 civil claims in Iraq against the U.S. military and found that three out of four were denied.

· The average payment for a civilian death was $4,421. In some cases, Iraqis received $2,500 sympathy payments without going through the claims procedure.

· The United States does not keep count of Iraqi civilian casualties. The British medical journal, The Lancet, last October put the toll since the U.S. invasion of March 2003 at around 100,000, most caused by U.S. air attacks at the war's beginning.

· The London-based group Iraq Body Count, which tallies only deaths directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies, puts the total at between 21,000 and 24,000. For recent months, deaths have been in the 400-600 range, most caused by insurgent attacks.

See the entire article: U.S. Seen as Unaccountable in Iraqi Civilian Deaths
Published on Wednesday, May 4, 2005 by Reuters

· In the past two weeks alone, about 400 Iraqis reportedly have died across the country. On Wednesday alone, five car bombs and a man with explosives strapped to his body killed at least 69 people in Baghdad and elsewhere.

· The estimates of ordinary Iraqis killed -- by insurgents, U.S. troops and Iraqi criminals -- vary greatly, from as low as 6,000 up to nearly 100, 000, depending on the methodology used.

· Most experts say more precise estimates are complicated by numerous factors, including the Islamic custom of speedy burial, political pressures to inflate or deflate the count and the lack of effective government, especially in rural areas, that make tracking deaths difficult.

· Estimates of Iraqi civilians killed since the start of the war. When providing death totals, some sources provide a range rather than an exact number.

· 98,000: Lancet medical journal (based on interviews with 988 Iraqi households; released in October 2004) (www.thelancet.com; registration required).

· 21,523 to 24,415 as of May 11: Iraq Body Count (compiled from media and official reports, updated daily) (www.iraqbodycount.com)

· 11,690 to 12,930 as of April 13: Iraq Index (Brookings Institute; updated intermittently)

· 21,490 to 41,600 as of March 31 If deaths from crime are included (www.brookings. edu/iraqindex)

· 6,000 as of April 5: Iraqi government (counts only those killed by insurgents and criminal gangs)

See the entire article: Tally of Civilian Deaths Depends on Who's Counting
Definitive estimates difficult to obtain by Jack Epstein and Matthew B. Stannard

Women on the Frontlines


· Facing the highest ever casualty rate for servicewomen in its history, America is considering making official what is already a reality - allowing women to fight on the front line in war.

· A total of 35 US servicewomen have now died in Iraq and 271 have been injured.

See entire article: As casualties soar, America's women face reality of front line
Joanna Walters reports from New York on how Iraq is changing the face of warfare
Joanna Walters in New York Sunday May 1, 2005/ The Observer

2005 Conference: Women in the Military Today

· On May 19-20, WREI will hold the Women in the Military Today conference in Arlington, Virginia.

To see a schedule of events and learn more, go to: http://www.wrei.org/projects/wiu/conference2005.htm


The Shape our Military is in

Standing Down

· Responding to reports about widespread abuses of the rules for recruitment, Army officials said yesterday that they would suspend all recruiting on May 20 and use the day to retrain its personnel in military ethics and the laws that govern what can and cannot be done to enlist an applicant.

See entire article: Army to Spend Day Retraining Recruiters By DAMIEN CAVE
May 12, 2005


Echoes of Vietnam

· U.S. military analysts had noted the increasing coordination, ambition and sophistication of attempted insurgent operations over the past few weeks. Nor did the timing of the new offensive come as a surprise to them. The prime political goal of seeking to discredit the new government before it could establish itself was an obvious one.

· What is of far greater concern to U.S. commanders and analysts is that despite this broad strategic sense of when, and even on what scale, the new attacks would come, U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies have so far proven totally unable to prevent them.

· This appears to graphically demonstrate that U.S. forces in Iraq two years after occupying the country are losing the most important front in the war -- the intelligence one.
· In this sense, indeed, the position of the U.S. troops and their Iraqi allies, for all the overwhelming superiority of U.S. forces and firepower, is far inferior to that in Vietnam during the 1967-72 period. For the Phoenix counter-insurgency program did indeed inflict devastating damage on the political, undercover and intelligence forces or cadres of the Viet Cong.

· By contrast, U.S. forces and those of the new Iraqi government have so far signally failed to systematically penetrate the insurgent forces and significantly disrupt their organization.
· The failure of the U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies to protect their own stands in striking contrast to the success security forces in neighboring Saudi Arabia have had. They repeatedly were able to react fast with accurate intelligence and devastating raids against al-Qaida attempts to terrorize and intimidate them.
See entire article: U.S. back to stage one in Iraq by Martin Sieff, United Press International May 2, 2005

NGOs in Iraq: Travails of Humanitarian Efforts

· Persistent violence and the fear of being associated with the US-led Coalition have limited the scope and neutrality of humanitarian agencies in Iraq in spite of available funding for projects, according to aid workers.

· The underlying problem for aid organizations is poor security, they say. Many NGOs have relocated to nearby countries and evacuated international staff following kidnappings and bombings, targeting them.

· In some cases, private contractors have been employed to carry out transport and reconstruction duties, although, they too, have been regularly targeted by insurgents.

· Aid agencies now operate with extreme caution and discretion, struggling to continue operations while trying to maintain neutrality, according to international humanitarian workers. Their dilemma is that the agencies often need Coalition forces to provide the security the NGOs crave.

For more info, see entire article: Divergent views over relationship between NGOs and Coalition 06/05/2005 IRIN News

· The international community owes it to the Iraqi people to assist them in their struggle to rebuild their nation. While the conditions are treacherous, a sense of humanitarian solidarity is something that must be created.

· Over the past two years, international aid workers' mobility and access has severely been limited, to the point of making us handicapped.

· Marla was not ready to give up that right so easily. She was right: we must get out and stay out in the fields, even if that means not being there ourselves, but helping Iraqis rebuild their country by giving them the resources to do so.

· They should not have to do it on their own, and they do not want to rely on military forces and private coalition contractors to do it for them.

For more info, see the entire article: Why We Remain By Manal Omar, AlterNet
Posted on April 28, 2005, Printed on May 9, 2005 http://www.alternet.org/story/21890/


The Media’s Coverage of Iraq

· Last year, photojournalist Molly Bingham and independent British journalist Steve Connors spent 10 months in Iraq working the “rest of the story” - primarily from the side of the Iraqi resistance. Bingham's mission - find out what makes resistance tick. The result - a documentary by Bingham and Connors that they're finding very difficult to market.

· Beyond the fact that she has a compelling story to tell, she's earned her stripes under fire. You might have to dig way back in the memory banks, but she was one of the western journalists detained at Abu Ghraib by Saddam's regime at the beginning of the Iraq war.

· In early April, 2003, she was released, but turned right back around when the coalition marched into Baghdad, and started a stringer assignment for the New York Times.

· Just the process of working on that story has revealed many things to me about my own country. I'd like to share some of them with you:

· Lesson One: Many journalists in Iraq could not, or would not, check their nationality or their own perspective at the door.

· Lesson Two: Our behavior as journalists has taught us very little. Just as in the lead up to the war in Iraq, questioning our government's decisions and claims and what it seeks to achieve is criticized as unpatriotic.

· Lesson Three: To seek to understand and represent to an American audience the reasons behind the Iraqi opposition is practically treasonous.

· Lesson Four: The gatekeepers -- by which I mean the editors, publishers and business sides of the media -- don't want their paper or their outlet to reveal that compelling narrative of why anyone would oppose the presence of American troops on their soil.

· Lesson Five: What it's like to be afraid of your own country.

For more info see the following articles: Molly Bingham's Iraq: “Not something my audience wants to see.” The All Spin Zone
http://allspinzone.com/blog/index.php?itemid=218

Home from Iraq: Journalist urges Americans to search for truth, freedom by Molly Bingham © 2005 Courier-Journal

· America's most important foreign policy venture is teetering on the edge of civil war, and new evidence shows the Bush administration likely fixed intelligence to justify war. But you might not have heard much about it. Though print media outlets have provided some coverage of the major stories in recent weeks, television media – still the primary source of news for most Americans – is failing miserably. America is being kept in the dark.

· Pat Lang, the former top Middle East intelligence official at the Pentagon, says, "It's just political rhetoric to say we are not in a civil war. We've been in a civil war for a long time."

· But according to ABC News, our television media simply doesn't care. The network's morning briefing yesterday noted, "We say with all the genuine apolitical and non-partisan human concern that we can muster that the death and carnage in Iraq is truly staggering. And/but we are sort of resigned to the Notion that it simply isn't going to break through to American news organizations, or, for the most part, Americans.... What is hands down the biggest story every day in the world will get almost no coverage."

· Last week, a British newspaper released top-secret documents suggesting that "President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had conditionally agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq." In one memo from July '02, Britain's top intelligence official states that "he had returned from Washington, where there had been a 'perceptible shift in attitude. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.'"

· Since its release, however, the U.S. press has stayed silent.

· "Are we, or are we not, building permanent military bases in Iraq? Yes or no?" So asks national security expert and former Sen. Gary Hart this week, noting that "the press has been unaccountably lax in pursuing this question," despite its central role in the larger picture of U.S. goals in Iraq. If the goal of the war was to "dominate the behavior of the region (including securing oil supplies), then you build permanent bases for some kind of permanent American military presence. If the goal was to spread democracy and freedom, then you don't."

· Defense Secretary Rumsfeld claims the U.S. has a "victory strategy" for Iraq, the goal of which is "to help the Iraqi Forces develop the skills and the capacity to provide their own security." But the Government Accountability Office reported recently that coalition leadership has still failed "to develop a system to assess the readiness of Iraqi military and police forces so they can identify weaknesses and provide them with effective support."

· GAO states, "U.S. government agencies do not report reliable data on the extent to which Iraqi security forces are trained and equipped," and the high number of security forces frequently touted by senior White House officials "overstates the number actually serving," probably by "tens of thousands." Yet days after this GAO report was released, Secretary Rumsfeld appeared on two Sunday news programs and repeated his inflated numbers with impunity. Hosts on both programs failed to question Rumsfeld about the report.

For more info see: American Progress Action Fund, The Progress Report, “Iraq: See no Evil, Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil” May 13th 2005 by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin with Nico Pitney and Mipe Okunseinde http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=687439

The Nuclear Option – Talking points

How American’s Feel

· Most Americans surveyed in a poll by AP-Ipsos Public Affais say they do not think any country, including the United States, should have nuclear weapons. That sentiment is at odds with current efforts by some nations that are trying to develop the weapons and by terrorists seeking to add them to their arsenal.
· North Korea claims it has nuclear weapons now and is making more. Iran is widely believed to be within five years of developing such weapons. Security for the nuclear material scattered across the countries of the old Soviet Union remains a major concern.
· 52 percent of Americans think a nuclear attack by one country against another is somewhat or very likely by 2010. Also, 53 percent think a nuclear attack by terrorists is at least somewhat likely.
· Two-thirds of respondents say no nation should have nuclear weapons, including the United States. Most of the others surveyed say no more countries should get the weapons.
· Overall, 47 percent of those surveyed approved of dropping the bombs on Japan while 46 percent disapproved.
· The threat from nuclear terrorism is greatest, analysts say, because terrorists with nuclear weapons would feel little or no hesitance about using them. That's why those who monitor nuclear proliferation are so concerned about securing weapons stockpiles and dismantling weapons as quickly as possible.

For more on public opinions on nuclear weapons, see Ipsos-Public Affairs: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com/

Nuclear Facts

Dollars the US spends per day on maintaining its nuclear arsenal: $100 Million -- approximately what the International Atomic Energy Agency spends in one year to safeguard nuclear materials worldwide.
Number of nuclear weapons in the world: 30,000
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 countries capableof developing nuclear weapons: 44
44 countries have access to the fissile material and technology to build nuclear weapons. With the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty jeopardized, nuclear weapons could quickly spread.
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.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/broken.arrows/intro.html

128,000+: Estimated number of nuclear warheads built worldwide since 1945. All but 2 percent of these nuclear warheads have been built by the United States (55 percent or 70,000+) and Russia (43 percent or 55,000+).
$3.5 trillion: Amount the United States spent between 1940 and 1995 to prepare to fight a nuclear war.
$27 billion: Amount the United States spends annually to prepare to fight a nuclear war.

Source: Nuclear Facts at a Glance From the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) http://www.nrdc.org/

Who Has What?

Nuclear-Weapon States:
China: More than 100 warheads.
France: Approximately 350 strategic warheads.
Russia: 4,978 strategic warheads,1 approximately 3,500 operational tactical warheads, and more than 11,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads.
United Kingdom: Less than 200 strategic warheads.
United States: 5,968 strategic warheads,1 more than 1,000 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 3,000 reserve strategic and tactical warheads.
Defacto Nuclear-Weapon States:
Three states—India, Israel, and Pakistan—never joined the NPT and are known to possess nuclear weapons.
India: 45 to 95 nuclear warheads. The Pentagon projects that New Delhi has a relatively small stockpile of nuclear weapons components that could be assembled and deployed “within a few days to a week.”
Israel: Between 75 to 200 nuclear warheads.
Pakistan: 30 to 50 nuclear warheads. The Pentagon believes Islamabad stores its weapons in component form and could assemble weapons “fairly quickly.”
States of Immediate Proliferation Concern:
Iran: No known weapons or sufficient fissile material stockpiles to build weapons. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN body charged with verifying that states are not illicitly building nuclear weapons, concluded in 2003 that Iran had undertaken covert nuclear activities to establish the capacity to indigenously produce fissile material.
North Korea: One to two nuclear weapons, according to CIA estimates. Pyongyang also possesses enough spent nuclear fuel that could be reprocessed into fissile material for as many as six nuclear weapons.
Syria has forsworn nuclear weapons as a state-party to the NPT and its nuclear research reactor is subject to IAEA monitoring. The Pentagon stated in 2001 that Syria is not pursuing nuclear weapons. However, the CIA cautioned in late 2003, “broader access to foreign expertise provides opportunities to expand its indigenous capabilities and we are looking at Syrian nuclear intentions with growing concern.”

For more on what states possess nuclear weapons, see: Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance April 2005 http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat.asp?print

What is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States.
Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. On 11 May 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. A total of 188 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.
To further the goal of non-proliferation and as a confidence-building measure between States parties, the Treaty establishes a safeguards system under the responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Treaty promotes cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology and equal access to this technology for all States parties, while safeguards prevent the diversion of fissile material for weapons use.
The provisions of the Treaty, particularly article VIII, paragraph 3, envisage a review of the operation of the Treaty every five years, a provision which was reaffirmed by the States parties at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.
The 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) met at the United Nations in New York from 24 April to 19 May 2000. The Conference was the first to be convened following the Treaty's indefinite extension at the 1995 Conference.

Source: UN website, http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/’

Bunker Busters

Also known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), the bunker buster is portrayed as a weapon that could burrow into the ground before detonating, greatly increasing its ability to destroy hardened underground targets.
Supporters argue that the bunker buster is needed to attack hard and deeply buried targets (such as leadership bunkers or WMD production facilities) in countries of concern, thereby deterring or defeating such nations.
Critics reply that:
The bunker buster would lower the threshold for use of nuclear weapons and prompt other nations to develop nuclear weapons to deter U.S. attack.
Nuclear weapons (including the bunker buster) cannot be engineered to penetrate far enough into the ground to prevent nuclear fallout. To prevent fallout, a nuclear weapon with approximately the same yield as the one dropped on Hiroshima would need to be buried 850 feet in the ground. Currently, the best weapons casing available can barely penetrate 100 feet.
The yield of the bunker buster would be much larger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The bunker buster would have a yield of 100KT; the Hiroshima bomb was 15KT.
If a weapon with a yield of one kiloton was detonated some 35 feet underground(close to current capability), it would put one million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air, and create a crater the size of Ground Zero in New York.
The bunker buster is regarded as a “tactical” nuclear weapon. Developing such a weapon would make it difficult to encourage Russia to dispose of its arsenal of over4,000 tactical nuclear weapons.
New nuclear weapons serve no practical role in countering the threats from extremists who are willing to use terrorist tactics. You can’t nuke a network or an extremist ideology.

For more points on Bunker Busters, see : http://www.wand.org/