From Council for a Livable World
Your Representative's vote will be crucial in determining whether Congress gives Bush money to create new nuclear weapons and continue pursuing an unreliable missile defense system.
Write to your Representative today, and ask them to deny the Bush administration's request for funding new nuclear weapons and missile defense.
As an arms control advocate, I am concerned over several items in the Defense Authorization bill, HR 5658, on which you may vote as early as today. Please refuse to spend taxpayer money on new nuclear weapons programs and unreliable missile defense.
Please VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT #115 to cut funding from missile defense - the most expensive weapons system in the Pentagon budget - and support non-proliferation programs and our nation's veterans.
Please VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT #39, which aims to fund a new nuclear weapons program, the so-called "Reliable Replacement Warhead." It is hypocritical and counter-productive for the United States to develop new nuclear weapons while we try to convince countries like Iran and North Korea to do exactly the opposite.
This is extremely important,
especially in light of the fact we've got tons of radioactive waste from old nuke missiles that have become virtually unmanageable, thanks to the shortsightedness of previous administrations.
Your link is bad Zate, but here's a good one:
for the fix.
Nuclear energy policy leading to nuclear weapons proliferation?
There are now two versions of Bill Number H.R.5658.
1 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Introduced in House)[H.R.5658.IH]
2 . Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Reported in House)[H.R.5658.RH]
The wording that was in this version included agreements with Russia, as well as funding for nuclear weapons. An example:
There is intent by the Bush administration to put us in a position that would likely return us, and the world, back to nuclear proliferation. Sending spent fuel rods to Russia, etc. is incredibly irresponsible policy.
Whether or not nuclear energy is an answer to energy/global warming is a separate issue.
Introduction and link to a relevant article: