^lortlanh (Dbseruer Page 14 luly 17,2013 New Prices Effective May 1,2010 Martin Cleaning HÜIAAHÍTARÍAR oFH U C leA R WEAPONS - O S IO - Service Carpet & Upholstery Cleaning Residential & Commercial Services Minimum Service CHG $45.00 u s . W orking group oh HUC1EAR DISARMAMENT fri GEHEV/X A small distance/travel charge may be applied CARPET CLEANING 2 Cleaning Areas or more $30.00 Each Area Pre-Spray Traffic Areas (Includes: I small Hallway) 1 Cleaning Area (only) $40.00 Includes Pre-Spray Traffic Area (Hallway Extra) Stairs (12-16 stairs - With O ther Services): $25.00 Area/Oriental Rugs: $25.00 Minimum Area/Oriental Rugs (Wool)’. $40.00 Minimum Heavily Soiled Area: Additional $10.00 each area (Requiring Extensive Pre-Spraying) UPHOLSTERY CLEANING Sofa: $69.00 Loveseat: $49.00 Sectional: $109 - $139 Chair or Recliner $25 - $49 Throw Pillows (With th * > Other Services): $5.00 ADDITIONAL SERVICES • Area & Oriental Rug Cleaning • Auto/Boat/RV Cleaning • Deodorizing & Pet Odor Treatment • Spot & Stain Removal Service • Scotchguard Protection • Minor Water Damage Services SEE CURRENT FLYER FOR ADDITIONAL PRICES & SERVICES Call for Appointment (503) 281-3949 Obama Sharpens his Nuclear Posture I’m holding my applause by P eter W eiss Soon after Presi dent Barack Obama beg an his first term, he called for a w o rld free o f nuclear weapons. His address, which qu ick ly becam e known as Obama’s Prague Speech, helped him win the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Then, he dropped the ball. The Pentagon finally follow ed up in late June with a strange docu ment that fails to explain how O bam a intends to m ake progress tow ard full nuclear disarm am ent. Even though the R eport on N uclear Em ploym ent Strategy of the United States doesn’t do that, it still should have been news. Instead, the m ainstream media took a pass. In the past, these docum ents, the last o f which the Pentagon issu e d in 2 0 1 0 , w e re c a lle d “N uclear Posture R eview s.’’ They focused largely on the role of nuclear weapons for deterrence. Now for the first tim e the word “em ploym ent” — another word for “use” — is in the title. Is this a not-so-subtle way of telling our enem ies, actual and potential, that we are not afraid to use these weapons o f mass annihilation? To drive hom e that point, the report states that, while the “2010 N uclear Posture R e v ie w e s ta b lis h e d th e (O bam a) a d m in istra tio n ’s goal o f m aking deterrence of a nuclear attack the sole pur p o se o f U .S . n u c le a r w eapons...w e cannot adopt such a policy today.” Instead, this report explains, “the new guidance re-iterates the intention to work towards that goal over tim e.” W hat are the other purposes of U.S. nuclear weapons besides try ing to stop nuclear attacks by oth ers? Alas, the report doesn’t really say. Instead, it vaguely states that while the threat o f global nuclear w ar has becom e rem ote since the Cold W ar ended, the risk of nuclear attack has increased. P re su m a b ly , th is re fe rs to nuclear weapons in the hands of te rro rists rath e r than g o v e rn ments. But it doesn’t explain how U.S. nuclear weapons could be “em ployed” to deter the use o f nuclear w eapons by, for instance, al-Qaeda. The phrase “new guidance” ap pears repeatedly in the report. But it leaves readers guessing about the nature o f such guidance as it relates to the m ost im portant goal o f U.S. nuclear-weapons strategy: “strategic stability” with Russia and China. The report indicated that our governm ent is sticking with its longtim e concept o f “extended deterrence,” a com m itm ent to also use our nuclear arsenal for the benefit o f U.S. allies and partners. But what does “partners” mean in this context? The report doesn’t say. And it looks like the govern m ent rem ains sold on the idea that it m ust m aintain a stockpile of non-deployed nuclear warheads in case deterrence with deployed ones should fail. There are other m ysteries. The P entagon’s report states, “The new guidance m akes clear that all plans m ust also be consis tent with the fundam ental prin ciples o f the Law o f Arm ed C on flict. A ccordingly p la n s ...w ill seek to m inim ize collateral dam age to civilian populations and civilian objects.” T hus, p lans fo r the use o f nuclear weapons are being made, but the planners have been given the self-evidently im possible task o f m inim izing collateral damage. T h ere’s more. In February, G erm any spon sored a conference in Berlin on c re a tin g the c o n d itio n s fo r a n u c le a r-w e a p o n s -fre e w o rld . W ashington didn’t participate. In M arch, Norw ay held a con ference in Oslo on the H um anitar ian Im pact o f N uclear W eapons. Delegates from 127 countries at tended. None were from the United States. In M ay, the W orking Group on N uclear D isarm am ent created by the UN General Assem bly held its first m eetin g in G eneva. The U nited States skipped it. O bam a’s recent declaration in Berlin that W ashington m ight be willing to reduce its stockpile of more than 1,500 deployed nuclear w arheads by one-third to 1,000 drew applause from some arms- control supporters. I ’m holding my applause until he demonstrates the political will to work on the goal o f scrapping nuclear w eap ons altogether. Peter Weiss is the President Emeritus o f the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy.