^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.