The administration on Thursday released a one-page unclassified summary of the classified report sent to lawmakers. That summary shows that spending on modernization of the nuclear weapons complex over the decade will reach $80 billion, growing from $6.4 billion this year to $7 billion in coming years and eventually topping $8 billion beginning in 2016. The growing costs reflect not just construction of facilities but also the refurbishment and possible replacement of some warheads in the next decade, all without the need for testing, according to the summary.

An additional $100 billion is to be spent on strategic nuclear delivery systems such as bombers and land- and submarine-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. Research is underway on a new strategic bomber and a new class of strategic submarines.

You can download the unclassified summary (“Fact sheet on 1251 report”) on the State Department website here.

What will all this money go toward? Much of the funding will likely go to large infrastructure projects, building nuclear weapons facilities that will allow the US to ramp up nuclear weapons production in the future. When the funding for just 2011 was proposed in February, I blogged about three of these facilities that will cost billions over the next decade and, taken together, will lock in US nuclear weapons production for years to come.

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR) – While there is a need to upgrade the facility due to safety and seismic concerns, the new facility is also being designed to allow for increased plutonium pit production – the bomb cores of nuclear weapons. Currently, the US has the capacity to produce up to 20 “pits” per year at Los Alamos. This new facility would allow the US to produce between 50-80 plutonium pits per year. With this production capacity, a future administration could quickly churn out more or new nuclear weapons.

Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) – The UPF facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee is a uranium manufacturing facility that could increase warhead production capacity. It would allow for 50-80 uranium secondaries to be produced each year.

Kansas City Plant – This facility creates the non-nuclear parts for nuclear weapons, such as fuses. The new facility in Missouri will be funded privately in the future, instead of by the federal government. Groundbreaking for the new facility may begin this summer.

What could we do instead with this funding? The possibilities are endless. Especially in this economy, there is no shortage of places where funding for nuclear weapons could be better spent.

Earlier this week, I was in Nevada as part of our campaign work to support the New START treaty and cut the nuclear weapons budget. Nevada continues to have the highest foreclosure rate in the nation: 1 in 69 households.  According to the National Priorities Project tradeoff calculator, Nevadans could be using their tax dollars for housing:

Taxpayers in Nevada will pay $158.3 million for proposed nuclear weapons in FY2010. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided: 845 Affordable Housing Units.

In Missouri, the local Kansas City council declared a 180 acre soybean field “blighted” to allow construction of the new nuclear weapons facility to proceed. At the same time that municipal funding will go toward the new Kansas City Plant facility, the Kansas City Missouri School Board “voted to close 26 schools on Wednesday night. As a result of that vote, 700 employees, including 300 teachers, will lose their jobs.”

The National Priorities Project calculates that:

Taxpayers in Missouri will pay $269.5 million for proposed nuclear weapons in FY2010. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided: 5,347 Elementary School Teachers for One Year.

Keep in mind this is the tradeoff for just one year of nuclear weapons funding. For the next decade, we will be spending far more than we do this year if we do not act now to reduce the nuclear weapons budget and realign our nuclear weapons program toward disarmament. Rather than creating new facilities to build up our nuclear weapons stockpile or create new nuclear weapons, the US needs to move toward shrinking our nuclear weapons arsenal and instead funding programs to dismantle nuclear weapons we don’t use.

(Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

After a year of negotiations, the President Obama and Russian President Medvedev signed a new treaty today to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles in both countries and make the world that much safer.

But will the Senate do the right thing and ratify the treaty, or will they hold it hostage to partisan politics?

 Please click here to ask your senators to support ratifying the New START agreement to reduce our nuclear arsenal.

At the signing ceremony today in Prague, President Obama spoke about how the treaty opens the door to further actions to reduce the threat posed by nuclear weapons. Here’s an excerpt:

Together, we’ve stopped that drift, and proven the benefits of cooperation.  Today is an important milestone for nuclear security and non-proliferation, and for U.S.-Russia relations.  It fulfills our common objective to negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.  It includes significant reductions in the nuclear weapons that we will deploy.  It cuts our delivery vehicles by roughly half.  It includes a comprehensive verification regime, which allows us to further build trust.  It enables both sides the flexibility to protect our security, as well as America’s unwavering commitment to the security of our European allies.  And I look forward to working with the United States Senate to achieve ratification for this important treaty later this year.

Finally, this day demonstrates the determination of the United States and Russia — the two nations that hold over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons — to pursue responsible global leadership.  Together, we are keeping our commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which must be the foundation for global non-proliferation.

While the New START treaty is an important first step forward, it is just one step on a longer journey.  As I said last year in Prague, this treaty will set the stage for further cuts.  And going forward, we hope to pursue discussions with Russia on reducing both our strategic and tactical weapons, including non-deployed weapons.

The White House has posted both the treaty text and the protocol online here.

The treaty allows for modest reductions down to 1,550 Russian and US deployed strategic nuclear warheads, a total of 800 missiles and bombers to deliver nuclear weapons, and limit of 700 deployed missiles and bombers. Significantly, once it is ratified, it would put in place verification measures to ensure both sides are playing by the rules by allowing on-site inspections and data exchanges. Putting in place legally binding verification measures is important, as the expiration of the original 1991 START treaty means that there are no such measures officially in place. The treaty allows a full 7 years for these reductions to be made and once the treaty enters into force will remain in effect for 10 years.

The next step is for the treaty to “be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, which under the Senate rules has exclusive jurisdiction over treaties….Similarly, past practice suggests that other Senate committees, such as the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, may also conduct hearings and report their views to the Foreign Relations Committee, but the treaty would not be formally referred to those committees.”

On the merits of the treaty alone, there is no reason for this not to gain strong bipartisan support, as have past nuclear weapons treaties with Russia. We need a supermajority of 67 senators to ratify the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). Our safety shouldn’t be a partisan issue. The 23,000 nuclear weapons in the world today mean 23,000 chances for accidental launch or theft by terrorists. However, the polarized and divisive atmosphere in the Senate could throw a monkey-wrench into the effort to gain the support of the 67 senators needed for ratification of New START. Sen. Kyl, a Republican from Arizona, is also likely to try to delay or oppose the new treaty. Reuters notes:

Analysts say potential obstacles to the Senate’s consent lie not so much in what is in the new treaty, but concerns that some Republicans have raised about related matters: U.S. missile defense programs and the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

U.S. politics and procedural rules could also delay Senate action and indirectly, that of Russia’s Duma. Russian officials say they want to “synchronize” ratification, suggesting they may not be willing to vote until the Senate does.

But Senate Republicans soured by the recent healthcare battle with Obama may be in no rush to hand him a foreign policy victory ahead of November congressional elections.

These factors will make it crucial for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to show strong leadership during the ratification effort. Assuming the treaty is submitted to the Senate in early May, that leaves precious little time for the Senate to hold hearings and have a vote before the elections. Reid will have to make sure Republican and Democratic support is rounded up quickly, and schedule a floor vote this year. Additionally, debate over the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal needs to be grounded in reality. The independent and expert scientific groups called the JASONs has found that current efforts to maintain our arsenal are working just fine.

A number of senators have already begun voicing their support for New START. Today, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) issued this statement on how the treaty will make Americans safer:

President Obama has demonstrated his global leadership by successfully negotiating a START Treaty that will make America safer by reducing the number of Russian and American nuclear weapons, strengthening our ability to verify information about Russia’s nuclear arsenal, and decreasing international dangers of nuclear proliferation.

The treaty, along with the new nuclear posture review announced Tuesday, sends a positive signal to the rest of the world that safety and security is best achieved by reducing stockpiles of nuclear weapons, not by building them up.

The new START Treaty will soon come to the Senate to be approved.  The United States has a long history of bipartisan support for nuclear arms control dating back to Presidents John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush.  I look forward to joining Senate colleagues from both parties in support of this agreement.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy (DOE). The DOE is holding 20 hearings across the country on Complex Transformation, their plan to revamp the US nuclear complex and build a new generation of nuclear weapons. The hearings are part of a process mandated by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), which

requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. To meet this requirement, federal agencies prepare a detailed statement known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

This is the public’s chance to point out ways they are affected that the Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS) may not have taken into account. On March 6th, I attended the Las Vegas hearings representing Peace Action West. You can see all the photos from the hearings here. With all the long acronyms and legal language in the proposal, the hearings were a wonderful way for me to put a human face on who is affected by nuclear weapons. We can use the hearings as a forum for the public to express a desire for a change in nuclear policy.

What happens at the hearings

I arrived for the morning session at the Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas and made sure to sign up right away to make a comment. The first hour of the hearing was an open house. The DOE placed posters and flyers around the room with information about Complex Transformation. DOE officials would approach people to see if they had questions about the proposal. After the first hour, they put on a video recorded by Robert Smolen, Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs at NNSA. In the video, Smolen spent 8 minutes describing why NNSA thought Complex Transformation was necessary. Next to speak was Theodore Wyka, Complex Transformation SPEIS Document Manager, who receives all of our comments. He gave a 20-minute power point presentation as he summarized Complex Transformation and reiterated why they believe it is necessary. Finally, people were invited by a neutral facilitator to come and make their comments.

I spent much of the day connecting with people from local groups in Nevada who attended the hearings. I met three Peace Action West members who attended the evening hearing. I was introduced to people from the Nevada Desert Experience, the religious and interfaith community, CODEPINK, the Shundahai Network, and the Western Shoshone nation. In between the hearings, I visited the Nevada Desert Experience office in Las Vegas.

John Amidon, Interim Coordinator of Nevada Desert Experience, and I both spoke with a Channel 3 reporter in the hopes of getting media coverage on the issue. Unfortunately, the media did not end up covering the hearings. A documentary film crew interested in nuclear issues was also present taking footage during the hearings.

What the public is saying about Complex Transformation

One of the things I most enjoyed was hearing why people are against nuclear weapons during the comment period. About 10 people attended the morning session and gave their comments in opposition. The evening session was larger. Everyone made wonderful points. Here are some highlights from the morning session:

Ian Zabarte, Secretary of State for the Western Shoshone government, spoke on the effects of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons testing on the indigenous tribes. He cited the Ruby Valley (NV) Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which was signed and ratified by the US government in 1863. This treaty recognizes Western Shoshone sovereign territory. Nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site actually takes place on the Western Shoshone homeland, called Newe Sogobia. The tribe does not accept declarations that the treaty is void through ‘gradual encroachment’ on their land and feels that nuclear testing is trespassing on their land. He talked about how the Western Shoshone are at higher risk of cancer and exposure due to their unique lifestyle. The houses they build using traditional methods may have radioactive soil and the types of wood they use for fires also carries increased risks.

A priest talked about the morality of nuclear weapons and led us all in singing “We Shall Overcome” during his comment.

A young mother with children who works as a businesswoman gave a terrific comment. She spoke about how dependent the Las Vegas economy is on tourism and a new report on how the Las Vegas economy would be hurt by natural disasters. She went on to say that an accident at the Nevada Test Site would not only hurt the economy in the short term, but also deter tourists from coming to vacation in Nevada in the future. She ended by citing her concern for her children growing up with the threat of nuclear weapons.

John Amidon from the interfaith group Nevada Desert Experience spoke on the need to spend the estimated cost of Complex Transformation, $150 billion, on healthcare, public education, or nuclear cleanup instead. He pointed out that Complex Transformation would continue producing radioactive waste, which would most likely be stored at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The health issues from nuclear waste as well as potential nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site would affect more than just Nevadans. Amidon reminded us that wind carried radiation from nuclear testing in Nevada all the way to New York, where radioactive rain fell and caused thyroid cancer. He also talked about the importance of the US adhering to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In my comment, I talked about the need for a new nuclear policy before investing $150 billion on new nuclear weapons and the nuclear complex. I mentioned that the current plutonium cores or pits of nuclear bombs have an estimated 85-100 year lifespan so there is no need and no rush to build new plutonium pits under the guise of replacements. Should new warheads be designed and built with new pits, Las Vegas area residents may once again be in danger of resumed nuclear testing. Pursuing the Reliable Replacement Warhead and Complex Transformation would have a disastrous impact on negotiations with Iran and North Korea to not develop nuclear weapons. Real safety and security will come when no one has nuclear weapons.

What the DOE is saying about Complex Transformation

Several points caught my attention as I listened to the presentations and talked with DOE officials. The themes that were repeated over and over by NNSA officials were security, safety, reducing costs, and maintaining the capability and infrastructure to produce nuclear weapons in an imperfect, dangerous, and changing world.

Wyka made it a point during his presentation to emphasize that the NNSA cannot “pick and choose” what policies to carry out and that it is up to Congress and the president to set policy. NNSA sees itself acting within the parameters of its mission statement, which specifically states that it produces nuclear weapons, and Bush’s aggressive 2001 Nuclear Posture Review. He did not feel that the US was violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty by pursuing Complex Transformation and the Reliable Replacement Warhead because the treaty has no specific end date for achieving disarmament.

While he agreed that everyone would like to live in a nuclear free world, he felt that world was far off. In the meantime, the NNSA must carry out its mission and retain the ability to produce nuclear weapons just in case the US needs them. For him and the NNSA, the question is how many nuclear weapons between one and the number we have now is the correct stockpile size. Zero is not an option. When I spoke to Wyka, he mentioned that they see the way Congress votes on legislation as a reflection of how the public feels about nuclear weapons. This view of Congress’ actions makes it that much more important that all of us urge Congress to oppose funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead and Complex Transformation throughout the year.

I spoke with Wyka about other examples of the public’s approval of nuclear disarmament, such as a September 2007 World Opinion Poll showing 73 percent of Americans favor nuclear disarmament. Wyka himself estimates that 40,000 comments have already been received this year just halfway through the comment period compared with 33,000 total from the last round of hearings. Wyka said most of these comments are in opposition to Complex Transformation.

The section of the SPEIS on potential environmental impacts on Las Vegas states that there is a relatively low population density in the 50-mile radius around the Nevada Test Site, making it the “least impacted” by nuclear accidents. The tone of the presentation makes it sound as if this is good news. Las Vegas alone has a population of about a half a million people. It may be true that Las Vegas has a smaller population density compared with the other 7 sites, but that does not justify being willing to expose half a million people to nuclear accidents.

In my comment, I mentioned that Complex Transformation will cost $150 billion of taxpayer money. Afterwards, a DOE official approached me to try to convince me that the figure was wrong. He claimed that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) used a strange estimate, and that in any case, the $150 billion over 25 years was not an extra request in addition to what taxpayers were already paying. I was assured that Complex Transformation would be achieved within a flat budget. I responded that even $1 billion or $1 would be too much. The economic cost is a concern, but it is not just about the dollar amount. The larger question is whether or not we should choose to spend the on nuclear weapons in the first place.

Let’s not let the DOE have the last word. Submit your comments online by clicking here.

As soon as the Republican caucus was through, I headed across town to another location where Democrats were getting ready for their voting to begin.  The crowd was a bit rowdier over there, as I entered the Ernest A. Becker Middle School to a shouting contest between Obama and Clinton supporters. Lots of people were decked out in their campaign shwag, with one person almost completely covering a car with Clinton signs (I hope that was after they got there). The first half hour was devoted to registration and helping people find what area of the school was assigned to their precinct. The bleachers in the gym were labeled with the names of candidates, and people started to congregate in their respective areas as hundreds of people queued up to register. While the crowd in the gym was livelier, with three precincts represented, I decided to head over to a small room where I could follow the action more closely.

The precinct I visited had 64 people out of 100 possible voters, so the caucus chairs were excited about the turnout. The Democratic caucus involves people standing in corners depending on which candidate they support, after which they have 15 minutes to convince other people to join their group. Voters were instructed to split up in to Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and “anyone else,” so it seemed they had already narrowed it down a bit in their minds. After what they called the “first alignment,” there were sizeable groups for both Obama and Clinton, with 5 Edwards supporters and only 2 undecided voters.

Since the Edwards group didn’t meet the fifteen percent viability threshold, representatives from the Clinton and Obama camps surrounded them in an attempt to gain their votes. I moved closer to try to hear what arguments they used, but all I could make out were a few words here and there: “Bush-light,” “lobbyists,” “Bill.”  It looked more like Clinton and Obama supporters arguing with each other over the heads of the people they were trying to court. In the end, one Edwards supporter left, and the other folks split between the two groups. In the final count, Clinton had 38 votes and Obama had 26. Due to a complicated and somewhat convoluted caucus system, this amounted to a tie due to the calculation for delegates, with each receiving two.  Once again, this matched up pretty well with the ultimate results, with Clinton winning the caucus, and receiving 13 delegates to Obama’s 12.

It is strange to watch this process in action, and one has to wonder how the process was developed. Unlike what most of use are used to, the caucus system does not allow each person a vote essentially, so the frontrunners end up with the bulk of the support. It’s a relatively casual process, with volunteers following a checklist that’s posted on the wall. One interesting aspect that I noticed in both caucuses was the way it allowed neighbors to get to know each other, and I heard lots of people making connections with other people in their neighborhoods.  Of course, that positive aspect becomes less appealing when they are bonding over things like amending the constitution to mandate that everyone speak English.

I will continue to talk with our supporters in Nevada to get more reports of the action on the ground, and the dozens of people who planned to offer our resolutions in both the Democratic and Republican caucuses. Those issues will become particularly important as the county conventions come up and delegates will be discussing the party platforms in depth and voting on issues. Peace Action West will continue our work to educate votes about the candidates’ positions through the primary process.

You can see more photos from both the Republican and Democratic caucuses by clicking here.

As I started out the day ready to report on the historic Nevada caucuses from Las Vegas, I first reaffirmed my pledge that none of my blog posts would include any gambling analogies or references to “what happens in Vegas…” despite any influence sleeping above a casino last night may have had on me. The Republicans caucused first at 9:00 am, so I headed off to Bonanza High School in Las Vegas to observe the action.

Standing at the back of a small classroom where 43 Nevadans had come to vote, I decided it was best to go incognito and kept my fleece on over my Voters for Peace and Security t-shirt. The people who came all seemed very committed to the election, and many of them emphasized coalescing around the eventual nominee and the importance of sticking together. The only spontaneous applause came from a potential delegate who has running because he really doesn’t want Clinton to be president. This was a popular topic of the day, with one citizen first praising Giuliani for his presumed ability to get rid of “illegals,” and then sharing his plans to move to Mexico if Clinton became president. There were over 350 voters that would have been eligible to participate, but the organizers were expecting 5-10 for this first-time caucus, so they were pleased with the turnout.

The first order of business was electing delegates to the county convention, which involved short speeches by the voters who were running and a series of votes to get seven delegates and alternates.  Peace Action West supporter Tara Wagner was elected as a delegate. As I stood in the back of the room, I saw the printed copies of our resolutions to end the war in Iraq and to eliminate nuclear weapons on the table next to the other election paraphernalia. 

Following the election of delegates, pieces of paper were passed around for people who wanted to submit platform issues for the Republican County Convention later this year. Among the proposed topics were “no more caucuses” and a constitutional amendment to mandate English as the official language of the US. While the issues were not discussed at the caucus, Tara submitted PAW’s resolutions on behalf of the precinct, so delegates at the county convention will have an opportunity to debate and vote on them.

Supporters of a candidate were able to offer one person to give a two-minute speech on behalf of their candidate, and it was fascinating to watch this group of neighbors get up and share their feelings on each candidate (except Duncan Hunter, who didn’t receive any votes). There was not much detailed substantive discussion, though some people cited positions on issues such as illegal immigration, taxes, and foreign policy as motivators for supporting certain candidates.  As we’ve heard throughout the campaigns, there were several mentions of “character” and the ability to “get things done” and “create change.” A secret ballot for president followed, with the results not that far from what is now being reported for the entire state:

Romney: 24
Paul: 4
Giuliani (referred to as Rudy G. since no one knew how to spell his last name): 4
Thompson: 4
McCain: 3
Huckabee: 3

While the Republican candidates largely ignored Nevada, and turnout was lower than the Democratic caucuses, people were obviously interested and engaged in the process. 

Thanks to Tara Wagner for offerings Peace Action West’s resolutions and inviting me to observe her precinct in action.

The first mention came when Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates to respond to claims that the “surge” in Iraq is working.  Thankfully, the three candidates who answered the question put those claims in perspective.  Governor Bill Richardson took the opportunity to emphasize that he is one of the few candidates who opposes leaving any residual forces in Iraq:

What I am saying here is the surge is not working. There is less — right now less possibility of a political solution. Three out of the 18 benchmarks — the General Accounting Office — have been fulfilled. Even among Republican math is a failing grade. (Laughter.) What I’m saying, also, is that look at this statistic — 65 percent of the Iraqi people now say it’s okay to shoot an American soldier. Our troops are dying — over 3,800, two today, 60,000 wounded, casualties, mainly mental trauma.

Now, my position is that we get the troops out in a year. Leave no residual forces behind unlike some of my colleagues here that want to leave some until 2013, but not just wave goodbye because we have a responsibility, and that is, one, to get a political compromise, a U.S.-led political compromise among the three groups; that they share power — the Sunni, the Shi’a, the Kurds — that they share oil revenues; that we have an all-Muslim, all-Arab peacekeeping force with some European forces headed by the U.N.; a donor conference that involves other countries; European Union, rich Arab states contributing to the reconstruction of Iraq, where we have spent $500 billion in this war when this money should be used in America for health care, education and for kids.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich agreed, and reiterated his position that we should bring the troops home now. Senator Obama also agreed that the surge was not working and offered suggestions for pursuing regional diplomacy, but only mentioned withdrawing combat troops:

But the overall strategy is failed, because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq’s political leaders. And that is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq.

That’s why I’m going to bring this war to a close. That’s why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months. That’s why we have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy — not just talking to our friends but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there. (Applause.)

But I just want to make this important point because all of us, as we’re campaigning, we’re seeing this in human terms. People are on two, three, four tours of duty. Families are carrying an enormous burden.

This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started. The same, by the way, is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that’s only compared to earlier this year. We’re back to where we started back in 2006.

The candidates then answered questions from a woman and her son, who had served three tours of duty in Iraq. They wanted to know which candidate could stop the apparent rush to war with Iran. As in the recent debates, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was a focus of the conversation. Senator Joe Biden focused on his current role in the Senate:

What it did was, ma’am, what it did was it convinced the rest of the Muslim world this is really a war against Islam and not a war in Iraq; and number two, it rose the — it caused the price of oil to head to $100 a barrel. We’re paying $30 a barrel for what they call a risk premium. And it helped destabilize the situation both in Iran — I mean Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So the way to do this is to keep quiet, hush up, and do what I told the president personally and what I’ve said as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. If he takes the country to war in Iraq (sic) without a vote of Congress, which will not exist, then he should be impeached. (Cheers, applause.)

Clinton and Edwards exchanged jabs again about the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, with Clinton again insisting that it did not pave the way for potential war with Iran. Senator Obama discussed what he would do as president, returning to his once-controversial proposal to conduct high-level diplomacy with the US’s “enemies”:

But understand the problem with this vote on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. It wasn’t simply that it was identified as a terrorist organization. It was also that in the language of the resolution it said we should maintain our forces in Iraq with an eye towards blunting Iranian influence. So it’s not just going to have an impact in terms of potentially having a war against Iran. It also gives this administration an excuse to perpetuate their failed strategy in Iraq, and that could mean that you could be redeployed in Iraq. That’s why this was a mistake, and that’s why not only do we have to bring the war in Iraq to a close, but we have to change the mindset that got us into war, which means we initiate — yes, I agree with Hillary that we’ve got to initiate bold diplomacy. I think the next president has to lead that diplomacy. It can’t just be envoys.

And one of the reasons I’m running for president — and Hillary and I had a disagreement on this. I said I would meet with not just our friends, but also with our enemies because that’s what strong countries and — (cheers, applause) — what strong presidents do is meet with our adversaries, tell them where we stand. (Continued applause.)

The candidates briefly addressed the highly unpopular proposed nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain. (The local relevance of nuclear issues in Nevada was highlighted in an ad run in the Las Vegas Review-Journal by our sister organization, the Peace Education Fund). They did not, however, provide insight into how they would deal with the threat of global nuclear proliferation, including stopping the development of nuclear weapons here in the US. Our Voters for Peace and Security organizers and volunteers will continue to trail the candidates at their campaign appearances, getting them on the record on Iraq and nuclear weapons and showing them that a progressive foreign policy is a winning foreign policy.

I have been a peace organizer for only one year and some change, and I know that there is no harm in sometimes charging myself with delusional thoughts between moments of valid inspiration. That may explain why I agreed to lead the first two weeks of Peace Action West’s mobile to Las Vegas, Nevada — the city of lost wages that never sleeps. I have been to Vegas several times before, the last time in the late 1980’s, usually traveling through and stopping briefly for the free meal at the Circus-Circus Casino on my way to or from the Grand Canyon or Bryce and Zion Canyons. But this time it was for a prolonged visit and a nobler cause.

Arriving at night with a team of five after a day-long drive, I was reminded by the spectacular search light emanating from the pinnacle of the Luxor Casino pyramid straight up into the Vegas sky, that Nevada will be in the national spotlight on January 19th, the date of both the Nevada Republican and the Democratic Caucuses. What an opportunity for Nevadans, to be residents of one of the first states to choose its presidential favorites. This is our primary goal: to get hundreds of Las Vegans who have committed to supporting pro-peace candidates to go vote in the caucuses. We are working to get the attention of the candidates, and let them know we mean business, and demonstrate that a winning platform includes bringing every soldier home from Iraq, and committing to a nuclear weapons-free world.

The gaudy city lights fluoresced a hundred times more brightly than I remembered, and had a fuzzy ball of cotton quality to them.

As an outsider in an unfamiliar city, I admit I wondered if under all that glitz and blinding super-neon façade I could find a real, breathing, beating heart. Several days into our work I heard that Nevadans have the lowest voting turnout in the nation. A few days later the Las Vegas Review-Journal ran an editorial admonishing the locals for not paying attention to national concerns. The piece ended with the question, “Aren’t we part of America?”

But this was no fool’s errand. There are a lot of good, peace-loving Americans in Las Vegas. We just had to find them. We traveled from end to end from old Vegas to North Vegas to Summerlin in the west and Windsor and Paradise just off the famous Strip. After talking to thousands at the door we got about 350 of them to pledge that they will attend the caucus, and vote only for a candidate who carries our message to the White House. We also found 125 volunteers who said they would help us organize at the caucuses. We also created a solid base of about 150 new members and collected 150 letters to District 1’s Representative Shelly Berkley. They will spring to action when we call them and connect them to her office before key votes in the House. Here and there we met the usual oblivious conservative and experts of compartmentalizing, like the thirty something family man who incredibly responded to questions about the war in Iraq with: “Don’t bother, I have no conscience!” I was dumbfounded for just a moment but went on. The next door held much more promise. “We are all in this together,” she said. Much more like it, I thought.

The die was cast in Las Vegas for a better hopeful future. It was cast for a president who is worthy of our trust that will not just restore our values but will also bring a great spirit of renewal to our country. I can’t wait till January 19th.

Many thanks to our organizers Rony, Aaron, Jahsiah, Lainie, Ryan, David, Mike, MelanieBlau and Victoria for putting their time, energy and passion into galvanizing peace voters in this key early primary state.  We look forward to talking more with our new supporters in Nevada to build a strong voice for peace and security in the caucus.

Visit Voters for Peace and Security to read Noura’s accounts of the action on the ground leading up to the Nevada Caucus.  Reports from our Reno organizer Deirdre DesJardins will be coming soon.