A few campaigns worth noting: Two

Updated Last fall, thanks to some careful organizing, a bit of public outrage, and some hard work, funding for new "bunker buster" nuclear weapons was eliminated from the federal budget. But, like an evil phoenix, the baddies are back, as the Shrubberies, emboldened by what they think is a more receptive Congress, are again pushing for money for "Buster." The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) is hoping to repeat last year's victory.

The weapon, technically called a "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator," is designed to burrow into the ground before exploding in order to put hardened underground targets "at risk." Precisely because of that ability, which they think would be useful in the long-as-you-live War on Terrorism^{(c)(reg.)(pat. pend.)}, the Bushites regard it as a "usable" nuclear weapon.

The amounts of money involved are small relative to other items: $4 million to the Energy Department for development and $4.5 million to the Air Force to evaluate its potential. But those figures could easily balloon into hundreds of millions as RDT&E continues and production and deployment follow on. More importantly, it threatens to intensify the threat of nuclear weapons, if only because how can the US rationally demand of Iran, North Korea, and any others to forego development of nukes at the same time we're building fancy-dancy new, more "usable" ones?

Stopping this is possible, particularly since last year the GOP-dominated Congress also killed

$9 million for research on new weapons designs, a program that could have funded new, lower-yield nuclear weapons — so-called "mini-nukes" — for use as tactical battlefield weapons.

In separate action, Congress denied the Bush administration the $30 million it requested to shorten the lead time needed to resume nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site.

What's more, the public's apprehensions about nuclear weapons has not dissipated despite the end of the Cold War that drove them, as AP made clear on March 30:

Most Americans think nuclear weapons are so dangerous that no country should have them, and a majority believe it's likely that terrorists or a nation will use them within five years. ...

All that helps explain why 52 percent of Americans think a nuclear attack by one country against another is somewhat or very likely by 2010, according to an AP-Ipsos poll. Fifty-three percent think a nuclear attack by terrorists is at least somewhat likely.

Two-thirds of Americans say no nation should have nuclear weapons, including the U.S., and most of the others say no more countries should get them.

(Links to the full results of the survey can be found here.)

FCNL makes it easy to email or fax your Congressional representative by going here.

Once there, you will also find talking points to help you write your letter. It is best to put your message in your own words, since congressional staff often ignore "form letters."

If you want some more talking points, Rebecca Zimmerman of 20/20 Vision has some in this article. It's from 2003, but the points remain valid.

Footnote: The US already has both a "conventional" bunker-buster (the GBU-28, developed "in record time" for use in Gulf War I) and a nuclear bunker buster (the B-61) in its arsenal. The latter is considered inadequate by the Pentagonistas, however, because it's designed to penetrate only soil, not rock.

Updated with some additional links and the footnote.