From: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com (abolition-usa-digest) To: abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #411 Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest Sender: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk abolition-usa-digest Monday, January 15 2001 Volume 01 : Number 411 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:27:33 -0500 From: Kevin Martin Subject: (abolition-usa) Star Wars on the Fast Track Dear Friends, Today's front-page article in the New York Times on President Bush's meeting with congressional leaders in Austin yesterday confirms, yet again, that the new administration is fast-tracking Star Wars National Missile Defense. The article reports that the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is pushing for a decision by March to begin construction this summer of the Star Wars radar system in Alaska. The article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/09/politics/09BUSH.html. In the words of Joe Hill, and the spirit of Alan Cranston, don't mourn, organize. One place to start: if you have a senator on the Armed Services Committee, call his/her office and encourage hard questions of Secretary of Defense designate Donald Rumsfeld at his confirmation hearing this Thursday. A few issues to raise would include projected cost of a land-, sea-, and space-based NMD system, why we are moving ahead with even a limited system that has not been adequately tested, and breaking the ABM and Outer Space treaties. Following are members of the Armed Services Committee: =B7 Democrats - Levin (MI), Kennedy (MA), Bingaman (N.M.), Byrd (W.V.), Lieberman (CT), Cleland (GA), Landrieu (LA), Reed (R.I.) =B7 Republicans - Warner (VA), Thurmond (S.C.), McCain (AZ), Smith (N.H.), Inhofe (OK), Santorum (PA), Snowe (ME), Roberts (KS), Allard (CO), Hutchinson (AR), Sessions (AL) Please excuse duplicate postings. Kevin Martin, Director Project Abolition - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:16:46 -0800 From: Jackie Cabasso Subject: (abolition-usa) Greens slam Energy chief nomination *See last paragraph for important clue* Greens slam Energy chief nomination Oakland Tribune January 07, 2001 They cite Abraham's efforts to scuttle U.S. department By Glenn Roberts Jr. STAFF WRITER Several environmental groups are opposing President-elect George W. Bush's nomination of former Michigan Sen. Spencer Abraham as Energy Secretary. The League of Conservation Voters handed Abraham, 48, a Republican, its worst rating for his voting record on environmental issues: a zero. Abraham lost his bid for re-election in November. The Natural Resources Defense Council, another national environmental group, issued a statement calling attention to Abraham's repeated attempts to banish the department he would now direct. "Ironically, Abraham tried three times in five years to abolish the department he is now slated to lead -- no surprise, given his consistent hostility to environmental and energy regulations," the statement reads. Sierra Club criticism Dan Becker, a Sierra Club official in Washington, said Abraham's "voting record has been singularly hostile to the environment." And Jackie Cabasso, executive director for the Oakland-based Western States Legal Foundation, an antinuclear group, said Abraham appears to have "virtually no background in either nuclear weapons or energy policy," adding that his inexperience could be dangerous to nuclear weapons policy and the environment. "It certainly looks like (Abraham) is going to give the entrenched nuclear bureaucracy a freer hand than ever," Cabasso said Friday. Change of heart The Washington Post quoted Bush's transition team as saying Abraham no longer wants to kill the Energy Department because of the "energy challenges facing the country." His previous legislative efforts against the Energy Department -- the latest in 1999 -- were "a means of reducing federal spending," transition team members told the Washington Post. As a senator, Abraham supported oil-drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge, opposed an international treaty to reduce global-warming pollution, opposed the temporary use of a Nevada mountain site for radioactive waste before a more comprehensive site study was completed, and favored the pursuit of a national missile-defense system to counter a barrage of nuclear, chemical or biological missiles. During his acceptance speech for the Energy Secretary appointment, he said the new administration will be "good stewards of the land, the air and the water." Beleaguered department Cabasso, who said she has not been satisfied with the performance of previous energy secretaries, including outgoing Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, said job performance may have more to do with the nature of the job than the quality of the secretaries. "It is more about the department itself and the mission of the department itself than it is (the Energy secretary). The job is impossible," she said. If he is confirmed by the Senate, Abraham will inherit an energy crisis when he takes office, with major hikes in the cost of electricity, natural gas and heating oil prices. Also, he will take command of a nuclear weapons complex that has been rocked over the past two years by espionage scares, a tightening of security at the nation's three nuclear labs and a laser project at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory that is $1 billion over budget. While many people realize the Energy Department's role in the nation's energy supply and policy, the actual function of the department is much broader, said John S. Herrington, 76, a Walnut Creek resident who served as Energy Secretary for former President Ronald Reagan from 1985 to 1989. "I think (the department) is misnamed. It's really a department of science and technology -- cutting-edge American research and technology," Herrington said. He said he expects Abraham to adopt much more aggressive nuclear weapons defense policies than Richardson. "He's strong on defense," Herrington said. - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:25:57 -0500 From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: Rumsfeld Reconsidered >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:52:59 -0500 >Subject: PRESS RELEASE: Rumsfeld Reconsidered >X-FC-MachineGenerated: true >From: "BerrigaF@newschool.edu" > >WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE > >For Immediate Release >Contact: Bill Hartung, 212-229-5808, ext. 106 >Frida Berrigan, 229-5808, ext. 112 or > >RUMSFELD RECONSIDERED: >AN IDEOLOGUE IN MODERATE'S CLOTHING > > New York, January 10th, 2001: With the Senate Armed Services >Committee set to begin hearings tomorrow on the nomination of Donald >Rumsfeld for Secretary of Defense, new information has emerged which >casts doubt on his reputation as a solid, non-ideological manager who >can bring the Pentagon into the 21st century. > > "When it comes to issues like missile defense and nuclear arms >control, Donald Rumsfeld is an ideologue in moderate's clothing," >asserts William D. Hartung, a Senior Fellow at the World Policy >Institute and the author of the May 2000 report, Tangled Web: The >Marketing of Missile Defense 1994-2000. "His longstanding ties with >right-wing think tanks like Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy >raise serious questions about whether he has the temperament required >to >evaluate whether or not this nation should embark upon a complex, >provocative, and costly National Missile Defense (NMD) program. Don >Rumsfeld is every bit as ideological on missile defense as John >Ashcroft >is on the issue of abortion," notes Hartung. > >TIES THAT BIND: Rumsfeld's Connections With Right-Wing Think Tanks > > The most troubling aspect of Rumsfeld's background lies in his >close connections with the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a small, >extremely effective missile defense advocacy organization founded by >former Reagan Pentagon official Frank Gaffney. Since at least 1996, >Rumsfeld has routinely been singled out as a "trusted advisor and >faithful supporter" in CSP's annual reports. He has also been a >regular >donor to the Center. Rounding out the picture, in 1998 Rumsfeld >received >the Center's "Keeper of the Flame" award in recognition of his role in >chairing the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the >United States. The award was presented to Rumsfeld at the Center's >annual fund-raising dinner. During his acceptance speech, Rumsfeld >acknowledged the commission's debt to CSP, whose advisory board >members >William Graham and William Schneider served on the panel. > > Rumsfeld has also served on the board of Empower America, a >conservative lobbying group that has vigorously attacked members of >the >Senate who questioned the wisdom of deploying a National Missile >Defense >system at this time. > > "Donald Rumsfeld was already a card-carrying member of the >missile defense lobby before he chaired the Congressionally-mandated >commission on the ballistic missile threat to the United States," >notes >Hartung. "While he claims to have done a careful assessment of the >evidence on missile threats to the United States, it is now clear that >Rumsfeld and his conservative cohorts had decided well in advance of >his >appointment to use the commission as an opportunity to press the case >for missile defense." > >THE COMPANY HE KEEPS: Why Rumsfeld's Conservative Links Matter > > It would be one thing if Donald Rumsfeld had affiliations with >non-partisan think tanks which were carefully assessing the national >security threats to the United States in the light of changing >circumstances. But the Center for Security Policy is an >ideologically-driven advocacy organization disguised as a think tank. >Ever since CSP Director Frank Gaffney convinced Newt Gingrich and Dick >Armey to make National Missile Defense a plank in the Contract With >America in 1994, his organization has served as the de facto nerve >center of the missile defense lobby. CSP's board is a virtual >executive >committee of major missile defense boosters, with representatives of >right-wing foundations such as Heritage, Empower America, and High >Frontier; weapons contractors like Lockheed Martin; Star Wars 'true >believers' such as Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA); >and >Reagan era Star Warriors like weapons scientist Edward Teller and >former >Reagan science advisor George Keyworth. CSP Board members have been >in >the forefront of shaping U.S. policies on missile defense over the >past >few years. Jon Kyl led the charge against the Comprehensive Test Ban >in >the U.S. Senate, while Curt Weldon sponsored the amendment that >created >the Rumsfeld Commission. > > "This is an extremely partisan, hard-right organization," notes >Hartung, "Moderate Republicans like Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell >need not apply." > > Funders for Gaffney's Center in recent years have included >right-wing philanthropists like Richard Mellon Scaife and the Coors >family, self-interested weapons contractors like Lockheed Martin, >Boeing, and TRW, and prominent conservatives like Donald Rumsfeld, >Elliott Abrams, and Howard Phillips. > > Stripped of their pseudo-objective rhetorical overlay, the >views >routinely expressed by CSP are quite extreme. For example, the Center >is >opposed to virtually every arms control agreement of the past two >decades, from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to the recent >international agreement to ban anti-personnel land mines. CSP >Director >Frank Gaffney has already urged his "trusted advisor and faithful >supporter" Donald Rumsfeld to begin deployment of a sea-based missile >defense system by June 2001, despite the fact that the interceptor >missile for such a system has not even been designed yet, much less >tested. Gaffney has also harshly criticized Secretary of State >nominee >Colin Powell's quite reasonable suggestion that the new Defense >Secretary will need to "make an assessment" of the technological >capabilities available to the United States before moving to deploy an >NMD system. > > In public statements on the missile defense issue, Rumsfeld has >echoed the absurd argument crafted by CSP and its inner circle that >because the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 was signed with the >Soviet Union, not Russia, it is no longer valid. This dangerously >distorted view flies in the face of standard international legal >understandings of the obligations inherited by Russia as the successor >state to the former Soviet Union. But that hasn't stopped Gaffney and >his conservative cohorts from putting forward this argument at every >opportunity. > > CSP and Empower America are not above twisting the truth in >their efforts to promote immediate deployment of a National Missile >Defense system. In a 1998 radio ad targeting Nevada's Democratic >Senator Harry Reid, Empower America suggested that he was unwilling to >protect Nevada's families from the threat of ballistic missiles by a >rogue state or terrorist group because he didn't happen to support the >Republican version of National Missile Defense that was then being >championed by Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi. Rumsfeld was on >Empower >America's board at the time, so he presumably approved of this unfair >and misleading piece of propaganda. The ad made numerous >mis-statements >of fact, not the least of which was its implication that there may be >terrorist organizations out there with access to ballistic missiles-- >a >claim no credible analyst has made to date. > > Similarly, during the run-up to the year 2000 elections, CSP >director Frank Gaffney chaired the Coalition to Protect Americans Now, >which put up a web site purporting to demonstrate the threat posed to >each American neighborhood by ballistic missiles. The web site >encourages visitors to punch in their zip code to see which foreign >missiles are poised to attack them; but when one does so, many of the >systems referenced, such as medium-range Iranian missiles, are not >capable of coming within thousands of miles of U.S. soil. It is a >classic bait-and-switch exercise, where the seeming specificity of the >information offered ("punch in your zip code for a customized threat >assessment") is backed up with shoddy and misleading information. > > "Given Donald Rumsfeld's close ties to organizations with a >documented history of bending the truth to promote missile defenses, >how >can we trust him to make an objective assessment of NMD as Secretary >of >Defense?" Hartung asks. "Will he distance himself from the extreme >views of his conservative cronies and take a fresh look at the >problem, >or will he move full speed ahead with no questions asked? That's the >$100 billion question, and American taxpayers are the ones who will >pay >the price if the U.S. Senate picks the wrong answer." > >THE RUMSFELD COMMISSION REVISITED: Politicizing the Intelligence >Process > > As President-select George W. Bush noted at the press >conference >announcing his nomination to run the Pentagon, Rumsfeld's claim to >expertise in missile defense matters is closely tied to his >chairmanship >of the Rumsfeld commission. But stripped down to its essentials, >Rumsfeld's commission was an exercise in politicizing intelligence to >promote predetermined beliefs, not an objective assessment of the >realities facing the United States. Much like the conservative "Team >B" >report which was established at the request of the conservative >Committee on the Present Danger to second guess the CIA's estimates of >Soviet military spending in the 1970s, the Rumsfeld Commission >basically >massaged existing U.S. intelligence data to come up with new >conclusions >that fit the political needs of its creators, Rep. Curt Weldon and >then >House Speaker Newt Gingrich. > > Rumsfeld's commission uncovered no new data. It merely applied >an extreme worst-case scenario to existing data by suggesting that if >nations like North Korea received substantial help-- up to and >including >the possibility of a transfer of a complete ballistic missile from a >nation like China-- they would get a long-range ballistic missile >capability more rapidly than if they did not receive such assistance. > > > As former House Armed Services Committee analyst Joseph >Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has >pointed >out, the Rumsfeld Commission diluted the standards by which the U.S. >intelligence community measures the ballistic missile threat to the >United States. Cirincione argues persuasively that it was this shift >in >standards, not any major change in the real world, that allowed >Rumsfeld >to assert "somewhat hysterically . . . that a new nation could field >an >ICBM with little or now warning." The commission's tactics included >reducing the range considered necessary to reach U.S. territory by >roughly 5,000 kilometers (by using the Aleutian islands as a benchmark >rather than the continental United States); and considering what >"could" >happen rather than "what is likely to happen." > > The Rumsfeld panel's extreme worst-case approach means ignoring >economic and political factors that would deter a country from >pursuing >a missile defense capability. Given that North Korea has agreed to a >moratorium on new missile tests, has begun a rapprochement with South >Korea, and has expressed a willingness to cap its nuclear and >ballistic >missile programs (exports and production) as part of a framework >agreement with the United States, Rumsfeld's alarmist position of two >years ago seems to be quite wide of the mark. In fact, Cirincione >argues, by some measures the United States is under considerably less >threat of attack by ballistic missiles now than it was a decade ago, >and >the threats that do exist are focused in a handful of countries like >Iran, Iraq, and North Korea that could undergo considerable political >change over the next 5 to 15 years. > > Finally, as U.S. intelligence analyst Robert Walpole has >pointed >out in testimony to Congress, a ballistic missile is the least likely >way a foreign nation would choose to deliver a weapon of mass >destruction to U.S. territory, because ballistic missiles have a >"return >address" which would allow swift and devastating retaliation on the >part >of the United States. > > "The Rumsfeld Commission report is a landmark in political spin >control, not a landmark in objective analysis of the threats facing >our >nation," asserts Hartung. "Just as we learned after the fall of the >Soviet Union that our estimates of Moscow's military capabilities had >been greatly exaggerated, we will learn in time that the Rumsfeld >Commission has hyped the threat posed to our country by ballistic >missiles." > >QUESTIONS FOR RUMSFELD > > At a minimum, the Senate Armed Services Committee should ask >Mr. >Rumsfeld the following questions: > >1) As Secretary of Defense, will you adhere to the United States >commitment to international arms control agreements such as the >Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, the Strategic Arms Reduction >Treaty, and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, all of which were >negotiated and approved under past Republican administrations? > >2) Given your publicly stated opposition to the Strategic Arms >Limitation Treaty (SALT) in the 1970s and the Chemical Weapons >Convention and Comprehensive Test Ban treaty in the 1990s, are there >any >major agreements for the control of weapons of mass destruction that >you >do in fact support? If not, why should we trust you to abide by our >existing treaty commitments? > >3) Given your longstanding ties to conservative organizations like the >Center for Security Policy and Empower America which have put out >misinformation in their efforts to promote a National Missile Defense >system, how can we be assured that you will make an objective >assessment >of the technical, economic, and strategic factors which will determine >whether it makes sense for our nation to deploy an NMD system? > >4) Given the recent history of fraud and failure in the NMD testing >program, would you support calls by scientific experts at MIT and the >Union of Concerned Scientists for an independent technical review of >your proposed missile defense system, carried out by scientists and >engineers who have no financial stake in missile defense research or >production? > >5) As a candidate, George W. Bush indicated that he would pursue a >missile defense system that could involve interceptors on land, at >sea, >in the air, and in outer space. Given that the Clinton >administration's >limited, land-based system had an estimated price tag of $60 billion, >what is your ballpark estimate of what President-elect Bush's proposed >system might cost? What military and domestic priorities would you be >willing to sacrifice to make way for this multi-billion dollar, >multi-year investment? > >6) Given the strong support in Russia, China, and among our NATO >allies >for preserving the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability, >how do you intend to convince these nations - particularly our own >NATO >allies - that fielding a massive missile defense system will not >simply >provoke a new nuclear arms race? > >FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: > > Joseph Cirincione, "Assessing the Assessment: The 1999 National >Intelligence Estimate of the Ballistic Missile Threat," The >Nonproliferation Review, Spring 2000, Volume 7, Number 1, available >from >the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, Monterrey Institute for >International Studies, or on the web at >http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/circ71.htm See also Joseph Cirincione, >"Colin Powell Versus the Hawks," available on the web site of the >Non-Proliferation Project of the Carnegie Endowment for International >Peace, at www.ceip.org/files/Publications/ColinPowellvsHawks.asp > > Michael T. Klare, "Rumsfeld: A Star Warrior Returns," The >Nation. Note: This article will be available online at >www.thenation.com no later than 8 p.m. on Thursday, January 11th. > > William D. Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, Tangled Web: The >Marketing of Missile Defense 1994-2000, World Policy Institute Special >Report, May 2000. For this and other Institute reports on missile >defense and nuclear weapons issues, consult our web site at >www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms > > For background on Rumsfeld's ties to the Center for Security >Policy, you can access the Center's most recent annual report and >Rumsfeld's speech at the 1998 "Keeper of the Flame" awards ceremony on >the CSP web site at www.security-policy.org/flame1998remarks.html > > For a prime example of distortion in service of the missile >defense cause, check out the web site of the Coalition to Protect >Americans Now, at www.protectamericansnow.com > > For a lively, informative, and entertaining debate on the >missile defense issue between William D. Hartung of the World Policy >Institute and Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, see >"What >Is Really Driving the Missile Defense Debate?," Global Beat Issue >Brief >#59, June 2, 2000, Global Reporting Network, Center on War, Peace, and >the News Media at New York University, available on the web at >www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/pubs/ib59.html > > > > >William D. Hartung >World Policy Institute >65 Fifth Ave. Suite 413 >New York, NY 10003 >(212)-229-5808, ext. 106 >(212)-229-5579 (fax) >hartung@newschool.edu > - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:19:05 -0500 From: Kevin Martin Subject: (abolition-usa) Feb. 5-6 National Call-in Days to the White House on de-alerting nuclear weapons Dear Friends, The following message is from the Back from the Brink de-alerting campaign on their February 5 - 6 call-in days. I hope you'll act on this important initiative, and please forward to interested parties. Contact the Brink campaign (information listed below) for fliers, postcards, or with any questions. Please excuse duplicate postings. Kevin Martin, Director Project Abolition ***** Dear Friends of the Brink Campaign. There are only 4 weeks left before the NATIONAL CALL-IN DAYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, February 5-6, 2001 to urge President-elect George W. Bush to reduce the danger of accidental nuclear war by working with the Russians to TAKE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS OFF HAIR-TRIGGER ALERT. The campaign is building rapidly with over 100 national, regional and local organizations participating. If there was ever a time to let a president know we want action on nuclear weapons, it is now and February 5 and 6 are the days to do it. The Campaign has several resources available to promote the Call-In Days among your friends, contacts, members and e-groups. Contact us at the e-mail address above for printed flyers available FREE in bulk, a downloadable flyer in .pdf format; a text announcement available via e-mail, and, after January 21st ,a pop-up e-mail announcement. If everyone contacts just 5 more friends, we can flood the switchboard and make the White House take notice. Thanks for being part of this fast growing movement to take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. Let me know how things are going and how I can be of help. *********************************************************************** Esther Pank Back from the Brink Campaign 6856 Eastern Avenue, NW, # 322 Washington DC 20012 202.545.1001 ph 202.545.1004 fax brinkprogram@backfromthebrink.net www.backfromthebrink.org - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:33:21 -0500 From: John Burroughs Subject: (abolition-usa) Jan 16 Cranston UN Memorial The NGO Committee on Disarmament invites you to a UN Memorial of Appreciation to honor the life of Senator Alan Cranston (1914-2000) Tuesday, January 16, 2001, 12:00 pm UN Department for Disarmament Affairs Conference Room 3170B Senator Cranston died on December 31. Please join us in celebrating his life and achievements, particularly with respect to nuclear disarmament. Jayantha Dhanapala, Under-Secretary-General of the UN DDA, Vernon Nichols, President of the NGO Committee on Disarmament, and others will make remarks. The UN event will parallel a Memorial Celebration at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco to be held on the same day. Please R.S.V.P. by January 15 to the NGO Committee on Disarmament at 687.5340 or at disarmtimes@igc.org. A UN pass is needed. For information about Senator Cranston's life and work, see www.gsinstitute.org. - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:21:08 -0800 (PST) From: Brian McDermott Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: U.S. PLANS FOR NEW, WARFIGHTING USES OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS REVEALED - --- Jackie Cabasso wrote: > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 9, 2001 > CONTACT: Andrew Lichterman or Jackie Cabasso (510) > 8395877 > > U.S. PLANS FOR NEW, WARFIGHTING USES OF > NUCLEAR WEAPONS REVEALED > > Documents Obtained under Freedom of Information Act > Show > National Ignition Facility to Host "laser/fireball" > Tunnel Tests > > OAKLAND, CA — Department of Defense (DOD) plans > obtained by the Western States > Legal Foundation through the Freedom of Information > Act reveal that the U.S. is > conducting research to make nuclear weapons more > useable against a variety of > targets. This work is continuing despite U.S. > claims in international treaty > fora that it is de-emphasizing its nuclear arsenal. > > According to the DOD’s “Defense Science and > Technology and Strategy and > Plans,” dated February 2000, the U.S. is actively > pursuing research to develop > lowyield nuclear weapons effective against > underground targets. A stated goal > for 2001 is to “Demonstrate the effectiveness of > nuclear weapons capabilities > in defeating deep structures using precise, lowyield > attacks by HE [High > Explosives] simulation.” > > The documents were made public by the > Western States Legal Foundation > (WSLF), an Oaklandbased public interest group > critical of U.S. nuclear weapons > policy. WSLF Program Director Andrew Lichterman > explained: “These plans make > clear that the U.S. ‘Stockpile Stewardship’ program, > portrayed to the public as > designed solely to preserve the existing stockpile, > is part of a continuing > effort to expand the role of nuclear weapons in > warfare.” > > One project DOD plans is to “conduct > laser/fireball test in National > Ignition Facility (NIF) to improve understanding > intunnel airblast.” The NIF > is also slated to be used for “nuclear effects xray > testing.” Now under > construction at the Lawrence Livermore National > Laboratory in California, the > NIF has been criticized for its multibillion dollar > price tag and questionable > scientific merit. > > Lichterman concluded: “The opportunity to > escape the constant threat of > nuclear destruction, > which arrived with the end of the Cold War, is > slipping away. The U.S. is > preparing to continue the nuclear arms race into the > 21st century. It’s time > for a real national debate on these issues before it > is too late.” > > The U.S. committed itself to “a diminishing > role for nuclear weapons in > security policies to minimize the risk that these > weapons will ever be used and > to facilitate the process of their total > elimination,” earlier this year at the > Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review > Conference. That commitment was > reaffirmed in a November 20, 2000 United Nations > General Assembly vote. > > Citations and additional details from DOD’s > “Defense Science and > Technology Strategy and Plans” are available from > Western States Legal > Foundation on request. > # # # __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:21:58 -0800 From: Jackie Cabasso Subject: (abolition-usa) Mini-nuke tests go virtual http://www.examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=nukes.0114 Monday Jan 15, 2001 Mini-nuke tests go virtual By Michael Stoll Of the Examiner Staff Sometime around 2008, physicists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory plan to spark a fusion reaction in a large dome, using the world's most powerful laser array to heat a BB-sized pellet to 100 million degrees -- hotter than the core of the sun. This will be no academic exercise: the data could lead them someday to a source of clean and plentiful power. But it will also demonstrate what happens the instant a thermonuclear bomb ignites, which the Department of Defense hopes will aid the design of miniature, ground-penetrating nuclear weapons that can take out an underground bunker without also killing everyone for miles around. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden beware: America is looking at ways to make small-scale nuclear "smart bombs" practical. One hurdle for our military had been the end of testing. The United States has not exploded a nuclear bomb since 1992, and the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty signed by United States and 159 other countries, would, if ratified, prohibit nuclear testing forever. So government scientists are trying to show, through elaborate physics experiments and computer simulations, that new weapons and new uses for old weapons will work. As long as those bombs do not actually exist, the military can avoid running afoul of the test ban or Congressional prohibitions on building "low-yield" nuclear warheads. Anti-nuclear activists angrily object, saying that smaller nuclear weapons would be more likely to be used in battle. But defense officials justify this line of research by saying they need a new generation of weapons to maintain a technical edge over rogue nations and terrorists. Though the experiments at the half-finished $3.9 billion National Ignition Facility at Livermore will be the most ambitious, they are just a small part of this effort. Similar research is happening right now at more than a dozen other national labs, as computer programmers and technicians piece together an elaborate model of the damage hypothetical new munitions could do to tunnels, buried command-and-control centers and other so-called "hard targets." The Livermore lab, 35 miles east of San Francisco, is also home to the world's fastest supercomputer, IBM's ASCI White, which can produce 12 trillion calculations per second and will be used to simulate three-dimensional models of nuclear explosions of any size. At the Nevada Test Site, where 928 nuclear bombs were exploded above and below ground over 41 years, scientists are carving tunnels into the desert to test nuclear shock patterns using high-yield conventional explosives. And at Arnold Air Force Base in Tennessee they use the Decade Radiation Test Facility to expose bomb parts to levels of x-rays found only in a nuclear blast. All this research is being done in the name of the Science-Based Stockpile-Stewardship program, the $5.1 billion-per-year Department of Energy effort to ensure that the U.S. nuclear weapons remains "safe, secure and reliable." Proponents of the program say its goal is merely to make sure existing weapons work and are refurbished when they age. But internal Defense Department documents, released to the Western States Legal Foundation, an Oakland-based anti-nuclear group, show that the military's view of future uses of the program includes the creation of new weapons systems. "Precision engagement requires development of more discriminate weapons that have the lethality needed to hold difficult-to-kill targets at risk with minimized collateral effects," defense officials wrote in the Defense Technology Area Plan, dated February 2000. Testifying before Congress this fall in hearings on funding for the Stockpile Stewardship program, Brig. Gen. Thomas F. Gioconda, acting deputy administrator for defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, said the Department of Energy has so far dismantled 12,000 nuclear weapons. And he insisted that Army and Navy are not creating any new weapons, nor have they done so for 11 years. In 1994, Congress specifically prohibited research and development on low-yield nuclear weapons, which produce a blast of five kilotons or less -- about a third the power of the bomb that devastated Hiroshima in 1945. But another senior defense official familiar with nuclear strategy said part of stockpile stewardship is the ability to design new weapons quickly if the United States were to change policy and authorize low-yield weapons development. "It's really a 'what-if,'" the defense official said on the condition his name not be used. "We'd be prepared to have the answer, if and only if we were given permission in the future to proceed on such a course. They're only concepts and we don't have any permission to ask the Department of Energy to build new weapons." Andrew Lichterman, a researcher at Western States, said that while this research does not seem to violate any law, it treads close to the line that Congress drew in 1994. He also said it undercuts efforts to achieve a viable non-proliferation treaty, which calls on existing nuclear powers to de-emphasize, and eventually eliminate, nuclear weapons. "The broad representation to the U.S. public of the Stockpile Stewardship program is that it is merely to maintain the existing stockpile as we move toward their elimination," Lichterman said. "This is the clearest and most specific evidence we have found that they are using this program to make nuclear weapons more usable." The Defense Technology Area Plan, an annual internal policy review, became restricted as of three years ago. Lichterman filed a request with the Defense Department through the Freedom of Information Act last July. The documents also discuss other weapons, such as the B61-11 gravity bomb, which has been modified to work as a ground penetrator. The senior defense official said that was permitted because it was not a "new" weapon. "The nuclear part of the B61 was unchanged," the official said. "So the fact that we put a new case on an existing weapon, I don't consider that a new weapon. I think it's permissible to create a capability with an existing weapon." Pentagon critics say this contradicts public statements about what Stockpile Stewardship is all about. "If we were just maintaining the existing stockpile until such time as we could eliminate nuclear weapons pursuant to an international agreement, would we need the current Stockpile Stewardship program?" said Christopher Paine, who has researched the program for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The answer is no. We would want something that is far smaller and simpler. It was sold to a cadre of Democrats and liberals who supported the test ban as an essential ingredient of the U.S. capability to maintain weapons under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The truth is the stockpile program is the capacity to maintain weapons -- and a lot more." Greg Mello, director of the Los Alamos Study Group in Santa Fe, N.M., said the Department of Energy is misleading the public about the work of the program. "There is definitely active deception going on with respect to Congress and ordinary folks and employees," he said. "The lab people know what to do to sell their bombs. They've adopted an industrial paradigm, and they have an industrial culture that searches for new niches for nuclear bombs." The Department of Energy, which runs the National Laboratories and builds nuclear weapons for the military, says it has no plans to build new bombs anytime soon. "We are not developing any new nuclear weapons," said Floyd Thomas, a spokesman for the department's National Nuclear Security Administration. "If somebody's up in some other agency thinking of new weapons, we wouldn't know about it." Some scientists, while sympathizing with activists' political complaints, dismiss their attacks on experimental and computational modeling of nuclear explosions. Wolfgang Panofsky, the retired director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in Palo Alto, said that even though he and other physicists are opposed to producing low-yield nuclear bombs, he sees nothing wrong with basic research short of designing new weapons for production. Raymond Jeanloz, a professor of Earth and planetary science at the University of California at Berkeley and a Stockpile Stewardship consultant for the Energy Department, said the program is also necessary to train a new generation of nuclear scientists. In the next 10 years, most government physicists with experience in nuclear testing and design will retire, so a large part of nuclear weapons research is meant to keep that nuclear know-how alive. U.S. scientists must practice their skills, he said, lest they forget how to maintain and build new weapons systems in a time of need. "If we as a nation have nuclear weapons, the scariest thing would be to let the weapons decay and the expertise of the people who are handling them decay," he said. Yet he questions whether secrecy about the research is the best policy for the long term. "This is a fact of our country and we have to keep examining this," Jeanloz said. "We are participants as taxpayers. The worst thing would be for the public to forget that we have nuclear weapons." - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #411 *********************************** - To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.