ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n042

Internet Message Format | 1998-11-22 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #42
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest     Monday, November 23 1998     Volume 01 : Number 042




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:31:02 -0500
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Clinton/NAC letter

Dear Friends,
Here's my letter to President Clinton.  I hope you have written one too.  He
needs to hear from lots of us.  Peace, Alice Slater

                                November 20, 1998


President Bill Clinton
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC  20500

Dear President Clinton,

I am utterly appalled at the position taken by our country at the United
Nations on a vote that was held on the New Agenda CoalitionÆs resolution
L48 in
the UNÆs First Committee on November 13, 1998.  The New Agenda, led by
Ireland,
Sweden, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, and Egypt (Slovenia had to
drop out after unconscionable arm-twisting by the US) has issued a clarion
call
to the nuclear weapons states and the nuclear capable states which are not
members of the NPT (India, Pakistan, Israel), to take more rapid steps towards
nuclear disarmament, urging that we not enter the next millenium without a
clear and rapid path towards the elimination of the nuclear scourge.

Our country shamefully objected in the UN to the New AgendaÆs call to
re-evaluate our nuclear policy in NATO and to dealert all nuclear weapons and
make our world a safer place.  Particularly with the Y2k problem, it is
critical that we separate our bombs from the missiles to prevent tragic
accidents.

All of our NATO allies, despite heavy handed lobbying by the US, with the
exception of France, UK and Turkey, broke ranks with us and voted to
abstain on
resolution L48, despite our immoral urging of them to vote against this
rational plan for the coming millenium.  Canada, following its lead on the
landmines treaty and the International Criminal Court, was lobbying against
us.  Germany, Italy , Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Spain, Belgium, Luxemburg,
Iceland, Portugal, and Denmark, as well as non-NATO allies Japan and Australia
all rejected the immoral position of our country.

Germany has just issued a call that NATO adopt a no first use policy and
Canada
is preparing a review of its nuclear stance in NATO.  Now is the time to heed
our friends and move to rapid nuclear disarmament.  Events in Russia support
such a move as we learn that their arsenal will be vastly reduced.

The very possession of nuclear weapons is an invitation to other nations to
acquire them--witness events in India and Pakistan.  ItÆs time to put the cold
war behind us and negotiate a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  By
clinging
so obdurately to our useless and dangerous nuclear capability we are joining
the league of so-called "rogue" states who use the terror of weapons of mass
destruction as an instrument of policy.  You can make your place in history
 if
you join with our allies in working rapidly to eliminate the nuclear scourge.
DonÆt let us repeat the tragic and shameful events that led to our pariah
status on the landmines and International Criminal Court treaties.

Sincerely,



Alice Slater

Cc: Vice President Al Gore
    Robert Bell, National Security Council


Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 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: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:27:55 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail] (Robert Smirnow)
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: DISQUALIFY YUCCA MOUNTAIN

- ----
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:36:11 -0500
From: Michael Mariotte <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Subject: Disqualify Yucca Mountain

NEWS FROM NIRS
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
1424 16th Street NW, #404, Washington, DC 20036
202-328-0002; fax: [phone]; [e-mail]; www.nirs.org

Wednesday November 18, 1998
Contact:  Michael Mariotte or Mary Olson  [phone]

DUMP YUCCA MOUNTAIN!
NATION'S ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS AGREE:
YUCCA MOUNTAIN IS A TERRIBLE PLACE TO MIND ATOMIC WASTE

Today the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), Public
Citizen, US Public Interest Research Group, Sierra Club and 225 local,
national and international organizations sent a letter and petition to
Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson demanding that his Department
disqualify the Yucca Mountain site from further development as a
possible high-level nuclear waste dump.

The groups took this action because Yucca Mountain clearly cannot be
qualified as the nation's only high-level atomic waste dump under the
Department of Energy's (DOE) own guidelines. "At this point, it is
clear
that Yucca Mountain can be approved as a high-level radioactive waste
dump only if the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission change or
ignore their own stated regulations for an atomic waste repository,"
said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information
and
Resource Service (NIRS), a national nuclear watchdog group based in
Washington, DC. "And the DOE and NRC have no public health or safety
basis to change their rules," Mariotte said. "Continuing with work on
Yucca Mt. now would be an accommodation to the nuclear power industry,
not evidence of a sound radioactive waste policy."

The petition delineates evidence that Yucca Mountain does not meet the
Site Suitability Guidelines for a permanent nuclear waste repository as
established by the Department of Energy, under current law at the
outset
of the high-level waste program. The presence of even a single
"disqualifier" at Yucca Mountain requires the Secretary of Energy to
disqualify the site. The petition shows two disqualifying factors
already documented, while a host of unresolved issues remain that could
also rule out the site. Disqualifying factors pertain to elements of
the
repository system that would undercut the goal of a nuclear waste
disposal site: to isolate the waste from the environment for as long as
it is hazardous. Irradiated fuel from commercial reactors and
bomb-making must be isolated for about a quarter-million years.

"Under law, the Secretary must act on any day that it is clear that a
prospective site has a disqualifying condition to reject the site from
further consideration as a nuclear waste dump. It is only the decision
to use the site that requires a lengthy process of validation. The
Secretary must not ignore the new information that shows that Yucca
Mountain will leak if nuclear waste is buried there," said Mary Olson,
a
nuclear waste specialist with NIRS.  "Earthquakes at that site have
fractured the rock. Thirty-five active faults in the area have
registered more than 600 quakes of 2.5 or greater magnitude just in the
last 20 years. New data has shown that when it rains the water moves
very quickly from the surface to the ground water. If you put nuclear
waste in the middle of that mountain, sooner or later it will leak. We
can't afford to make a mistake with this waste, it contains more than
95% of the radioactivity of the Nuclear Age," concluded Olson.

Scientists from Los Alamos identified the presence of chlorine-36
inside
Yucca Mountain at concentrations that could only have originated from
nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific. This radioactive material results
from the activation of the salt in seawater, and is not characteristic
of nuclear weapons tests done in Nevada. The radioactive chlorine
traveled as fallout with the rains and is not unique to this site. It
merely serves as a marker for where that rainwater went. It shows that
surface water traveled inside Yucca Mountain to the repository depth
within the last 50 years.

The fact that more than 200 environmental groups from 39 states signed
the letter to Richardson gives the lie to the notion that Yucca Mt. is
somehow just a Nevada issue. "In fact," said Mariotte, "opposition to
Yucca Mt. as a nuclear waste site is reaching a crescendo all across
the
nation. Nobody concerned with public health and safety-- anywhere in
the
country--believes that the nation's atomic waste should be stored in an
earthquake-prone, leaking mountain. Make no mistake, the environmental
movement is now united against Yucca Mountain."

Mariotte also pointed out that several international organizations
signed the letter--without prompting--indicating that the entire world
is looking at this project as a potential precursor for other nations'
high-level waste decisions. "No nation has solved the problem of
high-level atomic waste," Mariotte pointed out, "and the entire world
is
looking at the U.S. and whether we will address this issue
scientifically and with the public's interests in mind, or whether we
will capitulate to the nuclear industry's desire for a quick fix."

The petition is being made shortly before the Department of Energy is
expected to release a "viability assessment" on the Yucca Mt. project.
This assessment likely will advocate continued work on the project.
"Even the DOE has said this viability assessment is a virtually
meaningless document," said Olson. "This is not a scientific assessment
of the project, it is a political paper intended to keep Congress
funding the radioactive waste bureaucracy. There is nothing in the
viability assessment that overrides the simple truth: Yucca Mt. cannot
meet protective regulations today and it cannot ever meet them."

NIRS also warned against further congressional consideration of
"Mobile
Chernobyl" legislation, which would establish an interim site at Yucca
Mt. and begin the transport of thousands of casks of high-level atomic
waste through the nation's cities and suburbs, as well as its most
productive farmland. "There is no point--and a lot of risk--in moving
radioactive waste from the reactor sites to an unsuitable site in
Nevada," said Mariotte.  "Congressional activity on this issue is a
waste of time--President Clinton has been consistent: he will veto any
such bill, and the Congress will uphold the veto; nothing has changed
in
that regard. Congress needs to begin work on a new radioactive waste
policy that recognizes that Yucca Mt. will not be the nation's dumping
ground and also recognizes that a speedy phase-out of nuclear power--as
Germany and other countries are now beginning--is the best solution to
the nuclear problem."

- --30--




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 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: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:02:29 +1100
From: hcaldic <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Clinton/NAC letter

ASlater wrote:
>=20
> Dear Friends,
> Here's my letter to President Clinton.  I hope you have written one too=
.  He
> needs to hear from lots of us.  Peace, Alice Slater
>=20
>                                 November 20, 1998
>=20
> President Bill Clinton
> 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
> Washington, DC  20500
>=20
> Dear President Clinton,
>=20
> I am utterly appalled at the position taken by our country at the Unite=
d
> Nations on a vote that was held on the New Agenda Coalition=92s resolut=
ion
> L48 in
> the UN=92s First Committee on November 13, 1998.  The New Agenda, led b=
y
> Ireland,
> Sweden, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, and Egypt (Slovenia =
had to
> drop out after unconscionable arm-twisting by the US) has issued a clar=
ion
> call
> to the nuclear weapons states and the nuclear capable states which are =
not
> members of the NPT (India, Pakistan, Israel), to take more rapid steps =
towards
> nuclear disarmament, urging that we not enter the next millenium withou=
t a
> clear and rapid path towards the elimination of the nuclear scourge.
>=20
> Our country shamefully objected in the UN to the New Agenda=92s call to
> re-evaluate our nuclear policy in NATO and to dealert all nuclear weapo=
ns and
> make our world a safer place.  Particularly with the Y2k problem, it is
> critical that we separate our bombs from the missiles to prevent tragic
> accidents.
>=20
> All of our NATO allies, despite heavy handed lobbying by the US, with t=
he
> exception of France, UK and Turkey, broke ranks with us and voted to
> abstain on
> resolution L48, despite our immoral urging of them to vote against this
> rational plan for the coming millenium.  Canada, following its lead on =
the
> landmines treaty and the International Criminal Court, was lobbying aga=
inst
> us.  Germany, Italy , Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Spain, Belgium, Luxe=
mburg,
> Iceland, Portugal, and Denmark, as well as non-NATO allies Japan and Au=
stralia
> all rejected the immoral position of our country.
>=20
> Germany has just issued a call that NATO adopt a no first use policy an=
d
> Canada
> is preparing a review of its nuclear stance in NATO.  Now is the time t=
o heed
> our friends and move to rapid nuclear disarmament.  Events in Russia su=
pport
> such a move as we learn that their arsenal will be vastly reduced.
>=20
> The very possession of nuclear weapons is an invitation to other nation=
s to
> acquire them--witness events in India and Pakistan.  It=92s time to put=
 the cold
> war behind us and negotiate a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  By
> clinging
> so obdurately to our useless and dangerous nuclear capability we are jo=
ining
> the league of so-called "rogue" states who use the terror of weapons of=
 mass
> destruction as an instrument of policy.  You can make your place in his=
tory
>  if
> you join with our allies in working rapidly to eliminate the nuclear sc=
ourge.
> Don=92t let us repeat the tragic and shameful events that led to our pa=
riah
> status on the landmines and International Criminal Court treaties.
>=20
> Sincerely,
>=20
> Alice Slater
>=20
> Cc: Vice President Al Gore
>     Robert Bell, National Security Council
>=20
> Alice Slater
> Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
> 15 East 26th Street, Room 915
> New York, NY 10010
> tel:  [phone]
> fax:  [phone]
> email:  [e-mail]
>=20
> GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a tre=
aty
> to eliminate nuclear weapons.
>=20
> -
>  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.

    Good stuff Alice!, Helen



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 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: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:15:13 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail] (Robert Smirnow)
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Y2K: MANY CHERNOBYLS POSSIBLE ACCORDING TO "TIMES OF LONDON"

- ----
From: "└δσΩ±αφΣ≡α ╩ε≡εδσΓα" <[e-mail]>
To: "Robert Smirnow" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ross, y2k
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 23:15:32 +0200


Nov 13, 1998
2000 Glitch Poses Nuclear Threat
THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES
Western intelligence is warning of possible nuclear "meltdown" in the
former Soviet bloc as a result of the so-called
millennium bug, The Times of London reported on Sunday.
The millennium bug is a glitch in many of the world's computers that is
expected to cripple them worldwide at midnight on
December 31, 1999.
Intelligence sources say some of the 65 Soviet-made civilian nuclear
power plants scattered across Russia and the former
Warsaw Pact countries could malfunction as their computers fall victim
to the "Y2K" (year 2000) glitch, which makes
them interpret the 00 date as 1900 instead of 2000, The Times reported.
"America, Britain and France have been quick to see the dangers. But
anxieties about Russian nuclear safety, branded on
global memory by the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, have not been diminished
by Moscow's assurances that the problem is
'under control,'" the paper reported.
An intelligence source was quoted by The Times as saying, "Russia's
nuclear industry is in desperate straits. Throw in
Y2K and you could have a giant Chernobyl on your hands."
It emerged last week that William Daley, the U.S. commerce secretary,
is to host an international millennium bug
conference this year, indicating the seriousness with which the U.S.
White House views the problem, the paper said.
"Nuclear safety is bound to be an important item on the agenda," The
Times reported, adding, "Al Gore, the [U.S.] vice
president, also raised Y2K at a recent meeting with Viktor
Chernomyrdin, the former Russian prime minister."
In a recent circular to all American power plants, the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission warned that "control room
display systems, radiation monitoring and emergency response" are
particularly at risk, The Times reported.
"The Y2K problem is urgent because it has a fixed, non-negotiable
deadline," that circular concluded. "This matter
requires priority attention because of the limited time remaining to
assess the magnitude of the problem."
Even if the Russian government heeds such warnings, it may not have
enough computer experts to go round, The Times
reported.
Former Soviet bloc countries have 36 Soviet-made civilian nuclear
reactors, while Russia itself has 29. Of Russia's, 11
are models similar to the one that exploded at Chernobyl, in Ukraine,
releasing 200 times as much radioactivity as the
atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The oldest Chernobyl-style nuclear power plant is the Leningrad Nuclear
Power Plant, or LAES, an accident-prone
power station just 80 kilometers west of St. Petersburg. LAES's
reactors were actually the prototype for Chernobyl's.
Russian officials say the LAES reactors have been upgraded since the
Chernobyl accident revealed vulnerabilities in them.
LAES has been plagued with problems - ranging from a hunger strike last
year by unpaid engineers, who continued to
work monitoring the reactor's safety despite dizziness and fainting
spells, to an overburdened nuclear waste storage
facility.
In 1992, an accident at LAES released radiation outside the plant. Last
week saw conflicting reports that another
accident in March had again released a minor amount of radiation
outside the plant.





- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 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, 22 Nov 1998 01:32:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Timothy Bruening <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) The Iraq Crisis and U.S. Nuclear Weapons

I am trying to write a letter about the contradiction between U.S.
insistence that Iraq rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and submit to
UN inspectors to determine if Iraq has done so, and U.S. refusal to rid
itself of its nuclear weapons or submit to international inspection of its
nuclear arsenal.  Below is my proposed outline.  Please help me flesh it out.

I. For over 7 years, the U.S. has insisted that Iraq rid itself of its
weapons of mass destruction and submit to UN inspectors to determine if Iraq
has done so, using sanctions and threats of air strikes to force Iraq to comply.

II. At the same time, the U.S. refuses to negotiate a treaty to eliminate
nuclear weapons, in defiance of the World Court, 87% of the American public,
about 60 retired high ranking military officials, and 117 former civilian
leaders.

        A. The DOE's Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program to
continue and expand U.S. nuclear weapons design, testing, development, and
production.

                1. NIF

                2. subcritical testing

                3. computer simulations

                4. SSMP undermines nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

III. The U.S. refuses to allow international inspections of its nuclear
arsenal, and arrests Citizen Inspectors who try to inspect U.S. military
facilities.

IV. To end the hypocrisy, give Iraq and North Korea no excuse to resist
inspections or keep weapons of mass destruction, and end the threat of
nuclear war, the U.S. should:

        A. Take half its nuclear warheads off alert and remove them from
their delivery vehicles.

        B. Invite international inspectors in to verify above steps.

        C. Call on all the other nuclear states to do A and B, and call for
the negotiation of a Nuclear Abolition Treaty.

        D. Promise to de-alert and remove the rest of its nuclear warheads
once C has occurred.


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 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, 22 Nov 1998 08:55:00 -0600
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: (abolition-usa) The Iraq Crisis and U.S. Nuclear Weapons

Dear Timothy: For what it is worth: The IAEA has already stated that Iraq
has no nuclear weapons capability. Also, if I remember correctly, the former
UNSCOM Inspector, Ray Zalinskas has already said in public that at least 90%
of Iraq's chemical and biological warfare capability has been destroyed.
This is just a bogus issue that the United States and Britain are currently
using to build public support for a war of extermination against the People
of Iraq. We must not fall into their trap.
Best regards,
Francis Boyle
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820
217-333-7954(voice)
217-244-1478(fax)
[e-mail]


> ----------
> From:     Timothy Bruening[SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Reply To:     [e-mail]
> Sent:     Sunday, November 22, 1998 3:32 AM
> To:     [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject:     (abolition-usa) The Iraq Crisis and U.S. Nuclear Weapons
>
> I am trying to write a letter about the contradiction between U.S.
> insistence that Iraq rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and submit
> to
> UN inspectors to determine if Iraq has done so, and U.S. refusal to rid
> itself of its nuclear weapons or submit to international inspection of its
> nuclear arsenal.  Below is my proposed outline.  Please help me flesh it
> out.
>
> I. For over 7 years, the U.S. has insisted that Iraq rid itself of its
> weapons of mass destruction and submit to UN inspectors to determine if
> Iraq
> has done so, using sanctions and threats of air strikes to force Iraq to
> comply.
>
> II. At the same time, the U.S. refuses to negotiate a treaty to eliminate
> nuclear weapons, in defiance of the World Court, 87% of the American
> public,
> about 60 retired high ranking military officials, and 117 former civilian
> leaders.
>
>         A. The DOE's Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program to
> continue and expand U.S. nuclear weapons design, testing, development, and
> production.
>
>                 1. NIF
>
>                 2. subcritical testing
>
>                 3. computer simulations
>
>                 4. SSMP undermines nuclear non-proliferation efforts.
>
> III. The U.S. refuses to allow international inspections of its nuclear
> arsenal, and arrests Citizen Inspectors who try to inspect U.S. military
> facilities.
>
> IV. To end the hypocrisy, give Iraq and North Korea no excuse to resist
> inspections or keep weapons of mass destruction, and end the threat of
> nuclear war, the U.S. should:
>
>         A. Take half its nuclear warheads off alert and remove them from
> their delivery vehicles.
>
>         B. Invite international inspectors in to verify above steps.
>
>         C. Call on all the other nuclear states to do A and B, and call
> for
> the negotiation of a Nuclear Abolition Treaty.
>
>         D. Promise to de-alert and remove the rest of its nuclear warheads
> once C has occurred.
>
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
> "[e-mail]"
>  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.
>

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 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, 23 Nov 1998 08:16:15 -0500
From: "David Culp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NYT:  Pentagon Ready to Shrink Arsenal of Nuclear Bombs

PENTAGON READY TO SHRINK ARSENAL OF NUCLEAR BOMBS
Monday, November 23,
1998 New York Times

By STEVEN LEE MYERS


WASHINGTON -- Driven by budget constraints as much as diminishing
security threats, Pentagon officials are quietly recommending that the
Clinton administration consider unilateral reductions in the nation's
nuclear arsenal.

Since the United States has already committed itself to drastic cuts
in its nuclear arsenal, the Pentagon believes that the unilateral
reductions would have no effect on America's ability to deter a
nuclear adversary. The recommendations, if adopted, would reduce the
American arsenal below the 6,000 nuclear warheads allowed by the first
strategic arms reduction treaty, or START I, senior administration
officials said. The United States and Russia have signed a second arms
treaty, START II, that would cut their arsenals even more sharply, to
between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads. But for nearly six years, Russia's
Parliament has refused to approve START II.

Because of Russia's delay, and U.S. legislation blocking unilateral
cuts, the Pentagon faces the prospect of paying hundreds of millions
of dollars to maintain -- and soon to rebuild -- nuclear weapons that
the United States has already agreed to scrap.

The Pentagon has spent $95 million more over the past two years than
it would have if START II had taken effect. Next year it would cost
$100 million more, and the year after that, $1 billion. The Navy, in
particular, could be forced to pay more than $5 billion between now
and 2003 to refuel nuclear reactors and install new missiles on four
Trident ballistic-missile submarines that would otherwise be
dismantled. With this budget crunch looming, the Pentagon submitted to
Congress a highly classified report last April that outlined nine
proposals for reducing the strategic arsenal unilaterally.

Neither President Clinton nor Secretary of Defense William Cohen has
made a decision on the recommendations, and a senior White House
official said they would not do so until Russia's Communist-dominated
Parliament completes its latest deliberations on START II, which was
signed in 1993.

Although Russia's nationalists and Communists have vehemently opposed
the treaty, the lower house has begun debate and could vote as soon as
December.

The Pentagon's recommendations underline the stakes: START II's
ratification would not only rid the world of thousands of nuclear
warheads, but would also save the United States billions of dollars
that the Pentagon would rather spend elsewhere or that Congress might
allocate to other programs. Officials in Washington and Russia agree
that prospects for ratification have improved as the realization sinks
in that Russia's economic problems have left the country hard pressed
to maintain a nuclear force as large as that allowed by START I.

"I'm reluctant to discuss at all Plan B," one White House official
said of the Pentagon's recommendations, "when we have the best
on-course momentum here in a long, long time for Plan A."

But if the Russian Parliament again rejects the treaty, officials in
the Pentagon plan to recommend that Clinton seek permission from
Congress to move ahead with unilateral reductions. The officials said
a decision could come as part of the budget Clinton will submit to
Congress early next year. Adm. Richard Mies, the new commander of the
nation's strategic arsenal, said the United States was committed to
maintaining a "robust and credible force." But he suggested that this
effort did not preclude unilateral cuts in warheads or the systems to
deliver them.

"I think you will inevitably see us take some unilateral actions that
we have to take to modernize our forces and maybe streamline our
forces to some degree," Mies said in an interview last week at the
U.S. Strategic Command headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in
Nebraska. "We're driven by our own imperatives."

Mies did not elaborate on what steps were under consideration. In
recent weeks, however, Pentagon and administration aides have begun
discussions with congressional staff members as they draw up next
year's budget and decide whether to set aside enough money for a
larger nuclear force, the officials said.

In each of the last two years, Republicans in Congress have put
language in the Department of Defense's budget bills explicitly
prohibiting reductions below START I levels by the United States
alone.

Some administration officials and members of Congress have argued that
the legislation is necessary to press the Russians to ratify START II.
Others dispute the effect that such legislation has had on the Russian
Parliament's deliberation, and argue that unilateral reductions could
revive a stagnant arms control process.

"The issue is, how much longer are we going to pay to stay at a higher
level to retain some leverage over the Russians to ratify the treaty,"
a senior defense official said.

Under START I, which was signed in 1991, the United States has
drastically reduced its arsenal of strategic nuclear warheads, from
more than 10,000 to about 7,000 today. In Helsinki, Finland, in March
1997, Clinton and President Boris Yeltsin agreed that once the lower
house approved START II, the United States and Russia would begin
talks on still further reductions, to 2,000 to 2,500 warheads.

Political pressures for slashing the number of warheads have begun to
grow here. In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York
last week, Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., called on the administration to
make unilateral reductions and take other steps that would reassure
Russia, including removing remaining warheads from the highest state
of alert. Kerrey said he would seek to repeal the congressional limits
on further reductions, arguing that among other things, the higher
levels of weapons sapped money from efforts to combat "newer threats"
like terrorism and ethnic wars.

"Our old policies of arms control and deterrence no long work and may
be increasing the danger," he said, "both by making nuclear threats
worse and by diverting money and resources away from the conventional
forces that are the key to our safety in the post-Cold War world."

In its budgets, the Pentagon has already anticipated reducing the
arsenal to START II levels over the next several years. Likewise,
strategists have concluded that a nuclear force as small as that
planned under START III, which has not yet been negotiated, can
adequately defend the United States, making spending on anything more
seem wasteful.

Administration officials declined to spell out the proposals under
consideration should the Russian Parliament fail to ratify START II.
But one senior military official said some options would allow the
Pentagon to reduce the number of warheads to 5,000 to 6,000 and reduce
or eliminate some categories of strategic weapons.

Under these plans, the Navy would move ahead with its current plan to
reduce its fleet of 18 Trident submarines by retiring the four oldest
by 2003. The Air Force would be able to reduce or eliminate the
stockpile of 50 intercontinental ballistic missiles that it is now
financing in its budget year to year.

In both cases, Congress has prohibited reductions in those forces. The
senior military official called the money spent on updating those
forces as "rat hole dollars."

"We don't necessarily feel we should be locked into a certain force
structure," the official said. "We want to have flexibility."


Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 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, 23 Nov 1998 08:34:20 -0500
From: "David Culp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) More on START II from Moscow (Friday)

RUSSIA CANNOT AFFORD ITS NUCLEAR SHIELD
Izvestia
Friday, November 20, 1998

by Vladimir YERMOLIN


The State Duma committees on defence and international affairs, which
drafted a law on the ratification of START-2, believe that the treaty
takes into account both the interests of national defences and
Russia's economic possibilities.

The main thing is that Russia does not need the current large shield,
say experts of the Defence Ministry. National security can be easily
ensured by a smaller arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons. With
figures in hand, the specialists of the General Staff have been trying
to prove to the deputies the expediency of ratifying the treaty for
several years now.

Today they have been joined by members of the Duma committees on
defence and international affairs. But it appears that we are
approaching the end of this drawn-out story, which began with the
signing of the treaty by the two presidents in Moscow in January 1993.

Roman Popkovich, chairman of the defence committee provided many
arguments in favour of ratification at a press conference on November
18. But one would be enough: Russia does not have the money to
maintain 5,000 nuclear warheads. Russia should spend at least 60
billion roubles a year (in pre-August 17 prices) to maintain and renew
its nuclear arsenals, which is a utopian dream, as the 1998 defence
budget amounts to only 82.5 billion roubles. Worse still, the treasury
will be able to provide only 75% of this sum. This is a purely
economic argument. Military arguments have been discussed many times,
and today we can only rely on the aforementioned opinion of
professionals.

The draft law, submitted by deputies Vladimir Lukin and Roman
Popkovich, takes into account all wishes and arguments of ratification
opponents. For example, it stipulates the conditions under which
Russia may withdraw from START-2. This can happen if the USA violates
ABM treaties and agreements.

The draft law also mentions the threat of the NATO eastward
enlargement. Russia will withdraw from START-2 if NATO creates a
threat to its national security on the territory of European members
by deploying nuclear or pin-point weapons there. And lastly, the law
stipulates guarantees of stable funding and fulfilment of the
development programme of the Russian strategic nuclear forces until
the year 2010.

It is difficult to say if the deputies will ratify the treaty at their
December session, but the chances are good enough. Maybe the Communist
Party faction, which has always opposed treaty, will listen to its men
in the government. And Vladimir Zhirinovsky might amend his stance if
the government takes into consideration his personal interests. And
yet, there are many ways to explode the situation, to reduce to naught
the efforts of ratification proponents. For example, the problem could
be moved to the political plane, with ratification linked with IMF
credits. This would be the best present imaginable for the
irreconcilable deputies who claim START-2 is a programme of destroying
national defences on Western money.

- ----------

RUSSIA MULLS START 2 RATIFICATION

MOSCOW, Nov. 20, 1998 -- (Reuters) The Russian parliament may debate
next month the much delayed ratification of the START 2 nuclear arms
reduction treaty with the United States, a prominent member of the
Duma said on Thursday.

U.S. officials cautiously welcomed the signs of progress but warned
the Communist-led Duma not to risk wrecking the 1993 treaty, which has
already been ratified by the U.S. Senate, by inserting amendments
unacceptable to Washington.

Vladimir Lukin, the liberal chairman of the Duma foreign affairs
committee and a former ambassador to Washington, told reporters he
felt a "measured optimism" that a ratification bill he had helped draw
up would win backing from the chamber.

The bill, a draft of which was circulated on Thursday, spells out
conditions under which Russia would reserve the right to break the
1993 treaty, which provides for cuts in the two sides' deployed
nuclear warheads by up to two-thirds from about 6,000 each to no more
than 3,500 each by the year 2007.

Among the conditions were that Russia would consider the treaty no
longer binding if the United States broke either START 2 or the 1991
START 1 or 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty or threatened
Russia's national security in other ways.

Another clause said Russia would be free of its obligations if a third
power created a nuclear threat. Addressing a major concern in Moscow,
it also foresaw canceling START 2 if the United States or its allies
threatened Russia by deploying nuclear weapons in new NATO member
states in Eastern Europe or developed armaments in space that could
damage Russia's early warning system for missile attacks.

Lukin said the bill had been drafted in cooperation with the Defense
and Foreign ministries, indicating he believed that the conditions in
the ratification bill did not run counter to the Kremlin's reading of
the treaty itself and that President Boris Yeltsin would sign the
ratification bill if it were passed.

However, the bill may face opposition in the Duma, where some are
pressing for more stringent security guarantees. And Senator Richard
Lugar, an expert on Russian disarmament who was in Moscow on Thursday
during a tour of sites where weapons are being dismantled, warned that
the whole treaty could be wrecked if Duma skeptics attached too many
strings.

Noting that the Senate had avoided amending the treaty itself but
added some clarifying language in its ratification, Lugar said the
Duma could answer its concerns by doing the same.

"But to add an item such as no nuclear weapons in the Baltics or
something of this variety as a condition clearly would be unacceptable
and we're not going to have a START 2 under those conditions," he
added.

"It would require the United States to have another debate on START 2
ratification on those terms. That does not look promising," he said.
The United States and Yeltsin have been pressing the house to ratify
the treaty and have even begun work on what would be a START 3 while
waiting for it to do so.

A U.S. embassy spokesman said he had yet to see the draft but added:
"We are encouraged to see the Duma accelerating the pace of the work
on this."

But opponents of the treaty, especially Communists, say the
dismantling of nuclear warheads puts too great a strain on Russia's
stretched finances and threatens funding for maintaining and
modernizing the rest of its defenses.

They have been seeking greater guarantees on financing, including U.S.
aid, before they will ratify START 2.

The Duma's draft bill contained clauses demanding parliamentary
oversight of the progress of implementing the treaty and government
and presidential commitments to provide funding for maintaining
Russia's nuclear arsenal. It put forward an end-2003 deadline for
reaching an accord on further cuts in warhead numbers.

(c) 1998 Reuters

- ----------

Russia Today
Friday, November 20, 1998

A Duma official said on Thursday that Russia's parliament could start
debate on the START II arms reduction treaty ratification next month.
The chairman of the Duma's Foreign Affairs Committee, Vladimir Lukin,
told reporters that he felt hopeful that a compromise bill would be
ratified. U.S. officials reacted with cautious optimism, but warned
the Communist-lead Duma not to wreck the 1993 treaty by adding
amendments. Opponents of the treaty argue that dismantling the nuclear
warheads would strain Russia's already stretched finances and they
seek greater guarantees of funding for the project.




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 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 #42
**********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 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.