ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n056

Internet Message Format | 1999-01-08 | 61KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #56
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest      Friday, January 8 1999      Volume 01 : Number 056




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

Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:42:46 -0500
From: Bob Tiller <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Job announcement

Friends,

Physicians for Social Responsibility, a national membership organization
committed to the abolition of nuclear weapons, is seeking an Associate
Director of Security Programs, who will have responsibilities in two
broad areas:

Research and Policy:
     *Provide research and technical expertise on a broad range of
nuclear weapons issues, including: nuclear weapons dismantlement,
fissile material disposition, MOX fuel, cleanup of  DOE's nuclear
weapons complex, nuclear waste disposition, nuclear weapons-related
public health matters, the Stockpile Stewardship program, the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, tritium production and other
nuclear weapons topics.
     *Monitor and report on legislative matters and executive branch
developments in issue areas.
     *Prepare issue briefs, articles and other materials for
decision-makers and for activists.
     *Assist in developing advocacy initiatives.
     *Conduct special projects.

Organizing and Education:
     *Enlarge and strengthen PSR's Security activist network.
     *Maintain regular communication with PSR chapters, activists and
physician experts.
     *Produce educational materials for chapters and activists.
     *Mobilize activists for action.
     *Assist in coordinating national advocacy campaigns.
     *Maintain and update the Security portion of PSR's website.
     *Assist in drafting media statements.
     *Assist in planning and organizing conferences, training programs
and other educational events.

Qualifications:
     *Commitment to abolition of nuclear weapons
     *Knowledge of nuclear weapons-related issues
     *Strong writing and speaking skills
     *Ability to handle multiple tasks and to meet deadlines
     *Ability to work both independently and cooperatively
     *Minimum Bachelor's degree, Master's degree preferred
     *Minimum of three years of relevant experience

To apply, send resume to:
  Robert Tiller
  Physicians for Social Responsibility
  1101 14th St. N.W.
  Washington D.C. 20005
  E-mail <[e-mail]>

Deadline is Jan. 21, 1999.

- -
 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: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 07:06:28 -0500
From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews-US: 1/7/99 - Trident cuts; NV Plutonium leaks; WA Tribew; MN Nuc Fire; $7 Billion Missile Defense

1. Naval Chief Backs Cut In Force of Trident Subs 14 Would Suffice, Admiral
Tells Senate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-01/07/144l-010799-idx.html

2. Nuclear Blast Seepage Is Found
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/national/science/sci-plutonium-seepage
.html

3. Spokane tribe is hot about radioactive waste transport
http://www.indiancountry.com/NW30.html

4. Local Nuke Plant Fire Extinguished (Minnesota)
http://www.wcco.com/news/stories/news-990106-054514.html

5. Clinton to Pledge $7 Billion for Missile Defense System
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/clinton-defense.html

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-01/07/144l-010799-idx.html

1. Naval Chief Backs Cut In Force of Trident Subs 14 Would Suffice, Admiral
Tells Senate

By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, January 7, 1999;
Page A23

The chief of naval operations has told Congress for the first time that he
would like to reduce the number of operational Trident ballistic missile
submarines from 18 to 14, opening the way for Congress to repeal its ban
against cutting U.S. strategic nuclear force levels until the Russian
parliament ratifies the START II treaty.

"My personal belief is that a 14-boat force is the minimum acceptable force
right now," Adm. J.L. Johnson said.

Under present law, if the Russian Duma continues to delay approval of the
1993 strategic arms control treaty as it has done for the past year, the
Navy must plan to spend up to $500 million in fiscal 2000 to stay
operational at the START I level of 18. That number includes four of the
older, giant Tridents that were scheduled to be decommissioned beginning in
2002.

But at Tuesday's Senate Armed Services Committee session, when Chief of
Naval Operations Johnson was asked by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)
whether the Navy would rather have 14 of the subs and use the money for
other priorities, he replied, "Personally I would, yes, sir."

The amendment that froze strategic forces at START I levels was added two
years ago to the defense authorization bill by Sen. Robert C. Smith
(R-N.H.), chairman of the Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.

Opponents of the provision want to debate the issue "based on what forces
are needed," a senior congressional aide said yesterday, "and not on the
politics associated with the arms control treaties."

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the committee, said before the
hearing that "we have to reevaluate priorities" on strategic weapons. "We
may be able to redirect money from strategic weapons to strategic defense,"
he said. A spokesman said Smith was tied up with meetings yesterday and
unavailable for comment.

Eugene E. Habiger, a retired Air Force general and former head of the U.S.
Strategic Command, which included the Tridents, said "it would make sense"
for the Navy to go down to 14, because "there is no need to stay at the
START I level from a military prospective; although if you stay at that
level it may give you some political leverage" with the Russians. But
Habiger also noted that Moscow's "sub fleet is belly-up."

A military source familiar with intelligence said Moscow had a serious
problem with one of the ballistic subs in the Northern Fleet last year when
seawater got into the missile compartment when some seals leaked. The sub
immediately surfaced and was brought back into port. The other alert
Russian ballistic missile sub was brought back from its patrol in the
Pacific for repairs. So for two to three weeks, the Russians for the first
time in recent memory had no ballistic missile subs patrolling on alert.

The Russians do keep at least two other ballistic missile subs on pier-side
alert, one in the Atlantic and the other in the Pacific.

The United States maintains five Trident subs on patrol alert, with five
others either coming or going on patrol and ready to fire their missiles if
needed. The Tridents each have 24 missiles that can carry up to eight
warheads. The warheads have seven times the force of the Hiroshima bomb and
are designed to destroy Russian missiles in hardened silos.

Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), who is pushing for the United States to begin
making unilateral reductions in its strategic forces, said yesterday that
"waiting for the Russians to act on START II is a mistake." With their
economy collapsing, their nuclear systems deteriorating and their
experiment with democracy on the line, Kerrey said, members of the Russian
parliament "don't have time to talk about nuclear arms control."

As of today, there are 10 modern Tridents based at Kings Bay, Ga., all
armed with highly accurate D-5 missiles that can travel more than 4,000
miles. Eight older Tridents, fitted with 24 of the earlier C-4 missiles,
are based at Bangor, Wash.

If current law continues, all eight of the older Tridents would have to
have their nuclear engines refurbished and their launching systems would
need to be retrofitted to carry modern D-5 missiles.

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

http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/national/science/sci-plutonium-seepage
.html

2. Nuclear Blast Seepage Is Found

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, January 7, 1999

(Stories also found at
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/plutonium990106.html;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_249000/249743.stm;
Reuters:
http://www.foxnews.com/js_index.sml?content=/scitech/010699/plutonium.sml)

Traces of plutonium from a test blast in the Nevada desert migrated nearly
a mile through water found underground, a study has found, prompting the
Federal Government to recalculate slightly the risks that would be posed by
an underground nuclear waste storage site.

Scientists said the amount of radioactivity that could move this way was
too small to endanger the public, and agreement came from the Energy
Department in reassessing the risks of the Government's proposed waste site
beneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada. In a study published Wednesday in the
journal Nature, researchers concluded that minute amounts of plutonium had
flowed downstream on particles of debris suspended in water.

Scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California
and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico looked at a
30-year-old nuclear explosion that reached below the water table on the
Nevada Test Site, where 828 underground nuclear tests were conducted from
1956 to 1992. The site is 70 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The Energy Department wants to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, about 90 miles northeast of Las Vegas, to entomb 80,000 tons of
used reactor fuel that will remain deadly for 300,000 years.

The department took the latest findings into account and concluded that the
seepage would not happen for 10,000 to 100,000 years; even then, the
escaped radiation would be less than the background amount.

But Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects,
said he believed that containers holding the waste would fail much more
quickly than the Government estimates, allowing unknown quantities of
contaminants to escape within 500 years.

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

http://www.indiancountry.com/NW30.html

3. Spokane tribe is hot about radioactive waste transport

Cate Montana, Indian Country Today staff, Northwest Bureau - January 6,
1999

WELLPINIT, Wash. - Dawn Mining Co., seeking renewal of a license to
transport radioactive fill material to reclaim a defunct uranium mill on
the border of the Spokane reservation, has run into hot protest from the
tribe.

At a recent public hearing at the tribe's longhouse, tribal members spoke
out against the mining company's proposal to transport slightly radioactive
fill from sites in New York, Missouri and other states to fill the
40-million-cubic-foot hole at the Ford site in Washington.

Most members feared the fill would further contaminate Chamokane Creek, the
ground water and the aquifer that supply the tribe's water. Additional
concerns were raised about the safety of transporting the material from the
Spokane rail yards  to the Ford mill site.

"The road they've chosen is Highway 231," said Alfred Peone, tribal
councilman. "It's one of our main routes from the reservation to Spokane...
. There are a lot of really dangerous spots on it."

Peone said there is a high incidence of traffic accidents on the route and
in certain areas subject to flooding, highway shoulders have collapsed.

It is estimated that in the years it would take to fill the impoundment at
the mill, 50,000 trucks would have to travel the rural route heavily used
by school children and tribal members.

But most of the tribe's concern is over importation of additional
radioactive material to reclaim the mill project.

"We feel they didn't do enough research," maintains Peone. "Dawn has always
said they don't have any money for any kind of reclamation. Well, they've
got enough money for all these lawyers and travel and stumbling blocks at
all these meetings, yet they don't have enough money for closing that
thing. If we'd done something like that, we'd be held accountable to do
what we're supposed to do to clean it up."

According to Bob Nelson, general manager of Dawn Mining, the company has
been trying to reclaim and close the project for a long time. But, because
of the complete collapse of the U.S. uranium mining industry during the
past 15 years, funds have not been available to complete the project.

"The reason we're using 11e(2) byproduct material is that it's a source of
revenue, plus it fills our facility, something that's got to be done
anyway," Nelson said. "It fills the impoundment. It provides money to
reclaim the whole site. Plus we hope to make money enough to reclaim the
mine site also." Nelson also stated that although there's a big need for a
disposal facility in the United States to handle this type of tailings
waste and despite rumors to the contrary, the small town of Ford "is not
the place for a radioactive waste disposal facility.

"We're just looking to solve a problem that's already here," he said.

Gary Robertson of the Department of Health's radiation unit, told tribal
members at the meeting that the proposed by-product fill material is no
more radioactive than the tailings  already on the mill site. he said
readings of gamma radiation from the fence line of the mill property is at
a "background level."

"When we do samplings in Chamokane Creek," Robertson said. "We get the same
readings of 2 to 6 picoCuries per liter at the headwaters above the mill,
prior to any effluent, as we do downstream of the mill."

The Environmental Protection Agency has listed 300 picoCuries per liter as
the acceptable level of radiation for groundwater.

"The tribe expressed a lot of fear and concern at the last meeting,"
Robertson said. "And I don't know how to alleviate their fears."

Currently the tribe is at issue with the Department of Health over the mill
reclamation for several reasons. These and other complaints were filed
against the health department in district court in August:

- - Radioactive and other contaminant's from the mill site have entered and
continue to enter surface waters on the mill site, which in turn have
entered and continue to enter the surface waters of Chamokane Creek at
locations owned by the Spokane tribe as well as interconnected ground water
of the reservation.

- - The Department of Health Final Environmental Impact Statement determined
that the preferred alternatives for filling Dawn Mining's vast tailings
impoundment were to use clean, uncontaminated fill material. One of the
primary reasons for the preference was that using clean fill would present
fewer traffic safety hazards.

- - The Department of Health recommendation that Dawn Mining Co. post a $20
million dollar reclamation bond has not been collected.

- - A supplemental Environmental Impact Statement did not fully consider the
transportation and traffic issues related to the Dawn Mining Co. waste
importation proposal because the company had not selected the proposed route.

 Unlike the tribe's previous participation with the health department in
closing and reclamation of another uranium mine site, Western Nuclear,
Robertson said the tribe refused to participate on reclamation of the
current Dawn Mining project.

He said it refused to join the Local Citizens Monitoring Committee which
has absolute veto power over what procedures are used in the mill site
reclamation project, and that the tribe also refused to sign a memorandum
of agreement wherein the Department of Health would share all of its
information with the tribe.

"The tribe is not a participant in this because we didn't use the
material," said Peone. "We had the land that it was on. The federal
government came in and had miners locate it (the uranium). They used the
ore. They used the uranium for nuclear purposes during several years. It
wasn't our part to do it.

"We got the land, but they're the ones that used the material. We didn't
use any of it. We don't want to be accountable for their mistakes that they
should have taken care of years ago."

But, according to both the Department of Health and Dawn Mining Co., it was
several tribal members who discovered the uranium deposits in 1954; tribal
members who found funding with Newmont Inc. of Denver, Dawn Mining's
primary shareholder, and tribal members who still hold shares in Dawn
Mining Co.

"The mill was embraced by the tribe and the local community throughout its
history," said Nelson. "The tribe made a lot of money on this project in
royalties and lease payments and such."

Dawn Mining's license with the state of Washington to transport the
radioactive material expires in January.  (c) 1999 Indian Country Today

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

http://www.wcco.com/news/stories/news-990106-054514.html

4. Local Nuke Plant Fire Extinguished (Minnesota)

The Associated Press Posted 5:34 a.m. January 6, 1999

Prairie Island Plant Fire Contained Quickly, No Injuries; Safety Systems
Unaffected, But On Reactor Automatically Shut Down

RED WING, Minn. -- Emergency crews responded to a transformer explosion and
fire at Northern States Power Co.'s Prairie Island nuclear plant.

A reservoir of oil that sits on top of a transformer caught fire after an
explosion at 1:12 p.m. Tuesday, the utility said. The fire was contained
within 30 yards of the equipment.

No injuries or structural damage were reported, and it did not affect the
safety systems of the plant, NSP spokesman Paul Adelman said. No customers
lost power.

The fire was put out quickly, and one reactor automatically shut down,
Adelman said. NSP reported the incident, as required, to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.

The transformer is located outside and served reactor Unit 1.

Adelman said transformers fail periodically.

From our archive:

Nov. 20, 1998: Shut-Down Nuke Plant Restarted Nov. 2: Auto Shut Down At
Nuclear Plant Sept. 19: NSP Closes Nuclear Power Plant Aug. 27:
Monticello's Nuclear Output Cut June 19: Prairie Island Reactor At Full
Power June 9: Prairie Island Plant Temporarily Closed

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

[Interesting; also in today's news is an analysis of 10-20% lost business
in aerospace industries Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman (ask and I'll send it to
you).  et]

http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/clinton-defense.html

5. Clinton to Pledge $7 Billion for Missile Defense System

By STEVEN LEE MYERS, January 7, 1999 New York Times

WASHINGTON -- Sixteen years after President Ronald Reagan envisioned a
"Star Wars" program to protect the United States from ballistic missile
attacks, President Clinton plans to pledge about $7 billion over six years
to build a limited missile defense system, even though he will leave a
final decision on whether to build it until later, officials said.

Clinton is not expected to decide whether -- and how -- to build a system
until the summer of 2000. And at this point, no one has proved that such a
system will work.

But the officials said the decision to set aside money in the Pentagon's
budget now was meant to underscore the Administration's political
commitment to the idea and to head off growing criticism from Republicans
in Congress that Clinton was not doing enough to defend the nation from a
missile strike.

Since Reagan unveiled his dream of creating an impenetrable shield against
nuclear missiles in 1983, the nation has spent some $55 billion trying to
develop a workable weapon -- so far to no avail. But never before has any
money been put in the budget actually to build one.

The money, which officials put at roughly $7 billion, is part of the more
than $100 billion in new spending Clinton is expected to propose giving the
Pentagon between now and 2005 when he submits his budget to Congress next
month.

The White House and Pentagon declined to discuss the spending proposal
today, but the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Henry H.
Shelton, signaled the Administration's intent at an appearance before the
Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

General Shelton said the Pentagon had the resources to continue to develop
the program. The Administration is "also putting money into the program so
that at the time that we have the technology, if in fact the threat
justifies it, then we could go ahead with the fielding," he said when
questioned about Clinton's commitment to a missile defense system.

The system now being developed and tested is a mere shadow of the
space-based network of satellites and lasers that Reagan envisioned to
knock out even the largest Soviet nuclear strike. The Pentagon officially
abandoned that concept in 1993 and has since concentrated on using ground-
or sea-based missiles to intercept perhaps a few missiles launched either
accidentally from a superpower like Russia or deliberately by a hostile
nation like North Korea.

Even with a pledge of money, the effort remains burdened with economic,
technological, political and diplomatic problems. And there are lingering
doubts that one will ever be feasible.

The system faces a pivotal test in June. The program's developers, led by
the Boeing Company, plan to launch a dummy missile from Vandenberg Air
Force Base, in California, and try to destroy it in space over the Pacific
Ocean with an interceptor missile fired from Kwajalein Atoll, in the
Marshall Islands.

Three more tests are scheduled before Clinton makes a decision next year.
Previous tests of interceptor missiles have failed, as have tests of
shorter-range missiles, like those in the troubled Theater High-Altitude
Area Defense program, or Thaad, run by the Army. But officials at the
Pentagon express confidence that a limited system may at last be
technologically at hand.

"Those of us who work in the program are very confident we're going to have
a working system, and we're going to have it soon," Lieut. Col. Richard A.
Lehner, a spokesman for the National Missile Defense Program, at the
Pentagon, said today.

Republicans in Congress have long wanted to revive at least part of
Reagan's original vision. Faced with Republican-sponsored legislation
mandating the creation of a national system, Clinton promised to proceed
with research for three years and decide in 2000 on whether the threat
justified building a system by 2003, a policy referred to a "three plus
three."

A Pentagon official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the
Administration had to include money in the Pentagon's future budgets or its
promise to consider building a system would ring hollow.

"This is a recognition that we can't have our cake and eat it, too," the
official said.

Others said the White House and Pentagon had concluded that the threat from
intercontinental missiles from hostile nations was growing, noting North
Korea's test of a three-staged missile on Aug. 31. Although Clinton and his
aides have not yet made a decision, one senior Administration official
said, "they're coming closer."

Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, a Republican and one of the
strongest proponents of a national missile defense, said he would welcome a
decision to put money in the budget. But Weldon said he remained skeptical
about the President's motives and vowed to press again for legislation to
build a system as soon as possible.

"It's certainly grudgingly coming around," Weldon said of the
Administration. "I'm still not sure there's a solid commitment there."

Many arms control advocates argue that a system -- if someday workable --
would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed by the United States
and the Soviet Union in 1972, which sharply limited the number, type and
placement of missiles that could be used to counter enemy missiles.

Other critics argue that the effort squanders resources that could better
spent trying to keep terrorists or hostile nations from ever acquiring the
technology to develop weapons in the first place. And even within the
Pentagon, there are those who argue that the real threat of nuclear attack
against the United States is a terrorist armed with a warhead in a car or
truck, not a nuclear-tipped missile fired from thousands of miles away.

"This does not seem to be a wise and balanced approach to U.S. defense
needs," said Spurgeon M. Keeny Jr., president of the Arms Control
Association in Washington.

_______________________________________________________________________

   * NucNews - to subscribe: [e-mail] - http://prop1.org *

                   Please forward -- help educate!
_______________________________________________________________________

- -
 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: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 16:05:36 -0500
From: Kathy Crandall <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) JOIN THE NAVY -  NEWS & ACTION ALERT

JOIN THE NAVY -  NEWS & ACTION ALERT

ENCLOSED IN THIS E-MAIL PLEASE FIND:
This is a long e-mail, so I've tried to give you navigating assistance.
Most everything is also available on the web.

The ACTION TOOLS - A MAILER & DE-ALERTING KITS can be previewed at the
Disarmament Clearinghouse site http://www.psr.org/Disarmhouse.htm
***************************************************************** NEWS
DEVELOPMENTS
*****************************************************************
(Text Below, or check these web sites)
1) Summary the Problem - (START II stalled, lack of disarmament
progress)

2) Bob Bell on START II:
http://library.whitehouse.gov/ThisWeek-plain.cgi?type=3Db&date=3D2&br
iefing=3D5 (This is a briefing on Readiness & military spending, with the
excerpts on START II which are included below)

3) Legislation preventing nuclear weapons' cuts below START I levels:
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/xcutfy99.htm (WARNING: this is very

long, legislative language. I recommend reading it on the web site if
you can)

4) The Navy Backs Cuts in Trident Subs (Wash. Post Jan. 7, 1999)
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-01/03/176l-01
0399-idx.html

5) More on Tridents (Wash. Post Jan 3,1999)
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-01/03/176l-01
0399-idx.html

6) ORDER YOUR DISARMAMENT MAILER NOW & The text of the Mailer (If you
can't read it on http://www.psr.org/Disarmhouse.htm )
*****************************************************************
ACTION ALERT -WHAT YOU CAN DO
*****************************************************************
(See additional details below)
1)A GREAT NEW TOOL FROM THE DISARMAMENT CLEARINGHOUSE - see
http://www.psr.org/Disarmhouse.htm
(The text is also at the very end of this e-mail - but I urge you to
check the web site where you can see the formatted version)
IT'S OUR MOVE . . . TIME TO ABOLISH NUCLEAR WEAPONS:

A Mailer  featuring two tear-off post cards - one to President Clinton,
the other to Russian Prime Minister Primakov. Recognizing that the
United States and Russia hold the keys to moving nuclear disarmament
progress forward, both cards urge de-alerting and disarmament progress
toward a nuclear weapons-free 21st Century.
ORDER YOUR MAILERS NOW (UP TO 500 FREE), CONTACT THE DISARMAMENT
CLEARINGHOUSE (SEE BELOW)

2)DE-ALERTING, along with reductions in nuclear arsenals, can take us a
step away from nuclear disaster, and a step toward a nuclear
weapons-free world ORDER YOUR DE-ALERTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESOURCE &
ACTION KIT NOW (UP TO 5 FOR FREE), CONTACT THE DISARMAMENT CLEARINGHOUSE

(SEE BELOW)The contents of the De- Alerting Kits can be found at:
http://www.psr.org/Disarmhouse-dealert.htm

3) CONTACT THE DISARMAMENT CLEARINGHOUSE for these resources, as well as

additional resources & assistance in your nuclear disarmament advocacy.

Disarmament Clearinghouse
Kathy Crandall Coordinator
1101 14th Street NW #700 Washington DC 20005
TEL: [phone] ext. 232
FAX: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Web: http://www.psr.org/Disarmhouse.htm
& for a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty NOW: http://www.psr.org/ctbtaction.htm

NEWS DEVELOPMENTS
1) THE PROBLEM

We were very hopeful that Russia would ratify START II in the Duma's
last legislative session -until the U.S. bombed Iraq.

Russian Duma ratification of START II has now been delayed - again.
Although it is still possible that Russia will ratify START II in its
Spring session, it may again be delayed . . .

Can we afford to keep waiting?

The Pentagon doesn't think so:

In November, 1998 the New York Times reported that the Pentagon  facing
paying hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain and eventually
rebuild nuclear weapons that it expected to scrap was urging unilateral
reductions in the strategic nuclear arsenal
(New York Times Nov. 23)

AND NOW the Navy says we should move forward too:

As reported by the Washington Post today,"the chief of naval operations
has told Congress for the first time that he would like to reduce the
number of operational Trident ballistic missile submarines . . ."

One significant problem is legislation
requiring that the U.S. nuclear weapon arsenal be maintained at START I
levels until Russian ratification of START II.

IT'S OUR MOVE . . .WHAT WE CAN DO: Let's join with the Pentagon and the
Navy calling for cuts now,(actually they're joining with us of course).
ORDER "It's Our Move. . . Time To Abolish Nuclear Weapons Mailers" and
De-alerting Resource & Action Kits now. Contact the Disarmament
Clearinghouse for additional resources & assistance to help you call for

disarmament progress now leading to a nuclear weapons-free 21st Century.

*****************************************************************

****************************************************************
 2) BOB BELL ON START II
http://library.whitehouse.gov/ThisWeek-plain.cgi?type=3Db&date=3D2&br
iefing=3D5 (This is a press briefing on readiness & military spending tha=
t

includes the excerpts below)

[From a White House briefing for reporters by Bob Bell, Special
Assistant for National Security Affairs, Tuesday, January 5, 1999.] *
Thanks To David Culp, Plutonium Challenge for posting this.


BELL: ... over the course of the last year, serious readiness concerns
became apparent. ... Now, why has this occurred? ... In part, it's
because it's taken longer than we had hoped for the Duma to act on START

II, and we haven't gotten as far down that slope as we wanted towards
the reductions called for at the Helsinki Agreement of 1997 in strategic

nuclear forces. ...

Q: You mentioned that being unable to implement the cuts under the START

treaty has, in effect, added costs to the military. Can you give an
estimate of that? And also, what is your assessment of the prospects of
finally getting START II signed in Moscow?

A: Well, I think it's principally an opportunity cost to date. If
things had gone much faster -- after all, the Senate approved START II
in January of '96 and the treaty was signed in '92, so -- if this had
been realized years earlier, you could speculate that we could have
gotten on to START III and much-reduced levels a lot sooner. But in
terms of staying at START I, which has been a Congressional mandate for
the last several years, that cost is just beginning to sink in. It's now

measured in hundreds of millions but will quickly grow to billions
unless the Duma acts.

We, of course, hope that the government in Moscow can deliver -- as they

are now telling us it is their intention to do -- this treaty early in
the year. They've made clear, in the recent week or two, that they don't

consider the treaty dead and they intend to resume that effort early in
the year. The question is simply going to be, within the Duma,
particularly within the Communist faction, where the sentiments rest.

Q: Is there any sign that -- what's the change? I mean, every six
months or so, President Yeltsin and other Russian officials have said,
we're sure we're going to get this ratified in the next few weeks.

It's gone on for several years. What's changing there?

A: Well, I think you're just seeing -- again, in this theme of victim of

our own success -- in part because of the triumph of this
democratization process in Russia, you have a truly independent Duma, no

longer a rubber stamp of the Kremlin, as during the Soviet Union.
And it's very vulnerable to the vicissitudes of developments on the
world stage. It just seems there's been one linkage or one complication
after another the last couple of years that have been the immediate,
proximate cause of the delay, and you have to work through each one of
those events. But you can't allow your foreign policy, or your national
security strategy, to be dictated simply by a calculation of START II
ratification prospects.
*****************************************************************
3)LEGISLATION that says U.S. arsenal must be maintained at START  I
levels until Russia Ratifies START II. (You can trust me, or read the
whole thing - I know there are some lawyers out there . . . )
additionally, the complete text in easier-to-read format is available on

the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers Web Site:
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/xcutfy99.htm

H.R.1119 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
                     (Enrolled Bill as Sent to President)

SEC. 1501. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OR DISMANTLEMENT OF
STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS.

(a) FUNDING LIMITATION- Funds available to the Department of Defense may

not be obligated or expended during the strategic delivery systems
retirement limitation period for retiring or dismantling, or for
preparing to retire or dismantle, any of the following strategic nuclear

delivery systems below the specified levels:

     (1) 71 B-52H bomber aircraft.

     (2) 18 Trident ballistic missile submarines.

     (3) 500 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles.

     (4) 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles.

(b) WAIVER AUTHORITY- If the START II Treaty enters into force during
the strategic delivery systems retirement limitation period, the
Secretary of Defense may waive the application of the limitation under
subsection (a) to the extent that the Secretary determines necessary in
order to implement the treaty.

(c) FUNDING LIMITATION ON EARLY DEACTIVATION-

     (1) If the limitation under subsection (a) ceases to apply by
reason of a waiver under subsection (b), funds available to the
Department of Defense may nevertheless not be obligated or expended to
implement any agreement or understanding to undertake substantial early
deactivation of a strategic nuclear delivery system specified in
subsection (a) until 30 days after the date on which the President
submits to Congress a report concerning such actions.

     (2) For purposes of this subsection and subsection (d), a
substantial early deactivation is an action during fiscal year during
the strategic delivery systems retirement limitation period to
deactivate a substantial number of strategic nuclear    delivery systems

specified in subsection (a) by--

          (A) removing nuclear warheads from those systems; or

          (B) taking other steps to remove those systems from combat
status.

     (3) A report under this subsection shall include the following:

          (A) The text of any understanding or agreement between the
United States and the Russian Federation concerning substantial early
deactivation of strategic nuclear delivery systems under the START II
Treaty.

          (B) The plan of the Department of Defense for implementing the

agreement.

          (C) An assessment of the Secretary of Defense of the adequacy
of the provisions contained in the agreement for monitoring and
verifying compliance of Russia with the terms of the agreement and,
based upon that assessment, the determination of the President
specifically as to whether the procedures for monitoring and
verification of compliance by Russia with the terms of the agreement are

adequate or inadequate.

          (D) A determination by the President as to whether the
deactivations to occur under the agreement will be carried out in a
symmetrical, reciprocal, or equivalent manner and whether the agreement
will require early deactivations of strategic forces by the United
States to be carried out substantially more rapidly than deactivations
of strategic forces by Russia.

          (E) An assessment by the President of the effect of the
proposed early deactivation on the stability of the strategic balance
and relative strategic nuclear capabilities of the United States and the

Russian Federation at various stages during deactivation and upon
completion, including a determination by the President specifically as
to whether the proposed early deactivations will adversely affect
strategic stability.

(d) FURTHER LIMITATION ON STRATEGIC FORCE REDUCTIONS-

     (1) Amounts available to the Department of Defense to implement an
agreement that results in a substantial early deactivation of strategic
forces may not be obligated for that purpose if in the report under
subsection (c)(3) the President determines any of the following:

          (A) That procedures for monitoring and verification of
compliance by Russia with the terms of the agreement are inadequate.

          (B) That the agreement will require early deactivations of
strategic forces by the United States to be carried out substantially
more rapidly than deactivations of strategic forces by Russia.

          (C) That the proposed early deactivations will adversely
affect strategic stability.

     (2) The limitation in paragraph (1), if effective by reason of a
determination by the President described in paragraph (1)(B), shall
cease to apply 30 days after the date on which the President notifies
Congress that the early deactivations under the agreement are in the
national interest of the United States.

(e) CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR SUSTAINMENT OF SYSTEMS-

     (1) Not later then February 15, 1998, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a plan for the sustainment beyond October 1,
1999, of United States strategic nuclear delivery systems and
alternative Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty   force structures in the
event that a strategic arms reduction agreement subsequent to the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty does not enter into force before 2004.

     (2) The plan shall include a discussion of the following matters:

          (A) The actions that are necessary to sustain the United
States strategic nuclear delivery systems, distinguishing between the
actions that are planned for and funded in the future-years defense
program and the actions that are not planned for and funded in the
future-years defense program.

          (B) The funding necessary to implement the plan, indicating
the extent to which the necessary funding is provided for in the
future-years defense program and the extent to which the necessary
funding is not provided for in the future-years defense program.

(f) START TREATIES DEFINED- In this section:

     (1) The term `Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty' means the Treaty
Between the United States of America and the United Soviet Socialist
Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms
(START), signed at Moscow on July 31, 1991, including related annexes on

agreed statements and definitions,   protocols, and memorandum of
understanding.

     (2) The term `START II Treaty' means the Treaty Between the United
States of America and the Russian Federation on Further Reduction and
Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, signed at Moscow on January 3,
1993, including the following protocols and memorandum of understanding,

all such documents being integral parts of and collectively referred to
as the `START II Treaty' (contained in Treaty Document 103-1):

          (A) The Protocol on Procedures Governing Elimination of Heavy
ICBMs and on Procedures Governing Conversion of Silo Launchers of Heavy
ICBMs Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and
the Russian Federation on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic
Offensive Arms (also known as the `Elimination   and Conversion
Protocol').
          (B) The Protocol on Exhibitions and Inspections of Heavy
Bombers Relating to the Treaty Between the United States and the Russian

Federation on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive
Arms (also known as the `Exhibitions and Inspections Protocol').

          (C) The Memorandum of Understanding on Warhead Attribution and

Heavy Bomber Data Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of
America and the Russian Federation on Further Reduction and Limitation
of Strategic Offensive Arms (also known as the `Memorandum on
Attribution').

(g) STRATEGIC DELIVERY SYSTEMS RETIREMENT LIMITATION PERIOD- For
purposes of this section, the term 'strategic delivery systems
retirement limitation period' means the period of fiscal years 1998 and
1999.
****************************************************************

4) WASHINGTON POST, Jan. 7
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-01/03/176l-01
0399-idx.html

Naval Chief Backs Cut In Force of Trident Subs:
14 Would Suffice, Admiral Tells Senate

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 7, 1999; Page A23

The chief of naval operations has told Congress for the first time that
he would like to reduce the number of operational Trident ballistic
missile submarines from 18 to 14, opening the way for Congress to repeal

its ban against cutting U.S. strategic nuclear force levels until the
Russian parliament ratifies the START II treaty.

"My personal belief is that a 14-boat force is the minimum acceptable
force right now," Adm. J.L. Johnson said.

Under present law, if the Russian Duma continues to delay approval of
the 1993 strategic arms control treaty as it has done for the past year,

the Navy must plan to spend up to $500 million in fiscal 2000 to stay
operational at the START I level of 18. That number includes four of the

older, giant Tridents that were scheduled to be decommissioned beginning

in 2002. [For the text of the law, see: The Coalition To Reduce Nuclear
Dangers' Site at http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/xcutfy99.htm ]

But at Tuesday's Senate Armed Services Committee session, when Chief of
Naval Operations Johnson was asked by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)
whether the Navy would rather have 14 of the subs and use the money for
other priorities, he replied, "Personally I would, yes, sir."

The amendment that froze strategic forces at START I levels was added
two years ago to the defense authorization bill by Sen. Robert C. Smith
R-N.H.), chairman of the Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.

Opponents of the provision want to debate the issue "based on what
forces are needed," a senior congressional aide said yesterday, "and not

on the politics associated with the arms control treaties."

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the committee, said before the
hearing that "we have to reevaluate priorities" on strategic weapons.
"We may be able to redirect money from strategic weapons to strategic
defense," he said. A spokesman said Smith was tied up with meetings
yesterday and unavailable for comment.

Eugene E. Habiger, a retired Air Force general and former head of the
U.S. Strategic Command, which included the Tridents, said "it would make

sense" for the Navy to go down to 14, because "there is no need to stay
at the START I level from a military prospective; although if you stay
at that level it may give you some political leverage" with the
Russians. But Habiger also noted that Moscow's "sub fleet is belly-up."

A military source familiar with intelligence said Moscow had a serious
problem with one of the ballistic subs in the Northern Fleet last year
when seawater got into the missile compartment when some seals leaked.
The sub immediately surfaced and was brought back into port. The other
alert Russian ballistic missile sub was brought back from its patrol in
the Pacific for repairs. So for two to three weeks, the Russians for the

first time in recent memory had no ballistic missile subs patrolling on
alert.

The Russians do keep at least two other ballistic missile subs on
pier-side alert, one in the Atlantic and the other in the Pacific.

The United States maintains five Trident subs on patrol alert, with five

others either coming or going on patrol and ready to fire their missiles

if needed. The Tridents each have 24 missiles that can carry up to eight

warheads. The warheads have seven times the force of the Hiroshima bomb
and are designed to destroy Russian missiles in hardened silos.

Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), who is pushing for the United States to begin
making unilateral reductions in its strategic forces, said yesterday
that "waiting for the Russians to act on START II is a mistake." With
their economy collapsing, their nuclear systems deteriorating and their
experiment with democracy on the line, Kerrey said, members of the
Russian parliament "don't have time to talk about nuclear arms
control."  As of today, there are 10 modern Tridents based at Kings Bay,

Ga., all armed with highly accurate D-5 missiles that can travel more
than 4,000 miles. Eight older Tridents, fitted with 24 of the earlier
C-4 missiles, are based at Bangor, Wash.

If current law continues, all eight of the older Tridents would have to
have their nuclear engines refurbished and their launching systems would

need to be retrofitted to carry modern D-5 missiles.
*************************************************************
5. WASH. POST Jan 3
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-01/03/176l-01
0399-idx.html

Questions Raised on Trident Subs
Cost and Size of Strategic Nuclear Deterrent Are Issues

                  By Walter Pincus
                  Washington Post Staff Writer
                  Sunday, January 3, 1999; Page A22

                  On any given day, at least five giant Trident
strategic ballistic missile submarines, each nearly the length of two
football fields, are submerged on patrol in the Pacific or Atlantic.

                  Each submarine is capable of firing 24
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), each of which has up to
eight warheads with many times the explosive power of the atomic bomb
that destroyed Hiroshima. Backing up these submarines are 13 more
Tridents, four or five of them either sailing toward patrol stations or
on their way home, but also prepared to launch missiles.

                  Although the 18-sub Trident force has never faced the
kind of public criticism that the more visible land-based ICBMs such as
the MX or Peacekeeper missiles did, that quiet acceptance of ballistic
missile submarines may soon be ending.

                  Questions are being raised, even from within the
military, about the cost of the strategic submarine force and why the
United States needs to maintain such a massive nuclear deterrent when
the world's other major nuclear power, Russia, is having trouble keeping

just one or two of its strategic nuclear submarines operational.

                  "Who are we preparing to assault or retaliate against
at this level of destructive power?" asked retired Adm. Eugene J.
Carroll Jr., deputy director of the Center for Defense Information, a
think tank that favors reducing arms. Noting that the five boats on
permanent patrol could  "eradicate the world," Carroll criticized as
"totally irrational" a congressional amendment that has prohibited
cutting the Trident force until
Russia ratifies the START II strategic arms reduction agreement.

                  Earlier this decade, the Navy acknowledged that it no
longer needed 18 Tridents, and prepared to reduce the number to 10 at
the end of the Bush administration. The Clinton administration strategic

nuclear review raised the number to 14.

                  Then Congress put into law a ban on any reductions
below the START I level of 18 submarines until the Russian parliament
ratifies START II, the 1993 treaty that would lower allowable strategic
nuclear warheads on land- and sea-based missiles to 3,500. Last month,
after Moscow protested the U.S. bombing of Iraq, the Russians again
delayed ratification of START II, at least until spring.

                  As a result, at least $500 million in additional
funding is likely to be needed in the Pentagon's fiscal 2000 budget to
keep the Trident force at START I  levels. If Moscow's failure to ratify

goes beyond next year, the Navy's added costs could grow to $1 billion
more a year to keep 18 Tridents operational.

                  According to a 1997 Congressional Budget Office study,

at START I levels "the Navy would probably need funding for additional
D-5 missiles, modifications to four submarines that carry C-4 missiles,
and overhauls, including refueling the nuclear cores," of the four
oldest Tridents that otherwise would have been decommissioned.
Additional amounts would be needed to keep extra crews on duty.

                  Frank J. Gaffney Jr., a Pentagon official during the
Reagan administration and now director of the Center for Security
Policy, defended maintaining  the current Trident force. Gaffney, whose
organization favors a firmer military posture, called the submarines
"the last vestige of a robust nuclear deterrent posture. . . . We should

modernize and keep them on station as long as possible. The last thing I

would cut is these boats that represent a credible, survivable force
against people who may not be deterred."

                  Prior to the end of the Cold War in 1991, the United
States had 34 ballistic missile submarines in operation carrying some
5,400 warheads or roughly 45 percent of America's strategic nuclear
warheads. Today, the 18 Trident submarines carry almost 3,400 strategic
warheads, or almost half  the strategic warheads in operation.

                  The missiles on each Trident have no preset targets,
but during their 60-day patrols the submarines are in position to launch

missiles at any spot on the globe. The Tridents are "extremely flexible,

capable of rapidly retargeting their missiles should the need arise,"
according to a Navy press release.

                  Ten Tridents are based at Kings Bay, Ga., and roam
primarily in the Atlantic. The remaining eight are based at Bangor,
Wash., and patrol the Pacific. The subs spend about 70 percent of the
year underway, using two crews, called Blue or Gold, that average 15
officers and 140 enlisted men. The eight original Tridents, beginning
with the USS Ohio in 1982, were equipped with 24  Trident I C-4
ballistic missiles. Beginning with the ninth Trident submarine, the USS
Tennessee, the subs were armed with the Trident II D-5 missile system.
Added funds in fiscal 2000 would permit the Ohio and other older subs to

be retrofitted to carry the D-5. The D-5 has warheads with a range of
4,000 miles and the ability to maneuver to avoid  any antiballistic
missile defense, although only Russia has even a rudimentary ABM system.

                  The D-5 is fired underwater by the pressure of
expanding gas within the launch tube. When the missile attains
sufficient distance from the submarine, the first stage motor ignites,
an aerospike engine extends and the boost stage begins. Within about two

minutes, after the third stage motor kicks in, the missile is traveling
faster than three miles per second,  according to Navy data.

                  Tridents can operate with extreme stealth and have
devices to thwart enemy antisubmarine warfare systems. They also have
four torpedo tubes and Mark 48 torpedoes.

                  Five years ago, the Congressional Budget Office
suggested that a reduction of the Trident fleet to 10 boats would enable

it to deter a less capable Russia and "other nuclear nations" whose
"stockpiles of long-range nuclear weapons . . . number in the tens of
warheads rather than the thousands."

                  In justifying this option, CBO said preventing a
regional nuclear power from using the weapons "may depend much more on
the capability of U.S. conventional forces, U.S. political actions, and
trends in world events rather than on the size of the U.S. nuclear
arsenal."

      =A9 Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company

*****************************************************************
6) **To order cards:**
send an e-mail message to: <[e-mail]>

Tell me: How many cards (Order up to 500 for free)

Tell me:  Would you like cards printed with the Disarmament
Clearinghouse return-address, or  would you like the return address
blank  so that you can stamp/ label your own return address?

Tell me: Your full address with zip code, and your phone number

We'd like to have as many postcards out before the State of the Union
Address - now scheduled for Jan. 19, but the postcards will have a valid

and compelling message through the Spring of 1999.

The mailers require standard first class postage (going up to 33 cents
on Jan. 10) - Of Course they work great for tabling/canvassing as well.

Each tear-off post card can be sent for .20 (post card rates are not
changing)

HERE'S THE MAILER . . . .

OUTSIDE PANEL 1 -

It's our move...

Time to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

- -------------------------------
 OUTSIDE PANEL 2
(in the return address... or this can be blank)
      Disarmament Clearinghouse
      A project of Peace Action * Physicians for Social
          Responsibility and Women's Action for New Directions
      1101 14th Street NW Suite 700
      Washington, DC 20005


- -----------------------------------
OUTSIDE PANEL 3

                         The Honorable Yevgeni Primakov
                         Prime Minister of the Russian Federation
                         2650 Wisconsin Avenue NW
                         Washington, DC 20007


- --------------------------------------
OUTSIDE PANEL 4

                         The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
                         The White House
                         Washington, DC 20500

- ---------------------------------------
INSIDE PANELS 1 & 2 (reverse side of cover)

      Despite the end of the Cold War there remain an estimated 36,000
nuclear weapons in the world.  Thousands of these are on hair-trigger
alert, ready to launch on a moment's notice.

THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT - NEITHER CAN WE
      Russia's plunge into economic chaos raises serious concerns
about that country's ability to control it's vast nuclear arsenal.
Kremlin officials now admit that Russia can no longer afford to maintain

thousands of nuclear weapons as envisioned under existing arms control
treaties.  Immediate U.S. action is crucial to ensure that Russia's
nuclear decline takes place in a controlled, verified manner instead of
a chaotic and dangerous freefall.
      Even the United States Pentagon, faced with the prospect of
spending billions of dollars on maintaining and nuclear weapons that we
clearly no longer need, is quietly urging President Clinton to
unilaterally scrap thousands of U.S. nuclear weapons.

A NEW ARMS RACE OR A NEW AGENDA FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT?
     An ever-growing number of countries are lining up to join the
nuclear club - increasing the risk of a nuclear catastrophe somewhere on

the planet.  But against this chilling backdrop, a new worldwide
movement is taking shape among governments and citizen groups to abolish

nuclear weapons once and for all.

Only strong U.S. leadership can avert another nuclear arms race and put
the world on the path to nuclear disarmament.

What you can do:

The United States and Russia hold the keys to a nuclear
weapons-free 21st Century. Contact President Clinton and Russian
Prime Minister Yevgeni Primakov today.

Tear off and sign the post cards below and mail them to White House and
the Russian Embassy in Washington, DC.  (Remember, handwritten letters
are always the most effective way to reach politicians, so if you have
time, write a letter)

Contact your Senators at U.S. Senate * Washington, DC 20510.  Urge them
to cut our massive Cold War nuclear arsenal.

Contact the Disarmament Clearinghouse for more information.
202.898.0150 ext. 232 [e-mail]
http://www.psr.org/Disarmhouse.htm

A project of: Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility
and Women's Action for New Directions
- ----------------------------------------------------------------- --

INSIDE PANEL 3

The Honorable Yevgeni Primakov
Prime Minister of the Russian Federation
2650 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20007

Dear Prime Minister:

I am increasingly concerned about the continued existence and spread of
nuclear weapons.  Despite the dramatic reduction in tensions between our

two countries, thousands of nuclear weapons remain on hair trigger
alert.  Surely, together, these two great countries can agree to relax
this Cold War nuclear posture and
greatly reduce the danger of an accidental or unauthorized nuclear
strike.

Only your leadership, along with the leadership of President Clinton,
can move the world away from the dangers of nuclear weapons and toward a

nuclear weapons-free 21st Cenutury. I urge you to work with President
Clinton to reduce rapidly the number of nuclear weapons in the world. In

addition, I urge you to take bold measures to lower immediately the
alert status of the nuclear weapons in your country's arsenal. I have
sent a similar message to President Clinton.

These measures will set the stage for a much safer future.

Sincerely,

______________________________________
 (name)

______________________________________
 (address)

_____________________________________
 (city, state, zip)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------
INSIDE PANEL 4

The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Clinton:

I am increasingly concerned about the continued existence and spread of
nuclear weapons.  Despite the end of the Cold War and the dramatic
reduction in tensions between the United States and Russia, thousands of

nuclear weapons remain on hair-trigger alert.

It is time to relax this dangerous and costly Cold War nuclear posture.
Even the Pentagon has come to the conclusion that our massive nuclear
arsenal is too costly to maintain.

Only your leadership, along with the leadership of the Russian
government, can move the world away from the dangers of nuclear weapons
and toward a nuclear weapons-free 21st Century. I urge you to take bold
measures to reduce immediately the alert status of the nuclear weapons
in the U.S. nuclear arsenal and to make a new round of nuclear reduction

talks with the Russian government a top priority in 1999.

These measures could become the most lasting and important part of your
legacy and will set the stage for a much safer future.

Sincerely,

- ----------------------------------
(name)

- ----------------------------------
(address)

- ----------------------------------
(city, state, zip)



- --
DISARMAMENT CLEARINGHOUSE
Nuclear Disarmament Information, Resources & Action Tools
Kathy Crandall, Coordinator
1101 14th Street NW #700, Washington DC 20005
TEL: [phone] ext. 232 FAX: [phone] ext. 232
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
http://www.psr.org/Disarmhouse.htm
http://www.psr.org/ctbtaction.htm

A project of: Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility
and Women's Action for New Directions



- -
 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 #56
**********************************

-
 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.