ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n071

Internet Message Format | 1999-02-04 | 63KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #71
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest     Friday, February 5 1999     Volume 01 : Number 071




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

Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:30:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) February 1999 Grassroots Newsletter

February 1999 Grassroots Newsletter

PETITIONS:

**Petitions keep flowing in from all corners of the globe.  Special thanks
to Masaaki Sakai and Jan Harwood for their dedication and efforts--I can
hardly keep up with all of the petitions they send in!  This past month I
have received over 4000 petitions, including almost 200 online signers.

Great News From Costa Rica!
Mitzi Stark writes:  "We have about 400 signatures so far.  Both
ex-president Jose Figueres and his mother, Karen Olsen, a prominent
political figure on here own, signed the petition.  The entire staff at the
Juan Santamaria Museum in Alajuela signed it."

Petition gathering carries the added benefit of providing an opportunity to
engage people in conversation about nuclear issues.

MUNICIPALITIES:

**On December 21, the City Council of Boulder, Colorado approved a
resolution in support of nuclear disarmament.  The passage of the
resolution made the front page in the Boulder Daily Camera.   Part of the
resolution states "Whereas, while funding for nuclear weapons development
grows, funding for the clean-up of radioactive materials at nuclear
facilities including Rocky Flats remains far too low, endangering
communities including Boulder...."  Congratulations to Tom Marshall and the
others at Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center for their hard work.

NEW ABOLITION 2000 ORGANIZATIONS:
1. Wisconsin Green Party, US
2. Starlab Research Laboratories in Brussels, Belgium
3. Pakistan Institute of Labor Education and Research, Pakistan
4. Office of the Americas in Los Angeles, US
5. National Lawyers Guild in New York, US
6. Committee to Bridge the Gap in Los Angeles, US
7. Committee of Concerned Scientists in Bayside, NY, US
8. Goonellabah Medical Center in NSW, Australia
9. Peace with Justice Center of Pomona Valley, CA, US
10. Buddhist International, US
11. Montclair Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, NJ, US
12. U.S. Pacifist Party, Denver Colorado, US
13. Action Group Mahila Vikas Kendra, India
14. Urban Development Institute, India
15. Women's Intl. League for Peace and Freedom, Los Angeles Branch, US
16. Arbeiterwohlfahrt Bezirksverband Hessen Sued e,v., Germany
For a complete list go to http://www.napf.org/abolition2000/organizs_all.html

CHURCHES AND ABOLITION 2000

**Thanks to Joe Murray for his efforts to bring Abolition 2000 to his
church.  We encourage others to follow his example.  In a letter to his
bishop, he states:

    "Would it not be an eloquent and compelling move for the Diocese of
Norwich formally to endorse the action of the Norwich City Council and
itself to adopt a resolution calling for the abolition of all nuclear
weapons?
    "It goes without saying that economic and political forces in our
region are opposed to what Abolition 2000 stands for.  Only ten days ago we
read that another $1.5 billion submarine, outfitted with nuclear missiles,
has been added to the defense budget.  Where else but from the active
support of our churches and from the work of grassroots organizations such
as Abolition 2000 can change take place?
    "Pope John Paul has spoken out forcefully on the subject of nuclear
abolition ever since the 1970s.  In the spirit of his goals for the new
millennium it would seem to me that there could be no higher priority for
us than the promotion of an international treaty banning all nuclear
weapons for all times, such as is proposed by Abolition 2000."

**Reverend Kathleen McTigue, Minister of the Unitarian Society of New
Haven, recently gave a sermon called "Disbanding the Nuclear Club."

    "In the spring, when India and then Pakistan detonated nuclear
bombs, I felt such sadness.  I felt shame and anger too, because I
understand that the choices made by India and Pakistan were mirrors of the
choices our own country made.  We  made possession of the bomb equivalent
to the most elite kinds of power and strength.  We  declared a closed
circle, those on the inside who could build as many bombs as they wanted
and those on the outside who couldn't build any at all.  Our blustery,
predictable response was to punish them for their small nuclear bombs while
righteously clinging to our own horde of enormous ones...Although I still
have the vague feeling that I should apologize for raising this unhappy
issue before us all, I will instead make you a promise: I will not let us
forget it again.  There's a group out there called Abolition 2000, and I
will gladly supply any of you who want to join me with the action manual
they've developed."

FEEDBACK

**Esther Farsnworth, from WILPF in Vermont, writes: "Most of our activities
are centered on involving and engaging individuals.  We believe that when
the mass becomes educated and enraged at the insane nuclear policy, they
will pressure the government.  We have met little resistance.  But we still
have much work to do in convincing people that we, at the grassroots, are
the ones who will bring change."

**Dick Bennett wrote: "Last night a group of friends, long advocates of
peace here in Fayetteville, AR, met to discuss what more we might do, given
Clinton's extreme increase in military funds, even including money for
Reagan's Star Wars (the extension of militarism to outer space, yes?).
Tentatively, we are planning 1) confrontation of the military recruiters in
the public schools, and 2) a reading of the names of the dead on both sides
including civilians in US wars, invasions, attacks, bombings in the 20th C."

OPPOSE INCREASE IN MILITARY SPENDING

**We urge you to use Clinton's recent increase in military spending as an
opportunity to voice your concern about this and related disarmament
issues.  Write to your local newspaper and point out that adding $112
billion to the military budget over the next six years is a step in the
WRONG direction.  We should not neglect our domestic policies just  because
our foreign policies are so lucrative for the arms dealers.

NO-FIRST-USE

**The opinion section of the Christian Science Monitor last week featured
an article called "Time for a no-first-use policy." Increased coverage of
this issue is encouraging, especially since the writers challenged NATO's
outdated defense doctrines.  They wrote: "We face a dilemma. If the
political value of nuclear weapons is not reduced, many nations will find
them hard to resist. Moreover, obtaining these weapons is no longer
difficult, thanks to simple and widely available 1945-era nuclear-weapon
technology."
http://www.cwsmonitor.com:80/durable/1999/01/28/p11s1.htm

RESOURCES

**New Abolition 2000 four-color brochures are being produced by Physicians
for Social Responsibility.  Contact Bob Tiller for more information at
[e-mail]

**This is a link to BASIC's report called Nuclear Futures--Western European
Options for Nuclear Risk Reduction: http://www.basicint.org/nuju3-0.htm

**Statements of religious leaders on nuclear abolition may be found at
http://www.napf.org/abolition2000/religious.html

EVENTS

**February 12-14: U.S. Abolition Campaign meeting in Santa Barbara.  For
information, email [e-mail]

**March 5: "People of Faith Call for Abolition" in commemoration of the
signing of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Contact Oak Ridge Environmental
Peace at [e-mail]

**March 8: Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, and Y2K, Washington, D.C.
Features Dr. Helen Caldicott, Michael Kraig, Dr. Ted Taylor, John Pike, and
others.  Contact:[e-mail] or 516-324-0655

**March 27: UNPLUG Salem Campaign (a coalition of 54 organizations) will
hold a rally at the Salem Nuclear Plant in New Jersey to commemorate the
20th anniversary of the Three Mile Island meltdown.  Contact Norm Cohen at
[e-mail]





- -
 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, 4 Feb 1999 20:06:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Timothy Bruening <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Y2K Letter To The Editor

I am trying to write a letter to the editor about the danger of the Y2K bug
triggering a nuclear war by causing our early warning systems to falsely
indicate a nuclear attack, or by shutting down our early warning systems and
thus causing our military personnel to panic and launch our nuclear
missiles.  However, I am suffering from writer's block.  Please help.

I am also trying to write a letter about Clinton's desire to deploy an ABM
system.


- -
 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, 4 Feb 1999 20:56:52 -0800
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Y2K=>Nuclear Abolition 2000?

[suggestion following]
The Bakersfield Californian Newpaper
Thursday, February 4, 1999

Russia asks for advice, money to solve Y2K glitch

by Angela Charlton
The Associated Press

MOSCOW  --  Russia needs up to $3 billion to tackle the Year 2000 computer
glitch -- six times the original estimate -- a top official announced
Wednesday as he appealed to the United States and NATO to help fix computers
that control Russia's nuclear weapons.

While many countries have been working on the so-called Y2K "millennium bug"
problem for years, some key players, including Russia and China, have been
slower to address it.

Last month, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre acknowledged "some
nervousness" in Washington about potential computer problems in Russia.
"They don't seem to have the same level of urgency that we have had over
it", he said.

The man leading Russia's efforts to solve the Y2K finally responded
Wednesday by asking NATO and the U.S. Department of Defense for advice --
and money.

Russia wants all sides to "speak the same language", Alexander Krupnov,
chairman of the Central Telecommunications Commission, said Wednesday.
"We're in a critical situation in several areas" -- including the Defense
Ministry.

The problem arises because early programmers trying to save memory space
used only two digits to identify the year --  meaning that 2000 looks the
same as 1900, throwing off calculations involving dates.

Russia has already agreed to let NATO experts investigate the potential
danger to Russian weapons systems.

While an errant misile launch brought on by a computer failure would be
highly unlikely, computer snags could sabotage radar and telecommunications
networks that are the backbone for Russia's system to detect foreign
launches.

Meanwhile, in China, a survey of the country's most crucial enterprises
showed that more than half didn't even know how to detect the computer
glitch in their systems, the official Beijing Morning Post reported
Wednesday.

Little assistance is being provided to agencies and enterprises outside
crucial finance, aviation, telecommunications, and transportation sectors.

Still, many analysts say Russia and China have less to worry about than
countries like the United States, because they have far fewer computers and
a lower overall level of technology.

[end of article]

[suggestion]:

This indicates a reasonable approach to incorporate the movement for an
agreement to abolish all nuclear weapons by the year 2000 (Abolition2000)
with the concerns about the Y2K problem.

With the intensity of activity on both of these issues, why not envision a
deactivation of all nuclear weapons effective January 31, 1999, and all this
year create public demonstrations of support for this idea with Global Peace
Walks conducted regularly in communities around the world?

"Nuclear and general disarmament is no longer a game of the mind, but the
only realistic course for the future of humanity and all life on Earth",
Nichidatsu Fujii

For more information on conducting local Global Peace Walks in support of
the Global Peace Walk 1999-2000, see http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000



- -
 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, 05 Feb 1999 06:34:16 -0500
From: Peace though Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews (US) 2/5/99 - Plutonium dangers

- --=====================_11805499==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


1. Energy Dept. To Review Plutonium
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/washington/story.html?s=v/ap/1999012
2/pl/plutonium_plan_3.html
Plutonium Program May Be Dangerous
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/washington/story.html?s=v/ap/1999012
2/pl/plutonium_plan_2.html

2. Westinghouse nuclear business ready to go - Sale needs final U.S. approval
http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/19990204west2.asp
Who Killed Westinghouse?  http://www.post-gazette.com/westinghouse/default.asp

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

1. Energy Dept. To Review Plutonium
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/washington/story.html?s=v/ap/1999012
2/pl/plutonium_plan_3.html

SEE also:
Plutonium Program May Be Dangerous
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/washington/story.html?s=v/ap/1999012
2/pl/plutonium_plan_2.html

By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP January 22 1999) - The Energy Department plans to review a
private
study that claims using a plutonium-based fuel in civilian reactors poses
greater safety risks than previously acknowledged, officials said.

But a department spokesman said a summary of the Nuclear Control Institute
study suggests some flaws. ``We do take issue with many of the basic
assumptions,'' spokesman Matthew Donoghue said.

The institute, a private watchdog group that specializes in nuclear
proliferation issues, opposes an Energy Department plan to process 36 tons
of weapons-grade plutonium into a mixed oxide, or MOX, and burning that
fuel in civilian power reactors. It objects to mixing military and civilian
nuclear programs because of proliferation concerns.

The department is expected next month to issue a contract to a consortium -
including two electric utilities - for processing and burning MOX fuel at six
reactors in South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia.

The NCI study claims the department has severely underestimated the
number of potential cancer deaths that would occur should there be a major
release of radiation from reactors using the MOX fuel.

Using the government's own calculations, Edwin Lyman, an energy physicist
and the study's author, concluded nearly twice as many cancer deaths could
occur from a severe accident using MOX fuel than if conventional uranium
were in use. That could mean 1,430 to 6,165 additional eventual cancer
deaths as a result of exposure during the first week after an accident, he
said.

Lyman said the fuel, processed from plutonium, would release a much larger
burst of highly radioactive and toxic materials known as actinides - including
plutonium, americium, cesium and curium - than the low-enriched uranium
fuel that normally is used.

These conclusions conflict sharply with the findings of the Energy
Department. In a draft environmental impact analysis, the agency concluded
that even a severe accident would cause at most 8 percent more - and
possibly fewer - cancer deaths. That compares with the 27 percent to 96
percent increase calculated by Lyman.

Lyman argues that the department study assumed an unrealistically low
release of actinides and use of an advanced-design reactor not yet built
instead of reactors that actually would be used. ``They didn't ask the hard
questions,'' he said.

The department on Friday stood by its calculations, although Donoghue, the
spokesman, said the NCI study would be closely examined once the full
report is received. Lyman made public only a summary, saying the report
was being peer-reviewed.

The consortium expected to be given the Energy Department contract
consists of two utilities - Duke Power Co. and Virginia Power Co. - and the
French nuclear fuel manufacturer Cogema.

``We believe the MOX program is safe,'' said Joe Maher, a spokesman for
Duke Power, based in Charlotte, N.C. He noted the National Academy of
Sciences has endorsed such disposal of plutonium.

Richard Zuercher, a spokesman for Virginia Power, said the utility has been
assured that use of MOX fuel would ``pose no added risk to the employees
or the public, and that's a safe thing to do.''

Paul Leventhal, the NCI's president, acknowledged that Lyman's findings
assume the severest of nuclear accidents - one in which the reactor's steel
and concrete containment dome is breached and allows radiation to stream
into the environment.

Such an accident, he said, would be ``highly improbable,'' but must still be
taken seriously by federal regulators weighing public risk.

In America's worst nuclear accident, at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island
power plant in 1979, the containment vessel remained intact. The world's
worst civilian nuclear accident at Chernobyl involved a reactor without a
containment dome.

Duke Power has said it would use two reactors at the McGuire plant south of
Charlotte, N.C., and two reactors at Catawba plant near Rock Hill, S.C.

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

2. Westinghouse nuclear business ready to go - Sale needs final U.S. approval

http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/19990204west2.asp

Thursday, February 04, 1999

By Len Boselovic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Staff Writer

Morrison Knudsen Corp. and its partner, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., hope to
complete their acquisition of the last pieces of Westinghouse Electric Corp. by
the end of March, company officials said yesterday.

The Boise, Idaho, engineering and construction firm said the only remaining
hurdle was resolving government concerns over a foreign company getting its
hands on federally supported nuclear technology. The U.S.-British joint venture
is acquiring Westinghouse's nuclear energy and government operations
businesses.

Yesterday, the partners submitted documents to a government panel that now has
30 days to review the transaction. Morrison Knudsen officials said they have
already discussed foreign ownership concerns with government officials.

"We feel very confident it will close here in the next couple of months," said
Morrison Knudsen Chairman Dennis Washington.

Morrison Knudsen and British Nuclear announced in June they would pay nearly
$1.2 billion for the Monroeville-based businesses, which had revenues of $420
million last year.

Morrison Knudsen will own a 60 percent stake and British Nuclear will hold a 40
percent stake. The purchase includes $200 million in cash and the assumption of
about $950 million in liabilities and commitments.

The partners plan to keep the Westinghouse name as well as the Monroeville
headquarters. The nuclear energy and government operations businesses employ
24,000, including more than 3,000 in the region, spokesman Vaughn Gilbert said.

The nuclear business designs and maintains nuclear plants, while the government
unit manages nuclear cleanup operations for the Army and Department of Energy.
Washington said Morrison Knudsen will bring construction experience to the
partnership while British Fuels will supply nuclear expertise.

"We hope that we can grow this company and we're excited about the pool of
talented people there in Pittsburgh," he said.

Washington said the only major change at Westinghouse since the deal was
announced last summer was the loss of the five-year, $1.4 billion contract to
manage the Bettis Atomic facility in West Mifflin. The contract was awarded to
the Bechtel Group.

Thomas Zarges, the Morrison Knudsen executive who will be chairman of the
government services business, said the company was bidding for a Department of
Energy contract to manage the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory. The five-year contract is scheduled to be awarded in June. DOE
spokesman Brad Bugger said the current contract has an annual value of $600
million to $700 million.

Who Killed Westinghouse?  http://www.post-gazette.com/westinghouse/default.asp

_____________________________________________________________

       * NucNews - to subscribe: [e-mail] - http://prop1.org *
                         Say "Please Subscribe NucNews"
NucNews Archive: HTTP://WWW.ONELIST.COM/arcindex.cgi?listname=NucNews
           since January 13, 1999; for earlier editions - write [e-mail]
                          ---------------------------------------

   NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
  distributed without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior
       interest in receiving this information, for non-profit research and
             educational purposes only. For more information go to:
                <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml>
_____________________________________________________________
- --=====================_11805499==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html><div>1. Energy Dept. To Review Plutonium</div>
<div><a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/washington/story.html?s=v/ap/19990122/pl/plutonium_plan_3.html" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/washington/story.html?s=v/ap/19990122/pl/plutonium_plan_3.html</a></div>
<div>Plutonium Program May Be Dangerous</div>
<div><a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/washington/story.html?s=v/ap/19990122/pl/plutonium_plan_2.html" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/washington/story.html?s=v/ap/19990122/pl/plutonium_plan_2.html</a></div>
<br>
<div>2. Westinghouse nuclear business ready to go - Sale needs final U.S.
approval </div>
<div><a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/19990204west2.asp" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/19990204west2.asp</a></div>
<div>Who Killed Westinghouse?
<a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/westinghouse/default.asp" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.post-gazette.com/westinghouse/default.asp</a></div>
<br>
<div>----------------------------------------</div>
<br>
<div>1. Energy Dept. To Review Plutonium</div>
<div><a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/washington/story.html?s=v/ap/19990122/pl/plutonium_plan_3.html" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/washington/story.html?s=v/ap/19990122/pl/plutonium_plan_3.html</a></div>
<br>
<div>SEE also:</div>
<div>Plutonium Program May Be Dangerous</div>
<div><a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/washington/story.html?s=v/ap/19990122/pl/plutonium_plan_2.html" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/washington/story.html?s=v/ap/19990122/pl/plutonium_plan_2.html</a></div>
<br>
<div>By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer </div>
<br>
<div>WASHINGTON (AP January 22 1999) - The Energy Department plans to
review a private</div>
<div>study that claims using a plutonium-based fuel in civilian reactors
poses</div>
<div>greater safety risks than previously acknowledged, officials
said.</div>
<br>
<div>But a department spokesman said a summary of the Nuclear Control
Institute</div>
<div>study suggests some flaws. ``We do take issue with many of the
basic</div>
<div>assumptions,'' spokesman Matthew Donoghue said.</div>
<br>
<div>The institute, a private watchdog group that specializes in
nuclear</div>
<div>proliferation issues, opposes an Energy Department plan to process
36 tons</div>
<div>of weapons-grade plutonium into a mixed oxide, or MOX, and burning
that</div>
<div>fuel in civilian power reactors. It objects to mixing military and
civilian</div>
<div>nuclear programs because of proliferation concerns.</div>
<br>
<div>The department is expected next month to issue a contract to a
consortium -</div>
<div>including two electric utilities - for processing and burning MOX
fuel at six</div>
<div>reactors in South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia.</div>
<br>
<div>The NCI study claims the department has severely underestimated
the</div>
<div>number of potential cancer deaths that would occur should there be a
major</div>
<div>release of radiation from reactors using the MOX fuel.</div>
<br>
<div>Using the government's own calculations, Edwin Lyman, an energy
physicist</div>
<div>and the study's author, concluded nearly twice as many cancer deaths
could</div>
<div>occur from a severe accident using MOX fuel than if conventional
uranium</div>
<div>were in use. That could mean 1,430 to 6,165 additional eventual
cancer</div>
<div>deaths as a result of exposure during the first week after an
accident, he said.</div>
<br>
<div>Lyman said the fuel, processed from plutonium, would release a much
larger</div>
<div>burst of highly radioactive and toxic materials known as actinides -
including</div>
<div>plutonium, americium, cesium and curium - than the low-enriched
uranium</div>
<div>fuel that normally is used.</div>
<br>
<div>These conclusions conflict sharply with the findings of the
Energy</div>
<div>Department. In a draft environmental impact analysis, the agency
concluded</div>
<div>that even a severe accident would cause at most 8 percent more -
and</div>
<div>possibly fewer - cancer deaths. That compares with the 27 percent to
96</div>
<div>percent increase calculated by Lyman.</div>
<br>
<div>Lyman argues that the department study assumed an unrealistically
low</div>
<div>release of actinides and use of an advanced-design reactor not yet
built</div>
<div>instead of reactors that actually would be used. ``They didn't ask
the hard</div>
<div>questions,'' he said.</div>
<br>
<div>The department on Friday stood by its calculations, although
Donoghue, the</div>
<div>spokesman, said the NCI study would be closely examined once the
full</div>
<div>report is received. Lyman made public only a summary, saying the
report</div>
<div>was being peer-reviewed.</div>
<br>
<div>The consortium expected to be given the Energy Department
contract</div>
<div>consists of two utilities - Duke Power Co. and Virginia Power Co. -
and the</div>
<div>French nuclear fuel manufacturer Cogema.</div>
<br>
<div>``We believe the MOX program is safe,'' said Joe Maher, a spokesman
for</div>
<div>Duke Power, based in Charlotte, N.C. He noted the National Academy
of</div>
<div>Sciences has endorsed such disposal of plutonium.</div>
<br>
<div>Richard Zuercher, a spokesman for Virginia Power, said the utility
has been</div>
<div>assured that use of MOX fuel would ``pose no added risk to the
employees</div>
<div>or the public, and that's a safe thing to do.''</div>
<br>
<div>Paul Leventhal, the NCI's president, acknowledged that Lyman's
findings</div>
<div>assume the severest of nuclear accidents - one in which the
reactor's steel</div>
<div>and concrete containment dome is breached and allows radiation to
stream</div>
<div>into the environment.</div>
<br>
<div>Such an accident, he said, would be ``highly improbable,'' but must
still be</div>
<div>taken seriously by federal regulators weighing public risk.</div>
<br>
<div>In America's worst nuclear accident, at Pennsylvania's Three Mile
Island</div>
<div>power plant in 1979, the containment vessel remained intact. The
world's</div>
<div>worst civilian nuclear accident at Chernobyl involved a reactor
without a</div>
<div>containment dome.</div>
<br>
<div>Duke Power has said it would use two reactors at the McGuire plant
south of</div>
<div>Charlotte, N.C., and two reactors at Catawba plant near Rock Hill,
S.C.</div>
<br>
<div>----------------------------------------</div>
<br>
<div>2. Westinghouse nuclear business ready to go - Sale needs final U.S.
approval </div>
<br>
<div><a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/19990204west2.asp" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/19990204west2.asp</a></div>
<br>
<div>Thursday, February 04, 1999</div>
<br>
<div>By Len Boselovic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Staff Writer </div>
<br>
<div>Morrison Knudsen Corp. and its partner, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.,
hope to complete their acquisition of the last pieces of Westinghouse
Electric Corp. by the end of March, company officials said
yesterday.</div>
<br>
<div>The Boise, Idaho, engineering and construction firm said the only
remaining hurdle was resolving government concerns over a foreign company
getting its hands on federally supported nuclear technology. The
U.S.-British joint venture is acquiring Westinghouse's nuclear energy and
government operations businesses.</div>
<br>
<div>Yesterday, the partners submitted documents to a government panel
that now has 30 days to review the transaction. Morrison Knudsen
officials said they have already discussed foreign ownership concerns
with government officials.</div>
<br>
<div>"We feel very confident it will close here in the next couple
of months," said Morrison Knudsen Chairman Dennis
Washington.</div>
<br>
<div>Morrison Knudsen and British Nuclear announced in June they would
pay nearly $1.2 billion for the Monroeville-based businesses, which had
revenues of $420 million last year. </div>
<br>
<div>Morrison Knudsen will own a 60 percent stake and British Nuclear
will hold a 40 percent stake. The purchase includes $200 million in cash
and the assumption of about $950 million in liabilities and
commitments.</div>
<br>
<div>The partners plan to keep the Westinghouse name as well as the
Monroeville headquarters. The nuclear energy and government operations
businesses employ 24,000, including more than 3,000 in the region,
spokesman Vaughn Gilbert said.</div>
<br>
<div>The nuclear business designs and maintains nuclear plants, while the
government unit manages nuclear cleanup operations for the Army and
Department of Energy. Washington said Morrison Knudsen will bring
construction experience to the partnership while British Fuels will
supply nuclear expertise.</div>
<br>
<div>"We hope that we can grow this company and we're excited about
the pool of talented people there in Pittsburgh," he said.</div>
<br>
<div>Washington said the only major change at Westinghouse since the deal
was announced last summer was the loss of the five-year, $1.4 billion
contract to manage the Bettis Atomic facility in West Mifflin. The
contract was awarded to the Bechtel Group.</div>
<br>
<div>Thomas Zarges, the Morrison Knudsen executive who will be chairman
of the government services business, said the company was bidding for a
Department of Energy contract to manage the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory. The five-year contract is scheduled to be
awarded in June. DOE spokesman Brad Bugger said the current contract has
an annual value of $600 million to $700 million. </div>
<br>
<div>Who Killed Westinghouse?
<a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/westinghouse/default.asp" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.post-gazette.com/westinghouse/default.asp</a></div>
<br>

_____________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
       * NucNews - to subscribe:
[e-mail] -
<a href="http://prop1.org/" eudora="autourl">http://prop1.org</a> *<br>

Say "Please Subscribe NucNews"<br>
<font size=2><b>NucNews Archive</b>:
<a href="http://www.onelist.com/arcindex.cgi?listname=NucNews" eudora="autourl">HTTP://WWW.ONELIST.COM/arcindex.cgi?listname=NucNews</a><br>
           since
January 13, 1999; for earlier editions - write [e-mail]<br>
</font><font size=1>
<dl>
<dl>
<dd>
- ---------------------------------------<br>
<br>

<dd>   NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107,
this material is
<dd>  distributed without profit or payment, to those who have
expressed a prior
<dd>       interest in receiving this
information, for non-profit research and
<dd>
educational purposes only. For more information go to:
<dd>
<</font><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml" eudora="autourl"><font size=1 color="#0000FF"><u>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml</a></font></u><font size=1>>
</font>
</dl>
</dl>_____________________________________________________________</html>

- --=====================_11805499==_.ALT--


- -
 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, 05 Feb 1999 12:37:40 -0500
From: Kathy Crandall <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) [Fwd: Disarmament mission statement]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------61EFD140C23DE0213BC725CD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Here are some suggestions on mission statement and  strategies from
Arjun Makhijani at Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
(IEER)

- --
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]
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
http://www.psr.org/Disarmhouse.htm
http://www.psr.org/ctbtaction.htm

A project of: Friends Committee on National Legislation
     Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility
     and Women's Action for New Directions


- --------------61EFD140C23DE0213BC725CD
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from pppe-11.igc.org ([e-mail])
    by igce.igc.org (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id GAA14796
    for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 06:17:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 06:17:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
To: [e-mail]
From: Arjun Makhijani <[e-mail]>
Subject: Disarmament mission statement
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by igce.igc.org id GAA14796
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by kds5.kivex.com id MAA20795

Kathy:

Would you please post this to the Abolition list as my contribution the
mission statment discussion?   Thanks. Arjun

Draft Goals Statement for the US Nuclear Disarmament Campaign
Arjun Makhijani, 5 Feb. 1999

(Note: Section IV (Analysis) is meant as a contribution to the strategy
discussion at the Santa Barbara meeting.)


I. Goals

The goal of the campaign for enduring nuclear disarmament is to reduce th=
e
risk of the nuclear weapons use by design, miscalculation, or accident to
the lowest possible level at any given time and to strive to continually
lower this risk.

        Explanation =20

Disarmament is a process in which all nuclear weapons states:
=B7 take interim actions to continually reduce risks of nuclear weapons u=
se
arising from any cause
=B7 refrain from actions that might re-ignite a nuclear arms race or that
might cause or abet the reversal of prior steps or commitments to nuclear
disarmament. =20

A major milestone in this process would be the achievement of the complet=
e
and verified dismantlement of all existing nuclear arsenals and the
infrastructure to design, produce, and test them.  However, the goal of
enduring nuclear disarmament extends well beyond the verified elimination=
 of
existing arsenals. Maintaining the grave economic inequalities and
injustices in the world - less than four hundred people have more wealth
that the world's poorest two billion - requires frequent resort to violen=
ce
and the threats of violence, from the local to the global.  A sustainable
state of nuclear disarmament cannot be achieved without addressing such
underlying injustices.  Therefore, much technical, economic, social,
political, and moral effort will be needed to create conditions in which
there is no reversion to nuclear weapons after the elimination of present
arsenals.

Within the nuclear weapons sphere, a principal requirement for preventing
reversion to nuclear weapons will be that governments discard deterrence
doctrines as the basis of their strategic postures and plans.  Specifical=
ly,
they must reject all doctrines of nuclear weapons use or threat of use fo=
r
any reason, including retaliation for an attack of any kind (including
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons) by a state or non-state party.  =
The
doctrine of retaliation must be replaced by a non-retaliatory process to
bring violators to justice in consonance with the Nuremberg principles an=
d
the universal declaration of human rights.

Respect for human rights in the nuclear disarmament context includes taki=
ng
due account of the severe harm that has already been done by nuclear weap=
ons
production and testing to all generations since the start of the nuclear
weapons era, extending out for uncounted generations into the future.
Therefore, repair of the health and environmental damage to the extent
possible as well as sound management of the toxic legacy of nuclear weapo=
ns
production and testing are essential to the process creating enduring
nuclear disarmament.  This redress of health and environmental damage mus=
t
include explicit recognition of the disproportionate harm that nuclear
weapons production and testing has inflicted on many colonial and indigen=
ous
people.

II. Morality, Deterrence, and Retaliation

Almost everyone favors nuclear disarmament in principle, but this surface
agreement hides differing points of view about nuclear deterrence, which
form the core of the controversy about nuclear armaments. =20

At bottom, the problem of nuclear deterrence is a moral question, as was
recently pointed out in a statement signed by 71 Pax Christi Catholic
bishops.  Those who advocate nuclear deterrence, whether in response to a
nuclear strike or as part of a first use strategy, make an implicit moral
assumption that pre-dates the nuclear era: they do not differentiate betw=
een
soldiers and non-combatants in a time of war.  It is therefore considered
acceptable to kill large numbers of non-combatants in response to such
killing by another state.

In fact, over the last few centuries, the distinction between combatants =
and
non-combatants has been steadily eroded.  That erosion has been most
dramatic in this century with the advent of air power.  The terrorization=
 of
civilian populations was put forward early in this century as the basic
tenet of air warfare and it was carried out with terrible efficiency in
World War II: Hitler's bombing of London and Coventry, the British bombin=
gs
of German cities, the US fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and the atom=
ic
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Since the distinction between soldiers and non-combatants has been steadi=
ly
eroded, partly due to the importance of industry (such as petroleum
refineries or electric power plants) in war, one can view the moral probl=
em
most clearly by considering the effects of military doctrine on children.
The central moral problem of nuclear deterrence is that it involves the
planning of the mass killing of people, including children.  This is beca=
use
the core requirement for the success for a deterrence strategy is that, t=
o
be effective, there must be a readiness to actually use the weapons.  Its
reality can be viewed not only in the history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki b=
ut
also in all the terror bombings of World War II.  The central public
rationale of the US government put forward for the atomic bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that American soldiers' lives were saved.
Trading off children's lives for those of grown-ups was seen as acceptabl=
e.
(The idea that Japanese civilians were saved due to an early end to the w=
ar
as a result of the use of the two nuclear bombs was added as an
embellishment after the war to further rationalize their use.  Considerat=
ion
for Japanese civilians, or even Americans of Japanese origin, played no r=
ole
in the decision to use the bombs, any more than consideration for
non-Japanese civilians was part of Japanese war policy.  In fact many
Americans, mostly of Japanese origin who were trapped in Japan at the sta=
rt
of the war as well as a few US prisoners-of-war, were killed in the
Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings.)

To try to give a moral basis to society in which the killing of the child=
ren
is unacceptable even in retaliation for such killing by another person or
state is neither far-fetched nor unachievable.  No one would suggest, for
instance, that the children of the Nazis operators of the death camps sho=
uld
have been killed for the actions of their fathers.  It would be generally
recognized as morally repugnant to suggest that terror be visited upon th=
e
family of Timothy McVeigh, whose bombing of the Murrah building resulted =
in
deaths in so many families.  Yet, the practice of killing non-combatants,
including children, has been integral to modern war-making.

The nuclear establishment's endangerment of the people of their own
countries, including children, through environmental damage also raises t=
he
same moral questions in an even more immediate way, since nuclear weapons
production and testing results in some harm.  For instance, atmospheric
testing and much underground testing rained fallout on the entire United
States, which resulted in high radiation doses to the thyroids of million=
s
of children who drank contaminated milk.  The AEC and Pentagon were aware=
 of
the patterns of the fallout.  The AEC gave advance warning to Kodak about
fallout patterns so Kodak could protect its film, but did not warn milk
producers and consumers about contaminated milk they knew would result fr=
om
pastures polluted with iodine-131.  Some underground testing has vented
large amounts of radioactivity, and it will leave contamination undergrou=
nd
to threaten generations for hundreds of thousands of years.  The situatio=
n
is qualitatively similar in other nuclear weapons states, though we a hav=
e a
less detailed idea of the environmental problems created there.

If generations now living have not been adequately consulted, future
generations have not been consulted at all.  They are likely to bear some=
 of
the worst effects of the burden of radioactive waste, and of contaminated
soil, water, and materials.  Nuclear weapons establishments seem incapabl=
e
of carrying out clean-up and waste management programs that have technica=
l
and environmental integrity, despite the presence of many competent and
dedicated technical people inside them who could design and implement suc=
h
programs.  In other words, nuclear-bomb-making seems to be connected with
environmental endangerment of children's health, just as they jeopardize
children's security.  So long as there are nuclear arsenals, we can neith=
er
minimize health risks nor security risks.


III. Steps towards enduring nuclear disarmament

A variety of steps are needed to lay the foundation of a disarmament proc=
ess
that will lead to the elimination of existing arsenals and increase the
likelihood that there will be no reversion to nuclear weapons.  The measu=
res
described below related only to nuclear weapons.  Progress in other areas
will also be required.  For instance, a good deal of the pressure to
maintain arsenals arises from pork-barrel politics.  These questions must=
 be
addressed in parallel with the steps discussed below as part of the strat=
egy
and tactics of actually accomplishing the objectives listed here.

1. Short-term measures

Short-term technical measures can be accomplished within about one year (=
or
less).  Strategically, they should reduce immediate dangers to the larges=
t
possible extent, lay the foundation for verification of stocks of materia=
ls,
warheads, and delivery systems.  On the political side, they are designed=
 to
further trust and confidence by strict adherence to existing treaties,
reduction of arsenals and elimination of first-strike and first-use postu=
res.

1. Completion of at least one effective de-alerting measure  for all nucl=
ear
weapons in all eight nuclear weapons states=20
2. Strict adherence to existing international arms control and disarmamen=
t
treaties, commitments, and agreements, including the ABM treaty as signed=
 in
1972, Article VI of the NPT as interpreted by the World Court, and the CT=
BT.=20
3. Reduction of US and Russian strategic arsenals to less than 1,000
warheads each, with no reserve warheads or materials, permanent removal f=
rom
the US and Russian arsenals of all remaining "tactical" nuclear weapons, =
and
withdrawal of all weapons based abroad to the territories of the weapons =
states.
4. Shutdown of production of all weapons-usable radioactive materials for
military purposes (plutonium, highly enriched uranium, and tritium).=20
5. Unilateral declarations of no-first-use policies by all nuclear weapon=
s
states (China and India have already made such declarations) and
reconfiguration of arsenals, military doctrines and training to correspon=
d
to such declarations.
6. A halt to new nuclear weapons production and design, and to modificati=
ons
of existing weapons.  Nuclear warheads deemed unsafe should be dismantled.

2. Medium-term measures

Medium-term measures can be accomplished within a few years.  They are
designed to lay the foundation for a transition to a complete elimination=
 of
nuclear arsenals and a treaty that would enable the multilateral
verification of that elimination.

1. Removal of all nuclear warheads from all weapons and withdrawal of all
delivery systems from deployment; with multilateral monitoring and
verification of their storage.=20
2. Shut down of all commercial plutonium separation and all other operati=
ons
that result in weapons-usable plutonium or uranium.

3. Long-term measures

1. A nuclear weapons convention signed by all parties that would permanen=
tly
eliminate nuclear arsenals as irreversibly and verifiably as possible.  T=
he
convention should forbid the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons even=
 in
retaliation for such use, as well as withdrawal from that treaty under an=
y
circumstances. It should include a verification organization that has
explicit provision for verification by non-governmental parties.
Strengthening of existing international judicial system to enable it to d=
eal
with use, threats of use, or manufacture of weapons of mass destruction.

4. Continuing measures=20

1. Dismantlement, decommissioning and clean-up of all nuclear
weapons-related facilities, and institution of sound long-term management
policies for managing weapons-usable materials and radioactive and toxic =
waste.=20
2. Provision of assistance to those whose health may have been affected b=
y
those processes, independent of national origin or location, with due
recognition of the disproportionate damage done to may indigenous and
colonial people.=20
3. Progressive elimination of secrecy in the nuclear establishment.=20
4. Destruction of nuclear warhead delivery vehicles and strict controls o=
n
and verification of all dual-use (nuclear and non-nuclear) items and
technologies.=20
5. Banning of production of ballistic missiles and strict verification
procedures to ensure that no space launch vehicles can be used as nuclear
weapon delivery vehicles.

 IV. Analysis=20

The Abolition 2000 movement has been a vital part of a huge accomplishmen=
t
of the global disarmament movement of the last four years.  This movement
has successfully put the elimination of nuclear weapons at the center of
non-proliferation and disarmament agenda.  It has done so in a period whe=
n
the nuclear weapons states, notably the United States, would have preferr=
ed
to stick to non-proliferation on the part of non-nuclear weapons states
alone.  The Abolition 2000 Network has also helped to bring greater
attention in the international arena to the issue of the disproportionate
burden suffered by indigenous and colonial people.

Similarly, the drafting of a peoples' nuclear weapons convention has serv=
ed
as a guide for disarmament advocates, whether they be NGOs or governments.
It puts forth criteria by which to judge an official treaty and official
claims about the arms reduction process.  Its continual refinement is als=
o
necessary as we learn more of the complexity of the process and its links=
 to
other problems.

1. Clarifying "abolition"

The spirit of the demands in the Abolition 2000 statement, which has been
signed by a large number of organizations, is subscribed to by an even
larger number of groups.  The goal statement proposed here embraces the i=
dea
that elimination of existing nuclear arsenals is an essential part of
nuclear disarmament.  The health and environmental aspects of the
disarmament process are also incorporated into it.  In these respects, it=
 is
very similar to the Abolition 2000 statement and other plans that have
advocated a treaty as the route to the abolition of nuclear weapons.  But=
 a
modification of the approach is necessary both to clarify the goal of
"abolition" and the strategy of relying on a treaty as the primary and mo=
st
immediate vehicle for achieving that end.  The clarification of the goal =
of
"abolition" is necessary, among other reasons, for a full consideration o=
f
the moral basis for abandoning the doctrine of deterrence.=20

This statement on enduring nuclear disarmament attempts to address the fa=
ct
that elimination of existing nuclear weapons will inevitably be an imperf=
ect
achievement. We must live with the possibility of nuclear weapons use by =
a
state or non-state party even after all existing nuclear weapons have bee=
n
verifiably eliminated. Further, given the predictable imperfections of
materials accounting and verification, there is no way to guarantee that =
the
process of disarmament will be free of cheating.  Indeed, we do not know =
if
nuclear materials have already been sold from existing stocks to third
parties, where it cannot now be accounted for.=20

We need to confront these issues in order to point out clearly how the
program we advocate, including elimination of existing arsenals, can grea=
tly
reduce risks compared to the present.  Today there is a growing risk of a
large part of humanity being blown up in any given fifteen-minute period,=
 of
nuclear black markets, and of the disintegration of a state with tens of
thousands of nuclear weapons.  Short-term measures with very wide support
would greatly reduce these risks and also lay the foundation for eliminat=
ing
existing arsenals.  At the same time, a goal of continual risk reduction
also embraces (i) measures to reduce the risk of weapons use by any party
after elimination of known arsenals and (ii) strict adherence to the
principle of non-use of nuclear weapons even in retaliation for such use.=
=20

2. US-Russian context for a treaty

We are not yet in a position to demand a treaty for an end to nuclear
weapons because enduring disarmament will involve a very complex process
with many details that cannot now be foreseen.  Nor can all the important
dangers be addressed by a treaty banning nuclear weapons and eliminating
existing arsenals.  A treaty is far more than a piece paper.  It is the
process leading up to it that will give meaning and staying power to it. =
 In
order for the end result to be meaningful, the treaty process must be sou=
nd
and have a level of integrity which is impossible to achieve in the curre=
nt
political and military situation.  Given the current US and Russian
attachment to nuclear weapons - they both have first use doctrines at
present - a treaty would be highly likely to contain huge loopholes.  The=
se
would probably include provisions for large reserves of nuclear weapons a=
nd
nuclear-weapons-usable materials.

It is also very likely to entrench the position of one country, the Unite=
d
States, as by far the dominant global power militarily.  This is a
significant present cause of repeated setbacks in the arms reduction proc=
ess
and in the unreliability of past treaty commitments - such as the ABM
Treaty, the NPT, or even the simple matter of payment of United Nations d=
ues
(which is a treaty obligation).  In this context, asking for yet another
treaty of far larger consequence is problematic.  Political, social,
judicial, economic, and moral barriers of a higher order than characteriz=
e
the present environment are needed to prevent treaty violations.  If a ma=
jor
nuclear weapons state withdrew from a nuclear weapons elimination treaty,=
 it
could have consequences that are as disastrous as those we face at presen=
t.
And a withdrawal from a treaty in a crisis would provide much less levera=
ge
to the voices of calm and peace than at present, making it less likely th=
at
the world would step back from the brink.

There are a number of other reasons why focussing on a treaty to eliminat=
e
nuclear weapons is the wrong approach at present.  One problem is that th=
e
Pentagon is currently pursuing a vast program that aims at overwhelming U=
S
military superiority over everyone else for the foreseeable future. Under
such circumstances, Russia and China are highly unlikely to agree to
complete nuclear disarmament, even if the US were to offer to negotiate i=
t.
Nuclear disarmament talks in the context of a US goal of overwhelming
military superiority would be utterly bogged down in recriminations and t=
he
need for action on weapons that are not now considered part of the nuclea=
r
arsenal.

The United States is also determined either to pressure Russia to agree t=
o
change the ABM treaty or, failing that, to withdraw from it.  This could
trigger grave instabilities and a new arms race.  For instance, China has
announced that it will build more strategic weapons should the US deploy
ballistic missile defenses and China has the means to do so.  The entire
process may become unstable and dangerous.  Given these dangers, it will =
be
impossible to assemble the coalition that is necessary to pressure the US
government to begin negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention.=20

The situation in Russia is also a great cause for concern, because Russia
appears to be relying more and more on its nuclear arsenal in the face of
the severe deterioration of its other military capabilities.  Russia sees
nuclear weapons as its only remaining card in global power politics.  Thi=
s
makes the growing global dominance of the United States in military matte=
rs
an even more important problem in the context of nuclear disarmament.

An effective disarmament statement that embodies the spirit of the Abolit=
ion
2000 statement and most of the specifics, but which also fits the conditi=
ons
described above, is therefore needed.  It must address the problems of th=
e
stability of the disarmament process and of the prevention of conditions
that could create greater dangers of a first strike.  For instance, drast=
ic
reductions in the Russian arsenal along with US deployment of extensive
ballistic missile defenses (BMD) could create such dangers.  Hence it is
critical to prevent the deployment of BMD during the process of nuclear
weapons reduction, especially when these numbers reach into the hundreds =
of
warheads (instead of the thousands in the US and Russian arsenals today).

3. Addressing other states with nuclear capability

Furthermore, the nuclear disarmament strategy must address how India, Isr=
ael
and Pakistan are to be brought into the process of nuclear disarmament
without legitimizing their nuclear arsenals, or on the other hand
legitimizing the power that the five nuclear weapons states parties to th=
e
NPT want to wield over non-parties to the NPT.  It is also crucial for th=
e
US nuclear disarmament movement to consider the questions related to the
real or alleged nuclear weapons capability of Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.
These countries are now in various ways in the center of various US milit=
ary
and political establishment plans and public rationalizations of present =
US
military policy that include:

=B7 deploying ballistic missile defenses
=B7 expanding authority of the Pentagon to the continental United States
=B7 the continuation of the nuclear first-use policy to counter threats o=
f use
of chemical or biological weapons
=B7 the proposed expansion of NATO authority to cover issues related to
weapons of mass destruction.

Given these links, it is essential to develop specific demands that take
into account present realities that are also consonant with our principle=
s.
Finally, to have a treaty as a goal is to confuse strategy with the overa=
ll
goal.  Treaties are breakable, and we can see that reality in the nuclear
arena everyday.  The goal for nuclear disarmament must be far bigger and
more robust.

4. Conclusions

Calling for strict adherence to existing treaties, verified de-alerting o=
f
all nuclear weapons, and the reduction of the US and Russian arsenals to
less than 1,000 each, rather than seeking a treaty in the short term,
addresses most of the immediate issues raised in this analysis.  For
instance, India, Israel, and Pakistan could be brought into the disarmame=
nt
process through a de-alerting process and ratification of the CTBT.  Once
the short-term objectives are accomplished, much or most of the framework
for complete elimination of existing nuclear arsenals would be in place.
Then it will be possible to attain a nuclear weapons convention that will
allow trust to grow as disarmament proceeds, rather than the mistrust and
instability that characterize the present arms reduction process as it is
actually evolving.  At the present time it is even unclear whether one
should demand a new treaty or whether it would be better to demand an
amendment to the NPT.  This will depend in part on the evolution of the N=
PT
review process.

Finally, enduring nuclear disarmament includes the goal of preventing a
reversion to a nuclear-armed state after existing arsenals have been
eliminated.  This will be at least as difficult to achieve as the
elimination of existing arsenals.  It requires the nuclear disarmament
movement, the nuclear weapons states, other governments, and the public a=
t
large to address the underlying moral issues.  Specifically, it means tha=
t
nuclear retaliation must be ruled out under all circumstances, including =
as
a response to nuclear weapons use, as part of the process of agreeing to =
the
elimination of nuclear weapons.  Only with advance agreement regarding
non-retaliation will it be possible to get a treaty that will provide for
the actual elimination of production, design, and testing capabilities, a=
nd
the conversion of all weapons-usable nuclear materials into
non-weapons-usable forms.  Without addressing the moral and strategic iss=
ues
underlying nuclear retaliation, it will most likely be impossible to
assemble the coalition needed to get a nuclear weapons convention, much l=
ess
to actually get a sound treaty or to achieve enduring nuclear disarmament.

The program discussed above does not explicitly address many of the links=
 to
other struggles that will need to be made for ensuring the durability of =
the
elimination of nuclear arsenals.  For instance, the use of nuclear power
does not, in the short-term, conflict with the goal of eliminating nuclea=
r
weapons.  But it does increase the likelihood of reversion of nuclear
weapons in a time of crisis.  It also increases mistrust and conflict, as
demonstrated by the present US-Russian disputes over Russia's sales of a
nuclear reactor to Iran (which is in compliance with IAEA safeguards) and
the US agreement to provide North Korea (which is not in compliance with
IAEA safeguards) with a nuclear reactor.  A discussion about these links =
is
needed as the disarmament movement attempts to accomplish its short-term
objectives, so that the links to other movements and struggles can be
effectively made.
**************************************
**************************************
Arjun Makhijani
President, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
6935 Laurel Ave., Suite 204
Takoma Park, Maryland 20912, U.S.A.
Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
web page:  http://www.ieer.org


- --------------61EFD140C23DE0213BC725CD--


- -
 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 #71
**********************************

-
 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.