ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n104

Internet Message Format | 1999-04-04 | 43KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #104
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest       Monday, April 5 1999       Volume 01 : Number 104




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

Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 20:35:42 -0400
From: hcaldic <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Nuclear Knife Aimed at America's Heart

Bob Tiller wrote:
>
> Some thoughts in response:
>
> 1. If PDD-60 is top secret, how can we trust this (or any) report of
> what it says?
>
> 2. The U.S. military is required by current U.S. law to maintain
> deployment of nuclear weapons at the START I level, i.e. 6,000 warheads
> deployed.  Period.  No exceptions.  It is ridiculous, but it's the law.
> (By the way, the START II level is not 2,500.  It is 3,500.)
>
> 3. Launch-on-warning places everyone at greater risk, because or the
> possibility of misreading or misunderstanding the data.  Incinerating
> others (and probably ourselves) in response to a warning seems a rather
> stupid way to act, because the warning could be about something as
> benign as a weather rocket.
>
> 4. Satellites will not be downed in a first strike, and communications
> capacity will not totally disappear in a first strike.  It is absurd to
> say that U.S. naval strategic forces could not withstand a first strike.
> Even if half the U.S. Trident force were eliminated, the U.S. could
> still launch many hundreds of nuclear weapons from the remaining
> Tridents.
>
> 5. With the massive deterioration of Russia's military and the shrinkage
> of Russia's economy, no serious observer believes that Russia would be
> able to launch 4,000 to 6,000 warheads today.
>
> 6. Where is the evidence to support the claim that Russia has a
> nationwide ABM system?
>
> 7. No one in Congress or the Administration has claimed that missile
> defense would work against a massive first strike of nuclear weapons
> against the U.S.   It just can't be done, and everyone knows that.  The
> current debate about missile defense is about protecting against a small
> number of weapons (presumably launched by a "rogue" state.)
>
> 8. It is impossible for the Clinton Administration to assume credit or
> blame for actions taken by the U.S. in 1992.
>
> 9. The U.S. is not undertaking unilateral nuclear disarmament.  Rather
> the opposite is occuring.  The U.S. is engaging in "subcritical" tests
> on plutonium in order to perfect its nuclear weapons, is engaging in
> research on pure fusion weapons, and much more. (Also see #2 above.)
>
> 10. Finally, why would any sane person discourse about "taking out" all
> the nuclear weapons in Russia, or in the U.S.?  If some nation (Russia,
> U.S., or any other) uses as few as 40 nuclear weapons, all life on earth
> would be radically transformed, especially in the industrialized world.
> Every single dimension of our lives -- agriculture, banking, medicine,
> transportation, communication, politics, education -- would be so
> totally different that we can not even imagine what things would be like
> following the use of a small number of nuclear weapons.  After the
> launch of a few dozen nuclear warheads, millions of people would be dead
> and dying, while millions more would have no electricity, no food
> supply, no gasoline, etc.  We can not pretend that using nuclear weapons
> is in anyway comparable to dropping some conventional bombs.
>
> Shalom,
> Bob Tiller
>
> David Crockett Williams wrote:
> >
> > [fwd]--One would think that it is a good idea to understand all perspectives
> > on the abolition issue.  Here is one perspective supporting need for
> > multilateral abolition....
> >
> >               A Nuclear Knife Aimed at America's Heart
> >                            Joel M. Skousen
> >                            March 25, 1999
> >
> > In November 1997, President Clinton signed a top-secret Presidential
> > Decision Directive (PDD-60) directing U.S. military commanders to
> > abandon the time-honored nuclear deterrence of "launch on warning."
> > Ironically, this was done in the name of "increased deterrence."
> > Every sensible American needs to understand why this reasoning is
> > fraudulent at best and deadly at worst. First, some background.
> >
> > The impetus to change U.S. strategic nuclear doctrine came on the
> > heels of Clinton's demand to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in early 1997
> > that they prepare to unilaterally reduce America's nuclear warhead
> > deployment to 2,500 in eager anticipation of the ratification of the
> > START II disarmament treaty. This pact has yet to be ratified by the
> > Russian Duma.
> >
> > Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, responded that
> > he couldn't comply, since the U.S. military was still operating on a
> > former Presidential Decision Directive of 1981 to prepare to "win a
> > protracted nuclear war." A winning strategy couldn't be implemented
> > without the full contingent of current nuclear strategic warheads.
> >
> > According to Craig Cerniello of Arms Control Today (November/December
> > 1997 issue), "the administration viewed the 1981 guidelines as an
> > anachronism of the Cold War. The notion that the United States still
> > had to be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war today
> > seemed out of touch with reality, given the fact that it has been six
> > years since the collapse of the Soviet Union."
> >
> > Certainly, the apparent collapse of the Soviet Union is the linchpin
> > in every argument pointing toward the relaxation of Western vigilance
> > and accelerated disarmament. Indeed, it is the driving argument that
> > is trumpeted constantly before Congress, U.S. military leaders, and
> > the American people.
> >
> > Almost everyone is buying it -- even most conservatives who should
> > know better.  However, the most savvy Soviet-watchers can point to a
> > host of evidence indicating that the so-called "collapse" was
> > engineered to disarm the West and garner billions in direct aid to
> > assist Russia while inducing the West to take over the economic
> > burden of the former satellite states.
> >
> > But the most ominous evidence is found in defectors from Russia who
> > tell the same story: Russia is cheating on all aspects of
> > disarmament, and is siphoning off billions in Western aid money to
> > modernize and deploy top-of-the-line new weapons systems aimed at
> > taking down the U.S. military in one huge, decapitating nuclear
> > strike.
> >
> > Contrast this with the Clinton administration's response. Incredibly,
> > while still paying lip service to nuclear deterrence, Assistant
> > Secretary of Defense Edward L. Warner III went before the Congress on
> > March 31, 1998, and bragged about the litany of unilateral
> > disarmament this administration has forced upon the U.S. military:
> >
> > Warner noted the "success" the Clinton administration has had in
> > recent years, which has:
> >
> > Eliminated our entire inventory of ground-launched non-strategic
> > nuclear weapons (nuclear artillery and Lance surface-to-surface
> > missiles).
> >
> > Removed all nonstrategic nuclear weapons on a day-to-day basis from
> > surface ships, attack submarines, and land-based naval aircraft
> > bases.
> >
> > Removed our strategic bombers from alert.
> >
> > Stood down the Minuteman II ICBMs scheduled for deactivation under
> > Start I.
> >
> > Terminated the mobile Peacekeeper and mobile small ICBM programs.
> >
> > Terminated the SCRAM-II nuclear short-range attack missile.  In
> > January 1992, the second Presidential Nuclear Initiative took further
> > steps which included:
> >
> > Limiting B-2 production to 20 bombers.
> >
> > Canceling the entire small ICBM program.
> >
> > Ceasing production of W-88 Trident SLBM (submarine-launched missile)
> > warheads.
> >
> > Halting purchases of advanced cruise missiles.
> >
> > Stopping new production of Peacekeeper missiles (our biggest
> > MIRV-warhead ICBM).  "As a result of these significant changes, the
> > U.S. nuclear stockpile has decreased by more than 50 percent," Warner
> > enthused.
> >
> > All of this has been done without any meaningful disarmament by the
> > Russians.
> >
> > The Clinton administration would counter this charge by citing the
> > "successful" dismantling of 3,300 strategic nuclear warheads by
> > Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, and the destruction of their 252
> > ICBMs and related silos -- all paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds to
> > the tune of $300 million per year. But the real story is otherwise.
> >
> > Yes, Americans paid for the dismantling of these systems -- the
> > oldest and most out-of-date in the Soviet inventory. They were
> > scheduled for replacement anyway, so the U.S. taxpayer ended up
> > saving the Russians over a billion dollars, allowing them to use this
> > and other Western aid to develop and build new systems, coming on
> > line right now. But that isn't all.
> >
> > What the administration doesn't say is that they allowed the Russians
> > to reclaim all the nuclear warheads, and paid them to recycle the
> > usable material into new, updated warheads. We didn't diminish the
> > threat at all.  We only helped them to transform it into something
> > more dangerous.
> >
> > Thus, the Russians still maintain a more than 3-to-1 advantage over
> > the United States in both throw-weight and nuclear delivery vehicles.
> > That disparity is widening dramatically with the Clinton
> > administration's unilateral disarmament while at the same time
> > encouraging the Russians to proceed not only with the deployment of
> > 500 new Topol-M missiles (which are mobile-launched and therefore
> > difficult to target), but to put three MIRVed warheads on each
> > missile instead of the treaty limit of one warhead -- for a total
> > deployment of 1,500 warheads.
> >
> > Not counting the presumed minimum 4,000 to 6,000 warheads in the
> > current Russian inventory, these 1,500 new warheads would overwhelm a
> > measly 200-interceptor ABM system in North Dakota -- which the
> > Clinton administration is insisting should NOT be deployed before
> > 2005. I wonder why?
> >
> > With our 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs scheduled to be decommissioned in 2003,
> > that gives the Russians or Chinese a wide-open window for attack,
> > should they choose to exercise their first-strike,
> > nuclear-decapitation option.
> >
> > So much for the "new realism" of the Clinton disarmament team and
> > their assertion that Russia poses no threat. Judging strictly by
> > public data from establishment sources (which is always understated
> > due to Moscow's heavy shroud of secrecy) the Russian threat is much
> > greater than it ever was, both in quantity and quality of strategic
> > nuclear forces. This is thanks, in part, to ongoing technology
> > transfers by IBM and other defense contractors with the knowing
> > participation and encouragement of this administration.
> >
> > Now let's take a close look at this presumed "increased deterrence"
> > the Clinton Department of Defense is promising. The administration
> > claims its brand of deterrence is still based on the "mutual assured
> > destruction" (MAD) concept -- a truly appropriate acronym.
> >
> > This is the presumption that, since both sides have an overwhelming
> > capability to destroy each other, that no sane leadership would
> > engage in nuclear war. Let's examine this closely. MAD could only
> > stand as a viable assumption if:
> >
> > Both sides had sufficient weapons and delivery vehicles to inflict
> > total devastation.
> >
> > Neither side had an effective anti-ballistic-missile system.
> >
> > Neither side had electronic jamming capability on its incoming ICBMs.
> >
> > Neither side had hardened shelters protecting its population and
> > leadership.  These assumptions clearly do not exist today:
> >
> > First, we barely have enough nuclear warheads to take out the Russian
> > arsenal as presently constituted if we used them all at once (which
> > no sane military commander could afford to do, leaving him with no
> > reserves).  Russia, on the other hand, has enough to devastate our
> > entire strategic forces and still retain 60 percent of her weapons in
> > reserve, for a prolonged conflict.
> >
> > Second, we have no ABM system to protect against ICBMs at all. Our
> > dumbed-down and slowed-down Patriots are theater weapons (built to
> > conform to the flawed ABM Treaty) and can barely catch slow,
> > low-flying Scud missiles, let alone ICBMs that coming screaming in
> > from space at 6 to 12 kilometers per second. The Russians have (in
> > violation of the same ABM Treaty) a nationwide system of ABMs tied to
> > phased-array radars and satellite guidance systems.
> >
> > Third, we have no electronic jamming on our missiles to help them
> > penetrate the Russian ABM system, and the Russians claim their newest
> > Topol-M missiles do have such a capability. Whether or not this claim
> > is a bluff is immaterial. The fact is, they are building new,
> > high-tech missiles and our technology is 10 years old and stagnant.
> > We are not developing or building anything new. This aspect can only
> > worsen as time goes on.
> >
> > Fourth, our civilian population is totally unprotected, while a large
> > portion of the Russian cities have public fallout shelter facilities.
> > New bunkers are being constructed for the Russian leadership despite
> > the economic hardships the people suffer. This should tell us
> > something about Russian leadership intentions.
> >
> > Is this Mutually Assured Destruction? Hardly. It equates to United
> > States Assured Destruction! In every category of deterrence, we are
> > disarming and stagnant, and the Russians are building and deploying.
> > There is, in fact, only one type of deterrence that is capable of
> > somewhat balancing the scales: the nuclear response doctrine of
> > Launch on Warning.
> >
> > Launch on Warning takes advantage of the fact that long-range
> > ballistic missiles take time to arrive on target -- up to 25 minutes,
> > depending on where the missiles are fired from. If the Russians were
> > to launch a first strike, our satellites would detect and confirm
> > that launch within seconds.  In a Launch on Warning doctrine, our
> > missiles (if on alert status) could be launched before the Russian or
> > Chinese missiles hit our silos. There is also time to retarget our
> > missiles so that they are not wasted on Russian silos that are now
> > empty.
> >
> > Thus, one of the great advantages for a Launch on Warning doctrine is
> > that it allows the nation that launches second to have an advantage
> > over the nation that launches first. The one to launch first wastes a
> > certain number of its missiles on our silos that are now empty. By
> > contrast, our missiles (utilizing real-time targeting data from
> > satellites) strike targets that are still viable.
> >
> > Now that is deterrence -- a deterrence that we presently do not have
> > due to PDD-60.
> >
> > Clinton national security aide Robert Bell proudly proclaimed to a
> > group of disarmament advocates, "In this PDD, we direct our military
> > forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely
> > on Launch on Warning -- to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and
> > still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence."
> >
> > This is patently preposterous. Respond with what?
> >
> > We have no mobile missiles to avoid being targeted. We have already
> > unilaterally agreed to keep over half of our ballistic missile
> > submarines in port at any one time, so they can easily be targeted.
> > After all, we don't want our Russian "allies" to feel insecure!
> >
> > All of our Navy and Air Force strategic forces are incapable of
> > withstanding a nuclear strike. Even the remaining Trident subs on
> > patrol would be unable to respond when communication links and
> > satellites are downed in a first strike.
> >
> > PDD-60 removes all alternate submarine launch codes so that our subs
> > cannot fire without direct communication with the president. Those
> > vital communications links will assuredly not survive a massive first
> > strike.  When you tell the Russians we are going to absorb a first
> > strike, you induce them to make sure they hit us with everything
> > necessary to make sure we cannot respond.
> >
> > This is not deterrence. This is suicide.
> >
> > Joel M. Skousen is a political scientist by training and former
> > chairman of the Conservative National Committee. He is a specialist
> > in security matters and consults nationwide on "Strategic Relocation"
> > -- the title of his latest book.
> >
> > -
> >  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
> >  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> >  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> >  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

    Excellent commentary Bob, Helen Caldicott PS get it published in the
same paper where he was published - demand equal time, it works!


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

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

Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 18:52:04 -0700
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fw: Nuclear War-Related Links

- -----Original Message-----
From: Carol Moore <[e-mail]>
To: Peace list from <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, April 04, 1999 5:19 PM
Subject: Nuclear War-Related Links


>Below are some good links related to nuclear war, Y2K and nuclear
>issues, and non-intervention.  Remember even in the most peaceful
>of times we are 1/2 hour from nuclear destruction--not to mention
>when we are busy bombing two Russian allies, as we are now!!
>
>Nuclear Information Resource Center http://www.nirs.org/
>Nuclear Age Peace Foundation http://www.napf.org/
>The Bug in the Bomb http://www.basicint.org/y2krept.htm
>Union of Concerned Scientists  http://www.ucsusa.org/about/index.html
>Physicians for Social Responsibility http://www.psr.org/
>Nuclear Control Institute  http://www.nci.org/home.htm
>Nuclear Information and Resource Service http://nuke.handheld.com/
>Big List of Nuclear Related Links
>http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/News/Bigbig.html
>Proposition One Committee's Bigger List of Nuclear Related Links
>       http://prop1.org/prop1/azantink.htm
>Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Atomic Clock
>http://www.bullatomsci.org/clock.html
>Daily Y2K articles, including nuclear related, at:
>http://www.year2000.com/y2karticles
>
>Photos of nuke war http://pegasus.phys.saga-u.ac.jp/peace1e.html
>Nuclear War Related Movies--The War Game, Testament, Miracle Mile,
>Threads,
>The Day After and By Dawn's Early Light--and other good links can be
>found from:
>http://www.ibp-intl.demon.co.uk/nuccult.htm
>
>NonIntervention Pages
>Committee Against U.S. Intervention http://www.antiwar.com
>International Action Center  http://www.iacenter.org/
>NonViolence Web  http://www.nonviolence.org
>DC Demos Photos site http://www.sinkers.org
>
>from Carol Moore
>http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/C&C-news.html
>


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

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

Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 23:26:16 -0400
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) LCNP's Events Schedule

Dear Jerrold: Glad to see some contact numbers for the Hague Appeal, but
please let's get them right:

    Hague Appeal for Peace c/o WFM (no need to spell out), 777 UN Plaza,
New York, NY 10017
    phone [phone]
    fax   [phone]
    e-mail [e-mail]
    http://www.haguepeace.org

                    Thanks, Peter

[e-mail] wrote:
>=20
> Schedule of Upcoming Events as of April 2, 1999
>=20
> April 3
> *East Timor Action Network New York
>   "East Timor: Prospects for Peace and Freedom"
>   Nobel Peace Prize Winner Jose Ramos-Horta on the future of
> Indonesia-Occupied East Timor
>   With Amy Goodman of WBAI and Pacifica Radio
>   777 UN Plaza--  1:00 PM
>   $5.00 Donation Requested
>=20
> April 5
> *Abolition 2000 NY Metro
>   "Voices from Kosovo and Belgrade: E-mails and letters from the war."
>   Celebrity guests include Erica Jong, Tim Robbins, and Rosie Perez
>   Helen Hayes Theater, 240 W. 44th St., 7:00 PM
>   $10.00 Donation at the door
>   Contact: MADRE, 212-627-0444
>=20
> April 7
> *Lawyers Alliance for World Security (LAWS)
>  "The Role of Nuclear Weapons in the Post-Cold War World: Preventing th=
e
>    Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction"
>   General Charles Horner (USAF-Ret.)
>   Case Western Reserve University School of Law
>   Full registration, including meals and reception, $50.00
>   For more information call Damien LaVera at [phone]
>   or Christine Lucas at [phone]
>=20
> April 7-10
> * International Conference on Nonviolence
>   Crowne Plaza Airport Hotel, Atlanta, Georgia
>   For more information, contact Ms. Arlie Holliday, Conference Coordina=
tor
>   92 Piedmont Avenue, Suite C, Atlanta, GA 30303
>   Ph.: 404 221 1480 / Fax: [phone] / E-mail: [e-mail]
>=20
> April 8, 1999
> *DPI/NGO Briefing: Issues before the commission on Sustainable Developm=
ent
>   Speakers include: JoAnne DiSano ad Navid Hanif
>   10:30 AM Dag Hammarskjold Library
>=20
> April 15, 1999
> *DPI/NGO Briefing: Emerging Disarmament Issues
>   Speakers Include: Saul Mendlovitz, Randall Forsberg, and Jonathan Dea=
n
>  10:30 AM Dag Hammarskjold Library
>=20
> April 16-May 27
> *American Indian Community House
>   Exhibit: "Unmentionables"
>   Opening reception: Friday, April 16, 6:00-8:00 PM
>   708 Brodway, New York, NY 10003
>   Contact: 212-598-0100
>=20
> April 22-23
> *8th International Conference of the World Information Transfer (WIT)
>   Health and Environment: Global Partners for Global Solutions--
> Environmental Challenges to Health
>   Through Key Stages of Life
>   Starts 10:00 AM in the Dag Hammarskjold Library, co-sponsored by DPI
>=20
> April 22-26
> * Global Peace Walk
>   Walk from Taos to Santa Fe, New Mexico
>   Global Emergency Alert Response
>   Contact: David Crockett Williams-- 661-822-3309
>=20
> April 23
> *Demostration in Washington against NATO
>   Call to eliminate nuclear weapons and to adopt a no-first-use policy
>   Meet at 11:00 at 14th St. and Constitution Avenue on SW corner of the=
 Mall
>   Free bus ride from NY to DC.
>   Contact Felicity Hill ASAP to make reservations--682-1265
>=20
> April 23-25
> * 50th anniversary summit of the NATO in Washington D.C.
>   NPT PrepCom meeting will take place in New York (before or after the =
summit)
>   The Fourth Freedom Forum will organize a two-day event in Washington =
D.C.
> before the summit
>   Contact Alistair Millar (program director, Fourth Freedom Forum) for =
more
> information:
>   733 15th St, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005  ph.: 202 393 5201, =
fax:
> 202 39305202
>=20
> April 29, 1999
> *Third UN Conference on Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
>   (UNISPACE III)
>   Speakers to be confirmed
>=20
> May 7-10
> * Honoring the Mother: Healing Global Wounds Spring Gathering
>   'Healing Global Wounds' is an alliance of organizations working to br=
eak
> the nuclear chain
>    At Nevada Test Site (the camp is located on Western Shoshone land at=
 the
> gates of the Test Site)
>    Each day will begin with a Sunrise Ceremony led by Western Shoshone
> Spiritual Leader Corbin Harney
>    Contact: Healing Global Wounds, P.O. Box 420, Tecopa CA 92389
>    Ph.: 760 852 4175 /  Fax: [phone] / e-mail: [e-mail]
>=20
> May 11-15
> * The Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century
>   Contact: The Hague Appeal for Peace c/o
>   World Federalist Movement, 777 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017
>   Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
>=20
> May 13-14
> *Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction: Why Not Nuclear Abolition?
>   General Lee Butler, Admiral Stansfield Turner, and Stephen Schwartz
>  Physicians for Social Responsibility, Pittsburgh
>  $65 Registration fee before April 15, $75 thereafter.
>  Contact:  Kathy McCauley at 412-486-9065
>=20
> June 18-20
> * Nuclear Policy and Security on the eve of the 21st century: St. Peter=
sburg
> Conference
>   Co-hosted by St. Petersburg Peace Council, RPPNW, IPPNW,  SLMK etc.
>   Themes to be covered: International Humanitarian Law and Nuclear Weap=
ons,
> European Security,
>   Russian nuclear policy, and Security in the Baltic Region, among othe=
r
> things=85
>   Contact: Xanthe Hall, IPPNW Germany
>   Ph.: [phone] / e-mail: [e-mail]
>=20
> August 3-9
> *World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs
>   Annual conference geared towards the total abolition of nuclear weapo=
ns
>   Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan
>   Contact: Organizing Committee, 6-19-23 Shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 10=
5-0004
>   Japan. Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone], e-mail:
> [e-mail]
>=20
> August 6-8, 1999
> *Beyond the Bomb: A New Agenda for Peace and Justice
>    Albequerque, N.M.
>    Contact: Bruce Hall, Peace [e-mail]
>=20
> October 10-16
> * The 1999 International Conference of NGOs-- The Role of NGOs in the 2=
1st
> Century
>    Seoul, Korea
>=20
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.=
com"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

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

Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 23:35:53 -0400
From: "Chris Davenport" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Fwd: US Test EMP Weapon in Yugoslavia?

I have received almost a dozen emails surrounding this report.
Is it not possible that this weapon is related to recent tests
(of sub-critical weapons) in the Nevada desert?

Chris Davenport,
ACT for Disarmament.

- -----Original Message-----
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 1:10 PM
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: US Test EMP Weapon in Yugoslavia?


>>Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 17:37:27 -0500
>>Subject: US Test EMP Weapon in Yugoslavia?
>>Priority: non-urgent
>>X-FC-MachineGenerated: true
>>To: [e-mail]
>>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>>
>>Dear Abolitionists,
>>
>>During an interview yesterday on Vancouver's CKNW Radio with Stirling
Faux,
>>I was told that they had seen a report from the Russians that a B2 stealth
>>bomber had dropped an Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) weapon in Yugoslavia.
>>Made by Los Alamos Laboratories, it apparently produces a similar effect
to
>>a large nuclear weapon in disrupting electronics and communications in
>>order to weaken the enemy's ability to retaliate for some time, but
without
>>the destructive power and radioactive fallout. However, I haven't seen any
>>further report of this.
>>
>>If true, then we are witnessing another field trial for new US weapons.
>>Also, it means that, sensibly, the Russians have a sophisticated
>>intelligence-gathering capability in Yugoslavia, to get first-hand
>>information on how NATO is performing. I saw a report that the first
people
>>to inspect the downed F117 Stealth fighter-bomber were a Russian "trade
>>mission"...
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>Rob Green
>>Chair, World Court Project UK
>>
>>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>
>>            Commander Robert D Green, Royal Navy (Retired)
>>                   Chair, World Court Project UK
>>
>>NZ: Disarmament & Security Centre           UK: 2 Chiswick House
>>    PO Box 8390                                 High Street
>>    Christchurch                                Twyford
>>    Aotearoa/New Zealand                        Berkshire RG10 9AG
>>
>>Tel/Fax: [phone]               Tel/Fax: [phone]
>>
>>                   Email: [e-mail]
>>
>>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>
>Alice Slater
>Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
>15 East 26th Street, Room 915
>New York, NY 10010
>tel:  [phone]
>fax:  [phone]
>email:  [e-mail]
>
>GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
>to eliminate nuclear weapons.
>
>-
> To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
> with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
>


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

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

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 01:24:43 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Short and Urgent / Kosovo & black arm bands


  Friends,

  This comes off the Mennonite list. It strikes me as a powerful and simple
idea - the wearing of black armbands. No slogans, no symbols. We don't even
all have to agree on a single analysis. I assume most of us would wear them
because we are horrified both at the bombing of Yugoslavia, and the expulsion
from Kosova of the Albanians. It is a way of saying "NO" both to NATO and to
Milosevic. It might take off on campuses particularly - therefore IF this
idea appeals to you, consider forwarding it to friends and coworkers.

  Peace,
  David McReynolds

  << Subj:     Re: Kosovo & black arm bands
   Date:    4/2/99 11:53:56 PM Eastern Standard Time
   From:    [e-mail] (Art Pierson, Denver CO)
   Sender:    [e-mail]
   Reply-to:    [e-mail] (Art Pierson, Denver CO),
[e-mail]
   To:    [e-mail]

   Your idea is appealing to me.  Many people in my world are already
concerned
   about the US government's approach in the Balkans.  I'm going to try
wearing
   a black armband.  I'll try to base my responses to questions on Romans
   12:21:

      "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

   Sincerely,
   Art Pierson
   Denver, Colorado
   USA




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

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

Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 00:12:09 -0700
From: Jackie Cabasso <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Bombings fuel Cold War sentiments

Dear friends,   This article can be found at
http://www.commondreams.org/kosovo/kosovo.htm
This site is an excellent source for international news stories and
perspectives on the war in Yugoslavia.  I highly recommend it. -- Jackie
Cabasso
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

                  Attacks Stir Cold War Feelings in Russia
                  Balkans Conflict Compounds Heightened Suspicions of U.S.,
West

                  By David Hoffman
                  Washington Post Foreign Service
                  Sunday, April 4, 1999; Page A01=20

                  MOSCOW, April 3=97Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov was asked=
 in the
                  lower house of parliament last weekend whether Russia=
 should
send a few
                  warships to the Mediterranean as a show of force against=
 the
NATO
                  bombardment of Yugoslavia.

                  Ivanov quickly rejected the idea. "Just sending ships from
Murmansk to
                  Greece is not going to stop the aggression," he said.

                  But four days later, Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev=
 announced
that Russia
                  was sending a reconnaissance ship to the Mediterranean,=
 and
was
                  preparing to send as many as six more. "We must ensure the
security of
                  Russia," he insisted.

                  The abrupt turnabout speaks volumes about the whirlwind of
antiWestern
                  feeling that the NATO attack on Yugoslavia has stirred=
 here.
For Russia,
                  the airstrikes have been a moment of truth, revealing a=
 vein
of unease and
                  suspicion about the West  especially the United States =
 that
analysts
                  say is stronger than at any time since the collapse of the
Soviet Union.

                  The doubts are the results of various factors and=
 perceived
betrayals=20
                  from pledges that an expanded NATO would be purely=
 defensive
to the
                  U.S. decision to move ahead on an antiballistic missile
system to Russia's
                  economic meltdown last August, which discredited Western
economic
                  ideas here.

                  "It's a fullblown crisis, the first real crisis since the=
 end
of the Cold War" in
                  RussianU.S. relations, said Sergei Rogov, director of the
Institute for the
                  Study of the U.S. and Canada here. "It covers economic
relations, foreign
                  credits, debts, sanctions, arms control, START II, the ABM
treaty and, I
                  am afraid, a few others.

                  "It's a bad crisis which could have very longterm
implications for
                  RussianAmerican relations, producing something between
disengagement,
                  'cold peace' and maybe even something more serious."

                  In recent days, President Boris Yeltsin and Prime Minister
Yevgeny
                  Primakov have been buffeted by the antiAmerican sentiment.
They have
                  responded with selective withdrawal from military=
 agreements
while
                  holding back from far more serious measures demanded by
nationalists
                  and Communists in parliament.

                  The rhetoric has been whitehot, with Russians accusing the
United States
                  and NATO of "genocide" in Yugoslavia, of supporting Kosovo
Albanian
                  separatists with "narco money," of seeking world diktat=
 and
of using the
                  Balkans as a proving ground for new, hightechnology=
 weapons.

                  In its actions, however, Russia has been more restrained.
Russia canceled
                  meetings with Western military experts, ousted NATO=
 military
attaches,
                  rejected plans for sharing early warning missile launch=
 data
with the United
                  States, and shelved, once again, parliamentary=
 ratification
of the strategic
                  arms treaty. The first ship that Russia is sending to the
battle zone is the
                  Liman, a 27yearold, 60man electronic spying vessel from=
 the
Black Sea
                  Fleet that carries eavesdropping gear but no rockets.

                  Russia so far has not announced plans to break the United
Nations arms
                  embargo and ship weapons to Yugoslavia, and there has not
been a major
                  disruption of U.S.Russian cooperation on nuclear and=
 chemical
arms
                  dismantlement. However, Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, head of=
 the
military's
                  international department, told reporters today that the
Russian Defense
                  Ministry has severed all contacts for the next few months
with countries in
                  the "criminal organization" of NATO.

                  And some analysts worry that sentiments are so strong that
antiWestern
                  reactions could spin out of control.

                  "I'm afraid that now it is serious; we see some sort of
consensus in society
                  which we haven't seen since 1991," said Alexander Pikayev,=
 a
                  nonproliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for
International
                  Peace Center here. "Then, it was a broad anticommunist
consensus.
                  Now, unfortunately, we face a strong antiNATO consensus,
which could
                  have a very dramatic impact on the overall U.S.Russian
relationship.

                  "In August, we saw the collapse of Yeltsin's marketreform
policy and in
                  March, we saw the collapse of Yeltsin's foreign and=
 security
policy."

                  Analysts have predicted that economic hardship and
humiliation could
                  trigger a retreat from market democracy here. But until
recently, the
                  economic woes of postSoviet Russia seemed to have created=
 a
benign
                  isolationism. Russians were too preoccupied with survival=
 to
be outraged
                  about their weakening influence abroad.

                  But the Yugoslav crisis is changing that. "What you have
today is, the
                  antiAmerican sentiment is enormous," said Rogov, of the
U.S.Canada
                  institute. "This is very bad. It is something that can be
used against
                  economic reform, especially since the people who are=
 blamed
for the
                  economic collapse are also the people who are friends of=
 the
United States
                  . . . It was coming to the surface before. Now, it is a=
 sea
change.

                  "There is something personal in the attitude of Russian
leaders," he added,
                  recalling earlier claims of a friendship between President
Clinton and
                  Yeltsin. "The president feels that his friend Bill is not
such a friend at all,
                  who simply does not pay attention. 'What friend?' Boris is
saying."

                  [In Washington Friday, Clinton said he believes the=
 Russians
"are looking
                  for ways to continue to oppose what NATO is doing, but to
leave open
                  the prospect that they could play a very constructive role=
 in
making peace.
                  I don't think anyone wants to see this conflict escalate,=
 and
I certainly don't
                  believe the Russian government does."]

                  In a nationwide survey last week, the Public Opinion
Foundation, one of
                  Russia's leading polling organizations, found overwhelming
opposition to
                  the NATO attacks. The group reported that 92 percent of=
 those
surveyed
                  were against the NATO bombing and only 2 percent supported
it. The poll
                  found an unusually high level of awareness about the NATO
strikes; fewer
                  than once percent said they knew nothing about it.

                  Andrei Kortunov, a political analyst, said that Russia has
lost confidence in
                  the West in the wake of the ruble's devaluation and debt
crisis last August.

                  "One of the problems today is that we had a narrow but=
 vocal
stratum
                  which favored better relations with the West," he said.=
 "It
is nearly
                  nonexistent right now. The middle class was a major social
base for better
                  relations with the West, and it is now disintegrating.=
 There
is very little to
                  replace this. . . ."

                  There are still some checks and balances. One is Russia's
continuing
                  dependence on Western financial aid, underscored by the
ongoing
                  negotiations with the International Monetary Fund for new
loans. But this
                  dependence is increasingly unpopular. According to the=
 Public
Opinion
                  Foundation poll, when asked last year whether the IMF=
 brings
benefit or
                  harm to Russia, 17 percent said benefit and 19 percent=
 said
harm and 46
                  didn't know. But today there is a major shift: 14 percent=
 say
benefit, 43
                  percent say harm, and 28 percent know nothing.

                  However, one small contrary sign appeared in a callin=
 survey
by Echo of
                  Moscow, a popular radio station. When listeners were asked=
 if
they were
                  prepared to give up using American dollars to protest the
airstrikes, the
                  answer was unequivocal: 77 percent said no, and 23 percent
said yes.=20

                           =A9 Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company




=20







******************************************************
Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director
WESTERN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION
1440 Broadway, Suite 500
Oakland, California USA 94612
Tel: +[phone]
Fax: +[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
******************************************************
Western States Legal Foundation is part of  ABOLITION 2000
A GLOBAL NETWORK TO ELIMINATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

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

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #104
***********************************

-
 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.