ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n184

Internet Message Format | 1999-09-16 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #184
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest   Thursday, September 16 1999   Volume 01 : Number 184




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

Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: [e-mail] (marylia)
Subject: (abolition-usa) NIF problems corroborated/Laser Focus World

Good morning peace and enviro advocates.

Please note that the following article from "Laser Focus World," September
15, 1999, corroborates the evidence I have amassed from scientists and
engineers at the Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia labs regarding the
serious, unresolved technical difficulties at the National Ignition
Facility. It is these problems that are the real cause of the $300 million
(and growing) cost overrun. Laser Focus World's sources come from industry.

- -- Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, Tri-Valley CAREs, Livermore, CA.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laser Focus World
Article Date:  September 15, 1999
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                BREAKING NEWS: DOE takes aim as NIF stumbles

LIVERMORE, CA - On September 3, US Department of Energy (DoE) Secretary
Bill Richardson announced a six-point program to address the administrative
causes of cost overruns and scheduling delays in the construction of its
National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL). At the same time, Richardson declared, "The underlying science at
the NIF remains sound." Based on an investigative report by an antinuclear
watchdog group and discussions with industry sources, however, the real
science at NIF -- in terms of thorough and objective inquiry and
observation -- may be just about to begin. And so far the most likely
hypotheses seem to be coming from the rumor mill.

At the time of this writing, the DoE had not given official figures for the
scope of the problems at NIF, but newspapers were estimating cost overruns
of up to $300 million and schedule delays of a year or more. Richardson
blamed the problems on "project-management issues" and proposed addressing
them "with aggressive and tighter management action from this department."
Richardson's proposed reforms would contract out major assembly and
integration at NIF instead of performing it in house and appoint an
independent panel to analyze technical options and make recommendations.
The reforms would also handle cost issues within budget funding guidelines
for LLNL and DoE defense programs, withhold at least $2 million from a $5.6
million performance fee payable to the University of California for project
management, and subject NIF to monthly review and compliance reporting. A
complete management review is also intended.

While Richardson's statement strongly criticized what appears to have been
a poorly managed NIF construction effort, it also raised troubling
questions as to what the real problems were and whether they will be
effectively addressed. For instance, E. Michael Campbell, "the laboratory
official responsible for NIF, has already resigned due to nonrelated
personal issues," said Richardson. Campbell, the former associate director
for laser programs at LLNL and a fellow of the American Physical Society
had won a number of awards for his work in the laser-assisted
inertial-confinement-fusion technology that NIF is based on. The
"nonrelated personal issue" that removed him from the scrutiny of a
management review just days before the scandal broke was the revelation --
which seems to have previously eluded security checking procedures for
officials at his level -- that he didn't really have a Ph.D. At the same
time, two other senior staff members at NIF were reassigned to other
projects in the DoE national lab system.

Ironically, the void in credibility created by the Campbell issue is being
filled quite neatly at present by a highly critical report from an anti-NIF
watchdog group based in Livermore. In a press release dated September 2,
Tri-Valley CAREs (Citizens Against a Radioactive Environment) charged that
the problems at NIF are due to technological as opposed to administrative
problems. CAREs' executive director Marylia Kelley, who authored the
report, listed three areas of significant technical difficulty "that
Livermore Lab and its parent agency, the Department of Energy, are trying
to hide from Congress and the public." These problem areas are target
fabrication (the cryogenic balls containing radioactive fuel), diagnostics
(monitoring equipment), and glass development and delivery (optics, lenses,
and crystals).

Kelley said her information was obtained through confidential interviews
with scientists working on NIF and related inertial-confinement-fusion
research at Los Alamos National Laboratory (Los Alamos, NM) and Sandia
National Laboratories (Albuquerque, NM, and Livermore, CA), which implies
that the problems may have been widely known and that alleged mismanagement
may have originated from a level higher than LLNL.

After being presented with the gist of Kelley's allegations, a DoE
spokesperson replied, "At this point, I do not have anything to add to the
statement issued by the Secretary last week." But confidential discussions
conducted by this publication with industry sources seemed to corroborate
the implication of a significant technological lag. While the NIF project is
based on exciting science, a significant portion of it may still be too far
out on the leading edge to produce reliable devices in accordance with the
NIF construction schedule.

Kelley said that scientists working on various aspects of
inertial-confinement-fusion research expressed concern that major portions
of their funding and effort were being diverted to tackle the problems at
NIF. "NIF is the 800-pound gorilla poised and ready to squash many smaller,
more worthy projects at the labs," she said. Kelley added that CAREs will
push for Congress to make the NIF "come clean now, before it starts cashing
its fiscal-year 2000 budget checks on October 1."

This may be easier said than done, however. According to Richardson's
statement on September 3, "seven scientific and four management reviews,
including a congressionally mandated review completed this spring," had
previously failed to note the budgetary and scheduling problems at NIF.
Evidently NIF may still be in need of sound science, in the evaluation
process.    -HJ-B

end

Note: HJ-B is Laser Focus World's West Coast Editor, Hassaun Jones-Bey.
This article can be found at <www.lfw.com>              --Marylia


Marylia Kelley
Executive Director,
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA 94550
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Web site: http://www.igc.org/tvc



- -
 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, 16 Sep 1999 10:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Swackhamer Peace Essay Contest

- --============_-1274643540==_============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear Friends and Activists,

     Each year the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation sponsors an essay contest
for high school students which awards $3,000 in prizes.  Topics for the
Swackhamer Peace Essay Contest vary each year and encourage students to
seek constructive approaches and solutions to issues of war and peace.

     The topic for the 1999 contest challenged international students to
suggest actions that young people can take to help the Abolition 2000
Network achieve its goal of an international treaty by the year 2000 for
the planned elimination of nuclear weapons by early in the next century.
The winning essay, written by Catherine Chou, 14, of Northridge,
California, is attached to this email.  The essay, along with excerpts from
the two (tied) second place winners, can also be accessed on the NAPF
website at
http://www.wagingpeace.org/swakrules.html

    Considering that the year 2000 has been proclaimed the International
Year for the Culture of Peace by the United Nations General Assembly, the
contest topic for the year 2000 challenges students to write an essay
making recommendations for specific actions that young people can take to
help build a culture of peace. The essay topic and guidelines for the year
2000 can be accessed at the NAPF website.

     It is our hope that you will share this information with as many high
school students and teachers as possible in order to encourage students to
become aware and proactively  participate in urgent issues concerning war
and peace.

     If you have any questions or comments about the essay contest, please
feel free to email the Foundation at [e-mail].

     Thank you for your time and continued support in our common endeavor
to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

Yours In Peace,

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Staff


*********************************************************
NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION
International contact for Abolition 2000
a Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons
**********************************************************
PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1
Santa Barbara, CA 93108-2794
Phone [phone] * Fax [phone]
e- mailto:[e-mail]
URL http://www.wagingpeace.org
URL http://www.napf.org/abolition2000/
**********************************************************




- --============_-1274643540==_============
Content-Id: <v04003a04b4067aa94929@[207.71.222.142].0.0>
Content-Type: text/plain; name="swackhamer-99-chou.doc"; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="swackhamer-99-chou.doc"

Achieving Peace Through Today's Youth
by Catherine Chou, 14
First Place Winner of 1999 Swackhamer Peace Essay Contest

    Imagine, if you will, that you are the title character in the book
"Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes," a young Japanese girl suffering
from the devastating "atom bomb sickness." Sadako was a vivacious
eleven-year-old with dreams of becoming a track star. Sadly, that ended
when doctors diagnosed her with leukemia, An atom bomb had been dropped
over her hometown of Hiroshima during W.W. II, poisoning her with its
radiation.

    Sadako's friend Chizuko tried to cheer her up by saying, "If a sick
person folds 1000 paper cranes, the gods will grant her wish and make her
well again." Each day, Sadako folded as many cranes as she could and hung
them from the ceiling. They formed a colorful rainbow over her bed,
watching over her while she slept at night. Nevertheless, as her condition
worsened, Sadako bravely faced the truth: she was dying. She could hardly
walk or even chew food because her gums were too swollen. Sadako spent her
days in a wheelchair in the hospital, her body bloated from painful
chemotherapy treatments. She tried to wish the hurt and her family's sorrow
away by folding more cranes. Eventually, Sadako made 644 cranes. She died
on October 25, 1955 with an unfinished crane clutched in her hands.

    Sadako's death haunts me because the very thing that killed her --
nuclear weaponry -- is still being manufactured in at least eight countries
throughout the world. Her story convinced me that today's youth must take
swift action against the dangerous nuclear proliferation. America has spent
nearly $6 trillion on nuclear arms since the 1940s, money that should have
gone towards medical research or ending hunger, not building weapons of
destruction. The effect of nuclear weapons lingers long after the initial
blast. Babies born to women affected by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power
plant accident lack arms and legs. They suffer from blindness and
retardation and will never know a normal life.

    Out of all this despair comes a ray of hope. Abolition 2000, a
global network aiming to eliminate nuclear weapons, hopes for an
international treaty halting proliferation by the new millennium. Already,
more than 110 states of the Non-Aligned Movement have called for the
elimination of nuclear weaponry by the next century. Several countries have
given up their nuclear arms in hopes of promoting worldwide peace. Activist
groups affiliated with Abolition 2000 are working to make a nuclear-free
world. Their success or failure hinges on the involvement of today's youth.

    First, young people can aid Abolition 2000's cause by forming
"peace clubs" on school campuses. Cynicism is so pervasive in our world
today that we believe a few voices can never make a difference. I say to
you that a few voices can make all the difference. A few people start the
ball rolling. A few people's tongues can spread the word to millions. And a
few hearts can relieve the suffering of many. A peace club's primary goals
would be to educate the public about the dangers of nuclear weaponry and to
support programs aimed at passing legislation against proliferation. An
effective way to bring the message home is by visiting every classroom with
a speech about the dangers of nuclear energy. Such a speech should include
the history of nuclear devastation, its effects on people and the
environment, a survivor's tale, and action items -- drives and campaigns
already underway and in need of support. If a few people can make all the
difference, think of the good an entire school can do.

    Second, young people can draft press releases and organize protests
to capture the media's attention. A hard-hitting demonstration costs next
to nothing. All you need are picket signs and a pair of strong lungs. Every
Peace Day community youth can organize a demonstration in front of City
Hall calling for nuclear disarmament. Spread the news by posting fliers,
telling friends and family, and alerting news outlets. Send a press release
stating what the event is about, where and when it will be held, why they
should support it, and who to contact for more information, The media is
the most influential institution in society. It controls what we are
exposed to and the way we perceive events happening around the world. Why
shouldn't youth use it to their advantage?

    Third, today's youth can employ grassroots movements to pressure
lawmakers into passing legislation against proliferation. Just as potent as
media recognition are petitions and a barrage of letters. Consider this: If
representatives receive 25 letters from their constituencies on one topic,
they maybe moved to introduce legislation on the subject. 25 letters! Youth
have huge political resources available to them that they are not even
aware of Petitions can force action if lawmakers fail to do so. The
Feminist Majority, a group working against gender apartheid in Afghanistan,
started a petition targeting Unocal 76 because of its proposition to build
a pipeline through the country before women's rights were restored. Time
Magazine recently reported that the company was halting its project due to
the voluminous number of complaints it had received. Even something so
simple as a signature has proven its powerful impact.

    Eventually, 2.4 million people will have died from cancers caused
by nuclear testing. 9 2.4 million people will have suffered ordeals like
Sadakoφs, and still our government sits on its hands and refuses to abolish
nuclear weaponry. America will spend some $30 billion on nuclear arms in
1999 while I in 7 people lives below the poverty line. This shameful
statistic should make us question where we place our priorities.

    When the Baby Boomers are gone, who will be left to care for the
world but Generation X? Youth must aid Abolition 2000 by forming
organizations, putting together rallies, alerting the media to their
activities. and using letters and petitions to get the public involved.
Only when tomorrow's leaders start working for nuclear abolition today will
we finally see peace not just as a dream, but as a reality.




- --============_-1274643540==_============--


- -
 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, 16 Sep 1999 15:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Abolition 2000 at the Year 2000

ABOLITION 2000 AT THE YEAR 2000

by David Krieger *



Abolition 2000 is rapidly approaching the year 2000, a moment of truth for
the global Network. General Lee Butler, a powerful advocate of abolition,
offered these observations: ∞Turning specifically to the agenda, tactics
and timetable of the abolition community, I see a widening gulf between its
aspirations and their prospects, especially in the near term. That
disparity is most immediately obvious in the disjunction between the name
of the umbrella organization, δAbolition 2000,φ and the self-evident
reality that its implied goal is not yet in sight, much less in hand. That
is a real Y2K problem that must be addressed to ensure that the vitality of
the ongoing work of the organization is not diminished by the intimations
of a failed strategic objective.ε
When Abolition 2000 was initiated in 1995, it seemed reasonable to set as
our primary goal a treaty by the year 2000 calling for the phased
elimination of nuclear weapons. The goal was never to achieve the total
elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2000, but rather to achieve an
international treaty leading to the total elimination of these weapons by
early in the 21st Century.
    Abolition 2000 was born at the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
Review and Extension Conference. It came about as a result of
disappointment by many NGOs with the apparent blank check given to the
nuclear weapons states when the treaty was extended indefinitely. The
extension was given without regard for the widely perceived failure of the
nuclear weapons states to act on their Article VI obligations for good
faith negotiations on nuclear disarmament. Abolition 2000 sought in some
respects to be the conscience of the international community by demanding
that Article VI obligations be upheld in the aftermath of the indefinite
extension.
    Abolition 2000 began with the drafting of a common Statement by
some 60 peace and disarmament NGOs at the 1995 NPT Conference. Supporters
of the Statement quickly expanded to about 300 NGOs. Over the past nearly
five years, the number of supporters has expanded to 1,358 organizations in
88 countries. As the year 2000 approaches, questions arise as to what will
become of Abolition 2000 and its global Network. If an international treaty
to ban nuclear weapons is not achieved by the end of the year 2000, will
the Network have failed? Will it lose its credibility? Will the Network
continue after the year 2000?
    The Network made a bold decision at the outset by adopting the name
Abolition 2000.  It was prepared to press the issue of moving forward with
a nuclear weapons abolition agenda, setting a timeframe for tangible
progress. It was not content to leave the timeframe open-ended. It refused
to accept vague declarations by the nuclear weapons states that they were
for the ∞ultimateε goal of eliminating their nuclear arsenals. While it may
be perceived that it would have been safer for the Network to choose a name
that did not force a timeframe for success, the choice of the name serves
an important function by making clear that an agreement to abolish nuclear
weapons is a matter of urgency. Abolition cannot be put off to some
indefinite future time whenever the nuclear weapons states decide they are
ready to act.
Inherent in the name Abolition 2000 is the understanding that we should not
cross the threshold into a new century and millennium without a clear
commitment to the global elimination of nuclear weapons. Abolition 2000 has
taken a stand on the side of morality, legality, and democracy, and has
given a voice to the opinion of most of the worldφs nations. Abolition 2000
has spoken truth to power.
The problem is that power, in the form of the governments of the nuclear
weapons states, have responded by stonewalling and a continuation of
business as usual. These governments seem locked into a Cold War mentality
based on the theory of deterrence, despite the fact they can no longer
identify who it is they are deterring  or from what they are deterring
them.
Since the initiation of Abolition 2000, the Network has opposed continued
nuclear testing of all kinds, including sub-critical and laboratory
testing. It has called for ending the nuclear threat by taking specific
steps such as de-alerting nuclear forces and agreeing to policies of No
First Use. It has not only called for a treaty to ban nuclear weapons, but
has participated in drafting a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention which Costa
Rica has introduced in the United Nations. Abolition 2000 has also
mobilized citizen actions throughout the world in favor of abolishing
nuclear arms, including the gathering of over 13 million signatures in
Japan alone. The Network has also encouraged prominent individuals and
municipalities to declare themselves committed to the abolition of nuclear
weapons.
After nearly five years, Abolition 2000 remains committed to the only
outcome that can safeguard humanityφs future. But it faces powerful
opposing forces in the form of the governments of the nuclear weapons
states, the wall of secrecy that surrounds their nuclear policies, and the
wall of complacency that engulfs large segments of the public throughout
the world.
Abolition 2000 can help to remind the people of the world that they have
choices. They donφt need to leave the fate of humanity in the hands of a
small number of leaders of nuclear weapons states. They do not need to sit
by while countries such as India and Pakistan test and deploy nuclear
weapons, repeating the mistakes made by the five declared nuclear weapons
states. They do not need to continue to feed the defense contractors and
politicians that remain eager to develop and deploy the Ballistic Missile
Defenses ± defenses that have little likelihood of working and will
actually make the world far more dangerous as other nuclear armed countries
respond with stronger offensive capabilities.
With such dangers as the deployment of Ballistic Missile Defenses on the
horizon in the United States, Abolition 2000 is needed more than ever. The
year 2000 will be a year of focused actions for the Network throughout the
world. The Network has set as goals for itself to grow to 2000
organizations; to identify 2000 prominent supporters of abolishing nuclear
weapons; to engage in a week of education and advocacy from March 1-8,
2000; to have a strong and vocal presence at the 2000 Non-Proliferation
Treaty Review Conference; and to join in millennial events throughout the
world.
Abolition 2000 will not simply fade away. Its international symbol is the
sunflower. Like the sunflower, it has given birth to a thousand seeds of
peace, which will be carried by the wind, take root and grow in many
places. These seeds will be borne by the winds of change. They will cross
boundaries and will be carried over walls of indifference. Abolition 2000
may not fulfill its goal of a treaty to ban nuclear weapons in the year
2000. But it is critical that this grassroots movement stay the course and
continue to grow until its goal is achieved.

________
*  David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He
can be reached at [e-mail]
ABOLITION 2000 AT THE YEAR 2000 by David Krieger






- -
 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, 17 Sep 1999 14:31:26 +1000
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: AMA Letter to Clinton on accidental nuclear war/de-alerting

At 7:06 AM +1000 16/9/1999, Lachlan Forrow wrote:

Dear Lachlan,

This is a truly excellent letter, and having the AMA do it is also truly
wonderful.

I'm currently trying to get both the Australian Parliament and the European
Parliament to aprove resolutions on de-alerting of nuclear weapons.

I'm therefore  emailing your letter, along with one of my own, to both the
European Parliaments Christian-Democrat, Social-democrat, green, and
green-Left factions, and to the whole of the Australian Parliament. I think
it should have a salutary effect.

By the way,
I wonder if there is any possibility of the AMA signing on to the 'Bill and
Boris' monster sign-on letter that now has nearly 400 organisations signed
on to it?

>The following letter was sent last week to President Clinton:
>
>
>
>September 7, 1999
>
>The Honorable William J. Clinton
>President of the United States
>The White House
>Washington, DC 20500
>
>Dear Mr President,
>
>At our recent annual meeting in Chicago, the American Medical Association
>House of Delegates, citing our conviction that "the threat that existent
>nuclear weapons represent is truly an urgent public health issue," voted to
>ask that you, "urgently develop policies with other countries to minimize
>the accidental deployment of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
>destruction."
>
>As you know, nearly 10 years after the end of the Cold War, there remain in
>the arsenals of the world some 35,000 nuclear weapons.  2500 of these, on
>missiles in the Russian arsenal, are on hair-trigger alert.  They can be
>fired in 15 minutes, and reach their target cities in less than 30 minutes,
>destroying the world as we know it.  They are,arguably, the greatest threat
>to the health and safety of the American people existing today.
>
>A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 1998
>estimated that an accidental launch from  a single Russian Delta IV
>submarine, even if it did not lead to a wider nuclear war,  could kill
>6,838,000 people from the direct effects of blast and firestorm, with
>another six to twelve million people dying from radiation sickness over the
>following two months.  Such an accident would be a disaster without parallel
>in human history.
>
>This is not simply a theoretical danger.  As you are aware, on the morning
>of January 25, 1995, a US weather rocket launched from Norway was initially
>interpreted by the Russian military as a possible attack on the Russian
>Federation.  President Yeltsin and his advisors were given minutes to decide
>whether to launch a retaliatory attack on the United States. We were
>extemely lucky that morning.  We can not rely on luck to prevent a future
>catastrophe.
>
>At a similar moment of great nuclear danger, just before the break up of the
>Soviet Union in 1989, your predecessor, President Bush, acted decisively to
>lessen the peril of nuclear war.  He unilateraly removed a small number of
>tactical nuclear weapons from the US arsenal, and, when President Gorbachev
>reciprocated, he quickly reached an agreement with the Soviets to withdraw
>the vast majority of these weapons on both sides.
>
>The present danger demands similar visionary leadership today.  Your former
>commander of all strategic nuclear forces, General Georege Lee Butler, has
>called for the US and Russia to remove all of their nuclear missiles from
>hair-trigger alert as the single most important step to prevent an
>accidental nuclear war.
>
>As physicians charged with the protection of public health, we call on you
>to take the lead in developing such policies to minmimize the danger of a
>nuclear catastrophe. Thank you for your consideration of this important
>matter.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>E Ratcliffe Anderson, Jr., MD
>Exective Vice President, CEO
>American Medical Association
>
>
>****************
>Lachlan Forrow, MD
>President
>The Albert Schweitzer Fellowship
>Promoting Reverence for Life in Action
>         since 1940
>www.schweitzerfellowship.org
>617-667-5111; 617-667-7989 (fax)
>
>"Nuclear weapons are against international law and they have to be
>abolished...All negotiations regarding the abolition of nuclear weapons
>remain without success because no international public exists which demands
>this abolition."
>
> --Dr. Albert Schweitzer




- -
 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, 17 Sep 1999 14:46:47 +1000
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) MOTION IN EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT - FAX/EMAIL MEPS FOR 27 SEPT

Dear De-Alerting/Y2K people,

We are trying to get the EP resoution on the agenda of the European
Parliament for 27 Sept/4Oct.

If you are keen to get it on the agenda, you will need to fax and/or email
your MEPs in the next few days.

The below was faxed to the leader of the CDs in the EP, their foreign
affairs committee chair, and the leader of the Lib/Dems, Pat Cox.

It urges them to support a Y2K de-alerting resolution as a matter of the
highest priority in october, when it seems, we may have our next chance at
a resolution.

Not getting it on the agenda this time was a considerable disappointment
but not entirely unexpected. I understand that we have a better chance in
october.

The letters below or something like them,  should ideally be faxed to
Han-Gert Poettering, chair of the EPP/CD group in the EP, and to Pat Cox of
the ELDR (Lib/Dem/Reform group), and emailed to the Christian Democrat
group (emails below).

You should also draw their attention to the letter sent by the American
Medical Association to president Clinton, asking him to take nuclear
weapons off hairtrigger alert.  (Last item in this email)

There will be a meeting of 'urgency coordinators' on Sept 27th which will
decide whether it will get on the agenda of the EP.  The vote will probably
be round 4 oct, but your faxes need to arrive before 27 Sept.


(FAX SOMETHING LIKE THE BELOW TO THESE FAX NUMBERS
HANS-GERT POETTERING MEP,
33-3-8817-9311, 32-2-284-9311
BROK M.ELMAR MEP, 33-3-8817-9323, 32-2-284-9323,
PAT COX MEP, 33-3-8817-9363, 32-2-284-9363,

AND EMAIL THESE  ADRESSES (MEPS FROM THE EPP OR CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS))
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail],   [e-mail],  [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail],  [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
GilesChichester [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail],  [e-mail],  [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail],  [e-mail],
[e-mail],   [e-mail],
[e-mail],   [e-mail],
[e-mail],  [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail],  [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail],  [e-mail], [e-mail], ,
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],



TO:
HANS-GERT POETTERING MEP,
33-3-8817-9311, 32-2-284-9311
BROK M.ELMAR MEP, 33-3-8817-9323, 32-2-284-9323,
PAT COX MEP, 33-3-8817-9363, 32-2-284-9363,
CC
MAJ-BRITT THEORIN 33-3-8817-9661, 32-2-284-9661.

Dear Hans-Gert Poettering, Pat Cox, and Brok M. Elmar,

I am writing in support of an urgency motion on Y2K, Nuclear weapons,
nuclear reactors, and other risks which was to have been placed on the
agenda of the EP on Monday 13 September. I  understand that it is now
possibly to be placed on the agenda in October.

It is a pity that it was not possible for this motion, urgent and timebound
as it is, to have been placed on the agenda at the earliest possible
moment. The issues it addresses are both of the utmost gravity, and require
action at the earliest possible stage. There are now only just over 100
days to the Y2K rollover.

The motion sought to address the risks of nuclear reactor accidents, and
possible accidental nuclear war as a result of Y2K- related computer errors.

Specifically, it was to have addressed the problem of Y2K computer-error
induced accidental nuclear launches by the simple, cost- free, and risk -
free measure of standing down nuclear forces or De-Alerting.

It is disturbing that a clear commitment to De-Alerting was in fact excised
from  the motion, presumably because it was felt that the PPE would not
accept de- alerting.

If that is indeed your position it is a gravely and dangerously mistaken
one.  We urge you to reverse it. De-Alerting has in fact, neither costs nor
risks. Failure to de-alert or stand down nuclear forces on the other hand,
risks potentially, the ultimate catastrophe. It is literally to play
Russian roulette with the entire planet.

De-Alerting, or standing down nuclear forces, was of course recommended by
the Canberra Commission in 1996, and was called for by subsequent
resolutions of the UN general Assembly.

It has been said that without verification, De-Alerting would cause more
rather than less uncertainty over the Y2K rollover period.

There are two responses to this. The first is that it is not in fact too
difficult to ensure that De-Alerting is verifiable by mutual inspection.

The second response is that this is in any case simply not the case.
Verification is certainly highly desirable, but ANY move to a lower alert
status by either or both sides of a nuclear 'pair' such as the US and
Russia makes the likelihood of an accidental nuclear exchange much lower.

In this context it is worth noting that the UK has already moved its
'notice to fire' for its submarine force from seconds to days. This measure
is not easily verifiable but it is nonetheless of immense benefit in
assuring strategic stability.

De-Alerting, verifiable or not, creates a 'firebreak' that ensures that,
faced with Y2K induced uncertainty, there is the opportunity to verify
possibly or probably false warning data, and to take rational decisions.

Under normal circumstances, without De-Alerting, and under the prevailing
doctrine of ' launch on warning',  the existence of roughly 5,500 US and
Russian land-based ICBMs capable of being fired within 20 minutes, and with
flight times of 20-40 minutes (and much shorter for submarine- launched
missiles), gives decision-makers extremely short times in which to
retaliate against an attack which may not be taking place at all.

Finally, De-Alerting has been recommended as a measure that is desirable in
and of itself quite apart from any Y2K - related considerations. It is as
if, in driving an LPG tanker around a particularly sharp bend, we are
reminded that we should obey the speed limit and ensure that our brakes and
steering work. Obviously it is best to keep to the speed limit and have
working brakes and steering at all times.

That the risk of Y2K - related computer glitches in the systems that
control and monitor nuclear weapons is taken very seriously indeed by the
US and Russia is shown in their current negotiations aimed at exchanging
personnel between command centres and setting up a joint 'strategic
stability centre' in Colorado.

We applaud the efforts to do this, but it is worrying that the Colorado
centre is scheduled to become operational only on December27. A four - day
delay will render it useless.

The Y2K resolution also contains a variety of other measures, intended to
minimise the probability of Y2K- induced reactor accidents and other major
safety problems. These measures are especially relevant to eastern European
and CIS reactors, but it should not be assumed that western European plants
will be immune to Y2K induced problems, especially if electricity grids are
affected as seems entirely possible. I strongly commend all of these
reactor safety measures to the PPE and the Liberal Democrat/Reform groups.

I urge both PPE/CD groups and Liberal Democrat groups to support this
resolution as a very high and extremely urgent priority, and specifically
to support De-Alerting or standing down nuclear forces in the light of Y2K.

I trust that this responsible, risk- free, and cost -free measure will gain
your partys support at the very earliest opportunity.

John Hallam,
Nuclear Campaigner,
Friends of the Earth.

>The following letter was sent last week to President Clinton:
>
>
>
>September 7, 1999
>
>The Honorable William J. Clinton
>President of the United States
>The White House
>Washington, DC 20500
>
>Dear Mr President,
>
>At our recent annual meeting in Chicago, the American Medical Association
>House of Delegates, citing our conviction that "the threat that existent
>nuclear weapons represent is truly an urgent public health issue," voted to
>ask that you, "urgently develop policies with other countries to minimize
>the accidental deployment of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
>destruction."
>
>As you know, nearly 10 years after the end of the Cold War, there remain in
>the arsenals of the world some 35,000 nuclear weapons.  2500 of these, on
>missiles in the Russian arsenal, are on hair-trigger alert.  They can be
>fired in 15 minutes, and reach their target cities in less than 30 minutes,
>destroying the world as we know it.  They are,arguably, the greatest threat
>to the health and safety of the American people existing today.
>
>A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 1998
>estimated that an accidental launch from  a single Russian Delta IV
>submarine, even if it did not lead to a wider nuclear war,  could kill
>6,838,000 people from the direct effects of blast and firestorm, with
>another six to twelve million people dying from radiation sickness over the
>following two months.  Such an accident would be a disaster without parallel
>in human history.
>
>This is not simply a theoretical danger.  As you are aware, on the morning
>of January 25, 1995, a US weather rocket launched from Norway was initially
>interpreted by the Russian military as a possible attack on the Russian
>Federation.  President Yeltsin and his advisors were given minutes to decide
>whether to launch a retaliatory attack on the United States. We were
>extemely lucky that morning.  We can not rely on luck to prevent a future
>catastrophe.
>
>At a similar moment of great nuclear danger, just before the break up of the
>Soviet Union in 1989, your predecessor, President Bush, acted decisively to
>lessen the peril of nuclear war.  He unilateraly removed a small number of
>tactical nuclear weapons from the US arsenal, and, when President Gorbachev
>reciprocated, he quickly reached an agreement with the Soviets to withdraw
>the vast majority of these weapons on both sides.
>
>The present danger demands similar visionary leadership today.  Your former
>commander of all strategic nuclear forces, General Georege Lee Butler, has
>called for the US and Russia to remove all of their nuclear missiles from
>hair-trigger alert as the single most important step to prevent an
>accidental nuclear war.
>
>As physicians charged with the protection of public health, we call on you
>to take the lead in developing such policies to minmimize the danger of a
>nuclear catastrophe. Thank you for your consideration of this important
>matter.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>E Ratcliffe Anderson, Jr., MD
>Exective Vice President, CEO
>American Medical Association
>
>
>****************
>Lachlan Forrow, MD
>President
>The Albert Schweitzer Fellowship
>Promoting Reverence for Life in Action
>         since 1940
>www.schweitzerfellowship.org
>617-667-5111; 617-667-7989 (fax)
>
>"Nuclear weapons are against international law and they have to be
>abolished...All negotiations regarding the abolition of nuclear weapons
>remain without success because no international public exists which demands
>this abolition."
>
> --Dr. Albert Schweitzer





- -
 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 #184
***********************************

-
 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.