ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n213

Internet Message Format | 1999-11-03 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #213
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest    Wednesday, November 3 1999    Volume 01 : Number 213




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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:30:10 -0600
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Hanford/Chernobyl: Poison from Rocky Flats

Mailinglist 'Citizens Inspections to Prevent War Crimes'
- -------------------------------------------------------

another very interesting precedent here, involving an intersection of
anti-nuclear weapons  and environmental concerns. Many years ago I worked on
an anti-nuclear protest case at the Hanford Reservation, protesting the
manufacture of nuclear warheads there. At that time, Hanford had the only
nuclear reactor in America that was like Chernobyl, only this was before the
disaster at Chernobyl. In any event, we were in State court because the
protest took place in front of the entrance to the Hanford Reservation, but
all the shots were being called by the federal government. We filed papers
convincing the judge to allow us to put on a necessity defense with respect
to international law, dealing with the use of the Chernobyl-type reactor to
manufacture nuclear weapons. Our first witness was a scientist, who was
going to testify about how many people in the immediate vicinity would die
from cancer if there was an accident at Hanford--along the lines of what
later happened at Chernobyl. The government objected to the witness. The
judge overruled the objection, pursuant to his earlier ruling.After a brief
break in the action, the government dropped all charges. Obviously, they had
checked with the Feds. And obviously, the Feds had concluded that they did
not want our expert to get on the stand, under oath, and explain to the
people living near Hanford how many of them would die from cancer in the
event of an accident at the Chernobyl-type reactor. Our people took a
walk--into freedom.
Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law


- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 10:41 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Poison from Rocky Flats


Thanks for the message back. Yes, the danger to human health and safety
continues. It is interesting how different groups of people working on
issues
perceive those issues and actions. WE were vilified by the no-nukes crowd
when we entered the issue from 1986 on, because they thought we diminished
"their issue" because of our focus on environment, health impacts, and
safety. It takes a lot of people working on all sides to successfully tackle

a huge problem such as this. Thanks to people such as my sister Susan Hurst,

Jim Stone, and other whistleblowers begging the FBI to investigate and go
after Rocky Flats for environmental crimes, action was finally taken.
Ironically, in 1991 Rockwell plead guilty in federal court to the Clean
Water
Act violations my sister took to the FBI in 1986. Pressure comes from all
sides, and chips away at the big stone. Reading over 100 cubic feet of
documents on environmental, unplanned events, UOR's, technical, and safety
problems, has given us perspective we would at times rather not have, and it

has been exhausting work. I appreciate seeing more details on your
contribution to this effort. I would love to see YOUR briefs.

Yours,

Paula Elofson-Gardine
Executive Director
Environmental Information Network
>From the Fallout Zone of Rocky Flats

In a message dated 11/2/99 7:30:49 AM Mountain Standard Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Of course
 Rocky Flats continues today poisoning and polluting the ground, air, water
 and People living between Boulder and Denver, including my brother, his
wife
 and their son, my nephew,Timothy Francis Boyle. But i still have a nice
 brief here that could be dusted off and updated if there are some protests
 on environmental grounds on the state road in front of Rocky Flats.
 Francis A. Boyle >>


- -
 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: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:30:10 -0600
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Hanford/Chernobyl: Poison from Rocky Flats

Mailinglist 'Citizens Inspections to Prevent War Crimes'
- -------------------------------------------------------

Mailinglist 'Citizens Inspections to Prevent War Crimes'
- -------------------------------------------------------

another very interesting precedent here, involving an intersection of
anti-nuclear weapons  and environmental concerns. Many years ago I worked on
an anti-nuclear protest case at the Hanford Reservation, protesting the
manufacture of nuclear warheads there. At that time, Hanford had the only
nuclear reactor in America that was like Chernobyl, only this was before the
disaster at Chernobyl. In any event, we were in State court because the
protest took place in front of the entrance to the Hanford Reservation, but
all the shots were being called by the federal government. We filed papers
convincing the judge to allow us to put on a necessity defense with respect
to international law, dealing with the use of the Chernobyl-type reactor to
manufacture nuclear weapons. Our first witness was a scientist, who was
going to testify about how many people in the immediate vicinity would die
from cancer if there was an accident at Hanford--along the lines of what
later happened at Chernobyl. The government objected to the witness. The
judge overruled the objection, pursuant to his earlier ruling.After a brief
break in the action, the government dropped all charges. Obviously, they had
checked with the Feds. And obviously, the Feds had concluded that they did
not want our expert to get on the stand, under oath, and explain to the
people living near Hanford how many of them would die from cancer in the
event of an accident at the Chernobyl-type reactor. Our people took a
walk--into freedom.
Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law


- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 10:41 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Poison from Rocky Flats


Thanks for the message back. Yes, the danger to human health and safety
continues. It is interesting how different groups of people working on
issues
perceive those issues and actions. WE were vilified by the no-nukes crowd
when we entered the issue from 1986 on, because they thought we diminished
"their issue" because of our focus on environment, health impacts, and
safety. It takes a lot of people working on all sides to successfully tackle

a huge problem such as this. Thanks to people such as my sister Susan Hurst,

Jim Stone, and other whistleblowers begging the FBI to investigate and go
after Rocky Flats for environmental crimes, action was finally taken.
Ironically, in 1991 Rockwell plead guilty in federal court to the Clean
Water
Act violations my sister took to the FBI in 1986. Pressure comes from all
sides, and chips away at the big stone. Reading over 100 cubic feet of
documents on environmental, unplanned events, UOR's, technical, and safety
problems, has given us perspective we would at times rather not have, and it

has been exhausting work. I appreciate seeing more details on your
contribution to this effort. I would love to see YOUR briefs.

Yours,

Paula Elofson-Gardine
Executive Director
Environmental Information Network
>From the Fallout Zone of Rocky Flats

In a message dated 11/2/99 7:30:49 AM Mountain Standard Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Of course
 Rocky Flats continues today poisoning and polluting the ground, air, water
 and People living between Boulder and Denver, including my brother, his
wife
 and their son, my nephew,Timothy Francis Boyle. But i still have a nice
 brief here that could be dusted off and updated if there are some protests
 on environmental grounds on the state road in front of Rocky Flats.
 Francis A. Boyle >>


- -
 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: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:30:10 -0600
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Hanford/Chernobyl: Poison from Rocky Flats

Mailinglist 'Citizens Inspections to Prevent War Crimes'
- -------------------------------------------------------

another very interesting precedent here, involving an intersection of
anti-nuclear weapons  and environmental concerns. Many years ago I worked on
an anti-nuclear protest case at the Hanford Reservation, protesting the
manufacture of nuclear warheads there. At that time, Hanford had the only
nuclear reactor in America that was like Chernobyl, only this was before the
disaster at Chernobyl. In any event, we were in State court because the
protest took place in front of the entrance to the Hanford Reservation, but
all the shots were being called by the federal government. We filed papers
convincing the judge to allow us to put on a necessity defense with respect
to international law, dealing with the use of the Chernobyl-type reactor to
manufacture nuclear weapons. Our first witness was a scientist, who was
going to testify about how many people in the immediate vicinity would die
from cancer if there was an accident at Hanford--along the lines of what
later happened at Chernobyl. The government objected to the witness. The
judge overruled the objection, pursuant to his earlier ruling.After a brief
break in the action, the government dropped all charges. Obviously, they had
checked with the Feds. And obviously, the Feds had concluded that they did
not want our expert to get on the stand, under oath, and explain to the
people living near Hanford how many of them would die from cancer in the
event of an accident at the Chernobyl-type reactor. Our people took a
walk--into freedom.
Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law


- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 10:41 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Poison from Rocky Flats


Thanks for the message back. Yes, the danger to human health and safety
continues. It is interesting how different groups of people working on
issues
perceive those issues and actions. WE were vilified by the no-nukes crowd
when we entered the issue from 1986 on, because they thought we diminished
"their issue" because of our focus on environment, health impacts, and
safety. It takes a lot of people working on all sides to successfully tackle

a huge problem such as this. Thanks to people such as my sister Susan Hurst,

Jim Stone, and other whistleblowers begging the FBI to investigate and go
after Rocky Flats for environmental crimes, action was finally taken.
Ironically, in 1991 Rockwell plead guilty in federal court to the Clean
Water
Act violations my sister took to the FBI in 1986. Pressure comes from all
sides, and chips away at the big stone. Reading over 100 cubic feet of
documents on environmental, unplanned events, UOR's, technical, and safety
problems, has given us perspective we would at times rather not have, and it

has been exhausting work. I appreciate seeing more details on your
contribution to this effort. I would love to see YOUR briefs.

Yours,

Paula Elofson-Gardine
Executive Director
Environmental Information Network
>From the Fallout Zone of Rocky Flats

In a message dated 11/2/99 7:30:49 AM Mountain Standard Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Of course
 Rocky Flats continues today poisoning and polluting the ground, air, water
 and People living between Boulder and Denver, including my brother, his
wife
 and their son, my nephew,Timothy Francis Boyle. But i still have a nice
 brief here that could be dusted off and updated if there are some protests
 on environmental grounds on the state road in front of Rocky Flats.
 Francis A. Boyle >>


- -
 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: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:31:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) U.S. News: Wars in Space  (fwd)

Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator
Global Network
PO Box 90083, Gainesville, Fl 32607
Web site:  http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/
[phone]


=20
 Cover Story 11/8/99

U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT=20


THE NEW SPACE RACE


The Pentagon envisions a war in the heavens, but can it defend the ultima=
te=20
high ground?


BY RICHARD J. NEWMAN=20


The war was not going well. Serbian forces were sowing terror across Koso=
vo.=20
NATO pilots squinting through clouds could do little to stop them. Errant=
=20
NATO bombs had killed dozens of civilians and shaken support for the=20
alliance. Then the Pentagon saw it had another problem. A Colorado outfit=
=20
called Space Imaging was about to launch a picture-tak- ing satellite wit=
h=20
clarity nearly as good as that of U.S. spy satellites. The company could =
have=20
sold photos of NATO air bases or troop encampments to, say, Serbian=20
operatives. That had to be stopped. But how?=20


The brass canvassed its experts for recommendations. The U.S.-licensed fi=
rm=20
could simply be ordered not to take pictures over a broad swath of Europe=
. A=20
similar ban could be issued for a few key areas, such as northern Albania=
. In=20
the end, however, no order was issued. "We got lucky," says a U.S. offici=
al:=20
A malfunction sent Space Imaging's satellite plunging in- to the Pacific=20
Ocean 30 min-utes after it lifted off on April 27.=20


Fortune may not be so kind next time. Space Imaging launched another=20
satellite in September and plans to start selling pictures from it in=20
January. Several other companies are right behind it. Before too long, an=
=20
international bazaar for high-quality satellite imagery will be open for=20
business. And potential foes are making headway with their own satellite=20
capabilities. "There's a new proliferation [of space-based capabilities],=
"=20
says Gen. Richard Myers, head of the Pentagon's U.S. Space Command in=20
Colorado Springs, Colo. "Plus, our Cold War-era capabilities have atrophi=
ed."


That's pushing the Pentagon into a whole new kind of warfare. In the futu=
re,=20
the U.S. military will be responsible for "countering . . . space systems=
 and=20
services used for hostile purposes," says a Pentagon space policy paper=20
published in July. That's a nice way of saying the Pentagon needs to be=20
prepared to defend the ultimate high ground by attacking hostile satellit=
es.=20
The new policy also directs the Space Command to start developing tactics=
 and=20
doctrine for conducting warfare in the heavens. It must also come up with=
=20
plans for deploying space-based lasers or other weapons that could be use=
d=20
against targets anywhere on Earth or above it. If the United States=20
ultimately deploys such weaponry, not only would it break one of the grea=
t=20
taboos of the past 40 years, but it could also transform the way America=20
structures its military and fights wars.=20


But aggressive "space control," as the military calls its quest for domin=
ance=20
in the sky, could backfire. "The military view is, it would be the neates=
t=20
thing in the world to have a death ray in space," says one Space Command=20
official. "But will deploying it lead to a war with somebody?"


Very possibly, some critics say. Virginia Democrat Charles Robb, a member=
 of=20
the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued in a recent article that=20
developing space weapons would be "a mistake of historic proportions" tha=
t=20
would trigger an arms race in space. He foresees scenarios in which other=
=20
nations follow the U.S. example and scramble to launch their own space=20
weapons while frantic generals, unable to tell exactly who has put what i=
nto=20
orbit, plead for extravagant countermeasures. In Pentagon war games, just=
=20
trying to defend U.S. satellites causes problems. "If you defend the=20
satellite, you often widen the war," says Sam Gardiner, a retired Air For=
ce=20
colonel and war-gaming expert. "The thing ends up being the problem and n=
ot=20
the solution."


Tempting targets. Still, the Pentagon may have no choice but to fight in=20
space. Some military analysts believe that with U.S. companies likely to=20
invest $500 billion in space by 2010, the military will be called upon to=
=20
defend American interests in space much as navies were formed to protect =
sea=20
commerce in the 1700s. "U.S. interests and investments in space must be f=
ully=20
protected to ensure our nation's freedom of action in space," reads Space=
=20
Command's Long Range Plan. And intelligence reports show that attacking U=
.S.=20
space systems may be an irresistible option for potential foes who could=20
never match the United States tank for tank or jet for jet. That's partly=
=20
because of the Pentagon's huge dependence on space during military=20
operations. During the war against Serbia, the Pentagon's global-position=
ing=20
constellation was essential for guiding precision bombs to their targets =
in=20
bad weather. Spy satellites monitored Serbian troop movements and interce=
pted=20
conversations among top Serbian officials. A system of satellites designe=
d to=20
pick up missile launches tracked the exact impact point of thousands of N=
ATO=20
bombs, helping to determine whether they fell where they were supposed to.


The overmatched Serbs had little recourse against U.S. space systems. But=
 the=20
Pentagon expects tougher challenges down the road. A classified 1997 stud=
y=20
found that the military's nearly total dependence on space today, combine=
d=20
with new threats, should make protecting satellites a much higher priorit=
y=20
than during the Cold War. Last winter=96shortly before the Kosovo war=96t=
he Space=20
Command stopped publishing information on the whereabouts of the 27=20
satellites that make up the Global-Positioning System (GPS), which up til=
l=20
then had been posted on a NASA Internet site. "It is incumbent on us," sa=
id a=20
memo explaining the decision, "to ensure [that] space assets essential to=
 our=20
nation's defense are protected from potential adversaries."


One problem is that many U.S. satellites lack basic self-defense measures=
=20
like those that are integral to warplanes. Except for some highly classif=
ied=20
spy systems, most satellites can't tell if they are tracked or targeted b=
y=20
ground radar, illuminated by a laser beam, or even attacked outright. The=
 Air=20
Force is developing some technologies that would identify threats and dev=
elop=20
targeting data. But such self-defense options add extra weight, which can=
=20
make launch costs prohibitively high.=20


Until recently, there was little apparent need to defend satellites. The=20
Soviet Union developed antisatellite weapons as early as the 1970s, but "=
an=20
attack on satellites was like an act of nuclear war," says Allen Thomson,=
 a=20
retired CIA analyst who tracks space issues. "The government felt nobody=20
would do this."


Not anymore. A 1998 Pentagon report says China may already have lasers or=
=20
other devices that can blind the optical sensors on U.S. spy satellites.=20
India is trying to buy antisatellite lasers from Russia, according to a s=
tudy=20
by the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, a think tank in Cambridge,=20
Mass. New ballistic missiles being developed by Iran and North Korea are =
also=20
a threat. Using those to disperse something as simple as buckshot into lo=
w=20
Earth orbit=96which ranges up to about 1,500 miles above Earth, where=20
reconnaissance satellites operate=96could create a series of space pileup=
s,=20
since even small objects can produce disastrous collisions at orbital spe=
eds=20
of 17,000 miles per hour. Space watchers even worry that a maverick dicta=
tor=20
might strap a crude nuclear device to a rocket and explode it in space. S=
uch=20
a blast would be harmless to people on Earth, but the Pentagon estimates =
that=20
at the proper altitude the radiation could fry every satellite in low Ear=
th=20
orbit.=20


And an enemy wouldn't have to actually go to space to kill a satellite.=20
Computer hackers could interrupt signals sent between satellites and thei=
r=20
ground operators. Commandos could attack ground stations that serve as=20
control centers or relay points for data, some of which aren't even manne=
d.=20
Security is even lower at operations centers for private satellite compan=
ies=20
such as Iridium, which the Pentagon plans to use increasingly for much of=
 its=20
communications. "You could take out the whole Iridium constellation by ta=
king=20
down one building," an expert says.


Already, there's a sort of spy-versus-spy game going on in the skies. The=
=20
Pentagon calls this "navigation warfare"=96or NavWar. The Pentagon plans =
to=20
install GPS guidance kits on nearly 90,000 gravity bombs by 2008. The=20
technology is critical for maneuvering ships or troops in unfamiliar terr=
ain.=20
American forces would be vulnerable without it. "Wiping out our GPS syste=
m,=20
that would be a critical advantage [for an enemy]," says a defense offici=
al.=20
"We'd come crashing down, while they'd be about the same."


Potential foes have noticed. The Pentagon believes the Chinese may be abl=
e to=20
completely interdict the GPS signal within 10 years. A Russian company ha=
s=20
developed handheld GPS jammers with an advertised range of about 150 mile=
s.=20
At one Moscow arms show, according to intelligence officials, the Russian=
=20
firm displayed a map of Iraq that showed how many jammers it would take t=
o=20
block the GPS signal throughout the country=96and, theoretically, confoun=
d U.S.=20
weapons. The Pentagon is working on ways to strengthen the GPS signal=96o=
r at=20
least the part of it the U.S. military uses. That would force an enemy to=
=20
field bigger jammers that would be easier to target and destroy.=20


Scud sharpshooters. Pentagon researchers are also puzzling over how to=20
prevent an enemy from using GPS to make its own weapons more accurate=96w=
hile=20
still providing the signal to U.S. forces likely to be fighting them righ=
t=20
across the front lines. Since GPS travels like radio waves, it is availab=
le=20
to anybody with a receiver. That means countries such as North Korea, Ira=
q,=20
and Iran could strap cheap GPS guidance kits onto clumsy weapons like Scu=
d=20
missiles and suddenly be able to deliver them to within 50 or 100 feet of=
 a=20
target. "Precision [weapons] in the hands of others is going to drive us=20
crazy," predicts retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Bill Jones. Classified NavWa=
r=20
tactics being developed include "spoofing" the GPS signal by sending out =
a=20
corrupted version that appears to be the real thing, or blocking the GPS=20
signal over a limited area, perhaps by using jammers loaded onto unmanned=
=20
aircraft.=20


Even American spy satellites=96for years the crown jewels of the U.S.=20
intelligence system=96are becoming less effective as the rest of the worl=
d=20
becomes more space-savvy. Technologically, U.S. capabilities remain the=20
world's best. Reconnaissance satellites 500 miles high are thought to be =
able=20
to distinguish objects on the ground as small as 6 inches wide. Others us=
e=20
radar to take pictures through clouds and camouflage. But some newcomers =
are=20
beginning to match U.S. capabilities. The Canadian Space Agency plans to=20
launch a radar satellite in 2001 that will be nearly as capable as the=20
Pentagon's Lacrosse spy satellite. And those under surveillance have lear=
ned=20
how to evade the American eye in the sky by studying U.S. tactics and=20
developing ways to track the satellites. When Indian officials were getti=
ng=20
ready to explode a nuclear bomb last year, for instance, they predicted w=
hen=20
U.S. satellites would be passing overhead and moved workers indoors durin=
g=20
those times. They also created a diversion by setting up a test of an=20
air-defense missile system several hundred miles away=96guessing correctl=
y that=20
U.S. analysts would cue the satellites to zoom in on that. When the nucle=
ar=20
test occurred, critics called it the biggest intelligence failure in year=
s.=20


Intelligence officials say part of the problem is that the spy satellites=
 in=20
orbit now were designed to take periodic peeks at Soviet military=20
installations=96not to offer unblinking surveillance capability over far=20
corners of the globe where the United States typically finds itself=20
monitoring crises these days. The next generation of sky spies, due to be=
=20
launched around 2005, will be smaller and more numerous. Instead of the f=
ive=20
or six spy satellites believed to be in orbit now, there could be two doz=
en=20
or more. That will increase "revisit times" over a given area, leaving fe=
wer=20
gaps for conducting surreptitious activity. Thomson, the retired CIA anal=
yst,=20
points to some satellites that have mysteriously disappeared over the pas=
t=20
decade as evidence that the United States has developed stealthy satellit=
es=20
and techniques for "storing" satellites in deep orbits where they are har=
d to=20
detect, then maneuvering them close to Earth as needed.


But with India, China, Russia, and many private companies rapidly crowdin=
g=20
into space, keeping the U.S. edge will require more than technological=20
superiority. That's why the Pentagon is tiptoeing down the path toward sp=
ace=20
warfare. In a report prepared for Congress this summer, the Pentagon gave=
 a=20
few clues about what it has in mind. "Physical destruction of [enemy]=20
satellites is not the preferred approach," says the report. That's not=20
because the Pentagon can't do it; when the Army test-fired a laser at an=20
aging Air Force satellite in 1997, it inflicted significant damage. But=20
blowing up a satellite would unleash debris that could damage U.S. space=20
systems. The Pentagon report stated that "we must retain the option for=20
irreversible denial"=96military jargon for smashing something to smithere=
ens.=20
But it also emphasized tactics like jamming and disrupting satellite sign=
als=20
as the best ways to carry out space control.=20


That's what's known as "soft kill." The approach has proved more effectiv=
e=20
than blowing stuff up. During the first weeks of the war against Serbia, =
NATO=20
commanders became increasingly concerned about propaganda being broadcast=
 on=20
Yugoslav television. Finally, on April 23, NATO bombed Yugoslavia's main =
TV=20
transmitting tower. But the Serbs made repairs and were broadcasting agai=
n=20
within days. Then NATO tried another approach: It asked EUTELSAT, a Europ=
ean=20
space consortium, to shut off the satellite service that sent the TV sign=
al=20
throughout Yugoslavia. That did the trick.=20


A real space standoff might not be so easy to resolve. The Army set up a =
war=20
game last year, for instance, in which the United States fought a fictiti=
ous=20
Middle Eastern country called the "New Islamic Republic." In the exercise=
,=20
China provided satellite imagery of U.S. troop movements to the enemy. Th=
at=20
left U.S. decision makers debating whether to try to knock out China's=20
satellites=96almost certain to draw China into the war. Another complicat=
ion=20
was that the New Islamic Republic sent military communications over the s=
ame=20
international satellites used by journalists to send their war stories ba=
ck=20
home. Deciding whether to attack those satellites, said Richard Armitage,=
 a=20
former top Pentagon official who played the role of commander in chief, w=
as a=20
matter of "how much of the world we want to piss off." In the end, he dec=
ided=20
not that much. The best course, Armitage concluded, was to do nothing.


"Energy rods." As touchy as talk of space warfare may be, some still thin=
k=20
the Pentagon isn't going far enough. A recent Senate report argued that=20
instead of treating space merely as an "information medium," the Defense=20
Department needs to start focusing on space as "the strategic high ground=
=20
from which to project power." That means developing lasers or "kinetic en=
ergy=20
rods" or other weapons that could be used to attack enemy spacecraft or=20
missiles or even ground targets like bridges and buildings. The Pentagon =
has=20
looked into the idea=96and the possibilities sound mesmerizing. A space-b=
ased=20
military force "could deliver precisely calibrated effects, from taking a=
=20
picture to dropping a precision munition, anywhere on Earth, in less than=
 an=20
hour from the 'go' order, with surprise and immunity to most defenses,"=20
according to a 1998 study by the Air Force's scientific advisory board. I=
n=20
one war game last year, the Air Force tested three types of forces=96one =
armed=20
mainly with space weapons and two more conventionally equipped=96against =
the=20
same "enemy." The space force won the war in days, while the other outfit=
s=20
took months and required three times as many troops.


The Pentagon does have at least one space-based weapon in the works=96the=
=20
space-based laser, which could be carried on a space-shuttlelike vehicle.=
 The=20
laser's purpose would be to shoot down ballistic missiles like the Scud=96=
but=20
space experts say it could easily be reconfigured to attack other objects=
 in=20
space or on the ground. The space-based laser isn't due until at least 20=
20,=20
however, and the Pentagon does not appear eager to court the controversy =
that=20
would come from anything more ambitious. The Russians, for one, have alre=
ady=20
objected to U.S. plans to field a national missile defense system. That w=
ould=20
rely on satellites only to detect launches and relay data rapidly to grou=
nd=20
stations=96not to fire any weapons. But the Russians argue that detection=
 alone=20
would violate the 1972 antiballistic missile treaty. The Clinton=20
administration is seeking to modify the treaty and may withdraw from it i=
f=20
the Russians don't agree to a compromise.


Doves aloft? But some still say the Pentagon is, of all things, going sof=
t on=20
space. Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire, who chairs the Senate subcommitte=
e on=20
strategic forces, has threatened congressional action to establish a fift=
h=20
military service=96a Space Force=96if the Air Force, which has responsibi=
lity for=20
most of the Pentagon's orbiting systems, doesn't pursue space weapons mor=
e=20
aggressively. Some critics argue that costly programs like the $60 billio=
n=20
F-22 fighter jet are soaking up funds that could be spent more wisely on=20
cutting-edge space programs, such as a proposed constellation to do full-=
time=20
surveillance of key parts of the globe. Retired Gen. Howell Estes, who he=
aded=20
the Space Command until 1998, has argued that the Air Force should be muc=
h=20
more aggressive in pursuing new satellites that would monitor missile=20
launches far better than existing systems.=20


But the prospect of a space force puzzles some analysts. "What would it b=
e?"=20
wonders John Correll, editor of Air Force Magazine. "A kind of paramilita=
ry=20
NASA?" Air Force Secretary F. Whitten Peters defends the Air Force's spac=
e=20
programs by pointing out that the service will double the proportion of m=
oney=20
it spends on space over the next five years. And new satellites for detec=
ting=20
missile launches, he argues, have little value if there's no missile defe=
nse=20
system for shooting them down. "Why do you want to put up a satellite bef=
ore=20
you need it?" he asks. Better computers, says Peters, are helping enhance=
 the=20
capabilities of existing satellites.=20


But after years of theoretical debate, many now believe it is inevitable =
that=20
weapons will invade space. "It's a question of whether the threat is so=20
compelling as to persuade a president to cross this line and put weapons =
in=20
space," says Robert Bell, President Clinton's former special assistant fo=
r=20
arms control. In the end, it may take a Pearl Harbor-like attack on a=20
satellite to justify such a momentous move. But if that day arrives, the=20
Pentagon may pull a few surprises of its own off the shelf.=20

=20
=20
=20
 =20



- -
 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: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:38:01 -0600
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) RE: Hanford/Chernobyl: Poison from Rocky Flats

all i can say is that the feds will do the best they can to keep any of this
information from every coming out in any legal proceedings anywhere--like at
Rocky Flats. fab

- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 3:44 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Hanford/Chernobyl: Poison from Rocky Flats


On 11/03/99 11:30:10 you wrote:
>


   Francis,
            Is there any way of legally compelling Federal and/or State
authorities to publicly tell communities, cities,
states, & regions how many people would be killed [not die] via cancer and
other radiation induced diseases? Also, how much
economic damage could be expected? If so, do you think that it can be made
compulsory that such informational dissemenation
be made on a regular [annual?] basis and that it be forced to be taught in
schools?


   I'm also very concerned about the potential for saboatge at nuclear power
plants. Can this danger be used legally to
insure that people have the right know what dangers they would face in light
of saboatge and what threats and close calls
we've already had from would be saboteurs? A listing of some of these very
real sabotage threats is at:
http://www.pipeline.com/~happen/threat.html




   Please see   http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/crac.html   and
http://www.tmia.com/y2k.htm


   -Bill Smirnow



>another very interesting precedent here, involving an intersection of
>anti-nuclear weapons  and environmental concerns. Many years ago I worked
on
>an anti-nuclear protest case at the Hanford Reservation, protesting the
>manufacture of nuclear warheads there. At that time, Hanford had the only
>nuclear reactor in America that was like Chernobyl, only this was before
the
>disaster at Chernobyl. In any event, we were in State court because the
>protest took place in front of the entrance to the Hanford Reservation, but
>all the shots were being called by the federal government. We filed papers
>convincing the judge to allow us to put on a necessity defense with respect
>to international law, dealing with the use of the Chernobyl-type reactor to
>manufacture nuclear weapons. Our first witness was a scientist, who was
>going to testify about how many people in the immediate vicinity would die
>from cancer if there was an accident at Hanford--along the lines of what
>later happened at Chernobyl. The government objected to the witness. The
>judge overruled the objection, pursuant to his earlier ruling.After a brief
>break in the action, the government dropped all charges. Obviously, they
had
>checked with the Feds. And obviously, the Feds had concluded that they did
>not want our expert to get on the stand, under oath, and explain to the
>people living near Hanford how many of them would die from cancer in the
>event of an accident at the Chernobyl-type reactor. Our people took a
>walk--into freedom.
>Francis A. Boyle
>Professor of International Law
>
>


- -
 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: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:56:27 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (marylia)
Subject: (abolition-usa) New stuff! Tri-Valley CAREs! On our website!

Greetings peace and environmental advocates.

Tri-Valley CAREs now has the October issue of its newsletter, Citizen's
Watch, ready for your viewing pleasure on its website at
<http://www.igc.org/tvc>.

You will find such stories as:

*       "Criticality Accident in Japan Revives Memories at Livermore."
Read all about the 1963 criticality accident at Livermore Lab, including
one worker's first-hand account of the shocking "cleanup operation" that
followed the accident.

*       "The National Ignition Facility: Over Budget and Under Fire."
Get the latest scoop on this beleaguered nuclear weapons facility,
including the advent of a GAO investigation into cost overruns, technical
difficulties, schedule slips and mismanagement. Read, too, about Livermore
Lab's "fall-back"  proposal.

*       "Print Bites"
Don't miss these short items on subcritical nuclear testing, DOE
reorganization, radioactive metal recycling and plutonium in Livermore.

*       Late-breaking news items, calendar section, opportunities to get
involved with Tri-Valley CAREs and more!

* Also, take our pop quiz on nukes, pollution and Livermore Lab, then click
on for answers.   * Look through back issues of our newsletter.   * Check
out our action alerts, fact sheets etc.   * And, while you are there,
download artwork and text to make your very own nuclear weapons de-alerting
postcards. Enjoy!

Peace,
Marylia

Marylia Kelley
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94550

<http://www.igc.org/tvc/> - is our web site, please visit us there!

[phone] - is our phone
[phone] - is our fax

Working for peace, justice and a healthy environment since 1983, Tri-Valley
CAREs has been a member of the nation-wide Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability in the U.S. since 1989, and is a co-founding member of the
international Abolition 2000 network for the elimination of 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 #213
***********************************

-
 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.