ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n312

Internet Message Format | 2000-05-30 | 54KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #312
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest      Wednesday, May 31 2000      Volume 01 : Number 312




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

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 12:52:28 -0500
From: Kevin Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) new report spotlighting the role of weapons contractors in selling Star Wars

Dear Friends,

Be sure to check out this new report on Star Wars.  For a list of other
resources for anti-Star Wars organizing, please see
http://www.fourthfreedom.org/hottopic/GrassrootsOrganizing.html

Kevin Martin
Director, Project Abolition
###

WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE
AT THE NEW SCHOOL

Tel.: [phone], ext 112
E-mail: [e-mail]


TANGLED WEB: THE MARKETING OF MISSILE DEFENSE
1994-2000

by William D. Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/tangled.htm

Arms Trade Resource Center Special Report
May 2000

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS


Playing Politics with Defense:

Given the serious technical, cost, and arms control problems plaguing
the
Clinton administration's proposed National Missile Defense (NMD) system,
the
most convincing explanation for the undue haste with which
this issue is being decided is that both the Clinton administration and
its
conservative adversaries in Congress and the Bush campaign are playing
politics with the missile defense issue.


The NMD Two-Step
Republicans Lead, Clinton Follows:

In its ongoing effort to "triangulate" by coopting Republican issues,
President Clinton has slowly but surely met conservative missile defense

boosters more than half way on the NMD issue, to the point where his
administration has little room to maneuver in putting the program on
hold in
pursuit of a new round of nuclear arms reductions with Russia.
In the mean time, Republicans in Congress and on the Bush campaign have
stepped up their calls for an elaborate, multi-tiered NMD system akin to

Ronald Reagan's ill-fated Star Wars scheme of the 1980s.


NMD is Unaffordable:

With cost projections for NMD ranging from a Congressional Budget Office

estimate of $60 billion for the Clinton administration's "limited" two
site
system to as much as $240 billion for a "robust,"
multi-tiered approach, missile defense is fast outpacing the willingness
of
the public or large parts of the national security establishment to pay
for
it, particulary compared to what these vast sums could do to
address other pressing national needs.


NMD is Lucrative:

The nation's Big 3 weapons contractors, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and
Raytheon, are looking to missile defense as a medium-to-long term source
of
revenues and profits to help them recover from recent management and
technical problems that have slashed their stock prices in half and
reduced
their profit margins.  In FY 1998-99, the four largest missile defense
contractors (the Big 3 plus TRW) have shared over $2.2 billion
in Pentagon research and development funding for NMD projects.  These
four
firms completely dominate the missile defense program at this point,
accounting for 60% of total missile defense contracts issued by
the Pentagon in FY 1998-99.


The Political Pace of the NMD Program is being Accelerated by an
Alliance of
Conservative True Believers and Right-Wing Foundations Centered Around
Frank
Gaffney's Center for Security Policy:

Far from being determined by objective national security
considerations, every major milestone in the NMD program, from its
inclusion
in Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey's "Contract With America" in 1994 to the

Rumsfeld Commission's extreme "worst case" assessment of the
"rogue state" missile threat in 1998 to the passage of pro-NMD
legislation
in both houses of Congress in the spring of 1999, has been propelled
forward
by a highly disciplined and effective coalition of
conservative organizations, including the Heritage Foundation and
Empower
America, and neo-Reaganite Republicans like Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) and
Sen.
Jon Kyl (R-AZ), all of whom are represented on the Board
of Advisors of the Center for Security Policy, which serves as the
defacto
nerve center of the missile defense lobby.


The Four Largest Missile Defense Contractors are Making a Major
Political
Investment in the Promotion
of an NMD System:

Since Republicans took control of the House in 1995, weapons industry
PAC
contributions have favored Republican congressional candidates by a
margin of 2 to 1.  In this election cycle alone, Lockheed Martin,
Boeing,
Raytheon and TRW have given over $2 million to the twenty-five hardcore
NMD
boosters in the Senate. These true believers signed onto a
recent letter from Jesse Helms to President Clinton threatening to kill
any
U.S.-Russian arms agreement that puts ANY limits on the scope of future
NMD
deployments.  These companies also spent $34 million on
lobbying during 1997/98, and they have helped finance a series of
pro-NMD
breakfasts on Capitol Hill in conjunction with the National Defense
University Foundation and the National Security Industrial
Association (the weapons industry's largest trade association).


For a copy of the full TANGLED WEB report:
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/tangled.htm

For a hardcopy of this hard hitting expose, call or email Frida Berrigan

Frida Berrigan
Research Associate
Arms Trade Resource Center
65 Fifth Avenue, Suite 413
New York, New York 10003
212-229-5808 ext. 112
fax: [phone]
email:[e-mail]







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

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

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 13:16:09 -0500
From: Kevin Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) info. on Kerrey Amendment on nuclear weapons reductions and de-alerting

Dear Friends,

Please read and act upon the following alert on the Kerrey amendment.
It may very well turn out to be the most important vote on U.S. nuclear
weapons policy that Congress makes this year.  Thanks to Daryl Kimball
and Stephen Young of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, Alistair
Millar of Fourth Freedom Forum, and Jim Bridgman of Peace Action
Education Fund for this alert.

Kevin Martin
Director, Project Abolition
*********

Priority Alert - Call until end of Memorial Day Recess (June 5). Senate
vote on Kerrey (Neb.) amendment expected week of
June 5th!!

The following message is based on discussion from last week's Nuclear
Weapons Working Group meeting in Washington, DC
and a previous email from Daryl Kimball, Coalition to Reduce Nuclear
Dangers[mailto:[e-mail]]

As soon as  June 6th , the  Senate  may debate  Sen. Bob Kerrey's (NE)
amendment offered to the fiscal 2001 Defense
Authorization bill that would allow the President to reduce U.S.
strategic nuclear force levels below START I levels (approx.
6000) and take weapons off combat status (i.e. de-alert). Under current
law <http://www.clw.org/coalition/xcutfy99.htm>, such
actions are prohibited until and unless START II is implemented -- an
unlikely near-term prospect.  This restriction exists despite
the Russian Duma's ratification of START II because of several related
protocols that need to be approved (see CRND's Stuck at
First START factsheet at bottom for more info).

TARGET LIST: Bayh, Byrd, Graham (FL), Lincoln, Chafee, Jeffords, Snowe,
Collins, Hagel, Domenici, Warner, Fitzgerald, McCain, Specter, Santorum,
Gordon Smith, Thomas, Lugar (call Lugar at district office only please).
If your Senator is not on this list, please feel free to call anyway!!!

RAP for Republicans: With George W. Bush's speech last this week
supporting nuclear weapons reductions and de-alerting, you should tell
GOP Senators, "A vote against Kerrey's amendment is a vote against
George Bush!"

The House rules committee  ruled the counterpart amendment sponsored by
Allen (D-ME), McGovern (D-MA) and Gendjenson
(D-CT),  out of order, making the vote on the Senate amendment even more
crucial (so it can go on to conference committee).

This year's Allen-McGovern-Gendjenson & Kerrey amendments are somewhat
different than the approach that Senator Kerrey
pursued last year on the floor and by Allen and Spratt in HASC this
year, which was simply striking the restriction on cuts below
START I before START II implementation. Kerrey's 1999 floor amendment
was defeated 56-44.  This vote is on the Peace
Action Education Fund 1999 Voting Record at
http://www.peace-action.org/99votingrecord.pdf. You can also see
<http://www.clw.org/coalition/kerreydebate052699.htm> for the floor
debate and roll call vote.

For further information see the following items, below:

* "Stuck at First START: U.S. Forced to Maintain its Nuclear Arsenal
While Russia's Declines," Coalition to Reduce Nuclear
Dangers ISSUE BRIEF, May 15, 2000
<http://www.clw.org/coalition/briefv4n6.htm>

* "Talking Points" on the Allen-McGovern-Gendjenson & the Kerrey
amendments

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

"Stuck at First START: U.S. Forced to Maintain its Nuclear Arsenal While
Russia's Declines"

COALITION TO REDUCE NUCLEAR DANGERS -- ISSUE BRIEF

VOL. 4, NO. 6, May 15, 2000

CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION intended to encourage Russian ratification of
START II now locks in U.S. nuclear forces
at artificially high levels, despite the Russian Duma's approval of the
Treaty last month. The legislation mandates that the U.S.
maintain its nuclear arsenal at levels set in START I until START II
enters into force. The U.S. Senate, which approved START
II ratification in 1996, still must ratify new protocols to the Treaty
before entry into force can take place. Approval of the
protocols, however, has become entangled in the debate over national
missile defense and the ABM Treaty, and it is unclear when
the Senate will consider them. Unless this situation changes, the U.S.
will be forced to keep its START I arsenal of 6,000 strategic
nuclear weapons, while Russia's forces continue to decline due to aging
and funding shortfalls.

START I was signed in 1991 and entered into force in 1994. START II
calls for reductions to 3,000-3,500 strategic nuclear
warheads each and the elimination of land-based multi-warhead missiles.
The congressional legislation requires maintaining the
U.S. arsenal at START I levels of 76 B-52H bombers, 18 Trident ballistic
missile submarines, 500 Minuteman III inter-continental
ballistic missiles, and 50 MX missiles. Last year, at the request of the
U.S. Navy, Congress modified the legislation to allow four
Trident submarines to be retired if the President certified this would
not adversely impact the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

The START II protocols, which still require Senate approval, delay the
destruction of delivery vehicles (missiles or planes) from
2003 to 2007 to allow Russia more time to accomplish that goal. Delivery
vehicles that will be destroyed must still be de-activated
by 2003. While those protocols are non-controversial, they have been
linked to protocols to the ABM Treaty that were negotiated
at the same time, making START II implementation highly uncertain.

Military Support for Greater Flexibility

Even before Duma action on START II, General Henry Shelton, Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made clear his opposition
to Congress mandating strategic nuclear force levels. In response to a
question for the record from Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI),
ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen.
Shelton said "I would definitely oppose inclusion of any
language that mandates specific force levels. It is important for us to
retain the ability to deploy the maximum number of warheads
allowed by START I but the Services should also have the flexibility to
do so with a militarily sufficient, yet cost effective, force
structure."

There is broad support for further reductions in U.S. nuclear arsenals
both in the military and former officials. In an interview on
60 Minutes aired in February this year, former head of the U.S.
Strategic Command General Eugene Habiger said, "... the fact
that we have not been able to get down to lower and lower levels of
nuclear weapons is troubling to me, and it should be troubling
to you."

In addition, Richard Perle, the Pentagon's chief nuclear strategist
during the Reagan administration and advisor to candidate
George Bush, was quoted in the Washington Post on May 12 calling for
reductions in nuclear arsenals: "It is time for serious
rethinking of the whole nuclear question. We should no longer be
concerned about Cold War arithmetic. . . War plans using 1,000
[or more] warheads no longer make sense."

The High Cost of Cold War Relics

A new study by the Congressional Budget Office describes the dramatic
savings that can be obtained by reducing U.S. nuclear
forces to START II levels while making further cuts in delivery
vehicles: $670 million in fiscal 2001 and $11.6 billion over ten
years. (See table.) This approach would make additional reductions in
the Trident submarine forces, from 14 down to 10, and in
the Minuteman III force, from 500 to 300. START II warhead levels of
3,000-3,500 warheads would still be maintained by
increasing the number of warheads on each Trident missile from five to
seven.

In response to another question Sen. Levin, Gen. Shelton gave support to
further cuts, indicating that no military requirement exists
for maintaining the current 50 MX ballistic missiles or more than 14
Trident nuclear-armed submarines. According to Gen. Shelton, Admiral
Richard Mies, Commander in Chief of US Strategic Command, conducted an
"extensive analysis" and concluded that, with no Peacekeeper [MX]
missiles and only 14 Tridents, the remaining US arsenal would "meet our
current and emerging war-fighting requirements."

Removing the Congressional restriction would allow the U.S. military and
the next President to explore alternate ways to reduce
the nuclear threat through parallel, reciprocal, and verifiable
reductions with Russia. For example, in exchange for U.S. reductions
to START II, or even START III (2,000-2,500
strategic warheads) levels, both sides could agree to use the
verification provisions of START I to monitor deeper
reductions.

________________________________

Reduce Nuclear Delivery Systems Within
Overall Limits of START II

Savings (Millions of Dollars)

Budget Authority Outlays

Annual:
2001 670 240
2002 420 340
2003 620 440
2004 690 540
2005 830 710

Cumulative:
2001-2005 3,230 2,270
2000-2010 8,330 7,880

Source: Congressional Budget Office, 3/00
________________________________

The Bush-Gorbachev Example

Some of the most dramatic reductions in nuclear arsenals took place
outside the formal treaty process. In September 1991,
President George Bush announced dramatic unilateral U.S. reductions in
tactical nuclear forces deployed in Europe and on ships.
The number of deployed tactical forces dropped significantly; in Europe
alone, they fell from over 7,000 to less than 1,000. Bush
also ordered off alert a thousand U.S. warheads deployed on strategic
bombers and ballistic missiles slated for dismantlement. In
response, Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev withdrew all tactical
weapons from outside Russian territory, removed most
categories of tactical nuclear weapons from service and designated
thousands of nuclear warheads to dismantlement.

# # #

The Coalition is a non-partisan alliance of 17 of the nation's leading
arms control and non-proliferation organizations working for a
practical, step-by-step program to reduce the dangers of nuclear and
other weapons of mass destruction.

*The views and analysis expressed in this paper do not necessarily
reflect those of every member of the Coalition. For more
information, contact Stephen Young at [phone], ext. 102, or email
<[e-mail]>

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

Talking Points on 2000 Kerrey & Allen/McGovern/Gendjenson Amendments on
Limitations on Nuclear Reductions
by Allistar Millar,
Fourth Freedom Forum, May 17, 2000

Approval of amendment to H.R. 4205 allows the President flexibility to
retire U.S. strategic nuclear force levels in
excess of military "requirements" so long as such reductions are pursued
with Russia in a verifiable, and reciprocal manner and do
not interfere with U.S. nuclear deterrent capbilities. Such measures
would not interfere with U.S. nuclear deterrent capabilities
and it would save taxpayers billions of dollars.

Improve Strategic Stability and Reduce Risks

* Approval of the amendment would increase national security by reducing
the possibility of unintended launch or other accident.
The United States and Russia are the only nations to maintain nuclear
weapons on hyper-alert, poised to launch at a moments
notice, increasing the chances of an accident especially in Russia where
early warning and nuclear weapons safety equipment is in
serious disrepair. A total of about 4000 U.S. and Russian nuclear
weapons are on "hair-trigger" alert, prone to an accidental
launch.

* Current law prohibits the U.S. from retiring or "de-alerting" nuclear
force levels below the nearly decade-old START I treaty
(6000 deployed strategic weapons), until and unless START II is
implemented (an uncertain prospect due to disputes over national
missile defense). The existing law forces the Pentagon to keep planes,
submarines, and missiles it no longer wants or needs. The
current U.S. nuclear war-fighting plan calls for 2000-2500 strategic
nuclear weapons.

General Eugene Habiger, U.S. Air Force (Retired), the former chief of
the U.S. Strategic Command testified before retiring:
"There is no need to stay at the START I level from a military
perspective" (Washington Post - January 7, 1999).

* Russia currently deploys a strategic nuclear force below START I level
(5900) and is likely to reduce that force further in the
coming years, while the U.S. deploys approximately 7200 strategic bombs.

* In the interest of strategic stability and nuclear risk reduction, the
next President should have the option of pursuing parallel,
reciprocal reductions of deployed strategic nuclear weapons as Russia
reduces the size of its deployed nuclear arsenal and taking
a substantial portion of the deployed arsenal off hair-trigger alert.
Such actions are consistent with President George Bush's 1991
nuclear reductions initiatives and would improve national security by
reducing the probability of an unintended launch or other
accident

* Supporting this amendment would allow the United States to better
comply with its stated goals and policies toward the
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Removing restrictions would allow
the United States to demonstrate its commitment to the
other 186 signatories of the currently fragile Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty (NPT). The US delegation has repeatedly touted
the reductions achieved under former President George Bush as evidence
of progress towards its non-proliferation treaty
commitments. Nearly ten years later, the world is waiting for more
up-to-date evidence of further reductions in nuclear forces, in
large part hindered by the restrictions that this amendment will remove.

* Support for this amendment will further the achievement of the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR). CTR is bipartisan alliance
aimed at spurring prompt dismantlement and conversion of the post-Cold
War Soviet nuclear stockpile. Eliminating restriction on
further verifiable reductions of Cold War nuclear arsenals is a
necessary part of continuing pursuit of a credible arms control
agenda that Senators such as Lugar and Dominici support.

Cut Costs

* A new study by the Congressional Budget Office describes the dramatic
savings that can be obtained by reducing U.S. nuclear
forces to START II levels while making further cuts in delivery
vehicles: $670 million in fiscal 2001 and $11.6 billion over ten
years.

* The amendment would save money by allowing for additional reductions
in the Trident submarine forces, from 14 down to 10,
and in the Minuteman III force, from 500 to 300. START II warhead levels
of 3,000-3,500 warheads would still be maintained by
increasing the number of warheads on each Trident missile from five to
seven.









- -
 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, 31 May 2000 16:52:16 +1000
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) De-Alerting Vote in US Senate - Fax your Senator Now

John Hallam
Friends of the Earth Sydney,
17 Lord Street, Newtown, NSW, Australia, 2042
Fax [phone]  ph (61)(2)9517-3903
[e-mail]
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~foesyd


Dear All,
Last year I helped to coordinate a global campaign to have nuclear weapons
taken off hairtrigger alert over the Y2K rollover.

That involved a 520 -organisation sign on letter to Yeltsin and Clinton, a
global fax campaign and a resolution in the European parliament, as well as
resolutions in the Australian senate.

I think a lot of folk sent an awful lot of faxes to Clinton and Yeltsin's
numbers.

We survived the rolllover without major incident, but the danger posed by
having at present, roughly
 5,000 US and Russian nuclear weapons on 24 hour hairtrigger alert remains.

The Kerry Amendment, due to come before the US  Senate perhaps as early as
June 5, allows for nuclear weapons to be taken off hairtrigger alert and
allows for nuclear warhead numbers to be cut from START-1 levels.

George Bush has recently made statements that call for deep reductions in
warhead numbers and for nuclear weapons to be taken off alert.

A letter I am coordinating, which some of you may by now have signed, being
faxed to presidents Putin and Clinton on friday 2nd, asks for the US to
accept the lowest warhead numbers offered by Russia, in the upcoming
START-III negotiation. It also asks for de-alerting.  In order for this to
happen, the Kerrey Amendment or something like it must be enacted.

THE KERREY AMENDMENT DESERVES YOUR STRONG SUPPORT.

You senator/congressperson needs to know you support it.

Information fowarded from Kevin Martin of Project Abolition and from Daryl
Kimball is below.

I have attatched below that a previous alert on the same subject by Ira
schorr of 'Back from the Brink', and a list of senatorial faxes from Bill
Smirnow.

Do please fax or ring your senator NOW and support the amendment.

John Hallam.



Dear Friends,

Please read and act upon the following alert on the Kerrey amendment.
It may very well turn out to be the most important vote on U.S. nuclear
weapons policy that Congress makes this year.  Thanks to Daryl Kimball
and Stephen Young of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, Alistair
Millar of Fourth Freedom Forum, and Jim Bridgman of Peace Action
Education Fund for this alert.

Kevin Martin
Director, Project Abolition
*********

Priority Alert - Call until end of Memorial Day Recess (June 5). Senate
vote on Kerrey (Neb.) amendment expected week of
June 5th!!

The following message is based on discussion from last week's Nuclear
Weapons Working Group meeting in Washington, DC
and a previous email from Daryl Kimball, Coalition to Reduce Nuclear
Dangers[mailto:[e-mail]]

As soon as  June 6th , the  Senate  may debate  Sen. Bob Kerrey's (NE)
amendment offered to the fiscal 2001 Defense
Authorization bill that would allow the President to reduce U.S.
strategic nuclear force levels below START I levels (approx.
6000) and take weapons off combat status (i.e. de-alert). Under current
law <http://www.clw.org/coalition/xcutfy99.htm>, such
actions are prohibited until and unless START II is implemented -- an
unlikely near-term prospect.  This restriction exists despite
the Russian Duma's ratification of START II because of several related
protocols that need to be approved (see CRND's Stuck at
First START factsheet at bottom for more info).

TARGET LIST: Bayh, Byrd, Graham (FL), Lincoln, Chafee, Jeffords, Snowe,
Collins, Hagel, Domenici, Warner, Fitzgerald, McCain, Specter, Santorum,
Gordon Smith, Thomas, Lugar (call Lugar at district office only please).
If your Senator is not on this list, please feel free to call anyway!!!

RAP for Republicans: With George W. Bush's speech last this week
supporting nuclear weapons reductions and de-alerting, you should tell
GOP Senators, "A vote against Kerrey's amendment is a vote against
George Bush!"

The House rules committee  ruled the counterpart amendment sponsored by
Allen (D-ME), McGovern (D-MA) and Gendjenson
(D-CT),  out of order, making the vote on the Senate amendment even more
crucial (so it can go on to conference committee).

This year's Allen-McGovern-Gendjenson & Kerrey amendments are somewhat
different than the approach that Senator Kerrey
pursued last year on the floor and by Allen and Spratt in HASC this
year, which was simply striking the restriction on cuts below
START I before START II implementation. Kerrey's 1999 floor amendment
was defeated 56-44.  This vote is on the Peace
Action Education Fund 1999 Voting Record at
http://www.peace-action.org/99votingrecord.pdf. You can also see
<http://www.clw.org/coalition/kerreydebate052699.htm> for the floor
debate and roll call vote.

For further information see the following items, below:

* "Stuck at First START: U.S. Forced to Maintain its Nuclear Arsenal
While Russia's Declines," Coalition to Reduce Nuclear
Dangers ISSUE BRIEF, May 15, 2000
<http://www.clw.org/coalition/briefv4n6.htm>

* "Talking Points" on the Allen-McGovern-Gendjenson & the Kerrey
amendments

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

"Stuck at First START: U.S. Forced to Maintain its Nuclear Arsenal While
Russia's Declines"

COALITION TO REDUCE NUCLEAR DANGERS -- ISSUE BRIEF

VOL. 4, NO. 6, May 15, 2000

CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION intended to encourage Russian ratification of
START II now locks in U.S. nuclear forces
at artificially high levels, despite the Russian Duma's approval of the
Treaty last month. The legislation mandates that the U.S.
maintain its nuclear arsenal at levels set in START I until START II
enters into force. The U.S. Senate, which approved START
II ratification in 1996, still must ratify new protocols to the Treaty
before entry into force can take place. Approval of the
protocols, however, has become entangled in the debate over national
missile defense and the ABM Treaty, and it is unclear when
the Senate will consider them. Unless this situation changes, the U.S.
will be forced to keep its START I arsenal of 6,000 strategic
nuclear weapons, while Russia's forces continue to decline due to aging
and funding shortfalls.

START I was signed in 1991 and entered into force in 1994. START II
calls for reductions to 3,000-3,500 strategic nuclear
warheads each and the elimination of land-based multi-warhead missiles.
The congressional legislation requires maintaining the
U.S. arsenal at START I levels of 76 B-52H bombers, 18 Trident ballistic
missile submarines, 500 Minuteman III inter-continental
ballistic missiles, and 50 MX missiles. Last year, at the request of the
U.S. Navy, Congress modified the legislation to allow four
Trident submarines to be retired if the President certified this would
not adversely impact the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

The START II protocols, which still require Senate approval, delay the
destruction of delivery vehicles (missiles or planes) from
2003 to 2007 to allow Russia more time to accomplish that goal. Delivery
vehicles that will be destroyed must still be de-activated
by 2003. While those protocols are non-controversial, they have been
linked to protocols to the ABM Treaty that were negotiated
at the same time, making START II implementation highly uncertain.

Military Support for Greater Flexibility

Even before Duma action on START II, General Henry Shelton, Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made clear his opposition
to Congress mandating strategic nuclear force levels. In response to a
question for the record from Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI),
ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen.
Shelton said "I would definitely oppose inclusion of any
language that mandates specific force levels. It is important for us to
retain the ability to deploy the maximum number of warheads
allowed by START I but the Services should also have the flexibility to
do so with a militarily sufficient, yet cost effective, force
structure."

There is broad support for further reductions in U.S. nuclear arsenals
both in the military and former officials. In an interview on
60 Minutes aired in February this year, former head of the U.S.
Strategic Command General Eugene Habiger said, "... the fact
that we have not been able to get down to lower and lower levels of
nuclear weapons is troubling to me, and it should be troubling
to you."

In addition, Richard Perle, the Pentagon's chief nuclear strategist
during the Reagan administration and advisor to candidate
George Bush, was quoted in the Washington Post on May 12 calling for
reductions in nuclear arsenals: "It is time for serious
rethinking of the whole nuclear question. We should no longer be
concerned about Cold War arithmetic. . . War plans using 1,000
[or more] warheads no longer make sense."

The High Cost of Cold War Relics

A new study by the Congressional Budget Office describes the dramatic
savings that can be obtained by reducing U.S. nuclear
forces to START II levels while making further cuts in delivery
vehicles: $670 million in fiscal 2001 and $11.6 billion over ten
years. (See table.) This approach would make additional reductions in
the Trident submarine forces, from 14 down to 10, and in
the Minuteman III force, from 500 to 300. START II warhead levels of
3,000-3,500 warheads would still be maintained by
increasing the number of warheads on each Trident missile from five to
seven.

In response to another question Sen. Levin, Gen. Shelton gave support to
further cuts, indicating that no military requirement exists
for maintaining the current 50 MX ballistic missiles or more than 14
Trident nuclear-armed submarines. According to Gen. Shelton, Admiral
Richard Mies, Commander in Chief of US Strategic Command, conducted an
"extensive analysis" and concluded that, with no Peacekeeper [MX]
missiles and only 14 Tridents, the remaining US arsenal would "meet our
current and emerging war-fighting requirements."

Removing the Congressional restriction would allow the U.S. military and
the next President to explore alternate ways to reduce
the nuclear threat through parallel, reciprocal, and verifiable
reductions with Russia. For example, in exchange for U.S. reductions
to START II, or even START III (2,000-2,500
strategic warheads) levels, both sides could agree to use the
verification provisions of START I to monitor deeper
reductions.

________________________________

Reduce Nuclear Delivery Systems Within
Overall Limits of START II

Savings (Millions of Dollars)

Budget Authority Outlays

Annual:
2001 670 240
2002 420 340
2003 620 440
2004 690 540
2005 830 710

Cumulative:
2001-2005 3,230 2,270
2000-2010 8,330 7,880

Source: Congressional Budget Office, 3/00
________________________________

The Bush-Gorbachev Example

Some of the most dramatic reductions in nuclear arsenals took place
outside the formal treaty process. In September 1991,
President George Bush announced dramatic unilateral U.S. reductions in
tactical nuclear forces deployed in Europe and on ships.
The number of deployed tactical forces dropped significantly; in Europe
alone, they fell from over 7,000 to less than 1,000. Bush
also ordered off alert a thousand U.S. warheads deployed on strategic
bombers and ballistic missiles slated for dismantlement. In
response, Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev withdrew all tactical
weapons from outside Russian territory, removed most
categories of tactical nuclear weapons from service and designated
thousands of nuclear warheads to dismantlement.

# # #

The Coalition is a non-partisan alliance of 17 of the nation's leading
arms control and non-proliferation organizations working for a
practical, step-by-step program to reduce the dangers of nuclear and
other weapons of mass destruction.

*The views and analysis expressed in this paper do not necessarily
reflect those of every member of the Coalition. For more
information, contact Stephen Young at [phone], ext. 102, or email
<[e-mail]>

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

Talking Points on 2000 Kerrey & Allen/McGovern/Gendjenson Amendments on
Limitations on Nuclear Reductions
by Allistar Millar,
Fourth Freedom Forum, May 17, 2000

Approval of amendment to H.R. 4205 allows the President flexibility to
retire U.S. strategic nuclear force levels in
excess of military "requirements" so long as such reductions are pursued
with Russia in a verifiable, and reciprocal manner and do
not interfere with U.S. nuclear deterrent capbilities. Such measures
would not interfere with U.S. nuclear deterrent capabilities
and it would save taxpayers billions of dollars.

Improve Strategic Stability and Reduce Risks

* Approval of the amendment would increase national security by reducing
the possibility of unintended launch or other accident.
The United States and Russia are the only nations to maintain nuclear
weapons on hyper-alert, poised to launch at a moments
notice, increasing the chances of an accident especially in Russia where
early warning and nuclear weapons safety equipment is in
serious disrepair. A total of about 4000 U.S. and Russian nuclear
weapons are on "hair-trigger" alert, prone to an accidental
launch.

* Current law prohibits the U.S. from retiring or "de-alerting" nuclear
force levels below the nearly decade-old START I treaty
(6000 deployed strategic weapons), until and unless START II is
implemented (an uncertain prospect due to disputes over national
missile defense). The existing law forces the Pentagon to keep planes,
submarines, and missiles it no longer wants or needs. The
current U.S. nuclear war-fighting plan calls for 2000-2500 strategic
nuclear weapons.

General Eugene Habiger, U.S. Air Force (Retired), the former chief of
the U.S. Strategic Command testified before retiring:
"There is no need to stay at the START I level from a military
perspective" (Washington Post - January 7, 1999).

* Russia currently deploys a strategic nuclear force below START I level
(5900) and is likely to reduce that force further in the
coming years, while the U.S. deploys approximately 7200 strategic bombs.

* In the interest of strategic stability and nuclear risk reduction, the
next President should have the option of pursuing parallel,
reciprocal reductions of deployed strategic nuclear weapons as Russia
reduces the size of its deployed nuclear arsenal and taking
a substantial portion of the deployed arsenal off hair-trigger alert.
Such actions are consistent with President George Bush's 1991
nuclear reductions initiatives and would improve national security by
reducing the probability of an unintended launch or other
accident

* Supporting this amendment would allow the United States to better
comply with its stated goals and policies toward the
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Removing restrictions would allow
the United States to demonstrate its commitment to the
other 186 signatories of the currently fragile Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty (NPT). The US delegation has repeatedly touted
the reductions achieved under former President George Bush as evidence
of progress towards its non-proliferation treaty
commitments. Nearly ten years later, the world is waiting for more
up-to-date evidence of further reductions in nuclear forces, in
large part hindered by the restrictions that this amendment will remove.

* Support for this amendment will further the achievement of the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR). CTR is bipartisan alliance
aimed at spurring prompt dismantlement and conversion of the post-Cold
War Soviet nuclear stockpile. Eliminating restriction on
further verifiable reductions of Cold War nuclear arsenals is a
necessary part of continuing pursuit of a credible arms control
agenda that Senators such as Lugar and Dominici support.

Cut Costs

* A new study by the Congressional Budget Office describes the dramatic
savings that can be obtained by reducing U.S. nuclear
forces to START II levels while making further cuts in delivery
vehicles: $670 million in fiscal 2001 and $11.6 billion over ten
years.

* The amendment would save money by allowing for additional reductions
in the Trident submarine forces, from 14 down to 10,
and in the Minuteman III force, from 500 to 300. START II warhead levels
of 3,000-3,500 warheads would still be maintained by
increasing the number of warheads on each Trident missile from five to
seven.


PREVIOUS ALERT FROM 'BACK FROM THE BRINK' AND SENATORIAL FAX NUMBERS



- -
 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, 31 May 2000 16:51:56 +1000
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) 24 hours still to sign Putin/Clinton Moscow Summit Letter

To sign this letter please just email <[e-mail]>, stating the
name of your organisation, your position AND A LOCATION (City/town AND
COUNTRY).

John Hallam
=46riends of the Earth Sydney,
17 Lord Street, Newtown, NSW, Australia, 2042
=46ax (61)(2)9517-3902  ph (61)(2)9517-3903
[e-mail]
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~foesyd


Dear All,

As Presidents Putin and Clinton will be meeting on June 4 and 5th with
START-III and the ABM treaty high on their list of items to discuss (though
no agreement is felt to be likely), the letter below is to be faxed finally
on June 2 to them end their ministers/secretaries for Defence and Foreign
Affairs.

There is still time for your organisation to sign it if you can do so
within 24 hours.

I urge you to sign it if you agree that nuclear warhead numbers should be
reduced to the lowest possible numers (and then to zero), that nuclear
weapons should be taken off alert, and that the ABM treaty should not be
weakened.

Note that the measures asked for by this letter will be helped by the Kerry
Amendment which will be before Congress on June 5, which therefore also
deserves your support.


PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON
[phone], [phone], [phone], 456-6201

PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN
[phone], [phone]-205-4219

CC
=46OREIGN MINISTER OF RUSSIA IGOR IVANOV
[phone], [phone]

SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE ALBRIGHT
[phone]

MINISTER FOR DEFENCE IGOR SERGEYEV
[phone], [phone],

DEFENCE SECRETARY WILLIAM COHEN
[phone]

Dear Presidents Clinton and Putin,

We the undersigned,  are writing to you in the aftermath of the Review
Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and in view of
your summit meeting in Moscow on June 4-5, with respect to the ratification
of the START-II arms control agreement, the negotiation of a START-III
agreement, and the possible deployment of a National Missile Defence (NMD)
system by the US, with the prospect of the modification of the
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.

Your two countries bear a unique responsibility for the security of the
world, as you possess by far the largest share of the world's nuclear
weapons.

The overwhelming majority of the world's governments and peoples are not
content to see nuclear weapons retained indefinitely by your two nations
(or by the UK, France, China, Israel, India or Pakistan). This has been
shown repeatedly in UN  resolutions  calling for the elimination of nuclear
weapons, and opinion polls supporting the immediate start of negotiations
for a nuclear weapons convention. Support for a nuclear weapons convention
is widespread in many quarters and cannot be dismissed.

Measures discussed at the NPT Review Conference which should form a basis
for your Moscow discussions include:

(1) Unequivocal and Total Elimination
The 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, the
judiciary body of the United Nations, and the world's highest legal
authority, reaffirming the need to eliminate nuclear weapons in its
interpretation of Article VI of the NPT,   unanimously stated:

"There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a
conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects
under strict and effective international control."

In the final declaration of the NPT Review, the NWS made an 'unequivocal
undertaking' to 'accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear
arsenals'.  This position however, represents a bare minimum.

The reality is that the peoples and nations of the world want decisive
action to eliminate nuclear weapons, and they will expect your Moscow
discussions to reflect this new undertaking and to demonstrate evidence of
your compliance with it.

(2) Take US and Russian Nuclear Forces off 'Launch-on-Warning' Status.

The final declaration of the NPT Review Conference contains a commitment to
take 'concrete steps to reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons'.
We therefore urge that both the US and Russia agree immediately to take
nuclear weapons off 'launch-on-warning' status.

The idea of an entirely accidental nuclear war, which 'launch-on-warning'
makes possible, must be intolerable to you, yet it has nearly occurred on a
number of documented occasions. Evidently the US and Russian military were
sufficiently concerned about this last year to establish a joint 'Center
for Y2K Strategic Stability'. With such mutual verification of early
warning information achieved between them, it should be possible to extend
this to monitoring de-alerting of their nuclear forces. Removing nuclear
weapons systems from launch-on-warning status would be the single most
responsible and important step that you could both take in Moscow toward
the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.


(3)Implementation of START-II

The final declaration of the NPT Review Conference contains a commitment to
the implementation of START-II.  This is highly uncertain due to US Senate
opposition to the 1997 ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) protocols.
Consequently, both sides should agree to  unilateral reciprocal measures to
reduce their deployed strategic nuclear arsenals below START-1 levels in
accordance with START-1 verification procedures.

(4)START-III

The NPT Review conference has urged both of you to conclude START-III as
soon as possible. We therefore further urge you to work together to  agree
to   irreversible, verifiable, reductions to 1000 warheads or below for
deployed strategic systems, and in addition to verifiable measures to
deactivate and dismantle all remaining tactical nuclear weapons.

If your two countries are to satisfy your obligations under Article VI of
the NPT, and the wishes of the rest of the world, it is clear that you must
join with the other nuclear weapon states in a process that will take your
nuclear arsenals down to zero.

(5)Preserve and Strengthen the ABM Treaty

The final declaration of the NPT Review conference refers to the
'preserving and strengthening' of the ABM treaty.  This and the NWS
statement at the recent NPT Review Conference on the 'maintenance and
strengthening' of the ABM treaty should not be interpreted to mean the
treaty's alteration to allow NMD deployment.

We strongly urge that the US does not deploy a National Missile Defence
(NMD) system,  and that it cease efforts to amend the ABM Treaty to allow
such a deployment.  As indicated by the 'Talking Points', such deployment
merely encourages retention of large nuclear arsenals.

The UN Secretary-General,  New Agenda Coalition,  Non-Aligned Movement,
European Union, the other NWS and others have all  strongly reaffirmed the
importance of retaining the ABM Treaty.  The deployment of a costly system
of unproven and dubious efficacy against a threat that does not yet and may
never exist, will serve only to derail the process of nuclear weapons
elimination to which both the US and Russia are bound as NPT signatories.

The recent NPT Review  shows that the whole world wants you to take
immediate steps toward the elimination of your nuclear arsenals.
Accordingly we urge you in Moscow to make the deepest cuts possible under
START-III, and to proceed swiftly from there to the complete elimination of
nuclear weapons under strict international control.

Signed:

Bruna Nota, President, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom,
NY/Geneva.,
Merav Datan, International Coordinator, International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), Cambridge, Mass,

Caroline Lucas MEP, Green MEP for South East England,
=46rank Cook MP, Vice-President, NATO Parliamentary Assembly,
=46ranz Floss, Spokesperson, European Federation of Green Parties, Vienna,
Austria.,

Commander Robert D. Green, Royal Navy (Ret'd.), Chair, George Farebrother,
Secy., World Court Project UK,  Hailsham, Sussex, UK.,
Dr. Phyllis Starkey, MP Milton Keynes Southwest, UK.,
Jenny Maxwell, West Midland Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Birmingham, UK=
=2E,
Anni Rainbow and Lindis Percy, Campaign for the Accountability of American
Bases, Otley, Yorks, UK.,
Di Mc Donald, Nuclear Information Service, UK.,
Margaret Turner, President, Womens International League for Peace and
=46reedom, UK.,
Rosy Bremer, South East Hants Peace Council, UK.,

Daniel Durand, National Secretary, Mouvement de la Paix, St-Ouen, France.,
Dr Jean-Marie Matagne, President, Action des Citoyens pour le D=E9sarmement
Nucl=E9aire (ACDN),  France.,
Elizabeth Lavier, Les Verts, France.,

Ak Malten, Global Anti-Nuclear Alliance, The Hague, Netherlands,
Eloi Glorieux, MP  Flemish Regional Parliament, Belgium.,
Peter Vanhoutte, MP Greens Belgium, Belgian Defence Committee Member,
Brussels, Belgium.,
Senator Tom Pitstra, Green-Left Senator, Parliament, Netherlands.,
=46iona Dove, Transnational Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
Marjan Willemsen, For Mother Earth, Netherlands,

Regina Hagen, Darmstaedter Friedensforum, Germany.,
Eva Quistorp, MEP, Women for Peace, Germany.,

Dr. Arthur Muhl, President, International Physicians for the Prevention of
Nuclear War, (IPPNW) Switzerland.,
Matthias Reichl, Centre for Encounters and Active Non-Violence, Austria,

Aurel Duta, Mama Terra/For Mother Earth Romania, Bucharest, Romania,
Alba Circle Non-Violent Movement, Hungary,

Malla Kantola, Secretary-General, Committee of 100, Helsinki, Finland.,
Lea Launokari, Women for Peace, Helsinki, Finland.,
Gerd Soderholm, Women Against Nuclear Power, Helsinki Finland.,

Thor Magnusson, Peace 2000 Institute, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Galina Ragouzhina, WISE-Kaliningrad, Russia.,
Natalia Koniachkina, WISE-TOMSK, Russia.,
Alexandra Koroleva, Ecodefense Kaliningrad, Russia.,

Victor Khazan MP,  Ukrainian Environmental Association 'Zelenyi Zvit'
(Friends of  the Earth Ukraine), Dnipropetrovsk, Kiev, Ukraine,
Nadia Sosovkina, Coordinator, Ukrainian Society for Sustainable
Development, Kiev, Ukraine.,
Alla Shevchuck, Odessa Social-Ecological Union, Odessa, Ukraine,
Vyacheslav Stepanov, Black Sea department of Ukrainian Ecological Academy
of Science, Ukraine.,

Bahig Nassar, Coordinator, Arab Coordination Centre of NGOs, Egypt.
Jean P. Patterson, Womens International League for Peace and Freedom,
Costa-Rica.,
Grace de Hara, Lihue Association, Patagonia, Argentina.,
Richard Salvador, Abolition2000 Pacific, Pacific Island Association of
NGOs, Belau,
Ammu Abraham, Womens Centre, Bombay., India.,

MW Faruque, Youth Approach for Development and Cooperation, Dhaka, Banglades=
h.,
M. Shahidul Ahsan, Bangladesh Campaign to Ban Landmines., Dhaka,
Al Haj Safu Mia Sarker, Bangabandhu Srimte Sangsad, Bashurhat, Noakhali,
Berhampur, Bangladesh.,
Shara Jaker, Muktijoddah Jadhugar (Liberation War Museum), Dhaka., Banglades=
h.,
Abir Ahad, Bangabandhu Research Organization, Dhaka, Bangladesh,
Hannan Chowdhury, Suganda Sanskritik Kendra, Dhaka, Bangladesh.,
Babul Ahmed Pervez, Bangladesh Journalists Association.,

Bill Blaikie MP, House Leader, New Democratic Party of Canada,
Neil Arya, President, Physicians for Global Survival, Canada,
David Morgan, President, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, Vancouver, BC, Canad=
a,
Joyce Lydiard, WILPF-British Columbia, Canada.,
Desmond Berghofer, Institute for Ethical Leadership, Vancouver, Canada,
Tryna Booth, Canadian Peace Alliance.,
Linda Murphy, President, Inter-Church Uranium Committee, Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Canada,
Kira Van Deusen, Foundation for Indigenous Siberian Culture and Native
Exchange, Vancouver, Canada,
David Greenfield, Green Party of Canada, Saskatoon, Canada,

Rear-Admiral Eugene J. Carroll, Jr., US Navy (Ret'd.), Centre for Defence
Information, Washington DC.,
Carah Ong, Coordinator, Abolition-2000, Santa Barbara, Calif.,
David Krieger, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara,
Calif., USA.,
Ellen Thomas, Proposition One Committee, Washington DC., US.,
Marylia Kelly, Executive Director, Sally Light, Nuclear Weapons Program
Analyst, Tri-Valley CAREs, Calif.,
Alice Slater, Director, Global Resource and Action Centre for the
Environment, NY., USA.,
Martin Butcher, Director of Security Programs, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, Washington DC., US.,
John Burroughs, Executive Director, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy,
NY., USA.,
Jackie Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland Calif, USA.,
Bishop Walter Sullivan, President, Pax Christi, USA.,
Bob Kinsey, Peace and Justice Task Force, Rocky Mountain Conference, United
Church of Christ., Boulder Colorado, USA.,
Mia Adjali, General Board of Global Ministries, United Methodist Church,
N.Y., USA.,
Phyllis Yingling, President, Womens International League for Peace and
=46reedom, USA,
Anthony Guarisco, Alliance of Atomic Veterans, USA.,
Dana L. Richter, Copper Country Peace Alliance, Houghton, Michigan, USA.,
Bob Kinsey, Colorado Coalition for the Prevention of War.,
Bruce K. Gagnon, Coordinator, Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear
Power in Space, Gainesville, Fl, USA.,
George W. Albee, President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility,
Washington DC., USA.,
John M Phelan, Chairman, Fordham Centre for Communication Policy and
Ethics, USA.,
Barbara Weidener, Director/Founder, Grandmothers for Peace International,
Elk Grove, Calif., USA.,
Kevin Martin, Director, Project Abolition, Goshen, Indiana, USA.,
Hari Scardo, Veterans for Peace, Washington, DC., USA.,
Randall Caroline Forsberg, Institute for Defence and Disarmament Studies, US=
A.,
Sue Ann Foster, Mandala Centre, Carmichael, CA, USA.,
Karen Talbott, Director, International Centre for Peace and Justice, USA.,
Jack and Felice Cohen-Joppa, The Nuclear Resister, Tucson, Ariz., USA,
Rochelle Becker, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Calif., USA.,
Carol Vesecky, Director, Biointensive for Russia., Palo Alto Calif.,
Rob Wheeler, Millenium Assembly Peoples Network, USA.,

Kate Dewes, Disarmament and Security Centre, Christchurch, NZ.,
Megan Hutching, National Secretary, Womens International League for Peace
and Freedom, Aotearoa/NZ.,
Barney Richards, National Secretary, Peace Council of Aotearoa/NZ.,
Marion Hancock, Peace Foundation, Aotearoa/NZ,
Jim Holdom, CORSO., NZ.,
Theresa Ruth Scott, National Council of Women, Hamilton, NZ
Dame Laurie Salas, Abolition 2000 NZ., Wellington, NZ.,
Marie Leadbeater, Auckland City Councillor.,

Dr. Carmen Lawrence, MP Member for Fremantle, Parliamentarians for a
Nuclear-Free Future,  Australia.
Jill Hall MP, Federal Member for Shortland, Australia,
Tanya Plibersek MP, Federal Member for Sydney, Federal Parliament, Aust.,
Julia Gillard, Federal Member for Lalor, Federal Parliament, Aust.,
Kelly Hoare MP, Federal Member for Charlton, (Newcastle) NSW, Aust.,
Daryl Melham, Federal Member for Banks., NSW., Aust.,
Senator Vicky Bourne, Democrat Senator for NSW.,
Senator Sue Mackay, ALP Senator for  Canberra,
Senator George Campbell, ALP Senator for NSW.,
Tom Helm, MLC mt. Newman, W.A.,
Helen Hodgson, MLC., W.A.,
Kerry Tucker MLC., Green Member of the ACT Legislative Assembly,
Geoff Holland, Institute for Global Futures Research, Earlville, Qld,
Kirsten Blair, Coordinator, Environment Centre of the Northern Territory,
Darwin, NT.,
David Sweeney, Nuclear Campaigner, Australian Conservation Foundation.,
=46itzroy, Vic.,
Angela Drury, People for Nuclear Disarmament (PND) NSW.,
Dr. Helen Caldicott, Founding President, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, Womens Action for Nuclear Disarmament.,
Jo Vallentine, Graham Daniell, People for Nuclear Disarmament,(PND) W.A.,
Irene Gale, AM, Australian Peace Committee, Adelaide, SA.,
Denis Doherty, Pax Christi NSW.,
Hannah Middleton, Australian Anti-Bases Campaign,
John Hallam, Nuclear Campaigner, Friends of the Earth Australia Sydney, Aust=
=2E,



- -
 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 #312
***********************************

-
 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.