ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n371

Internet Message Format | 2000-09-01 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #371
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest    Saturday, September 2 2000    Volume 01 : Number 371




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

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:25:58 -0500
From: Kevin Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Stop Star Wars Now!

To: U.S. peace activists
Fr:  Kevin Martin, Director, Project Abolition
August 31, 2000

URGENT ACTION ALERT:
DECISION ON STAR WARS MAY BE IMMINENT - PLEASE FORWARD AND RE-POST!!

While the exact timing is not known, rumblings out of Washington are
that President Clinton may announce his decision on moving forward with
deployment of Star Wars, aka National Missile Defense, very soon,
perhaps with the next two weeks.

Yesterday's New York Times reported there are serious disagreements
within the Administration and national security bureacracy about moving
forward with construction of the Star Wars radar system on Shemya Island

in Alaska, which would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.
The article also said President Clinton is said to be "loath to be the
president" to break the treaty.  And well he should be!

Our voices could well tip the balance, if we use them, now, and LOUD!

ACTION #1:

Call the White House at 202/456-1111or 202/456-1414 between  9:00 am and

5:00 pm eastern time Monday through Friday.  Tell him to decide against
deploying the Star Wars missile "defense" system, which will violate the

ABM treaty, start a new arms race, cost a fortune that will rob funds
from health care, education, and other human needs, and, oh, yeah, won't

work.

ACTION #2:

Send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, making sure to
mention your peace group and any activities against Star Wars you are
engaged in.  A sample letter with the basic arguments against Star Wars
is below. Feel free to adapt or use as you see fit. It's about 500
words, which is long for some papers, though not for others;  feel free
to edit. Watch your email for other sample letters in the near future.

To the editor:

President Clinton is due to decide soon whether to move ahead with
deployment of a Star Wars missile defense system.  An objective look at
the four criteria the president himself has set for Star Wars -- an
assesment of the threat, the cost, the effect on international arms
control, and the effectiveness of the proposed system -- shows it to be
an utter failure.

1. The threat of a missile attack on the U.S. from "rogue states" is
wildly overestimated.  North Korea, said to pose the most imminent
threat, has frozen its missile testing program for nearly two years, and

is working to reconcile with South Korea. Iran
is also making moves toward democracy, and the U.S. has resumed some
low-level economic and cultural ties with the Iranian government.  Iraq
is so devastated by ten years of U.S. sanctions and bombing it can
barely maintain its sewer systems, let alone build an intercontinental
ballistic missile. None of these countries has ever flight-tested a
missile with the range to hit the U.S.

2.  The cost is outrageous, estimated at anywhere from $60 billion for a

"limited" system to $240 billion for a more robust land-, sea-, and
space-based system supported by George W. Bush and others.  That's our
tax dollars going down the drain instead of being spent on education,
health care, the environment, and affordable housing.

3. The effect on international arms control Star Wars would have is
simple: it would re-start the nuclear arms race.  Russia and China have
clearly stated they will beef up their offensive nuclear arsenals to
ensure their ability to overwhelm a U.S. missile defense.  Should they
do so, India and then Pakistan would likely cite the increased threat in

the region and accelerate their already extremely dangerous nuclear
weapons race.  Many U.S. allies, including Japan, France, and Germany
have expressed grave concerns or outright opposition to Star Wars.

4.  Independent "rocket scientists" say the system won't work,
specifically criticizing the Star Wars radar system as inherently
incapable of distinguishing between an actual warhead and decoys like
mylar balloons. Fifty Nobel Prize-winning scientists sent a letter to
the president urging him not to move forward with this fatally flawed
system. Star Wars has failed two of its three flight tests and the third

"succeeded" by a fluke when the missile homed in on the decoy ballon,
which just happened to be in the path of the mock warhead target.

So by my count, Star Wars goes 0 for 4. It should be an easy call, but
of course politics intrudes. There is the seemingly ever-present,
ridiculous need for the Democrats to prove they aren't "soft on
defense", and the major Star Wars contractors -- Boieng, Lockheed
Martin, Raytheon and TRW -- have shovelled out over $40 million in
lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions the last few years to
ensure boondoggles like Star Wars will get built.

President Clinton is said to be concerned about his legacy. If he
decides to move ahead with Star Wars, he'll be remembered as the
president who re-started the nuclear arms race.

Sincerely,

Jane Q. Public





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

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

Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 08:23:49 -0400
From: Ellen Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews 00/09/01 - Daybook

[NucNews archives have been extensively updated through August 20, 2000, at
http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm.  This includes activist
announcements and
reports received during July and August, posted under the date of action or
message.  et]

1) Washington Daybook - August 30, 2000 - Washington Times, Agence
France-Presse
http://www.washtimes.com/national/daybook-20009122041.htm

      8:30 a.m. =97 Nuclear Regulatory Commission holds a meeting of the=
 advisory
committee on reactor safeguards. Location: Conference Room T-2B3, 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville. Contact: 301/415-6805.

      Vigil =97 7:30 p.m. =97 The Free Burma Coalition begins an=
 around-the-clock
vigil and fast in front of the Burmese ambassador's residence to protest the
current situation in Burma. Zaw Zaw, former Burmese political prisoner,
participates. Location: 2223 R St. NW. Contact: 202/387-8030 or on-site cell
phone, 703/731-1167.

     Vigil -- 5:00-8:00 pm -- in front of White House, daily until President
Clinton meets with Vieques Leaders.  Contact Andres Thomas,
[e-mail], 202-232-1999

2) Presidential Candidates

G.W. Bush - LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA, AND TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS
         9:00 a.m. - Lafayette Regional Airport, The Main Terminal Gate 1A,=
 200
Terminal Drive Lafayette, Louisiana
        12:15 p.m. - College Hill Elementary School, 200 Artesian Street,
Texarkana, Arkansas [phone]

     ___________________________________________________

Today's News and Archives: http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm
Submit URL/Article: mailto:[e-mail]
OneList Archives: http://www.onelist.com/archive/NucNews (subscribe online)
Subscribe to NucNews Briefs:  mailto:[e-mail]

Quick Route to U.S. Congress:
http://www.senate.gov/senators/index.cfm (Senators' Websites)
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html (Representatives' Websites)
http://thomas.loc.gov/ (Pending Legislation - Search)

Presidential Candidates' Websites (a-z):
George W. Bush - http://www.GeorgeWBush.com -=
 http://64.92.133.170/Calendar.asp
Pat Buchanan - http://www.gopatgo2000.com/default.htm
Al Gore - http://www.algore2000.com/
Ralph Nader - http://www.votenader.org/press.html
(Please send other sites of qualified candidates.)

Other Excellent News-Collecting Sites -
Downwinders - http://www.egroups.com/group/downwinders
DOE Watch - http://www.egroups.com/group/doewatch

Online Petition to Abolish Nuclear Weapons -
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/prop1/petition.html

   Distributed without payment for research and educational=20
purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.




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

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

Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 08:53:25 -0800
From: Abolition 2000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Statement of Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen on NMD Decision

>X-Remote-Ident: unknown
>Approved-By:  [e-mail]
>Date:         Fri, 1 Sep 2000 12:00:03 -0400
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>Sender: DOD NEWS LIST <[e-mail]>
>From: [e-mail]
>Subject:      Statement of Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen on
>NMD Decision
>To: [e-mail]
>
>= N  E  W  S      R  E  L  E  A  S  E
>=
>= OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
>= (PUBLIC AFFAIRS)
>= WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301
>=
>= PLEASE NOTE DATE
>====================================================
>
>No. 533-00
>[phone](media)
>IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>September 1, 2000
>[phone](public/industry)
>STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WILLIAM S. COHEN
>Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen today released the following statement:
>"The President's choice to defer a deployment decision on a National
>Missile Defense system to his successor involved many factors.
>Central for me, as I have stated publicly, is the importance of
>sustaining a solid national consensus not only on the need for an
>NMD system but on the scope and structure of such a system.
>"The President's statement today underscores the importance of
>having the next President fully involved in decisions regarding the
>future of the program before committing the U.S. to a deployment
>strategy.  I support this approach.
>"I have noted on many occasions that several emerging threats
>warrant the deployment of an effective missile defense program as
>soon as technologically feasible and I will work closely with my
>successor on providing all appropriate information.  In the
>meantime, we will aggressively proceed with the developmental
>testing program and also continue our consultations with the
>Congress, our allies, and with Russia."
>-END-
>
>-- Subscribe or unsubscribe: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/subscribe.html
>-- News releases on the web: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/releases.html
>-- Department of Defense home page: http://www.defenselink.mil/
>-- Today in DoD: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/DailySummary.html


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

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

Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 20:06:57 -0400
From: Lisa Ledwidge / IEER <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) job openings

- --=====================_35966265==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


IEER has two job openings, Scientist and Research Assistant.  Please see
http://www.ieer.org/latest/job.html for details.  Please forward.  Thank you.

=============================================
Lisa Ledwidge
Outreach Coordinator and Editor, Science for Democratic Action
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
6935 Laurel Ave.,  Suite 204
Takoma Park, MD 20912    USA
[phone]   fax: [phone]
http://www.ieer.org
==============================================
- --=====================_35966265==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html><div>IEER has two job openings, Scientist and Research
Assistant.  Please see
<a href="http://www.ieer.org/latest/job.html" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.ieer.org/latest/job.html</a>
for details.  Please forward.  Thank you.</div>
<br>

=============================================<br>
Lisa Ledwidge<br>
Outreach Coordinator and Editor, <i>Science for Democratic Action<br>
</i>Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)<br>
6935 Laurel Ave.,  Suite 204 <br>
Takoma Park, MD 20912    USA<br>
[phone]   fax: [phone]<br>
<a href="http://www.ieer.org/" eudora="autourl">http://www.ieer.org</a><br>
==============================================</html>

- --=====================_35966265==_.ALT--


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

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

Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 08:31:00 -0400
From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews 00/09/02 - Presidential Candidates; NMD Announcements; World Forum in NY

- - Ralph Nader

9:30 a.m. Tuesday, September 5, 2000 - Nader 2000 news conference,.Nation=
al
Press Club, West Room, 14th and F Street NW, Washington, DC. 202-265-4000

- - George W. Bush

September 2 - George W. Bush will receive an intelligence briefing from t=
he
Central Intelligence Agency, on Saturday morning. Acting CIA Deputy Direc=
tor
John McLaughlin will lead the briefing on intelligence matters. This is a
regular briefing conducted at the request of the White House for each par=
ty's
presidential candidate. Governor Bush will be accompanied by chief foreig=
n
policy advisor Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz, also an advisor on fo=
reign
policy issues.=20

September 3 - open airport arrival at Chicago O'Hare International Airpor=
t,
7:45 p.m.

September 4 - Naperville, IL and Romeo, Michigan (with Dick Cheney)
        9:00 a.m. - Labor Day Rally, Naperville North High School
        10:00 a.m. - City of Naperville Labor Day Parade=20
        4:45 p.m. -  Michigan Peach Festival, Mellen House, 124 West Gate=
s
Street , Romeo, Michigan, [phone]=20
        After the parade in Naperville, Secretary and Mrs. Cheney will mo=
ve to
Jefferson Park in Northwest Chicago to the Taste of Polonia Festival, at =
5216
West Lawrence Avenue, near Milwaukee Avenue at around 12:30 p.m.

- -------

2) NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE DECISION

For Immediate Release     September 1, 2000
http://www.whitehouse.gov/library/hot_releases/September_1_2000.html

 President Clinton announced today that the NMD program is sufficiently
promising and affordable to justify continued development and testing, bu=
t that
there is not sufficient information about the technical and operational
effectiveness of the entire NMD system to move forward with deployment.

 In making this decision, the President considered the threat, the cost,
technical feasibility and the impact overall on our national security of
proceeding with NMD.  He considered a thorough technical review by the
Department of Defense as well as the advice of his top national security
advisors.

 The Pentagon has made progress on developing a system that can address t=
he
emerging missile threat. But we do not have sufficient information to con=
clude
that it can work reliably under realistic conditions.  Critical elements =
of the
program, such as the booster rocket for the missile interceptor, have not=
 been
tested; and there are questions to be resolved about the ability of the s=
ystem
to deal with countermeasures.  The President made clear we should not mov=
e
forward until we have further confidence that the system will work and un=
til we
have made every reasonable diplomatic effort to minimize the costs.

 The Pentagon will continue the development and testing of the NMD system=
. That
effort is still at an early stage: three of the nineteen planned intercep=
t
tests have been held so far.  Additional ground tests and simulations wil=
l also
take place.

 The development of our NMD is part of the Administration?s comprehensive
national security strategy to prevent potential adversaries from threaten=
ing
the United States with such weapons and acquiring the weapons in the firs=
t
place.

 Arms control agreements with Russia are an important part of this strate=
gy
because they ensure stability and predictability between the United State=
s and
Russia, promote the dismantling of nuclear weapons, and help complete the
transition from confrontation to cooperation with Russia.  The Anti-Balli=
stic
Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 limits anti-missile defenses according to a =
simple
principle: neither side should deploy defenses that would undermine the o=
ther's
nuclear deterrent, and thus tempt the other to strike first in a crisis o=
r take
countermeasures that would make both our countries less secure.

 This announcement will provide additional time to pursue with Russia the=
 goal
of adapting the ABM treaty to permit the deployment of a limited NMD that=
 would
not undermine strategic stability.  The United States will also continue =
to
consult with Allies and continue the dialogue with China and other states.

 An NMD program that meets the projected threat

 Last August, the President decided that the initial NMD architecture wou=
ld
include: 100 ground-based interceptors deployed in Alaska, one ABM radar =
in
Alaska, and five upgraded early warning radars.

 This approach is the fastest, most affordable, and most technologically =
mature
approach to fielding an effective NMD against the projected threat. It wo=
uld
protect all 50 states against emerging threats from both North Korea and =
the
Middle East and is optimized against the most immediate and certain threa=
t,
North Korea.

 On July 23, 1999, President Clinton signed into law H.R. 4, the 'Nationa=
l
Missile Defense Act of 1999, stating that it is the policy of the United =
States
to deploy as soon as technologically possible an effective NMD system.  T=
he
legislation includes two amendments supported by the Administration: the =
first
making clear that any NMD deployment must be subject to the authorization=
 and
appropriations process, and thus that no decision on deployment has been =
made;
the second stating it is the policy of the United States to seek continue=
d
negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces, putting Congress on reco=
rd as
continuing to support negotiated reductions in strategic nuclear arms,
reaffirming the Administration?s position that  missile defense policy mu=
st
take into account important arms control and nuclear nonproliferation
objectives.

 NMD Budget

 The Clinton Administration has spent approximately $5.7 billion on NMD, =
and
budgeted an additional $10.4 billion in FY 2001-2005 to support possible
deployment of the initial NMD architecture.

 Our current estimate for developing, procuring and deploying our initial
system - 100 interceptors, an ABM radar, upgrades to 5 early warning rada=
rs,
and command and control - is around $25 billion (Fiscal Years 91-09).  Bu=
t to
put that in perspective, it represents less than 1 percent of the defense
budget over the coming six years.

3)  Text of Clinton's Missile Defense Speech
September 1, 2000, Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/national/090100/missiledefense_text.sml

WASHINGTON The transcript of President Clinton's address Friday at George=
town
University's School of Foreign Service on the future of a missile defense
system for the United States. Transcription by eMediaMillWorks Inc.:

Thank you very much. When you gave us such a warm welcome, and then you
applauded some of Dean Galucci's early lines, I thought to myself, "I'm g=
lad he
can get this sort of reception, because I gave him a lot of thankless job=
s to
do in our administration where no one ever applauded."

And he did them brilliantly. And I'm delighted to see him here succeeding=
 so
well as the dean.

Provost Brown, thank you for welcoming me here.

And I told them when I came in I was sort of glad Father O'Donovan wasn't=
 here
today, because I've come so often I know that at some point, if I keep do=
ing
this, he will tell me that he's going to send a bill to the U.S. Treasury=
 for
the Georgetown endowment.

I was thinking, when we came out here and Bob talked about the beginning =
of the
school year, that it was 35 years ago when, as a sophomore, I was in char=
ge of
the freshmen orientation. So I thought I should come and help this year's
orientation of freshmen get off to a good start.

I also was thinking, I confess, after your rousing welcome, that if I wer=
e
still a candidate for public office I might get up and say hello and sit =
down
and quit while I'm ahead. For I came today to talk about a subject that i=
s not
fraught with applause lines, but one that is very, very important to your
future: the defense of our nation.

At this moment of unprecedented peace and prosperity with no immediate th=
reat
to our security or our existence, with our democratic values ascendant an=
d our
alliances strong, with the great forces of our time - globalization and t=
he
revolution in information technology - so clearly beneficial to a society=
 like
ours with our diversity and our openness and our entrepreneurial spirit; =
at a
time like this, it is tempting, but wrong, to believe there are no seriou=
s
long-term challenges to our security.

The rapid spread of technology across increasingly porous borders raises =
the
specter that more and more states, terrorists and criminal syndicates cou=
ld
gain access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons and to the me=
ans of
delivering them, whether in small units deployed by terrorists within our=
 midst
or ballistic missiles capable of hurling those weapons halfway around the
world.

Today, I want to discuss these threats with you, because you will live wi=
th
them a lot longer than I will. Especially, I want to talk about the balli=
stic
missile threat. It is real and growing and has given new urgency to the d=
ebate
about national missile defenses, known in the popular jargon as NMD.

When I became president, I put our effort to stop the proliferation of we=
apons
of mass destruction at the very top of our national security agenda. Sinc=
e
then, we have carried out a comprehensive strategy to reduce and secure n=
uclear
arsenals, to strengthen the international regime against biological and
chemical weapons and nuclear testing and to stop the flow of dangerous
technology to nations that might wish us harm.

At the same time, we have pursued new technologies that could strengthen =
our
defenses against a possible attack, including a terrorist attack, here at=
 home.

None of these elements of our national security strategy can be pursued i=
n
isolation. Each is important, and we have made progress in each area. For
example, Russia and the United States already have destroyed about 25,000
nuclear weapons in the last decade. And we have agreed that in the START =
III
Treaty we will go 80 percent below the levels of a decade ago.

In 1994, we persuaded Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, three of the forme=
r
Soviet Republics, to give up their nuclear weapons entirely. We have work=
ed
with Russia and its neighbors to dispose of hundreds of tons of dangerous
nuclear materials, to strengthen controls on illicit exports and to keep
weapons scientists from selling their services to the highest bidder.

We extended the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty indefinitely. We were th=
e very
first nation to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, an idea first emb=
raced
by Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower. Sixty nations now have ratified the=
 test
ban treaty. I believe the United States Senate made a serious error in fa=
iling
to ratify it last year, and I hope it will do so next year.

We also negotiated and ratified the international convention to ban chemi=
cal
weapons and strengthened the convention against biological weapons. We've=
 used
our export controls to deny terrorists and potential adversaries access t=
o the
materials and equipment needed to build these kinds of weapons. We've imp=
osed
sanctions on those who contribute to foreign chemical and biological weap=
ons
programs.

We've invested new equipment - invested in new equipment and medical
countermeasures to protect people from exposure. And we're working with s=
tate
and local medical units all over our country to strengthen our preparedne=
ss in
case of a chemical or biological terrorist attack, which many people beli=
eve is
the most likely new security threat of the 21st century.

We have also acted to reduce the threat posed by states that have sought
weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles while pursuing activit=
ies
that are clearly hostile to our long-term interests.

For over a decade - for almost a decade, excuse me - we have diverted abo=
ut 90
percent of Iraq's oil revenues from the production of weapons to the purc=
hase
of food and medicine. This is an important statistic for those who believ=
e that
our sanctions are only a negative for the people, and particularly the
children, of Iraq.

In 1989, Iraq earned $15 billion from oil exports and spent $13 billion o=
f that
money on its military. This year, Iraq is projected to earn $19 billion f=
rom
its legal oil-for-food exports, but can spend none of those revenues on t=
he
military.

We worked to counter Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons and missil=
e
technology, convincing China to provide no new assistance to Iran's nucle=
ar
program and pressing Russia to strengthen its controls on the export of
sensitive technologies.

In 1994, six years after the United States first learned that North Korea=
 had a
nuclear weapons program, we negotiated the agreement that, verifiably, ha=
s
frozen its production of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Now, in the conte=
xt of
the United States' negotiations with the North, the diplomatic efforts by
former Defense Secretary Bill Perry and most lately the summit between th=
e
leaders between North and South Korea, North Korea has refrained from
flight-testing a new missile that could pose a threat to America.

And we should be clear: North Korea's capability remains a serious issue,=
 and
its intentions remain unclear, but its missile testing moratorium is a go=
od
development worth pursuing.

These diplomatic efforts to meet the threat of proliferation are backed b=
y the
strong and global reach of our armed forces. Today, the United States enj=
oys
overwhelming military superiority over any potential adversary. For examp=
le, in
1985, we spent about as much on defense as Russia, China and North Korea
combined. Today we spend nearly three times as much, nearly $300 billion =
a
year. And our military technology, clearly, is well ahead of the rest of =
the
world.

The principle of deterrence served us very well in the Cold War, and dete=
rrence
remains imperative. The threat of overwhelming retaliation deterred Sadda=
m
Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction during the Gulf War. Our f=
orces
in South Korea have deterred North Korean aggression for 47 years.

The question is: Can deterrence protect us against all those who might wi=
sh us
harm in the future? Can we make America even more secure? The effort to a=
nswer
these questions is the impetus behind the search for NMD.

The issue is whether we can do more not to meet today's threat, but to me=
et
tomorrow's threats to our security. For example, there is the possibility=
 that
a hostile state with nuclear weapons and long-range missiles may simply
disintegrate, with command over missiles falling into unstable hands; or =
that
in a moment of desperation, such a country might miscalculate, believing =
it
could use nuclear weapons to intimidate us from defending our vital inter=
ests
or from coming to the aid of our allies or others who were defenseless an=
d
clearly in need.

In the future, we cannot rule out that terrorist groups could gain the
capability to strike us with nuclear weapons if they seized even temporar=
y
control of the state with an existing nuclear weapons establishment.

Now no one suggests that NMD would ever substitute for diplomacy or for
deterrence, but such a system, if it worked properly, could give us an ex=
tra
dimension of insurance in a world where proliferation has complicated the=
 task
of preserving the peace. Therefore, I believe we have an obligation to
determine the feasibility, the effectiveness and the impact of a national
missile defense on the overall security of the United States.

The system now under development is designed to work as follows: In the e=
vent
of an attack, American satellites would detect the launch of missiles. Ou=
r
radar would track the enemy warheads, and highly accurate, high-speed,
ground-based interceptors would destroy them before they could reach thei=
r
targets in the United States.

We have made substantial progress on a system that would be based in Alas=
ka and
that, when operational, could protect all 50 states from the near-term mi=
ssile
threats we face, those emanating from North Korea and the Middle East. Th=
e
system could be deployed sooner than any of the proposed alternatives.

Since last fall, we've been conducting flight tests to see if this NMD sy=
stem
actually can reliably intercept a ballistic missile.

We've begun to show that the different parts of this system can work toge=
ther.
Our Defense Department has overcome daunting technical obstacles in a
remarkably short period of time, and I'm proud of the work that Secretary
Cohen, General Shelton and their teams have done. One test proved that it=
 is,
in fact, possible to hit a bullet with a bullet.

Still, though the technology for NMD is promising, the system as a whole =
is not
yet proven. After the initial tests succeeded, our two most recent tests
failed, for different reasons, to achieve an intercept. Several more test=
s are
planned. They will tell us whether NMD can work reliably under realistic
conditions.

The critical elements of the program, such as the booster rocket for the
missile interceptor, have yet to be tested. There are also questions to b=
e
resolved about the ability of the system to deal with countermeasures; in=
 other
words, measures by those firing the missiles to confuse the missile defen=
se
into thinking it is hitting a target when it is not.

There is a reasonable chance that all these challenges can be met in time=
, but
I simply cannot conclude, with the information I have today, that we have
enough confidence in the technology and the operational effectiveness of =
the
entire NMD system to move forward to deployment.

Therefore, I have decided not to authorize deployment of a national missi=
le
defense at this time.

Instead, I have asked Secretary Cohen to continue a robust program of
development and testing. That effort still is at an early stage. Only thr=
ee of
the 19 planned intercept tests have been held so far. We need more tests
against more challenging targets and more simulations before we can respo=
nsibly
commit our nation's resources to deployment. We should use this time to e=
nsure
that NMD, if deployed, would actually enhance our overall national securi=
ty.
And I want to talk about that in a few moments.

I want you to know that I have reached this decision about not deploying =
the
NMD after careful deliberation. My decision will not have a significant i=
mpact
on the date the overall system could be deployed in the next administrati=
on if
the next president decides to go forward.

The best judgment of the experts who have examined this question is that =
if we
were to commit today to construct the system it most likely would be
operational about 2006 or 2007. If the next president decides to move for=
ward
next year, the system still could be ready in the same time frame.

In the meantime, we will continue to work with our allies and with Russia=
 to
strengthen their understanding and support for our efforts to meet the em=
erging
ballistic missile threat, and to explore creative ways that we can cooper=
ate to
enhance their security against this threat as well.

An effective NMD could play an important part of our national security
strategy, but it could not be the sum total of that strategy. It can neve=
r be
the sum total of that strategy for dealing with nuclear and missile threa=
ts.

Moreover, ballistic missiles, armed with nuclear weapons, as I said earli=
er, do
not represent the sum total of the threats we face. Those include chemica=
l and
biological weapons and a range of deadly technologies for deploying them.=
 So it
would be folly to base the defense of our nation solely on a strategy of
waiting until missiles are in the air and then trying to shoot them down.

We must work with our allies and with Russia to prevent potential adversa=
ries
from ever threatening us with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of=
 mass
destruction in the first place and to make sure they know the devastating
consequences of doing so.

4) Statement by Governor George W. Bush regarding President Clinton's=20
announcement on a national missile defense system:

"As President, I intend to develop and deploy an effective missile defens=
e=20
system at the earliest possible date to protect American citizens from=20
accidental launches or blackmail by rogue nations. Today's announcement t=
hat=20
President Clinton will leave this unfinished business for the next Presid=
ent=20
underscores the fact that for seven years, the Clinton-Gore administratio=
n=20
has failed to strengthen America's defenses. President Clinton and Vice=20
President Gore first denied the need for missile defenses, then delayed.=20
Now they are leaving this important unfinished business for the next=20
President, and I welcome the opportunity to act where they have failed to=
=20
lead by developing and deploying effective missile defenses to protect al=
l=20
50 states and our friends and allies."=20

5) STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WILLIAM S. COHEN=20
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen today released the following statem=
ent:
"The President's choice to defer a deployment decision on a National Miss=
ile
Defense system to his successor involved many factors. Central for me, as=
 I
have stated publicly, is the importance of sustaining a solid national
consensus not only on the need for an NMD system but on the scope and str=
ucture
of such a system.=20

"The President's statement today underscores the importance of having the=
 next
President fully involved in decisions regarding the future of the program
before committing the U.S. to a deployment strategy. I support this appro=
ach.=20

"I have noted on many occasions that several emerging threats warrant the
deployment of an effective missile defense program as soon as technologic=
ally
feasible and I will work closely with my successor on providing all appro=
priate
information. In the meantime, we will aggressively proceed with the
developmental testing program and also continue our consultations with th=
e
Congress, our allies, and with Russia."

6) State of the World Forum next week, convened by Gorbachev
http://www.worldforum.org/forum2000/exec_summary.html

Forum 2000  =20
Shaping Globalization: Convening the Community of Stakeholders  =20
September 4 - 10, 2000, New York  =20

Executive Summary  =20
The protest by a coalition of unions and NGOs at the World Trade Organiza=
tion
conference in Seattle in December, 1999, and at the World Bank and
International Monetary Fund conferences in Washington, D.C. in April, 200=
0,
highlights both the inadequacies of the current system of global governan=
ce and
the imperative to establish a more inclusive consultative mechanism by wh=
ich
major stakeholders can come together to deliberate on global issues; disc=
ern
common objectives; and work on common problems.

It is to this challenge that the State of the World Forum has committed i=
tself
in this millennium year. Working with partners worldwide, the Forum will
convene a high-level gathering of international leaders of business and c=
ivil
society in New York September 4-10, 2000, timed to coincide with the hist=
oric
United Nations Millennium Summit. The UN Millennium Summit, scheduled for
September 6-8 at the United Nations, is expected to draw 120-150 Heads of
State, the largest gathering of government leaders in modern history.

The intent of the State of the World Forum and its partners in juxtaposin=
g
Forum 2000 with the UN Millennium Summit is to convene a "global town mee=
ting"
in which the private sector and civil society can come together for subst=
antive
dialogue with selected Heads of State concerning the great issues confron=
ting
humanity as globalization takes hold and affects us all.

The centerpiece of Forum 2000 will be a "post Seattle" dialogue on "Shapi=
ng
Globalization: Convening the Community of Stakeholders." In convening thi=
s
discussion, the State of the World Forum is working with representatives =
of
nation states, international institutions, corporations, unions, major
religions, academia, science and technology and non government organizati=
ons.

The Forum=92s convening Chairman, Mikhail Gorbachev, will open the confer=
ence
with a plenary discussion on "Globalization and the New World Order", to =
which
he is inviting a spectrum of world leaders; Sir Sridath Ramphal, Co-Chari=
man of
the Commission on Global Governance, will chair a session of world leader=
s on
"The Future of Global Governance"; McKinsey & Co. and Heidrick & Struggle=
s are
providing leadership in bringing senior business executives, economists, =
and
representatives of international financial institutions; the AFL-CIO, Uni=
ted
Steelworkers of America, Textile Workers Union and their international
counterparts are bringing the most articulate voices of the trade union
movement; the Synergos Institute, Free the Children, Ashoka Innovators fo=
r the
Public and the Earth Council, among others, are convening grass roots
activists, civil society leaders, and critics of current policies on
globalization; and the Alliance of Religion and Conservation is convening
representatives of the eleven major world religions. Negotiations have be=
en
initiated with numerous Heads of State to ensure their participation.
Discussions are in process with upwards of one hundred other institutions
worldwide.

Forum 2000 is being convened in the belief that the future of global gove=
rnance
must include governments, civil society and the private sector, each oper=
ating
in its own sphere with distinctive rights and responsibilities, and comin=
g
together in a process of mutual discernment and deliberation.

BBC World Television and Time Magazine are participating as strategic med=
ia
partners in Forum 2000 and will be covering portions of the event for the=
ir
respective audiences worldwide. A comprehensive global webcast will be
undertaken, in order that citizens worldwide can access and comment on th=
e
proceedings.

The event will begin Monday evening, September 4th, and conclude Sunday
mid-day, September 10, 2000. It will be centered at the New York Hilton a=
nd
Towers.=20

Selected List of Forum 2000 Speakers
http://www.worldforum.org/forum2000/speakers.html


     ___________________________________________________

Today's News and Archives: http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm
Submit URL/Article: mailto:[e-mail]
OneList Archives: http://www.onelist.com/archive/NucNews (subscribe onlin=
e)
Subscribe to NucNews Briefs:  mailto:[e-mail]

Quick Route to U.S. Congress:
http://www.senate.gov/senators/index.cfm (Senators' Websites)
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html (Representatives' Websites)
http://thomas.loc.gov/ (Pending Legislation - Search)

Presidential Candidates' Websites (a-z):
George W. Bush - http://www.GeorgeWBush.com - http://64.92.133.170/Calend=
ar.asp
Pat Buchanan - http://www.gopatgo2000.com/default.htm
Al Gore - http://www.algore2000.com/
Ralph Nader - http://www.votenader.org/press.html
(Please send other sites of qualified candidates.)

Other Excellent News-Collecting Sites -
Downwinders - http://www.egroups.com/group/downwinders
DOE Watch - http://www.egroups.com/group/doewatch

Online Petition to Abolish Nuclear Weapons -
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/prop1/petition.html

   Distributed without payment for research and educational=20
purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.




- -
 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 #371
***********************************

-
 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.