ftp.xmission.com

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ ftp.xmission.com / 2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar / ftp.xmission.com / pub / lists / abolition-usa / archive / v01.n442 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 2001-05-01 | 48KB

From: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com (abolition-usa-digest) To: abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #442 Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest Sender: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk abolition-usa-digest Wednesday, May 2 2001 Volume 01 : Number 442 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:38:31 -0700 From: marylia@earthlink.net (marylia) Subject: (abolition-usa) NIF-DC NGO Roundtable - Invitation Dear peace and environmental colleagues: If you are going to be in Washington, DC on May 10 -- this invotation is for you. Don't miss it. Peace, Marylia YOU ARE INVITED TO A NGO BRIEFING AND ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION ON THE NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY AND THE U.S. STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM WHEN: Thursday, May 10 FROM: 9:30 am to 11:00 am WHERE: Natural Resources Defense Council Conference Room 1200 New York Avenue, NW, 4th Floor RSVP TO: (202) 833-4668 Coffee, bagels and pastries will be provided. SPEAKERS: * DR. ROBERT CIVIAK, former Program Examiner for the Department of Energy's national security programs in the White House Office of Management and Budget, has just completed a new study, "Soaring Costs, Shrinking Performance: Status of the National Ignition Facility," commissioned by Tri-Valley CAREs, a DOE watchdog organization based in Livermore, CA. Dr. Civiak's study provides the first independent examination of the cost to build and operate the NIF mega-laser, now under construction at Livermore Lab, and finds that NIF's full price will be 600% higher than what DOE said. The report details the key laser components for which DOE low-balled the costs -- and the ones left out of DOE's estimates altogether. "Soaring Costs, Shrinking Performance" looks also at the laser's standards, and finds that the output from the NIF per dollar spent is now projected to be only one-ninth what it was when NIF was approved in 1997. Civiak's last report for Tri-Valley CAREs was "Managing the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile: A Comparison of 5 Strategies," in July 2000. * DR. MATTHEW MCKINZIE, NRDC staff scientist, will put the NIF in the context of Stockpile Stewardship and discuss both the shortcomings and the more positive alternatives to the current program. McKinzie has written numerous articles and reports on the U.S. Stockpile Stewardship program and on several of its elements, including the National Ignition Facility and the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative. This "guided tour" through the smoke and mirrors surrounding NIF -- DOE's flagship for so-called Stockpile Stewardship -- is a must for all activists and policy analysts who work on or care about nuclear weapons issues. Following the briefing, Marylia Kelley of Tri-Valley CAREs and Daryl Kimball of Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers will facilitate a discussion on next steps. Copies of the study will be available at the Roundtable, and can soon be obtained on-line by visiting <http://www.igc.org/tvc>, the website of Tri-Valley CAREs, which has for 18 years conducted research, critical analysis, and outreach to increase public participation in decisions regarding the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, with a special focus on the Lawrence Livermore Lab. The new study was produced as part of Tri-Valley CAREs' "Redefining Stockpile Stewardship" program. The briefing is sponsored by Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Natural Resources Defense Council and Tri-Valley CAREs. For further information contact Marylia Kelley, Tri-Valley CAREs (925) 443-7148 or Jim Bridgman, ANA (202) 833-4668. end Marylia Kelley Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94550 <http://www.igc.org/tvc/> - is our web site, please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax Working for peace, justice and a healthy environment since 1983, Tri-Valley CAREs has been a member of the nation-wide Alliance for Nuclear Accountability in the U.S. since 1989, and is a co-founding member of the Abolition 2000 global network for the elimination of nuclear weapons, the U.S. Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and the Back From the Brink campaign to get nuclear weapons taken off hair-trigger alert. - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:13:15 -0700 From: marylia@earthlink.net (marylia) Subject: (abolition-usa) Media Advisory - NIF, Nat'l Press Club Briefing Dear peace and environmental colleagues: Tri-Valley CAREs is extremely pleased to announce the release of an eye-opening new report in May, 2001 -- "Soaring Cost, Shrinking Performance: The Status of the National Ignition Facility," by Dr. Robert Civiak. This study is the first truly independent analysis of the full cost of building and operating the Department of Energy's National Ignition Facility mega-laser. Below, please find the media advisory for our press conference Wednesday, May 9 at the national press club in Washington, DC. I also sent a separate email regarding a Roundtable on the report and its recommendations for non-governmental organizations to be held Thursday, May 10 at 9:30 AM at NRDC. Call (202) 833-4668 to RSVP for the Roundtable. And -- please share this media advisory with any journalists you know who may be interested. Peace, Marylia media advisory for further information, contact Dr. Robert Civiak, physicist, author, (603) 448-5327 Marylia Kelley, executive director, Tri-Valley CAREs, (925) 443-7148 FIRST DETAILED, INDEPENDENT STUDY FINDS NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY MEGA-LASER'S LIFE TIME COST MAY SOAR OVER $30 BILLION WHAT: News Conference to release a major new report, "Soaring Cost, Shrinking Performance: The Status of the National Ignition Facility," providing the first independent examination of the NIF mega-laser, now under construction at the Dept. of Energy's (DOE) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in CA. The in-depth report details the key laser and program components for which DOE low-balled the costs -- and the ones left out altogether. WHEN: Wednesday, May 9 at 9:30 AM WHERE: National Press Club, Zenger Room, 13th Floor, 529 - 14th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. WHO: * Dr. Robert Civiak, a physicist and the author of the new report, served in the White House Office of Management and Budget from 1988 to 1999 as Program Examiner for the DOE's national security programs, including Stockpile Stewardship and the NIF. Previously, he served as a visiting scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and as a technology policy analyst for the Congressional Research Service. * Marylia Kelley is Executive Director of Tri-Valley CAREs, the Livermore, CA-based DOE "watchdog" organization that sponsored the NIF cost study as part of its "Redefining Stockpile Stewardship" program. WHY: The Dept. of Energy is using smoke and mirrors to hide NIF's full cost from the public eye. Following disclosure of serious, underlying technical problems with the laser in 1999, DOE was forced by Congress to "rebaseline" NIF. The Department has increased its estimate of the cost to build the facility from $1.1 billion to $3.4 billion and delayed completion of the project from 2002 to 2008. Still, DOE has fallen far short of including all of the laser's costs in its estimate. For example, NIF's target design, diagnostics, and infrastructure costs are missing from DOE's cost accounting, as are several "add ons" expected before 2008. "Soaring Cost, Shrinking Performance" lays out how and why the NIF construction costs will reach $5 billion, if the laser is completed on its current schedule in 2008. The report also finds a significant potential for future problems and delays that will drive the NIF construction cost even higher. When imputed interest and a delay of one additional year are added, the cost rises to $7.8 billion. Furthermore, construction costs are just the tip of the NIF iceberg. DOE has dramatically underestimated the operating cost for the laser. A full accounting of the cost to build and operate the NIF over 30 years, as the DOE plans, comes to $32.4 billion -- more than 6 times what DOE said the life cycle costs would be when Congress approved the project. The materials currently used in key components of the NIF cannot withstand damage from the intensity of the laser beam at full energy for more than a few shots. DOE is studying the problem, as it has been for many years, but is still far from solving it. The performance of the laser is being substantially degraded by this and other technical uncertainties. Moreover, the report shows why the National Ignition Facility, despite its name, may never reach its scientific goal of ignition at any cost. - -- 30 -- Marylia Kelley Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94550 <http://www.igc.org/tvc/> - is our web site, please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax Working for peace, justice and a healthy environment since 1983, Tri-Valley CAREs has been a member of the nation-wide Alliance for Nuclear Accountability in the U.S. since 1989, and is a co-founding member of the Abolition 2000 global network for the elimination of nuclear weapons, the U.S. Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and the Back From the Brink campaign to get nuclear weapons taken off hair-trigger alert. - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:53:14 -0400 From: Ellen Thomas <prop1@prop1.org> Subject: (abolition-usa) Don't forget June 3rd in D.C. - Making History! Re: The Vigil's 20th Anniversary 6/3/01 (first Sunday), noon to ???? - Peace Park has been more and more often taken over by fences and police, with a thin path for the rest of us humans. So if the White House security forces decide to throw a damper on the 20th anniversary celebration starting noon June 3rd (first Sunday), the fall-back position for visitors will be 16th and H Street NW, on the north side of Lafayette Park (or across the street). Perhaps the residents of Hay Adams Hotel and St. John's Church would rather the police allow us to remain in our normal spot along Pennsylvania Avenue. Please come, bring drums, fliers, banners, food, friends. See http://prop1.org/history/2001/010603pp.20th.anniversary.htm. Love, Ellen, for Peace Park Crew __________________________________________________ * Peace Through Reason - http://prop1.org * Please sign the Online Petition! - http://www.PetitionOnline.com/prop1/petition.html NucNews - Today and Archives - http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm __________________________________________________ - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 12:21:08 -0600 From: Carah Lynn Ong <admin@abolition2000.org> Subject: (abolition-usa) President Bush speech on missile defense - --============_-1223381226==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" President Bush speech on missile defense May 1, 2001 Web posted at: 3:08 PM EDT (1908 GMT) Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate you being here. I also want to thank Secretary Powell for being here as well. My national security advisor, Condi Rice, is here, as well as the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers. Appreciate Admiral Clark and General Ryan for being here as well. But most of all, I want to thank you, Admiral Gaffney, and the students for NDU for having me here today. For almost 100 years, this campus has served as one of our country's premier centers for learning and thinking about America's national security. Some of America's finest soldiers have studied here: Dwight Eisenhower and Colin Powell. Some of America's finest statesmen have taught here: George Kennan (ph). Today, you're carrying on this proud tradition forward, continuing to train tomorrow's generals, admirals and other national security thinkers, and continuing to provide the intellectual capital for our nation's strategic vision. This afternoon, I want us to think back some 30 years to a far different time in a far different world. The United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a hostile rivalry. The Soviet Union was our unquestioned enemy, a highly armed threat to freedom and democracy. Far more than that wall in Berlin divided us. Our highest ideal was and remains individual liberty. Their's was the construction of a vast communist empire. Their totalitarian regime held much of Europe captive behind an Iron Curtain. We didn't trust them, and for good reason. Our deep differences were expressed in a dangerous military confrontation that resulted in thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other on hair-trigger alert. The security of both the United States and the Soviet Union was based on a grim premise that neither side would fire nuclear weapons at each other, because doing so would mean the end of both nations. We even went so far as to codify this relationship in a 1972 ABM Treaty, based on the doctrine that our very survival would best be ensured by leaving both sides completely open and vulnerable to nuclear attack. The threat was real and vivid. The Strategic Air Command had an airborne command post called the Looking Glass, aloft 24 hours a day, ready in case the president ordered our strategic forces to move toward their targets and release their nuclear ordnance. The Soviet Union had almost 1.5 million troops deep in the heart of Europe, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and East Germany. We used our nuclear weapons, not just to prevent the Soviet Union from using their nuclear weapons, but also to contain their conventional military forces, to prevent them from extending the Iron Curtain into parts of Europe and Asia that were still free. In that world, few other nations had nuclear weapons, and most of those who did were responsible allies, such as Britain and France. We worried about the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries, but it was mostly a distant threat, not yet a reality. Today, the sun comes up on a vastly different world. The Wall is gone, and so is the Soviet Union. Today's Russia is not yesterday's Soviet Union. Its government is no longer communist. Its president is elected. Today's Russia is not our enemy, but a country in transition with an opportunity to emerge as a great nation, democratic, at peace with itself and its neighbors. The Iron Curtain no longer exists. Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic are free nations and they are now our allies in NATO, together with a reunited Germany. Yet, this is still a dangerous world; a less certain, a less predictable one. More nations have nuclear weapons and still more have nuclear aspirations. Many have chemical and biological weapons. Some already have developed a ballistic missile technology that would allow them to deliver weapons of mass destruction at long distances and incredible speeds, and a number of these countries are spreading these technologies around the world. Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some of the world's least-responsible states. Unlike the Cold War, today's most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states -- states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life. They seek weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors, and to keep the United States and other responsible nations from helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the world joined forces to turn him back. But the international community would have faced a very different situation had Hussein been able to blackmail with nuclear weapons. Like Saddam Hussein, some of today's tyrants are gripped by an implacable hatred of the United States of America. They hate our friends. They hate our values. They hate democracy and freedom, and individual liberty. Many care little for the lives of their own people. In such a world, Cold War deterrence is no longer enough to maintain peace, to protect our own citizens and our own allies and friends. We must seek security based on more than the grim premise that we can destroy those who seek to destroy us. This is an important opportunity for the world to rethink the unthinkable and to find new ways to keep the peace. Today's world requires a new policy, a broad strategy of active nonproliferation, counter-proliferation and defenses. We must work together with other like-minded nations to deny weapons of terror from those seeking to acquire them. We must work with allies and friends who wish to join with us to defend against the harm they can inflict. And together, we must deter anyone who would contemplate their use. We need new concepts of deterrence that rely on both offensive and defensive forces. Deterrence can no longer be based solely on the threat of nuclear retaliation. Defenses can strengthen deterrence by reducing the incentive for proliferation. We need a new framework that allows us to build missile defenses to counter the different threats of today's world. To do so, we must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM Treaty. This treaty does not recognize the present or point us to the future. It enshrines the past. No treaty that prevents us from addressing today's threats, that prohibits us from pursuing promising technology to defend ourselves, our friends and our allies is in our interests or in the interests of world peace. This new framework must encourage still further cuts in nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons still have a vital role to play in our security and that of our allies. We can and will change the size, the composition, the character of our nuclear forces in a way that reflects the reality that the Cold War is over. I'm committed to achieving a credible deterrent with the lowest possible number of nuclear weapons consistent with our national security needs, including our obligations to our allies. My goal is to move quickly to reduce nuclear forces. The United States will lead by example to achieve our interests and the interests for peace in the world. Several months ago, I asked Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to examine all available technologies and basing modes for effective missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, our friends and our allies. The secretary has explored a number of complementary and innovative approaches. The secretary has identified near-term options that could allow us to deploy an initial capability against limited threats. In some cases, we can draw on already established technologies that might involve land-based and sea-based capabilities to intercept missiles in mid-course or after they re-enter the atmosphere. We also recognize the substantial advantages of intercepting missiles early in their flight, especially in the boost phase. The preliminary work has produced some promising options for advanced sensors and interceptors that may provide this capability. If based at sea or on aircraft, such approaches could provide limited but effective defenses. We have more work to do to determine the final form the defenses might take. We will explore all of these options further. We recognize the technological difficulties we face, and we look forward to I've made it clear from the very beginning that I would consult closely on the important subject with our friends and allies, who are also threatened by missiles and weapons of mass destruction. This treaty ignores the fundamental breakthroughs in technology during the last 30 years. It prohibits us from exploring all options for defending against the threats that face us, our allies and other countries. That's why we should work together to replace this treaty with a new framework that reflects a clear and clean break from the past, and especially from the adversarial legacy of the Cold War. This new cooperative relationship should look to the future, not to the past. It should be reassuring, rather than threatening. It should be premised on openness, mutual confidence and real opportunities for cooperation, including the area of missile defense. It should allow us to share information so that each nation can improve its early warning capability and its capability to defend its people and territory. And perhaps one day, we can even cooperate in a joint defense. I want to complete the work of changing our relationship from one based on a nuclear balance of terror to one based on common responsibilities and common interests. We may have areas of difference with Russia, but we are not and must not be strategic adversaries. Russia and America both face new threats to security. Together, we can address today's threats and pursue today's opportunities. We can explore technologies that have the potential to make us all safer. This is a time for vision, a time for a new way of thinking, a time for bold leadership. The Looking Glass no longer stands its 24- hour-a-day vigil. We must all look at the world in a new, realistic way to preserve peace for generations to come. God bless. (APPLAUSE) - --============_-1223381226==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" <!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>President Bush speech on missile defense</title></head><body> <div>President Bush speech on missile defense May 1, 2001 Web posted at: 3:08 PM EDT (1908 GMT) Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate you being here. I also want to thank Secretary Powell for being here as well. My national security advisor, Condi Rice, is here, as well as the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers. Appreciate Admiral Clark and General Ryan for being here as well. But most of all, I want to thank you, Admiral Gaffney, and the students for NDU for having me here today. For almost 100 years, this campus has served as one of our country's premier centers for learning and thinking about America's national security. Some of America's finest soldiers have studied here: Dwight Eisenhower and Colin Powell. Some of America's finest statesmen have taught here: George Kennan (ph). Today, you're carrying on this proud tradition forward, continuing to train tomorrow's generals, admirals and other national security thinkers, and continuing to provide the intellectual capital for our nation's strategic vision. This afternoon, I want us to think back some 30 years to a far different time in a far different world. The United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a hostile rivalry. The Soviet Union was our unquestioned enemy, a highly armed threat to freedom and democracy. Far more than that wall in Berlin divided us. Our highest ideal was and remains individual liberty. Their's was the construction of a vast communist empire. Their totalitarian regime held much of Europe captive behind an Iron Curtain. We didn't trust them, and for good reason. Our deep differences were expressed in a dangerous military confrontation that resulted in thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other on hair-trigger alert. The security of both the United States and the Soviet Union was based on a grim premise that neither side would fire nuclear weapons at each other, because doing so would mean the end of both nations. We even went so far as to codify this relationship in a 1972 ABM Treaty, based on the doctrine that our very survival would best be ensured by leaving both sides completely open and vulnerable to nuclear attack. The threat was real and vivid. The Strategic Air Command had an airborne command post called the Looking Glass, aloft 24 hours a day, ready in case the president ordered our strategic forces to move toward their targets and release their nuclear ordnance. The Soviet Union had almost 1.5 million troops deep in the heart of Europe, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and East Germany. We used our nuclear weapons, not just to prevent the Soviet Union from using their nuclear weapons, but also to contain their conventional military forces, to prevent them from extending the Iron Curtain into parts of Europe and Asia that were still free. In that world, few other nations had nuclear weapons, and most of those who did were responsible allies, such as Britain and France. We worried about the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries, but it was mostly a distant threat, not yet a reality. Today, the sun comes up on a vastly different world. The Wall is gone, and so is the Soviet Union. Today's Russia is not yesterday's Soviet Union. Its government is no longer communist. Its president is elected. Today's Russia is not our enemy, but a country in transition with an opportunity to emerge as a great nation, democratic, at peace with itself and its neighbors. The Iron Curtain no longer exists. Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic are free nations and they are now our allies in NATO, together with a reunited Germany. Yet, this is still a dangerous world; a less certain, a less predictable one. More nations have nuclear weapons and still more have nuclear aspirations. Many have chemical and biological weapons. Some already have developed a ballistic missile technology that would allow them to deliver weapons of mass destruction at long distances and incredible speeds, and a number of these countries are spreading these technologies around the world.</div> <div>Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some of the world's least-responsible states. Unlike the Cold War, today's most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states -- states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life. They seek weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors, and to keep the United States and other responsible nations from helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the world joined forces to turn him back. But the international community would have faced a very different situation had Hussein been able to blackmail with nuclear weapons. Like Saddam Hussein, some of today's tyrants are gripped by an implacable hatred of the United States of America. They hate our friends. They hate our values. They hate democracy and freedom, and individual liberty. Many care little for the lives of their own people. In such a world, Cold War deterrence is no longer enough to maintain peace, to protect our own citizens and our own allies and friends. We must seek security based on more than the grim premise that we can destroy those who seek to destroy us. This is an important opportunity for the world to rethink the unthinkable and to find new ways to keep the peace. Today's world requires a new policy, a broad strategy of active nonproliferation, counter-proliferation and defenses. We must work together with other like-minded nations to deny weapons of terror from those seeking to acquire them. We must work with allies and friends who wish to join with us to defend against the harm they can inflict. And together, we must deter anyone who would contemplate their use. We need new concepts of deterrence that rely on both offensive and defensive forces. Deterrence can no longer be based solely on the threat of nuclear retaliation. Defenses can strengthen deterrence by reducing the incentive for proliferation. We need a new framework that allows us to build missile defenses to counter the different threats of today's world. To do so, we must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM Treaty. This treaty does not recognize the present or point us to the future. It enshrines the past. No treaty that prevents us from addressing today's threats, that prohibits us from pursuing promising technology to defend ourselves, our friends and our allies is in our interests or in the interests of world peace. This new framework must encourage still further cuts in nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons still have a vital role to play in our security and that of our allies. We can and will change the size, the composition, the character of our nuclear forces in a way that reflects the reality that the Cold War is over. I'm committed to achieving a credible deterrent with the lowest possible number of nuclear weapons consistent with our national security needs, including our obligations to our allies. My goal is to move quickly to reduce nuclear forces. The United States will lead by example to achieve our interests and the interests for peace in the world. Several months ago, I asked Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to examine all available technologies and basing modes for effective missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, our friends and our allies. The secretary has explored a number of complementary and innovative approaches. The secretary has identified near-term options that could allow us to deploy an initial capability against limited threats. In some cases, we can draw on already established technologies that might involve land-based and sea-based capabilities to intercept missiles in mid-course or after they re-enter the atmosphere. We also recognize the substantial advantages of intercepting missiles early in their flight, especially in the boost phase. The preliminary work has produced some promising options for advanced sensors and interceptors that may provide this capability. If based at sea or on aircraft, such approaches could provide limited but effective defenses.</div> <div>We have more work to do to determine the final form the defenses might take. We will explore all of these options further. We recognize the technological difficulties we face, and we look forward to I've made it clear from the very beginning that I would consult closely on the important subject with our friends and allies, who are also threatened by missiles and weapons of mass destruction. This treaty ignores the fundamental breakthroughs in technology during the last 30 years. It prohibits us from exploring all options for defending against the threats that face us, our allies and other countries. That's why we should work together to replace this treaty with a new framework that reflects a clear and clean break from the past, and especially from the adversarial legacy of the Cold War. This new cooperative relationship should look to the future, not to the past. It should be reassuring, rather than threatening. It should be premised on openness, mutual confidence and real opportunities for cooperation, including the area of missile defense. It should allow us to share information so that each nation can improve its early warning capability and its capability to defend its people and territory. And perhaps one day, we can even cooperate in a joint defense. I want to complete the work of changing our relationship from one based on a nuclear balance of terror to one based on common responsibilities and common interests. We may have areas of difference with Russia, but we are not and must not be strategic adversaries. Russia and America both face new threats to security. Together, we can address today's threats and pursue today's opportunities. We can explore technologies that have the potential to make us all safer. This is a time for vision, a time for a new way of thinking, a time for bold leadership. The Looking Glass no longer stands its 24- hour-a-day vigil. We must all look at the world in a new, realistic way to preserve peace for generations to come. God bless. (APPLAUSE)</div> </body> </html> - --============_-1223381226==_ma============-- - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 06:53:42 -0400 From: Ellen Thomas <prop1@prop1.org> Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) President Bush speech on missile defense Carah, where did you get this? What is the URL? Ellen At 12:21 PM 5/1/2001 -0600, you wrote: > > President Bush speech on missile defense > > May 1, 2001 > Web posted at: 3:08 PM EDT (1908 GMT) __________________________________________________ * Peace Through Reason - http://prop1.org * Please sign the Online Petition! - http://www.PetitionOnline.com/prop1/petition.html NucNews - Today and Archives - http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm __________________________________________________ - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 06:28:44 -0400 From: Karl Grossman <kgrossman@hamptons.com> Subject: (abolition-usa) Presentation to Members of the British Parliament Presentation to Members of the British Parliament =20 Karl Grossman=20 Professor, State University of New York, College at Old Westbury Member, Commission on Disarmament Education, Conflict Resolution and Peace of the International Association of University Presidents and the United Nations =20 Convenor, Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power In Space London May 3, 2001 The United States is seeking to make space a new arena of war--and is looking to the United Kingdom to be a =93partner=94 in this venture. The Bush administration would--as President George W. Bush attempted in his speech two days ago--have the world believe this is all about =93missile defense.=94 This is untrue. A broad U.S. space military program is involved, indeed revealed in U.S. government and military documents such as the recent report= of the =93Space Commission=94 chaired by the new U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the blueprint for the space military program of the Bush administration. As the report of the commission=92s report, issued January 11, says: =93In= the coming period the U.S. will conduct operations to, from, in and through space in support of its national interests both on the earth and in space.=94=20 =93Power projection in, from and through space=94 is advocated by the =93Spa= ce Commission,=94 formally called the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization. It urges the U.S. president =93have the option to deploy weapons in space=94 and the U.S.= Space Command be made a quasi-independent U.S. armed service, a Space Corps, like the U.S. Marine Corps. The Rumsfeld =93Space Commission=94 report follows a series of U.S. military reports in recent years that call for the U.S. to =93control space=94 and= from space =93dominate=94 the Earth below.=20 I have brought copies of pages from these reports for you. You will see that =93missile defense=94 is a =93layer=94 in a far wider program. As the U.S. Space Command=92s =93Long Range Plan=94 declares: =93The time= has come to address, among warfighters and national policy makers, the emergence of space as a center of gravity for DoD [Department of Defense] and the nation=85.Space power in the 2lst Century looks similar to previous military revolutions, such as aircraft-carrier warfare and Blitzkrieg.=94 But the U.S. is hard-pressed to do this alone. We need you and a few other nations for sites for command-and-control facilities and other assistance--=93Global Partnerships=94 as the =93Long Range Plan=94 puts it= to =93strengthen military space capabilities.=94 And also there in the =93Long= Range Plan,=94 above an oval with the words: =93Potential Initiatives To Enable * Control of Space * Global Engagement * Full Force Integration=94 and below the word =93Partnerships=94 are the flags of nine nations. Among the flags:= the Union Jack. The United Kingdom shouldn=92t be involved in this U.S. scheme.=20 It is a scheme involving, in part, money. President Bush, for example, spoke in his speech about three emissaries he=92ll be sending around the world to promote the U.S. space military plan. He identified one as Stephen Hadley.=20 Stephen Hadley? Before joining the Bush administration, Hadley was a partner= in the Washington law firm of Shea & Gardner which represents Lockheed Martin,= the world=92s biggest weapons manufacturer and a corporation central to the U.S.= Star Wars program. The U.S. recently gave the go-ahead for development of the Space-Based Laser, a $20 to 30 billion program. The Space-Based Laser=92s builders: Boeing, TRW--and Lockheed Martin. And it is a scheme involving power. When President Ronald Reagan first announced the U.S. Star Wars program in 1983, he said it was about fending= off what he considered the =93evil empire,=94 the Soviet Union. There is no= Soviet Union any longer. Why Star Wars now? The U.S. space military documents, as you will note, stress the =93global economy.=94 As the U.S. Space Command=92s =93Vision for 2020=94 report, its= cover depicting a laser weapon shooting a beam down from space zapping a target below, says: =93The globalization of the world economy will also continue= with a widening between =91haves=92 and =91have-nots.=92=94 From space, the U.S.,= the engine of the global economy--would keep those =93have-nots=94 in line. =93Vision for 2020=94 further declares the mission of the U.S. Space Command= as =93dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US= interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities= across the full spectrum of conflict.=94 And it compares the U.S. effort to= =93control space=94 and Earth below to how centuries ago =93nations built navies to= protect and enhance their commercial interests,=94 referring to you and the other= empires of Europe which once ruled the waves.=20 The =93Long Range Plan=94 states: =93The United States will remain a global power and exert global leadership. The United States won't always be able to forward base its forces=85Widespread communications will highlight disparities in resources and quality of life--contributing to unrest in developing countries=85The global economy will continue to become more interdependent. Economic alliances, as well as the growth and influence of multi-national corporations, will blur security agreements=85The gap between =91have=92 and =91have-not=92 nations will widen--creating regional= unrest=85One of the long acknowledged and commonly understood advantages of space-based platforms is no restriction or country clearances to overfly a nation from space.=94 Of power, when I was last here at the British Parliament, the Honorable Alan Simpson took the copy of =93Vision for 2020=94 I was showing and declared: =93Professor Grossman, we understand. We, too, were once an empire--drunk with power.=94 That is the situation my dear Members of Parliament. I regret to inform you that your former colony is out of control. Its government and a segment of its military--plus more modern entities called corporations--are drunk with power.=20 Your other North American progeny, Canada, not too incidentally, has been trying hard to stop the U.S. Star Wars program. It has been moving at the United Nations for a strengthening of the basic international law on space, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Canada is proposing a ban on all weapons in space (the Outer Space Treaty presently bans nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction in space). At the UN in October Marc Vidricaire of the Canadian delegation declared: =93Outer space has not yet witnessed the introduction of space-based= weapons. This could change if the international community does not first prevent this destabilizing development through the timely negotiation of measures banning the introduction of weapons into outer space. It has been suggested that our proposal is not relevant because the assessment on which it rests is either premature or alarmist. In our view, it is neither. One need only look at what is happening right now to realize that it is not premature.=94 =93There is no question that the technology can be developed to place= weapons in outer space,=94 said Vidricaire. =93There is also no question that no state= can expect to maintain a monopoly on such knowledge -- or such capabilities -- for all time. If one state actively pursues the weaponization of space, we can be sure others will follow.=94 The United States has been blocking the Canadian initiative. Weeks later, on November 20, 2000, because of the U.S. space military program, a vote was held on a resolution for =93Prevention of an Arms Race= in Outer Space.=94 It sought to =93reaffirm=94 the Outer Space Treaty of 1967= and specifically its provision that space be reserved for =93peaceful purposes.= =94 Some 163 nations--including the United Kingdom--voted in favor. The U.S.--an original signer of the treaty--abstained. We have become quite the rogue state. But getting drunk with power can do strange things. The legislation which got the Rumsfeld =93Space Commission=94 established in 2000 was authored by U.S. Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire. Of the U.S. =93controlling space,= =94 Smith in a new TV documentary=93Star Wars Returns=94that I have written and narrate (copies of which I have for you today) says: =93It is our manifest destiny. You know we went from the East Coast to the West Coast of the United States of America settling the continent and they call that manifest destiny and the next continent if you will, the next frontier, is space and it goes on forever.=94 Yes, now it=92s U.S. Cosmic Manifest Destiny. No, the United Kingdom shouldn=92t be involved in this U.S. scheme.=20 What the U.S. is up to will destabilize the world. Canada as well as China, Russia, indeed basically the rest of the world, seek to keep space for peace and are agreed on banning all weapons in space.=20 As, after the horror of chemical warfare in the First World War when nations said we can no longer allow chemical warfare, the world for nearly 35 years has agreed--and successfully managed - --to keep war out of space. The Outer Space Treaty should be strengthened to ban all weapons in space. Verification mechanisms should be added. And space be kept for peace. But there is only a narrow window to do this--for if the United States moves ahead with its Star Wars scheme there will be no putting this genie back in= the bottle. Other nations will respond in kind and there will be an arms race= and ultimately war in space. This weekend, people from around the United Kingdom--indeed from all over= the world--will gather in Leeds because of the proximity of Menwith Hill, an important component in the U.S. space military program. The meeting is titled =93No Star Wars: An International Conference to Keep Space for= Peace.=94=20 I urge you distinguished members of Parliament to join in helping stop this move by the United States to turn the heavens into a war zone. *** Karl Grossman is full professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury. He has specialized in investigative journalism for 35 years He is a principal of EnviroVideo, a New York-based company which produces news, interview programs and documentaries for television and the Web. Video documentaries he has written and hosted for EnviroVideo include =93Nukes In Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens,=94 =93Nukes In Space 2: Unacceptable Risks=94 and his new video documentary,= =93Star Wars Returns,=94 just released by EnviroVideo (718.318.8045 or http://www.envirovideo.com).=20 His books include =93The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program=92s Nuclear Threat= To Our Planet=94 and =93Weapons In Space,=94 to be published in June 2001 by Seven= Stories Press (212.226.8760 or http://www.info@sevenstories.com=20 Grossman is the recipient of the George Polk Award, James Aronson Award and John Peter Zenger Award along with six citations from Sonoma State= University=92s Project Censored for his journalism on space issues.=20 Grossman=92s home address: Box 1680, Sag Harbor, New York, USA 11963.= Telephone: 631.725.2858. E-mail: kgrossman@hamptons.com=20 The Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power In Space can be reached= at 352.337.9274. Its website: http://www.space4peace.org and E-mail: globalnet@mindspring.com Its address: PO Box 90083, Gainesville, Florida, USA 32607. =20 =20 =20 - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #442 *********************************** - To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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.