*****************************************************************
11/25/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.274
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 Terror WMD Scam
2 Guardian Unlimited: PM 'was double-crossed' over Iraq, says diplomat
3 UN Atomic Watchdog Calls On Iran To Show Its Nuclear Activities Are
4 IPS-English POLITICS: Friends Help Iran Win Nuclear Match
5 Guardian Unlimited: Papers found in Iran are evidence of plans
6 AFP: UN nuclear agency puts off referring Iran to Security Council
7 IRNA: IAEA gives Iran more time, India heaved a sigh of relief
8 BBC: Iran looks to new nuclear talks
9 BBC: Diplomatic dance over nuclear Iran
10 IRNA: ElBaradei optimist about resumption of Iran-EU talks
11 Xinhua: EU offers more time for breaking Iran deadlock
12 Reuters: World opposes Iran making nuclear fuel--EU draft
13 AFP: UN nuclear chief hopes Iran nuclear talks can resume
14 AFP: EU warns Iran against unilateral nuclear moves -
15 AFP: Iran stands by nuclear enrichment ambition
16 AFP: Iran confident of 'victory' at IAEA meet -
17 Guardian Unlimited: China Opposes Bringing Iran Before U.N.
18 UPI: Intl. Intelligence - Iran issue at IAEA concerns China
19 Guardian Unlimited: EU: Iran Papers Solely for Making Nukes
20 Guardian Unlimited: EU Alleges Iran Possesses Nuclear Designs
21 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Power succession in N.K.
22 Xinhua: DPRK denounces US chief negotiator's remarks
23 Japan Times: Japan backs KEDO plan to demand funds back
24 [NYTr] US Closes Nuclear Base in Sardinia
25 US: Nixon Sought Less Destructive Nuclear Option
26 US: Guardian Unlimited: Papers: Nixon Sought Plans for Gentler War
27 [NYTr] German Sub Sale to Israel & Israeli Nuke-Capable Subs
28 UN Atomic Agency's Nobel Prize UN Cancer Care, Nutrition In Developi
29 Poland Risks Russian Wrath Re USSR Nuclear Attack Map
30 [NYTr] From Nuclear Arms Race to the Race to Build Eco-Cities
31 Guardian Unlimited: America and Europe should listen to a whispered
32 Guardian Unlimited: Take the clean, green alternative over macho nuc
33 Guardian Unlimited: Leader: Gas price allegations - both sides canno
34 PTI: 'Amendments to Atomic Energy Act being looked at'
35 BBC: Rafsanjani welcomes IAEA decision
36 Xinhua: Sino-US relations show increasing maturity
37 IRNA: IAEA Board Chairman's conclusion on sub-item 3(b)
38 AFP: UN nuclear watchdog ends meeting in Vienna -
NUCLEAR REACTORS
39 spiked-science: What happened to the positive case for nuclear power
40 US: SLO Trib: Next open Diablo meeting is Dec. 14
41 The Hindu: Rodriguez is Indian Nuclear Society president
42 US: ajc.com: Nuclear plants safe? Claim is unsound |
43 India: Rediff: US, France, Russia agree on N-cooperation
44 RIA Novosti: Russia's nuclear industry will need $32 bln in next 15
45 The Herald: Nuclear would knock out wind-power
46 Herald: Most expensive way to generate electricity
47 iafrica.com: sa news: Koeberg in controlled shutdown
48 iafrica.com: Blackouts continue in the Cape
49 US: Cincinnati ENQUIRER: Uncertain future for power in West
50 AFP: Fire shuts down Brazilian nuclear plant
51 Statement of nuclear incidents at nuclear installations
52 AFP: Greenpeace activists break into grounds of Dutch nuclear power
53 US: SouthofBoston.com: License to ask
54 CBC Saskatchewan: Nuclear energy debate heats up
55 Fort St. John: Fort St. John Ont. eyeing nuclear expansion - sources
56 Sofia Morning News: Sofia Asks for Additional EUR 280 M for Nuke Rea
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
57 Radio New Zealand: Tahiti nuclear test veterans suspect removal
58 US: adn.com: Neighbors hope to derail radioactive isotope plans
59 MSN-Mainichi Daily News: Radioactive water released into public drai
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
60 US: AP Wire: 40 years later, South Dakota uranium mines slated for c
61 US: AP Wire: Uranium mining history goes back 50 years
62 US: AU ABC: Boswell urges start on .6b uranium mine
63 Daily Yomiuri: Tons of rebar said buried under N-plant
64 Bellona: Spent nuclear fuel from Bulgaria arrived at Zheleznogorsk
65 US: RIA Novosti: Russia must double uranium output by 2020 - TVEL
66 Salt Lake Tribune: Yucca proposition by EPA has critics
67 Pahrump Valley Times: LETTER: Highways to hell
68 AU ABC: Doctors association supports nuclear dump calls.
69 Whitehaven News: Sellafield unions in talks over pensions
70 US: La Canada Valley Sun: Water Cleanup Plan Discussed
71 Pahrump Valley Times: NO TO SPROAT Nevada senators not happy
72 Las Vegas SUN: Support for Yucca softens a little more
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
73 Rocky Mountain News: A whole town built by the bomb
74 Albuquerque Tribune: Agency delays decision on lab pact
75 New Mexican: Feds delay decision on lab contract
76 RIA Novosti: U.S. energy department delegation due in Georgia
77 kgw.com: Feds offer new way to manage elk on Hanford Reach
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Terror WMD Scam
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:19:26 -0600 (CST)
X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127
http://www.chieftain.com/national/1130652000/2
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=13&u=/ap/20051029/ap_on_re_mi_ea/terror_dark_vision_i_1
Some Experts Scoff at Terror WMD Threat
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent
Sat Oct 29, 2005
AMMAN, Jordan - After the warehouse raid in northern
Jordan, the word from authorities horrified the people
of Amman. Terrorists linked to al-Qaida had assembled
a fearsome array of chemicals and planned a bombing
that would send a 2-mile-wide "poison cloud" over this
Middle East capital, killing as many as 80,000 people,
military prosecutors said.
Osama bin Laden's foot soldiers had finally concocted
a weapon of mass destruction.
A year later, in the hard light of scientific
scrutiny, that sinister scenario looks more fictional
than factual.
"Eighty thousand! That would have been like Hiroshima.
And that was an atomic bomb," says Samih Khreis, one
of the alleged plotters' lawyers.
The defense attorneys aren't alone in scoffing at the
"WMD" claim. International experts checking the
suspects' supposed list of chemicals from the
industrial compound ammonium to the explosive
nitroglycerin say either the defendants or the
Jordanian authorities, or both, had little inkling
about the makings of a chemical weapon.
The compounds "may generate some toxic byproducts, but
they're unlikely to result in significant deaths by
poisoning," said Ron G. Manley of Britain, a former
senior U.N. adviser on chemical weapons.
The poison cloud of Amman is one more dubious episode
in the story of the terrorist quest for doomsday arms,
a dark vision that has become an axiom of today's
counterterrorist strategy. Four years into the "global
war on terror," half the Americans surveyed this
summer said they worry "a lot" about the possibility
of such a WMD attack, according to the U.S. polling
firm Public Agenda.
Concerns emerged in the 1990s when the Soviet Union's
collapse left nuclear and other arms vulnerable to
theft. Worries grew as "recipes" for mass-casualty
weapons flashed around the Internet. In 1998, al-Qaida
leader bin Laden told Time magazine that acquiring
such arms to defend Muslims "is a religious duty."
Three years later in Afghanistan, the U.S. military
found al-Qaida documents, crude equipment and other
evidence of chemical and biological experimentation.
Al-Qaida's intent is clear, says a key U.S.
intelligence analyst.
"The intent is there and you can see it in the
'fatwas' justifying the use" of WMD, Donald Van Duyn
of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division said in a
Washington interview.
One fatwa, or Muslim religious decree, issued by
radical Saudi cleric Nasser al-Fahd in 2003 at bin
Laden's request, "authorized" the use of ultimate
weapons "if the infidels can be repelled from the
Muslims only by using such weapons."
"It may be only a matter of time before al-Qaida or
another group attempts to use chemical, biological,
radiological or nuclear weapons," CIA Director Porter
Goss advised U.S. senators earlier this year.
Amid all the warnings, boasts and chilling tales,
however, the daunting difficulties of fielding such
weapons usually go unmentioned along with al-Qaida's
glaring lack of expertise and stable home base, the
unreliability of Internet "formulas," and the progress
made worldwide in locking down the raw materials of
the most destructive arms.
Amman's is one of many stories of exaggerated threats
or ill-conceived plans. Others include:
_British police last year arrested eight people on
suspicion of plotting a bombing that would spread
osmium tetroxide, a dangerous corrosive compound. But
this volatile chemical would have burned up in any
explosion, scientists say.
_The long-jailed Jose Padilla, an American al-Qaida
member accused of planning a radioactive "dirty bomb"
in the United States, is said by U.S. officials to
have hoped to use uranium. But uranium has low
radioactivity, and would have had no more impact than
lead in a bomb, scientists note.
_Eight Algerian and Libyan defendants accused of
"conspiracy to manufacture chemical weapons" were
freed in London last April after authorities
acknowledged tests showed a substance found in one of
their apartments was not highly lethal ricin, as
earlier alleged. The plant extract, effective as a
poison dealt to individuals, was long ago dismissed by
military arms-makers as an impractical mass-casualty
weapon.
_American WMD specialists in Iraq reported that
insurgents there last year recruited a Baghdad chemist
to make the blistering agent mustard, a chemical
weapon developed in World War I. They said he had the
right ingredients, but he couldn't produce the
compound.
The only known terrorist use of a chemical weapon
occurred in 1995 in the Tokyo subway system, when Aum
Shinrikyo cult members punctured plastic bags of
sarin, unleashing nerve-agent vapor that felled
thousands of commuters.
The cult, including scientists, is believed to have
spent millions of dollars on the demanding, dangerous
production process, but came up with only impure
sarin. It killed 12 people hardly a mass-fatality
terror attack, specialists point out.
"Regardless of what people say, this is very difficult
to do, to inflict mass casualties with chemical or
biological weapons," said Jonathan Tucker, an
authority on unconventional arms with California's
Monterey Institute of International Studies. "One
really needs large quantities."
Oregon toxicologist Dr. Robert Hendrickson calculates
that terrorists would need 1,900 pounds of sarin
more than 200 gallons to kill half the people in a
typical open-air baseball stadium. So much liquid,
with dispersal devices, would be extremely difficult
to conceal and to produce, probably taking 10 years in
a basement-sized operation, experts say.
Thousands of tons of sarin and VX nerve agent already
exist, in old U.S., Russian and other military
arsenals. But those weapons' potency has degraded and
they're being destroyed under the 1997 treaty banning
them. Security around the storage sites has been
tightened since the Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. terror
attacks.
If true chemical weapons prove beyond their reach,
experts say, terrorists may turn to far less lethal
but more available pesticides and caustic compounds.
Large amounts of sulfuric acid, the "battery acid" for
sale at $2 a gallon on the Internet, were among the
Jordanian group's chemicals.
"Terrorists are opportunistic," Tucker said of that
group's motley collection. "They apparently figured it
would produce some toxic mess that would do some
harm."
The prime target in Amman was Jordan's General
Intelligence Department, prosecutors said. Defense
attorneys said the men admit planning a bombing, but
their cache didn't include ammonium, potassium nitrate
and some other compounds mentioned by prosecutors.
A televised "confession" to a chemical plot by alleged
bombmaker Azmi al-Jayousi was coerced, said lawyer
Khreis, who contended Jordan's U.S.-aligned government
was exaggerating the threat because "they want
approval of people in the street and of Parliament for
their antiterror actions."
Military prosecutors, who wouldn't discuss the case on
the record, claim a toxic cloud killed rabbits in the
desert in a test explosion of the purported chemical
cache. A Jordanian army chemical expert recently
testified, however, that only considerable expertise
and equipment could produce a mass killer from the
mix.
"A chemical bomb needs a qualified chemist," Khreis
said. "Al-Jayousi has a 6th-grade education."
Some analysts say the facts of chemistry may mean
little in the end for those who want to terrorize
populations, as long as the word "chemical" is heard
on air or seen in headlines.
"One needs only to look at the adjectives used by the
media to describe chemicals to understand why the
general public is frightened: toxic, killer, lethal,
deadly," said Hendrickson, of the Oregon Health and
Science University.
Whether Internet "recipes" work or not, said the FBI's
Van Duyn, "I'm not sure they need to be very
effective."
___
NEXT: Part II - Biological terrorism.
___
On the Net:
The 2004 Congressional Research Service report,
"Small-scale Terrorist Attacks Using Chemical and
Biological Agents":
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32391-062304.pdf
//////\\\\\\
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
*****************************************************************
2 Guardian Unlimited: PM 'was double-crossed' over Iraq, says diplomat
Simon Jeffery and agencies
Thursday November 24, 2005
The former diplomat who claimed the name of his CIA agent
wife was leaked by the White House in an attempt to smear him
today said Tony Blair had been "double-crossed" by Bush aides in
the run-up to the Iraq war.
Joseph Wilson - the acting ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to
the 1991 Gulf war - said a "regime change crowd" in Washington
had taken advantage of the prime minister's focus on disarming
Saddam Hussein. Article continues
"Mr Blair came to the US when Mr Bush was talking about regime
change, and when he left Mr Bush started talking about
disarmament as the objective," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today
programme.
"I watched the way that the British built their case, and it was
a disarmament case as best I could see it. "Mr Bush went to the
United Nations - I think that that had a lot to do with the
influence of the British. I think that Mr Blair really thought
that he was getting involved in a disarmament campaign, which
was all to the good - I fully supported that.
"I think, at the end of the day, he was doubled-crossed by the
regime change crowd in Washington."
Mr Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was outed in the US press as a
CIA agent in July 2003. It happened just over a week after he
wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times claiming that some
pre-war intelligence was "twisted".
A demand from the CIA for investigation into the naming of its
agent - an offence under US law - led to the indictment of the
senior White House aide Lewis Libby on charges including perjury
and obstruction of justice.
A Bush adminstration known as "Official A" - believed to be the
president's chief political strategist, Karl Rove - remains
under investigation.
Mr Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate
reports Iraq had bought uranium from the African country.
He told the BBC there was "never any substance" to claims made
in Mr Bush's 2003 state of the union address that British
intelligence had learned of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium
from Niger.
"Even after it had been discounted, both to the Senate and to
the White House, the president used it in his state of the union
address," he said.
"I believe that the president and this administration had come
to a decision that it wanted to go to war with Iraq.
"It had seen the use of force authorisation bill, which required
that it demonstrate to itself that the threat was serious, and
that the only way that they were going to be able to get both
Congressional support and American public support was by hyping
the nuclear case."
Mr Wilson's New York Times article said Mr Bush's claims that
Iraq had recently sought uranium were "not borne out by the
facts as I understood them".
In testimony to a Senate committee, he said a former prime
minister of Niger, Ibrahim Mayaki, had met an Iraqi delegation
he believed was interested in uranium, but nothing was said on
either side. Mr Wilson said he believed there was "nothing to
the story".
His comments on double-crossing followed claims from Sir
Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to Washington,
that Mr Blair failed to leverage his support for the US to put a
brake on the Bush administration's build-up to war.
Sir Christopher wrote in his memoirs that the prime minister's
team had been "seduced" by the proximity and glamour of US
power, and were reluctant to negotiate conditions.
Chronology
January 1 2005 - present
Feb 1 2004 - 31 Dec 2004
July 16 1979 - Jan 31 2004
Useful links
Provisional authority: rebuilding Iraq
Iraqi-American chamber of commerce
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
3 UN Atomic Watchdog Calls On Iran To Show Its Nuclear Activities Are Peaceful
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:00:24 -0500
The head of the United Nations agency entrusted with curbing the spread of nuclear weapons has called on Iran to take speedy action to provide additional information and take other measures that are indispensable for ensuring that its nuclear programme is solely for peaceful purposes.
International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2005/ebsp2005n018.html">IAEA)
Director-General Mohamed
ElBaradei welcomed recent Iranian actions, including the provision
of additional documents, interviews with relevant individuals
and further access after it was found to have broken its obligations
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by concealing
its activities for nearly two decades.
However, I urge Iran to respond positively and without delay to
the Agencys remaining questions related to uranium enrichment, and
to the additional transparency measures we have requested, he
told the opening session of a Board of Governors meeting in Vienna
yesterday, citing the process that can provide nuclear weapons
fuel.
As I have stated before, these transparency measures are indispensable
for the Agency to be able to clarify remaining outstanding
issues - in particular, the scope and chronology of Irans centrifuge
enrichment programme. Clarification of these issues is overdue,
after three years of intensive verification efforts.
Iran's nuclear programme has been a matter of concern since 2003,
when the IAEA uncovered its concealment of its activities. Iran
insists its programme is for peaceful energy production only but
some countries, including the United States, says it is part of an
effort to produce nuclear weapons.
At its last meeting in September the Board of Governors found that
Irans NPT breaches were within the competence of the Security
Council, which can impose sanctions, but did not refer the matter
to the 15-member body.
Mr. ElBaradei said the IAEA continued to monitor installations related
to Irans enrichment programmes and had not observed any deviation
from its voluntary suspension of enrichment activities, although
it has continued to conduct uranium conversion activities
at its Esfahan facility, which is under Agency containment and surveillance.
I do hope also that, in parallel, every effort will be made so that
the dialogue between Iran and all concerned parties can be resumed,
with a view to achieving a comprehensive solution that addresses,
inter alia, both Irans concerns about its right to use nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes and the concerns of the international
community about the peaceful nature of these activities,
he added.
I still believe that robust verification by the Agency, combined
with active dialogue among all concerned parties, is the best way
to move forward.
2005-11-25 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
4 IPS-English POLITICS: Friends Help Iran Win Nuclear Match
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:42:22 -0800
ROMAIPS AP IP DV IF ML IR=20
POLITICS: Friends Help Iran Win Nuclear Match
Saloumeh Peyman=20
TEHRAN, Nov 25 (IPS)- The fact that the International Atomic Energy=20
Agency (IAEA), meeting in Vienna, has steered clear of referring Iran to=20
the United Nations Security Council, is being seen here as a sign of=20
wide support for the country's right to enrich uranium.=20
''It seems wisdom and rationality have finally prevailed on the IAEA,''=20
said Hashemi Rafsanjani, chairman of the powerful State Expediency=20
Council at Friday prayers. =91'It seems they (IAEA) are keen to avoid=20
adventurism =E0they know if they (United States and its allies in the=20
European Union) try to bully us, we will not tolerate it and can extract=20
a high cost.''=20
Rafsanjani, a former president with a =91pro-West' outlook -- especially=20
when compared to his hardline successor President Mahmud Ahmadinejad--
carries the confidence of the =91Supreme Leader' Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.=20
=91'They (Western countries and the IAEA) should be patient as the whole=20
world is demanding =E0they can go forward with what they call verificatio=
n=20
of our nuclear activities and this may take one or many years,''=20
Rafsanjani cautioned, indicating that there will be no quick or easy way=20
to make Iran give up its nuclear-enrichment programme.=20
Immediately before the IAEA meeting began, on Thursday, Iranian foreign=20
minister Manoucher Mottaki told reporters in Vienna, that =91'enrichment=20
(of uranium) and the fuel cycle are things that the Islamic Republic of=20
Iran considers to be its natural and legitimate right and within the=20
framework of the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty''.=20
Mottaki also said he believes that it is =91'natural that Iran wants to=20
keep these activities within its own borders'', suggesting that a=20
Russian proposal to allow Tehran to enrich the uranium within Russian=20
territory, to ensure that raw material and technology would not be=20
diverted for bomb making, was unacceptable.=20
Suspected of using its civilian atomic energy programme as a cover for=20
developing nuclear weapons, by the West and the IAEA, Iran has=20
steadfastly maintained that it was only interested in the peaceable uses=20
of atomic power.=20
The confrontation began in August after a dialogue, over alleged NPT non-
compliance, between Iran and the =91EU-3' countries, consisting of=20
Britain, France and Germany, broke off as Iran resumed uranium=20
conversion.=20
In September, the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors formally accused=20
Iran of non-compliance with the NPT, paving the way for a referral to=20
the Security Council and possible sanctions.=20
But IAEA governors, on Thursday, played prudence and agreed that it was=20
best to give the Russian formula a chance, rather than rush with a=20
referral to the Security Council.=20
In Tehran, the mood was uncompromising as reflected in the headline of=20
the Friday edition of the influential, pro-government =91Jomhuri Islami'=20
daily, which said: =94United States defeated over sending Iranian dossier=
=20
to Security Council.''=20
Confidence in Tehran appeared to flow from apparently successful=20
diplomatic efforts, since September, to woo three major non-Western=20
countries that have substantial stakes in Iran-- China, Russia and=20
India.=20
Officials here believe that the U.S. and the EU decision not to press=20
for a referral, at least at this stage, was to avoid a potential clash=20
with Russia and China, which have energy and other investments in Iran.=20
Both countries also have veto powers at the Security Council.=20
India, which plans to tap Iranian gas through a major overland pipeline,=20
was enticed by the U.S. with offers of alternative civilian nuclear=20
technology for its energy needs. A deal was concluded in July, with=20
Washington conveniently ignoring the fact that India is a self-declared=20
nuclear power and non-signatory to the NPT regime.=20
Consequently, India voted against Iran at the IAEA meeting in September=20
but domestic pressure, especially from leftist partners in the Congress-
led, ruling coalition, led the government of Prime Minister Manmohan=20
Singh to warn that a pro-West vote from India could not be counted on,=20
this time.=20
Mottaki spent his student years in India and has many friends and=20
sympathisers that he can count on in that country.=20
China has a seven-billion dollar annual trade going with Iran which,=20
according to officials and trade experts, can easily be doubled.=20
South Africa too has major investments in Iran and one of its telecom=20
companies has entered into a partnership to provide cellular telephony=20
in this country and even paid up 30 million dollars as licence fee.=20
The net result was a rare solidarity among Russia, China, India and=20
South Africa which worked in Tehran's favour at Vienna--although none of=20
these countries may want to see Iran turn into a nuclear power.=20
(END/IPS/AP/IP/DV/IF/ML/IR/SP/RDR/05)
=20
=3D 11251444 ORP006
NNNN
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: Papers found in Iran are evidence of plans
for nuclear weapon manufacture, says UK
Ian Traynor in Vienna
Friday November 25, 2005
The Guardian
Britain claimed for the first time yesterday that
documents recently found in Iran could only be used for nuclear
weapons, and warned of "indications of weaponisation" in
Tehran's nuclear programme.
At a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency devoted to
the confrontation between Iran and the west over Tehran's nuclear
ambitions, the British ambassador to the IAEA, Peter Jenkins, was
the first western official to state bluntly that a document
recently obtained by UN inspectors in Iran related solely to
nuclear weapon plans. Article continues
The ambassador was joined by German officials who assailed Iran
on the issue and added that Tehran had denied the existence of
such documents for more than two years.
The IAEA chief, Mohamed El Baradei, revealed in a report to
diplomats last week that his inspectors had been given a cache of
documents in Iran, including one supplied by the international
nuclear smuggling racket headed by the Pakistani Abdul Qadeer
Khan, showing how to "cast and machine enriched natural and
depleted uranium into hemispherical forms". Since the disclosure
experts and diplomats have been divided over the purposes of such
information. Ambassador Jenkins, speaking on behalf of the EU,
left no room for ambiguity.
"Iran has admitted to having a document ... which describes a
process that has no application other than the production of
nuclear weapons," he said. Experts say the instructions refer to
the manufacture of the core of a warhead. "You don't try to cast
uranium into hemispheric form for any other purpose. That's the
expert view in London," said a senior official.
Despite mounting western suspicions, Tehran won a reprieve in
its long game of brinkmanship. The IAEA board decided in
September to take the row to the UN security council but left
open when this might happen. Yesterday there was little talk of
going to the security council as the Europeans sought to reopen
negotiations with Iran broken off four months ago.
Russia has stepped into the breach with a plan aimed at defusing
the crisis, although the chances of success appear slim. The
British, French, Germans, Iranians and Russians are expected to
resume talks within a fortnight on a plan that would allow Iran
to process uranium ore into gas but then export the gas to
Russia to be enriched into nuclear fuel. This would minimise the
chances of Iran obtaining weapons-grade uranium but guarantee
its access to fuel for power stations.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
6 AFP: UN nuclear agency puts off referring Iran to Security Council
24/11/2005 22h48
Mohammed ElBaradei
AFP - Joe Klamar
VIENNA (AFP) - The UN nuclear watchdog put off taking Iran to
the UN Security Council to give time for new Russian diplomacy
but the United States warned that referral would happen soon if
Tehran did not meet its non-proliferation obligations.
The European Union, the lead nuclear negotiator with Iran,
agreed to give Iran more time for talks, Peter Jenkins, British
ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
told reporters.
Talks on a Russian proposal to allow Iran to conduct uranium
enrichment -- but in Russia and not in Iran in order to keep
Tehran from obtaining nuclear technology crucial to making atom
bombs -- will now take center stage.
Iran has refused to give up enrichment on its territory but
Iranian ambassador to the IAEA Mohammad Akhondzadeh praised the
"positive trend" over the "last couple of weeks" and said Iran
was "prepared to follow the path of negotiation with other
countries."
The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors was meeting in Vienna to
review progress since September 24, when it found Iran in
non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
a finding that requires eventual referral to the Security
Council for possible international sanctions.
Ali Asghar Soltanieh
AFP - Joe Klamar
EU-Iran talks collapsed in August when Iran broke a suspension
of uranium conversion, the first step towards making enriched
uranium, which can be used to fuel nuclear reactors and as the
explosive core of atom bombs.
Speaking for the EU presidency, Jenkins warned Iran against
making any "unilateral moves" to increase its atomic activities.
He said Britain "reserves ... the right" to convene a special
session of the IAEA ahead of the next scheduled meeting in March
to consider referral.
German ambassador Herbert Honsowitz told the IAEA board that the
concern over unilateral moves was "particularly true regarding
threats to start enrichment. It must be absolutely clear that
this would immediately put an end to our efforts."
US ambassador Gregory Schulte said: "The board cannot and should
not have unlimited patience if we seek to re-establish
confidence about Iran's program."
The United States backs the European Union call "to defer for a
short period the required report to the Council."
But "Iran must understand that the report to the Council is
required and will be made at a time of this board's choosing,"
Schulte said.
Gregory Schulte
AFP - Joe Klamar
The EU and the United States charge that Iran is, despite its
denials, using its drive towards atomic energy for electricity
generation as a cover for developing nuclear weapons.
Jenkins said the EU had "acceded to the request of several board
members who have asked for more time for diplomatic dialogue on
the future of Iran's nuclear program."
Russia and China, which both have strong economic ties to Iran,
oppose referral, as do non-aligned states, which insist on
Iran's right, according to the NPT, to work on the nuclear fuel
cycle.
But Jenkins warned Iran needed "to implement the
confidence-building measures" for which the IAEA has called,
namely to cease uranium conversion work.
Jenkins said "Iran should not conclude that this window of
opportunity will remain open in all circumstances."
He also said, in comments echoed by other Western ambassadors,
that the EU "sees grounds for deep concern" that Iran "has
admitted to having in its possession a document which was
supplied" by an international black market and which is a guide
to making the explosive core of an atom bomb.
Akhondzadeh said this was "simple and non-sophisticated
information which could be found in open literatures and on
Internet" and that Iran's turning it over to the IAEA "is a
clear indication of Iran's full transparency."
After the IAEA board, "the action is elsewhere," a diplomat
said, referring to plans by Russia and the EU negotiators --
Britain, France and Germany -- to meet with Iran on December 6,
probably in Vienna or Moscow, to break the deadlock.
Akhondzadeh told AFP his country was "optimistic" a December
meeting would be held but said: "We have not received an
invitation yet."
US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said in Washington on
Tuesday that the United States had made progress in mustering
support from countries such as China and Russia to insist on a
crackdown on Iran, even with a compromise solution.
China called at the board meeting for Iran to cooperate with the
IAEA and to cease conversion in order "to create favorable
conditions for the resumption of negotiations," a diplomat told
AFP.
Copyright Disclaimer AFP 2005
*****************************************************************
7 IRNA: IAEA gives Iran more time, India heaved a sigh of relief
New Delhi, Nov 25, IRNA
India-Iran-IAEA
The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government
heaved a sigh of relief after a crucial meeting of the IAEA's
board of governors in Vienna decided not to go for a vote while
agreeing to allow more time for talks and diplomacy with Tehran
over a Russian compromise proposal.
From the UPA's point of view, it was a reprieve for the
Manmohan Singh government, given the Left's opposition to the
US-led position against Tehran.
In the event of a vote on the issue leading to a referral of
Iran to the United Nations Security Council for sanctions, the
UPA government would have faced a tough task of balancing its
foreign policy with its domestic compulsion.
Left parties declared their intention to take on the government
in Parliament if it sided with the West on the Iran issue.
UPA government was reeling under attacks by its Left allies
after giving a vote against Iran in the meeting of the IAEA's
board of governors in Vienna on September 24.
2160,1/2327/1420
*****************************************************************
8 BBC: Iran looks to new nuclear talks
Last Updated: Friday, 25 November 2005
[A general view of Iran's first nuclear reactor, being built in
Bushehr]
Iran has faced the threat of sanctions over its nuclear
activities
Iran has said it is ready to consider reopening talks
with the European Union on its nuclear plans amid Western fears
it is seeking weapons.
The EU has been trying to get talks with Tehran back on track
despite criticising it for a lack of openness.
Iran told the United Nations' nuclear watchdog it was waiting to
hear from the EU countries leading the talks.
A Russian compromise proposal whereby uranium for Iran would be
enriched on its territory is now being looked at.
The US and the EU suspect that Iran is pursuing a covert nuclear
weapons programme but Tehran says its programme is peaceful.
The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been
investigating the allegations.
Washington wants to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for
possible sanctions though it backs EU diplomatic efforts.
Talks broke down in August after Iran restarted work on nuclear
enrichment.
Russian compromise
The UK ambassador to the IAEA , Peter Jenkins, said it had been
decided to renew diplomatic efforts after a request from the
watchdog's members. He said the EU wanted to talk about a
proposal to enrich uranium in Russia for use in Iranian
reactors.
Iran should "seriously" consider the Russian compromise deal, he
said.
Asked about the Russian proposal, Iran's representative at the
IAEA, Mohamed Mehdi Akhondzadeh, told the Associated Press news
agency: "We are considering it."
He said Tehran had written to the three EU countries leading the
negotiations - France, Germany and the UK, known as the EU3 - to
see if they could resume.
Fellow Iranian delegate Javid Vaidi said: "We are prepared to
follow the path of dialogue with other countries, including the
EU3."
Common ground
US ambassador Gregory Schulte told a IAEA board meeting that the
US was willing "to defer for a short period the required report
to the [Security] Council".
But, he added: "The board cannot and should not have unlimited
patience if we seek to re-establish confidence about Iran's
programme.
"Iran must understand that the report to the Council is required
and will be made at a time of this board's choosing."
The IAEA was meeting to consider its response to Iran's
continuing refusal to suspend its uranium conversion activities,
and had not been expected to refer Iran to the UN's Security
Council, the BBC's Bethany Bell in Vienna says.
While the players in the dispute appear to be trying to give
diplomacy another chance, it is unclear whether there is enough
common ground for it to work, she adds.
Iran insists on its right to enrich uranium on its own soil -
something the US and European nations oppose - and the West
maintains strong suspicions about the nature of Iran's nuclear
ambitions, she says.
The IAEA is also studying a document handed over by Iran which
contains information that could be used to build a nuclear bomb.
*****************************************************************
9 BBC: Diplomatic dance over nuclear Iran
Last Updated: Friday, 25 November 2005
By Paul Reynolds World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website
[A general view of Iran's first nuclear reactor, being built in
Bushehr]
Iran faces the threat of sanctions over its nuclear activities
Iran is still managing to avoid being reported to the Security
Council over its nuclear activity and the diplomatic entanglement
is likely to continue for some time to come.
Behind the scenes there is an intense struggle going on between
an Iran determined to preserve its right to develop a nuclear
fuel cycle and a West trying to stop it.
The outcome is in doubt.
Iran is nervous about going too far, too fast, in case it is
referred to the Security Council and told to stop.
The West, however, lacks the diplomatic muscle to bring the
weight of the Council to bear.
Now a new major player has come onto the stage - Russia. And this
entry will prolong the whole drama.
Saving face
Meanwhile Iran and the three European Union countries, the "EU3"
- Britain, France and Germany - are dancing around each other
about whether to resume "consultations" which could lead to a
resumption of talks broken off in the summer.
All this emerged from the board meeting in Vienna this week of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear
regulatory agency.
[Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]
It is not clear how far Ahmadinejad wants to push the West
Russia has proposed a compromise between Iran's insistence that
it has a right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to
develop a nuclear fuel cycle, and Western demands that it give up
this right in view of its past effort to conceal an enrichment
programme.
The compromise would let Iran do more or less what it can at
present - convert uranium ore first into refined "yellowcake" and
then into a gas ready for the enrichment process.
The actual enrichment, however, would be carried out in Russia at
a plant to be constructed for the purpose.
So now Russia and Iran will deal face to face on this issue.
The deal would save some Iranian face in that it would not be
stopped altogether and it would enable the West and Russia to
claim that Iran was not learning how to enrich uranium. This is
important because the enrichment technology can be used for
military as well as peaceful purposes.
Caught out
There is no doubt that Iran is playing a skilled game. Not that
it has had things all its own way in the last two years.
It was caught out trying to develop a secret uranium enrichment
capability and has since concentrated on mending its bridges with
the IAEA by allowing inspections and giving up documents.
But it has also manoeuvred successfully to stop the United States
and the EU from taking the issue to the Security Council. The
IAEA agreed in principle in September that this could happen. But
it has not agreed in practice.
IRAN'S NUCLEAR STANDOFF
September 2002: Wor begins on Iran's first nuclear reactor at
Bushehr December 2002: Satellite photographs reveal nuclear sites
at Arak and Natanz. Iran agrees to an IAEA inspection September
2003: IAEA gives Iran weeks to prove it is not pursuing atomic
weapons November 2003: Iran suspends uranium enrichment and
allows tougher inspections; IAEA says no proof of any weapons
programme June 2004: IAEA rebukes Iran for not fully co-operating
with nuclear inquiry November 2004: Iran suspends uranium
enrichment as part of deal with EU August 2005: Iran rejects EU
proposals and resumes work at Isfahan nuclear plant
The Council could impose economic sanctions on the grounds that
Iran's past secrecy and current lack of transparency means that
it has lost its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
to enrich fuel.
The problem for the West is that it cannot muster enough support
in the IAEA to get the referral agreed and, even if the matter
got to the Security Council, there is no guarantee that Russia
and China would agree to sanctions.
China is said to be sympathetic to the call for Iran to stop
enrichment and its delegate warned Iran "to co-operate",
otherwise the issue "handled inappropriately, could get out of
the framework of the IAEA and worse, the situation could get out
of control". But how far it would take this attitude is not
clear.
One Western official has been quoted as saying: "We don't hold
many cards."
Next step
A glimpse of the manoeuvring became evident in Vienna with the
circulation among reporters of a four-page intelligence document
attributed to Western agencies.
This claimed that Iranian officials have discussed the start of
enrichment activity at the underground plant at Natanz. This
would take Iran a stage further down the enrichment path than the
conversion it says it has restarted at Isfahan.
The document claimed that all the details surrounding such work
had been discussed on 24 October. However, nobody knows when or
even if this might all happen. The new President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad is taking a hard line internally but it is not clear
how far and fast he wants to push the nuclear issue.
Another sign of the pressure Western countries are putting on the
IAEA came with a statement from the British ambassador to the
IAEA, Peter Jenkins.
He concentrated on the possible implications of an Iranian
admission that it had received (it says it was simply given this
and did not ask for it) a document from the renegade Pakistani
nuclear scientist A Q Khan detailing how to use uranium to
construct an atomic bomb.
"Does Iran's possession of this document put Iran in breach of
Article II of the NPT which states, inter alia, that
non-nuclear-weapon states undertake not to seek or receive, I
emphasise receive, any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices?" Mr Jenkins asked.
For its part, Iran continues to counter with comments of its own.
The influential cleric Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said that the
latest IAEA discussions did in some ways "betray a vestige of
harassment".
"We will never accept being bullied," he said.
The diplomatic dance goes on.
Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
b
*****************************************************************
10 IRNA: ElBaradei optimist about resumption of Iran-EU talks
Vienna, Nov 25, IRNA
ElBaradei-Iran-EU
Secretary General of the UN nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei
expressed optimism here Friday that Tehran and EU3 (France,
Germany and Britain) would "as soon as possible" resume their
stalled talks over Iran's nuclear program.
The International Atomic Energy Agency's spokeswoman Melissa
Fleming, announcing ElBaradei's stand on the issue, told IRNA
here Friday at the end of IAEA Board of Governors meeting, "IAEA
chief is meanwhile optimist about achieving more noteworthy
progress through new inspections in process in Iran today."
The IAEA spokeswoman added, "Achieving such advancement is in
need of broader cooperation and continuous transparency on the
part of Iran."
Fleming in response to IRNA's question on her prediction about
the process of pursuing surveys on Iran's nuclear program in the
future, keeping in mind that the Thursday session of IAEA Board
of Governors sufficed in issuance of a communique, said, "Iran's
dossier would be surveyed in March session of the IAEA Board of
Governors, and there is a probability that a board member
country at any date before that would ask for an emergency
session on the case."
The IAEA Board of Governors session that had started its
activities on Thursday morning at IAEA's Vienna Headquarters
ended on Friday afternoon after two days of intensive talks.
During the said meeting the Board of Governors surveyed IAEA
Chief Mohamed ElBaradei's five-page report on Iran that was
published last Thursday, evaluating the level of Iran's
cooperation with the agency in a bid to solve the remaining
ambiguities in nuclear crisis over Iran's peaceful nuclear
activities.
Among the other issues discussed at IAEA's two-day meeting
there were a report by IAEA Technical Assistance Committee, a
discussion on how to test a country's extent of truthfulness in
reporting its nuclear activities, and decision-making talks on
how to distribute IAEA's share of the 500 million euro in the
Noble Peace Prize jointly given to ElBaradei and IAEA.
*****************************************************************
11 Xinhua: EU offers more time for breaking Iran deadlock
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-11-25 10:04:43
Related: IAEA set to back EU
statement on Iran nuclear issue
VIENNA, Nov. 24 (Xinhuanet) -- At the request of some
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) member countries, the
European Union (EU) agreed to give more time for breaking the
current Iran nuclear deadlock, British Ambassador to the IAEA
Peter Jenkins said Thursday.
[The IAEA put off taking Iran to the UN Security Council to give
time for new Russian diplomacy but the United States warned that
referral would happen soon if Tehran did not meet its
non-proliferation obligations.]
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed ElBaradei
gestures during a board meeting at the IAEA headquarters Nov. 24
in Vienna. (AFP)
Speaking for the EU presidency, Jenkins said that the EU,
the leading nuclear negotiator with Iran, agreed to give Iran
more time for talks. But he warned Iran against making any
"unilateral moves" to increase its atomic activities.
The EU had "acceded to the request of several board members
who have asked for more time for diplomatic dialogue on the
future of Iran's nuclear program," Jenkins told reporters.
However, Iran needs "to implement the confidence-building
measures" for which the IAEA has called, namely to cease uranium
conversion work, he added.
"Iran should not conclude that this window of opportunity
will remain open in all circumstances," he warned.
He said the EU "sees grounds for deep concern" that Iran
"has admitted to having in its possession a document which was
supplied" by an international black market and which is a guide
to making the explosive core of an atom bomb.
Britain reserves the right to convene a special session of
the IAEA ahead of the next scheduled meeting in March to
consider referring Iran to the UN Security Council, said
Jenkins.
The IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog, Thursday decided to put
off taking Iran to the UN Security Council to give time for new
Russian diplomacy.
Talks on a Russian proposal to allow Iran to conduct uranium
enrichment in Russia instead of in Iran, in order to keep Tehran
from obtaining nuclear technology crucial to making atom bombs,
will now take center stage.
Iran has refused to give up enrichment on its territory but
Iranian ambassador to the IAEA Mohammad Akhondzadeh praised the
"positive trend" over the "last couple of weeks" and said Iran
was "prepared to follow the path of negotiation with other
countries."
The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors was meeting in
Vienna to review progress since Sept. 24, when it found Iran had
not complied with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a
finding that requires eventual referral to the Security Council
for possible international sanctions.
The EU-Iran talks collapsed in August when Iran broke a
suspension of uranium conversion, the first step towards making
enriched uranium, which can be used to fuel nuclear reactors and
as the explosive core of atom bombs.
The EU and the United States charged that Iran is, despite
its denials, using its drive towards atomic energy for
electricity generation as a cover for developing nuclear
weapons.
Russia, China and non-aligned states opposed the referral,
insisting on Iran's right, according to the NPT, to work on the
nuclear fuel cycle. Enditem
Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
12 Reuters: World opposes Iran making nuclear fuel--EU draft
| Reuters.com
Thu 24 Nov 2005 5:52 AM ET
VIENNA, Nov 24 (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog's
governing board has reached a "broad consensus" that Iran should
not be allowed to pursue nuclear enrichment, which would enable
it to develop atom bombs, an EU diplomat said on Thursday.
A draft statement outlining this position was submitted by the
European Union's three biggest powers -- France, Britain and
Germany -- to the chairman of the International Atomic Energy
Agency's (IAEA) board as it began a two-day meeting.
"There is a broad consensus not to allow Iran in the present
circumstances conducting enrichment related activities on its
soil," said the draft of a summary statement to be read by the
IAEA board's chairman at the conclusion of the board meeting.
The text made no mention of previous threats to refer Tehran to
the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions, which the
United States and EU have been pushing for months.
The draft says the IAEA's 35-nation board had "unanimous
hope...that the negotiation process could resume, taking into
account, among different ideas, the Russian proposals".
Russia has proposed allowing Tehran to conduct less-sensitive
uranium processing in Iran and shifting the converted material
to Russia, where a Russian-Iranian joint venture would handle
the critical enrichment process, which could yield bomb-grade
uranium fuel.
Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. [ border=]
*****************************************************************
13 AFP: UN nuclear chief hopes Iran nuclear talks can resume
Thu Nov 24, 7:35 AM ET
VIENNA (AFP) - UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said
he hoped international talks could resume on guaranteeing that
Iran will not make nuclear weapons.
ElBaradei told a meeting of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) that he hoped "every effort will be made so that
the dialogue between Iran and all concerned parties can be
resumed."
The IAEA chief said this should be towards a "comprehensive
solution that addresses ... both Iran's concerns about its right
to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the concerns of
the international community about the peace nature of these
activities."
ElBaradei said Iranian cooperation with an IAEA investigation of
its nuclear program remained "overdue," particularly in
clarifying "the scope and chronology of Iran's centrifuge
enrichment program."
The IAEA was expected at a meeting in Vienna Thursday to
postpone calling for UN Security Council action against Iran
amid hopes of new talks towards resolving the Iranian nuclear
crisis.
"There is the hope that there will be resumed negotiations" on
winning guarantees that Iran is not developing atomic weapons, a
European diplomat, who asked not to be named due to the
sensitivity of the issue, told AFP.
Diplomats said the United States, Europe and China back a
Russian plan to allow Tehran to conduct uranium enrichment, but
in Russia and not in Iran in order to keep the Islamic Republic
from obtaining nuclear technology crucial in making atom bombs.
The watchdog IAEA's 35-nation board of governors was meeting to
review progress after calling on Iran in September to cease all
nuclear fuel work, something Iran refuses to do.
Enriched uranium can be fuel for nuclear power reactors but also
the raw material for the bomb.
But diplomats said the Vienna-based body will hold off on
referral.
"The action is elsewhere," a diplomat said, referring to plans by
Russia and the European Union negotiators -- Britain, France and
Germany -- to meet with Iran on December 6, probably in Vienna or
Moscow, to break the deadlock.
*****************************************************************
14 AFP: EU warns Iran against unilateral nuclear moves -
Thu Nov 24, 7:46 AM ET
VIENNA (AFP) - The European Union has agreed to give Iran more
time to negotiate on its nuclear program but warned Tehran
against making any "unilateral moves" to increase its atomic
activities.
British ambassador Peter Jenkins told reporters the European
Union has "acceded to the request of several board members" of
the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency who have asked
for more time for diplomatic dialogue on the future of Iran's
nuclear program."
The IAEA's board of governors was meeting in Vienna Thursday and
expected to hold off on calling for Iran to be referred to the
UN Security Council for possible sanctions for hiding sensitive
nuclear activities in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT).
The board had in September found Iran in non-compliance with the
NPT and was meeting to review progress on the dossier since then.
Jenkins, who was speaking for the EU presidency at the IAEA
board meeting, said Iran should "seriously" consider a Russian
compromise proposal that would allow it to enrich uranium in
Russia.
But Jenkins warned Iran needs "to implement the
confidence-building measures" for which the IAEA has called,
namely to cease uranium conversion work that is the first step
in enriching uranium into what can be nuclear reactor fuel or
atom bomb material.
He said Iran should "refrain from any further unilateral move
which could aggravate the situation," a clear reference to it
moving on to actual uranium enrichment.
Jenkins said in a speech to the board "that any resumption of
enrichment related activities at Natanz would seriously
aggravate the situation created by the resumption of activity at
Isfahan," the conversion facility.
Jenkins said in his press comments that Iran's failing to fully
cooperate with an IAEA investigation of its past and current
nuclear activities "undermines its claim that its nuclear
program is peaceful in nature."
Jenkins said the EU also "sees grounds for deep concern" that
Iran "has admitted to having in its possession a document which
was supplied" by an international black market and which is a
guide to making the explosive core of an atom bomb.
Jenkins said the opening for talks, and the IAEA's holding off
on referral, should not be misunderstood by Iran.
"Iran should not conclude that this window of opportunity will
remain open in all circumstances," Jenkins said.
He said Iran should return to negotiations "on a reasonable
basis and in good faith."
EU-Iran talks collapsed last August when Iran broke a suspension
of uranium conversion it had begun nine-months earlier in order
to start the negotiations on guaranteeing it would not make
nuclear weapons.
*****************************************************************
15 AFP: Iran stands by nuclear enrichment ambition
Fri Nov 25, 6:29 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran stands by its "right" to enrich uranium
despite international demands for Tehran to accept a compromise
on the ultra-sensitive nuclear technology.
"Like all member countries in the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), the Islamic Republic of Iran has the right to
enrich uranium," Iran's ambassador to the IAEA Mohammad
Akhundzadeh told Iranian media.
He repeated his country's refusal to give up enrichment on its
territory, saying Tehran was "ready to study any proposals
including the Russian proposal, but any such proposals must
guarantee Iran's right to uranium enrichment".
His comments came after the IAEA, the Vienna-based UN watchdog,
put off taking Iran to the Security Council over its nuclear
programme.
The European Union and United States suspect that the Islamic
republic, despite its denials, is using an atomic energy drive as
a cover for nuclear weapons development.
Iran has already refused an EU offer of trade and other
incentives in exchange for it abandoning fuel cycle work, and
the focus has now turned to a Russian proposal involving moving
the enrichment process to Russian soil.
Enrichment can make both nuclear fuel and the explosive core of
a weapon.
In a statement to the IAEA on Thursday, the EU decided to allow
"more time for diplomatic talks over the future of Iran's
programme" but urged Tehran to "seriously consider" the Russian
proposal.
The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors was meeting in Vienna to
review progress since September 24, when it found Iran in
non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
a finding that requires eventual referral to the Security
Council for possible international sanctions.
Speaking for the EU presidency, Peter Jenkins, British
ambassador to the IAEA, warned Iran against making any
"unilateral moves" to increase its atomic activities and said
Britain "reserves ... the right" to convene a special IAEA
session ahead of the next scheduled meeting in March.
The latest IAEA report chastised Iran for again failing to
provide adequate cooperation and denying IAEA inspector access
to suspect military sites.
But according to Akhundzadeh, "Iran has been cooperating with
the agency beyond its commitments and we believe this is the
utmost cooperation a country can have with the IAEA".
Speaking at a Friday prayer sermon in Tehran, senior cleric
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani also asserted his country "will not
accept being bullied".
Iran already dismissed the idea of the Russian proposal ahead of
the IAEA meeting.
"Enrichment and the fuel cycle are things that the Islamic
Republic of Iran consider to be natural and legitimate rights
and within the framework of the NPT," Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki said.
Copyright 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
16 AFP: Iran confident of 'victory' at IAEA meet -
Thu Nov 24, 7:40 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran claimed victory as a meeting of the UN's
atomic watchdog got underway, after it emerged that Tehran was
unlikely to be hauled before the Security Council over its
suspect nuclear programme.
"United States defeated over sending Iranian dossier to Security
Council," trumpeted the headline in the conservative daily
Jomhuri Islami, after diplomats said the International Atomic
Energy Agency would not call for a UN referral.
Iran is suspected of using an atomic energy drive as a cover for
weapons development, charges Tehran has consistently denied.
In September, the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors chastised
Iran for being in non-compliance with the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), paving the way for its to be
referred to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions.
But officials were upbeat about the meeting under way in Vienna.
"I consider the circumstances of the next IAEA meeting to be more
constructive and positive than the previous one," Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters on Wednesday.
The United States, Europe and China reportedly now back a Russian
plan to allow Tehran to conduct uranium enrichment on Russian
soil in order to keep the Islamic republic from obtaining nuclear
technology crucial in making atom bombs.
Enriched uranium can be fuel for nuclear power reactors but also
the raw material for the bomb.
Mottaki said Iran had yet to receive such a proposal, and claimed
it it would be a non-starter.
"Enrichment and the fuel cycle are things that the Islamic
Republic of Iran consider to be natural and legitimate rights and
within the framework of the NPT," he said.
"It is natural that Iran wants to keep these activities within
its own borders."
Talks between Iran and Britain, France and Germany broke off in
August when Iran resumed uranium conversion -- a precursor to
enrichment -- it had suspended nine months earlier.
Preliminary talks on resuming long-term negotiations could take
place on December 6, EU diplomats have said.
The Resalat newspaper said the possible December 6 meeting showed
that "Iran doesn't accept the language of force."
Iran argues fuel cycle work for peaceful purposes is allowed by
the NPT. But critics say the country is exploiting a loophole in
the cornerstone of the global anti-proliferation regime.
Copyright 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Questions or
*****************************************************************
17 Guardian Unlimited: China Opposes Bringing Iran Before U.N.
the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday November 24, 2005 11:01 AM
By ALEXA OLESEN
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - China stuck to its long-held position Thursday
that the dispute over Iran's nuclear program should be resolved
through negotiations and not be brought before the U.N. Security
Council.
The statement comes as diplomats gathered in Vienna for a
35-nation meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
with the European Union expected to warn Iran to change its ways
or face the threat of referral to the U.N. Security Council.
``We have a consistent position on the Iranian nuclear issue,''
said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao at a
briefing.
``For the current stage, we should seek a proper solution within
the framework of the IAEA,'' Liu said. ``We don't think it is
appropriate now to refer this question to the U.N. Security
Council.''
At issue is Iran's refusal to give up uranium enrichment, which
can be used to generate power but also to make weapons-grade
material for nuclear warheads. Iran says it wants only to make
fuel, but international concern is growing that the program
could be misused.
For months, Iran has relied on Beijing and Moscow, two of the
five permanent members of the Security Council, to fend off a
U.S.-backed push to have it hauled before the Council.
Currently, Iran's enrichment program is frozen. But negotiations
between Iran and France, Britain and Germany - the so-called
EU-3 - broke off in August after Iran restarted the conversion
of raw uranium into the gas that is used as the feed stock in
enrichment.
Liu said China hoped to see ``the early restoration of
negotiations between Iran and the EU-3 so as to seek a long-term
solution acceptable to all parties.''
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
18 UPI: Intl. Intelligence - Iran issue at IAEA concerns China
United Press International -
11/25/2005 9:00:00 AM -0500
BEIJING, Nov. 25 (UPI) -- China's delegate at the International
Atomic Energy Agency meeting in Vienna said resolution of Iran's
nuclear ambitions should stay within the organization.
Statements carried in state-run media Friday quoted Wu Hailong
saying, "China always maintains that the Iran nuclear issue
should be resolved properly within the framework of the IAEA."
Wu said his country supports the efforts of EU countries France,
Germany and the United Kingdom in their efforts to seek a
long-term solution through dialogue and negotiations with Iran.
Wu made the comments at Thursday when the IAEA's governing board
began a two-day meeting to discuss the developments of Iran's
nuclear issue since the body in September called on Tehran to
stop uranium enrichment.
"China welcomes all positive proposals, suggestions and efforts
that are conducive to the resumption of the EU-Iran talks and
find a long-term solution to the issue," Wu added.
"Iran's nuclear issue, if handled inappropriately, could get out
of the framework of the IAEA and worse still, the situation
could also get out of control," Wu warned.
On Friday IAEA endorsed an EU statement postponing referral of
Tehran's nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council for possible
sanctions. The decision aims at giving Russia more time to
persuade Iran to accept a compromise plan where its uranium
enrichment activities are transferred to Russia.
Analysts note China does not want the Iranian nuclear issue to
go to the U.N. Security Council because it would set a precedent
for the world's other major nuclear proliferation problem: North
Korea.
Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
19 Guardian Unlimited: EU: Iran Papers Solely for Making Nukes
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday November 24, 2005 12:31 PM
AP Photo VAH103
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The European Union is accusing Iran of
possessing documents used solely for the production of nuclear
arms and is warning of possible referral to the U.N. Security
Council, according to a statement made available to The
Associated Press on Thursday.
The press statement, made available before planned delivery
later in the day, was described by a diplomat as a summary of
what Britain, France and Germany would tell a closed session of
the International Atomic Energy Agency board which began meeting
on Thursday.
The statement said the EU would accuse Iran of possessing
suspicious documents that ``have no other application than the
production of nuclear weapons.''
``Failure to make progress'' on easing international concerns
about Iran's nuclear program ``will hasten the day when the
board decides that a report to the Security Council must be
made,'' said the statement to be delivered by Peter Jenkins, the
chief British delegate to the IAEA.
The European Union also reserves the right to call an emergency
board meeting before the next scheduled gathering in March - for
possible Security Council referral - ``if Iranian behavior makes
it necessary,'' said the statement.
The statement alluded to new revelations of concern contained in
a report drawn up for the board meeting by IAEA head Mohamed
ElBaradei, including a finding showing the Iranians in
possession of what appeared to be drawings of the core of an
atomic warhead.
But the main issue is Iran's refusal to give up its right to
uranium enrichment, which can be used to generate power but also
to make weapons-grade material for nuclear warheads. Iran says
it wants only to make fuel, but international concern is growing
that the program could be misused.
A plan floated in recent weeks foresees moving any Iranian
enrichment plan to Russia. There, in theory, Moscow would
supervise the process to make sure enrichment is only to fuel
levels.
But Iran insists it wants to control the complete fuel cycle
domestically.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters in
Tehran on Wednesday that, while his country was willing to
resume formal talks with key European powers on its nuclear
program, ``naturally we aim to have enrichment on Iran's
territory.''
Currently, Iran's enrichment program is frozen. But negotiations
between Iran and France, Britain and Germany broke off in August
after Iran restarted the conversion of raw uranium into the gas
that is used as the feed stock in enrichment.
For months, Iran has relied on Beijing and Moscow, Security
Council members with veto power, to fend off a U.S.-backed push
to have it hauled before the council.
While the Americans and Europeans have opted not to lobby for
referral at Thursday's meeting of the IAEA board, they could
resume their efforts at a later board session if they judge that
the Russians, Chinese and other key nations will not stand in
their way.
In Beijing on Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu
Jianchao told reporters that his country did not think ``it is
appropriate now to refer this question to the U.N. Security
Council.''
ElBaradei, in comments to the board meeting in Vienna,
suggested, he, too, opposed referral, for now, calling for
``robust verification'' of Iranian nuclear activities, combined
with ``active dialogue.''
``Clarification'' of aspects of Iran's nuclear program ``is
overdue, after three years of intensive verification efforts,''
he said.
The EU statement made available to the AP said Iran's ``failure
to provide full transparency ... continues to undermine its
claim that its program is exclusively peaceful in nature.''
---
On the Net: www.iaea.org
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
20 Guardian Unlimited: EU Alleges Iran Possesses Nuclear Designs
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday November 24, 2005 10:01 PM
AP Photo XRB102
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The European Union accused Iran on
Thursday of having documents that show how to make nuclear
warheads and joined the United States in warning Tehran it faced
referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
Iran, meanwhile, suggested it was considering a compromise to
reduce tensions.
Britain, in a statement on behalf of the 25-nation bloc, offered
new negotiations meant to lessen concerns over Iran's insistence
it be in full control of uranium enrichment - a possible pathway
to nuclear arms.
``But Iran should not conclude that this window of opportunity
will remain open in all circumstances,'' said a statement read by
Peter Jenkins, the chief British delegate to the International
Atomic Energy Agency, outside a closed meeting of the 35-nation
board.
Diplomats described the statement as a veiled threat of Security
Council referral.
``It won't be open for a great deal longer,'' Jenkins said later
when asked how much time Iran had to influence the language of a
report to the Security Council.
The final statement was toned down before being delivered to the
media.
An earlier version made available to The Associated Press said:
``Failure to make progress'' on easing international concerns
about Iran's nuclear program ``will hasten the day when the
board decides that a report to the Security Council must be
made.''
The United States said separately that Iran cannot avoid
referral to the Security Council for violating the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty but added that Washington and its
European allies were delaying such a move to give Tehran a
chance to defuse fears it wants to make nuclear arms.
``Iran must understand that the report to the council is
required and will be made at a time of this board's choosing,''
said Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S. representative to the
Vienna-based IAEA.
But, he said, Washington is ready to wait in hopes that ``Iran
will reverse course and demonstrate'' cooperation both with an
IAEA probe of its nuclear activities and an international
attempt to re-engage it in talks meant to reduce fears about its
intentions.
``One thing is clear, no one wants this dangerous regime to
acquire the most deadly of weapons,'' he later told reporters.
With even traditional allies Russia and China increasing
pressure on Tehran, the Iranians are ``digging themselves deeper
into a hole that threatens to collapse around them,'' he said.
For months, Iran has relied on Beijing and Moscow to fend off a
U.S.-backed push to have it hauled before the Security Council.
But the Russians are now working with the Americans and
Europeans to push a compromise enrichment plan, and officials
recently told AP that China also is moving closer to the Western
position.
The main issue is Iran's refusal to give up its right to
enrichment, which can be used to generate power but also to make
weapons-grade material for nuclear warheads. Iran says it wants
only to make fuel, but international concern is growing that the
program could be misused.
A plan floated in recent weeks foresees moving any Iranian
enrichment plan to Russia. There, in theory, Moscow would
supervise the process to make sure enrichment is only to fuel
levels.
But Iran insists it wants to master the complete fuel cycle
domestically. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told
reporters in Tehran on Wednesday that, while his country was
willing to resume formal talks with key European powers on its
nuclear program, ``naturally we aim to have enrichment on Iran's
territory.''
On Thursday, however, a senior Iranian diplomat appeared to
soften his country's stance.
``We are considering it,'' Mohammed Mehdi Akhounzadeh Basti, the
chief Iranian delegate to the IAEA, told the AP when asked about
the plan to move Iran's enrichment program to Russia.
Fellow delegate Javad Vaidi said, ``We are prepared to follow
the path of dialogue with other countries, including the EU-3,''
referring to France, Germany and Britain, the key EU
negotiators.
Jenkins focused on new revelations contained in a report drawn
up for the board meeting by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei,
including a finding showing the Iranians in possession of what
appeared to be drawings of the core of an atomic warhead. The
agency said last week that Iran obtained detailed designs from
the black market run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of
Pakistan's nuclear program.
In his statement to the board, also made available to AP,
Jenkins said the documents have ``no other application than the
production of nuclear warheads.''
``This reinforces earlier concerns aroused by possible
indications of Iranian weaponization activity,'' he told the
board, alluding to a series of findings over the past three
years by IAEA experts suggesting that Iran may have experimented
with procedures meant to make nuclear weapons.
A separate Iranian statement prepared for the board meeting
accused the ``U.S. and terrorist groups'' of fabricating ``false
allegations against Iran'' in suggesting it was interested in
nuclear arms.
It described the find of the warhead documents as a ``minor
issue'' that should not detract from the ``tremendous progress
achieved by (the) joint cooperation of (the) IAEA and Iran'' in
clearing up questions about Tehran's nuclear program.
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
21 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Power succession in N.K.
2003-11-18 븮
If North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has chosen his second son
Jong-chol as his heir, as is incessantly reported by the
international media these days, it must be one of the most
foolish decisions the dictator has made in his 11-year rule. It
will be as much a detriment to the future of the regime as would
his current push for the development of nuclear weapons, which
he mistakenly believes is the best way to secure its survival.
Little is known here about the 24-year-old Jong-chol except that
he had his early education in an international school in Bern,
Switzerland, has a position in the leadership division of the
Workers' Party Central Committee, and is a great fan of
America's National Basketball Association. His mother was Ko
Yong-hi, Kim Jong-il's third and only legal wife who died of
cancer last year.
Before her death, Ko was the subject of an enthusiastic
adoration campaign as a "mother" of the people, in the same
manner as Kim Jong-il's mother Kim Jong-suk was treated in the
early 1970s when her son was chosen to be the successor to Kim
Il-sung. To North Korea watchers, this meant the exclusion from
the succession line of Kim Jong-nam, 35, Jong-chol's older
brother born from Kim Jong-il's affair with actress Song Hye-rim
and portrayed in the Western media in a prodigal son image.
Some Chinese and European media reported that Jong-chol attended
a state banquet for visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao late in
October. The Foreign Ministry here doubted the authenticity of
the report, but if it is true, Kim Jong-il made the arrangement
to introduce his heir apparent to the head of North Korea's only
ally.
It does not require deep knowledge of political history to
foresee the brewing of trouble when one chooses the younger son
rather than the older as the heir, especially in a society with
Confucian tradition. Any effort to produce an artificial aura
for the young man in the years to come will cause significant
repercussions in the party ranks, in the military officers'
corps and in some conscientious sectors of the oppressed
society, leading to general instability of the regime.
Pyongyang's friends in Beijing, having practiced their own kind
of democratic power succession to the present fourth generation
leadership, would not like the dynastic inheritance of rule
taking place in their communist neighbor. But they would find it
irksome to advise Kim Jong-il against his succession scheme
while prodding him to give up nuclear armaments and pushing him
toward economic openness and reform.
We in the South deplore the retreat of the northerners further
away from the common democratic norm of the present
international community and watch with apprehension for dire
consequences of their succession choice, which heralds as a
definite possibility a shorter life for the regime.
2005.11.25
*****************************************************************
22 Xinhua: DPRK denounces US chief negotiator's remarks
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-11-25 23:56:19
PYONGYANG, Nov. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- The Democratic People's
Republicof Korea (DPRK) denounced recent remarks about
Pyongyang's ideology and policy priority by Christopher Hill, US
chief negotiator for the six-party talks, on Friday.
"The remarks pose us a serious question of whether we can
sit together with those who participate in the talks but are
engrossed in how to demolish our regime without consideration of
basic trust on their dialogue partners," said a commentary by
the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).
According to the KCNA, Hill said that DPRK's economic
difficulties stemmed from its misplaced policy of giving
priority to military issues during an interview with a group of
youth delegates from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
member economies on Nov. 19.
"Hill's remarks squarely run counter to and clamp down on
the spirit of the Sept.19 agreement to respect each other's
sovereignty and stress peaceful co-existence," the commentary
said.
Hill's way of thinking disclosed again that Washington would
not recognize DPRK as a state and would not change its hostile
policy toward it, the commentary added.
"We cannot discuss the nuclear issue with those who focus
primarily on toppling our regime, and we once again recognize
the importance of strengthening nuclear deterrence for
self-defense," it said.
During the fourth round of six-party talks held in November,
negotiators of the two Koreas, China, the United States, Russia
and Japan adopted a common statement to resolve the standoff
over nuclear issues on the Korean Peninsula.
At the statement, the DPRK promised to abandon all nuclear
weapons and existing nuclear programs while the United States
affirmed that it had no intention of attacking or invading the
DPRK with nuclear or conventional weapons.
The DPRK and the United States also pledged in the statement
to respect each other's sovereignty, co-exist peacefully, and
take steps to normalize their relations.
The latest round of six-party talks was held in early
November,during which all parties agreed to meet again in
Beijing as soon as possible after a recess. Enditem
Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
23 Japan Times: Japan backs KEDO plan to demand funds back
Friday, November 25, 2005
Kyodo News
Japan supports a plan by the Korean Peninsula Energy
Development Organization to demand that North Korea return money
disbursed to finance a stalled light-water reactor project in
the country, Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said Thursday.
"Our country feels North Korea should be told to return funds
lost through (Pyongyang's) default of an agreement," the
government's top spokesman said during a regular news conference.
Abe made the remarks after Japan, the United States, South
Korea and the European Union -- the core members of KEDO --
agreed Tuesday to scrap the $4.6 billion project to provide two
light-water nuclear reactors to North Korea to boost its power
supply.
Senior Vice Foreign Minister Yasuhisa Shiozaki indicated earlier
Thursday that Tokyo was having difficulty recovering the money
it had disbursed, but Abe said the core members will take up the
matter now.
Japan provided $410 million and South Korea, the main
contributor to the project, gave $1.14 billion. Plans are under
way for the KEDO secretariat to demand North Korea return the
money.
"It's hard to suddenly demand (that North Korea) pay back" the
money, Shiozaki told a news conference. "We do have reasons to
make the demand, but it is uncertain how much money will come
back."
KEDO was set up in 1995 to implement the energy project in
North Korea in return for the dismantlement of its suspected
nuclear arms and other programs in line with a 1994 U.S.-North
Korea agreement.
The Japan Times: Nov. 25, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
24 [NYTr] US Closes Nuclear Base in Sardinia
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:20:21 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com
US Closes Nuclear Base in Sardinia
Rome, Nov 24 (PL) The Italian island of Sardinia (south of Italy) received
the announcement on the closing of the US La Magdalena military base with
satisfaction Thursday.
Italian Defense Antonio Martino informed of the withdrawal of the US forces,
and Governor Renato Soru said the decision would benefit the population of
the island.
The base, where more than 3,000 US soldiers and their relatives have been
living for 30 years, was turned into a port for nuclear submarines, which
contaminated Sardinian waters.
The base will be transferred to another country, which the US thinks it will
be better for its own strategies.
Soru expressed the town's satisfaction and plans to use the base territory
for tourism.
The removal of the US soldiers has been demanded for a long time by pacifist
organizations, and ecology movements denounced the appearance of uranium and
plutonium in the waters.
The US established itself in La Maddalena after signing an agreement with
Italy in 1972.
hr/ccs/tac/bts
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
25 Nixon Sought Less Destructive Nuclear Option
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:56:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Fingerprint: groenmail@yahoo.com-127.127
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051124/ap_on_go_pr_wh/gentler_nuclear_war
Nixon Sought Less Destructive Nuclear Option
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
Nov 24, 2005 - 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Widely recognized as a military hawk,
President Richard M. Nixon fretted privately over the
notion of any no-holds-barred nuclear war, newly
released documents from his time at the White House
reveal.
Visions of such an all-out war involving nuclear
missiles were unpalatable from the first days of
Nixon's presidency, starting in 1969 and lasting until
the summer of 1974, when he resigned during the
Watergate scandal.
Recently declassified papers from that time in history
show that Nixon wanted an alternative to the option of
full-scale nuclear war a plan for a gentler war, one
that could ultimately vanquish the rival Soviet Union
while still avoiding the worst-case scenario.
The White House papers from this era provided a
glimpse behind the scenes at attempts there to find
choices other than "the horror option," as national
security adviser Henry Kissinger called the scenarios
for all-out atomic war that were then in place.
Qualms about causing so much death were hardly the
only motivation. U.S. officials worried that their
nuclear threat lacked credibility because it was so
awful adversaries questioned whether Washington would
ever use it.
In a 1969 diary entry, Nixon's chief of staff, H.R.
Haldeman, recalled the president taking part in an
exercise that day aboard the Boeing 707 outfitted to
conduct nuclear warfare from the air.
"It was pretty scary," Haldeman wrote. Nixon asked
many questions about "kill results," his aide said,
adding about his boss: "Obviously worries about the
lightly tossed-about millions of deaths."
The picture was pieced together by William Burr, a
researcher at the National Security Archive at George
Washington University, from Nixon-era papers released
by the National Archives as well as documents obtained
under the Freedom of Information Act.
The documents reveal Kissinger's chilling insight that
government budget-crunchers would prefer complete
nuclear warfare because it was already planned for and
would be cheaper than recasting U.S. capabilities to
permit limited strikes.
"They believe in assured destruction because it
guarantees the smallest expenditure," he told an
August 1973 National Security Council meeting in the
White House Situation Room. "To have the only option
that of killing 80 million people is the height of
immorality."
The papers show Kissinger struggling with a reluctant
military and intelligence apparatus to sell them on
the idea of limited nuclear strikes. Many doubted the
Soviets would settle for a tidy little nuclear war;
they feared a conflagration would quickly follow,
devouring cities and killing millions.
But until Nixon took up the matter, the only options
in the nuclear playbook involved the highest stakes
possible and unspeakable death, and that apparently
unsettled him even as he engaged North Vietnam in a
war that was claiming civilian casualties.
By one official estimate, the United States, even if
crippled by unprovoked Soviet missiles, could
retaliate with missiles killing 40 percent of the
Soviet population, or some 90 million people. Many
more people would be killed if the United States
struck first; that estimate remains classified.
Countless studies flowed from the effort to expand
nuclear options to include "smaller packages." But it
was not until 1974, the year Nixon resigned, that he
signed a directive setting that process in motion.
Burr said the United States eventually achieved an
expanded range of nuclear options, in part because of
the development of more accurate missiles and other
weapons in years that followed.
Nixon's nascent strategy echoes in the debate today
over training nuclear weapons on tough but selective
targets. The Bush administration decided in the fall
to abandon development of bunker-busting nuclear
warheads and try to achieve similar capability with
conventional weapons.
Historically, Nixon is known as "unsentimental and
sort of callous in some ways," Burr said, but the
documents also show a president "worried about the
huge number of casualties involved."
Even so, the prime concern may have been the
credibility of the U.S. threat, and Burr noted that
the narrower options under review targeted centers of
the Soviet government and economy, not just military
assets, and any such attack would have created untold
casualties, too.
Kissinger pushed the idea with urgency even as the
Watergate crisis unfolded. "My nightmare is that with
the growth of Soviet power and with our domestic
problems, someone might decide to take a run at us,"
he said in the August 1973 meeting.
Years earlier, he voiced skepticism that the Soviets
would ever be the first to unleash a full-scale atomic
assault. It was not rational, he said, "to make a
decision to kill 180 million people."
R. Jack Smith, then deputy director for intelligence
at the CIA, countered with skepticism that the Soviets
would do anything less. A limited attack was the
"least likely contingency," he argued. "One could not
believe that the Soviets would launch a few nuclear
ICBMS."
One secret report concluded that if wider nuclear
warfare were to develop from a limited attack, a
restraint, of sorts, could still be possible.
In that event, the U.S. objective would be "to
minimize the enemy's residual power and recovery
capability and not just destroy his population and
industry."
___
On the Net:
National Security Archive:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB173/index.htm
"To Have the Only Option of Killing 80 Million People
is the Height of Immorality"(Note 1)
The Nixon Administration, the SIOP, and the Search for
Limited Nuclear Options, 1969-1974
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No.
173
By William Burr
202/994-7032
Posted - November 23, 2005
Related posting
The Creation of SIOP-62
More Evidence on the Origins of Overkill
More Archive postings on nuclear history
Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird and Director of
Defense Research and Engineering John S. Foster,
former chairman of the National Strategic Targeting
and Attack Panel, at a Pentagon surprise reception in
honor of Foster, 2 October 1972 (Photo, courtesy
Office of Secretary of Defense Historical Office) -
larger version
Washington, D.C., November 23, 2005 - The nuclear war
plans that constitute the Single Integrated
Operational Plan have been among the most closely
guarded secrets in the U.S. government. The handful of
substantive documents on the first SIOP -- SIOP-62
(for fiscal year 1962) -- that have been the source of
knowledge about it have been declassified,
reclassified, re-released, and then closed again,
fortunately not before key items had been copied at
the archives. (Note 2) More about the SIOP remains
unknown than known to the public and important details
such as targets systems, weapons assignments, and
bomber and missile routes have remained top secret for
years and may remain so indefinitely. Federal agencies
routinely deny large portions of documents with
information on the SIOP. Nevertheless, significant
information about U.S. nuclear war plans as they
evolved through the late 1960s and early 1970s has
been declassified through FOIA requests, mandatory
reviews at the National Archives, and routine
declassification. With this briefing book, the
National Security Archive publishes for the first time
recently declassified documents on nuclear war
planning during the years of the Nixon presidency.
Declassified documents show what the SIOP had become
during the Nixon administration. Originally a plan for
a single massive nuclear strike launched either
preemptively or in retaliation against the Soviet
Union and the Soviet bloc (Note 3), under the
influence of the Kennedy administration the SIOP
became a set of plans with five major options for
nuclear strikes. Preemption was always an option but
preemptive attacks depended on the availability of
strategic warning intelligence showing that a Soviet
attack on the United States was imminent. If, however,
the U.S. authorities had tactical warning information,
e.g. the 15 minutes provided by Ballistic Missile
Early Warning System (BMEWS) radars, showing that the
Soviets had already launched missiles, they could
order retaliatory strikes.
The National Strategic Targeting and Attack Policy
(NSTAP), approved by the Secretary of Defense and the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, guided the preparation of the
SIOP. Influenced by the "counterforce" thinking of the
early 1960s, it sought to spare, or at least minimize,
civilian casualties from some of the attacks by
avoiding cities and focusing on the adversary's
nuclear weapons capabilities. (Note 4) The NSTAP
established three core tasks, the chief of which was
the destruction of nuclear threat targets:
ALPHA: to destroy Soviet and Chinese strategic
nuclear delivery capabilities located outside of urban
areas. This task included the destruction of
high-level Chinese and Soviet military and political
control centers.
BRAVO: to destroy non-nuclear Soviet and Chinese
conventional military capability (including barracks,
tactical air fields, and the like) located outside of
urban areas.
CHARLIE: to destroy Chinese and Soviet nuclear
weapons capabilities located in urban areas, as well
as 70 percent of the urban-industrial sector.
Following the NSTAP, the SIOP provided the National
Command Authority (the President and Secretary of
Defense,) with five attack options against the Soviet
Union and other communist countries:
a preemptive strike against ALPHA target
categories. In 1971, this strike required some 3200
bombs and missile warheads (including multiple
independently retargetable reentry vehicles or MIRVs)
to destroy 1700 installations.
a preemptive strike against ALPHA and BRAVO target
categories. In 1971, this strike required some 3500
programmed weapons to destroy 2200 installations.
a preemptive strike against ALPHA, BRAVO and
CHARLIE target categories. In 1971 this would have
involved some 4200 programmed weapons targeting 6500
installations (some of which were adjacent or
"co-located").
a retaliatory strike against ALPHA, BRAVO, and
CHARLIE target categories; in 1971 this required some
4000 programmed weapons targeting 6400 installations
(some of which were co-located).
a retaliatory strike against ALPHA and BRAVO
target categories. In 1971, the exercise of this
option required 3200 programmed weapons to destroy
2100 installations.
Besides the attack options, the SIOP included
"withholds" for excluding attacks on some targets. For
example, attacks on major command and control
installations in Moscow and Beijing could be withheld
if U.S. command authorities wanted to preserve lines
of communication with the Soviet Union or China.
Attacks on entire countries, e.g. China, Poland, or
Romania, could also be withheld if they were not in
the war or for other political or military reasons.
Some 600 weapons were slated for a maximal attack on
Chinese military and urban-industrial targets.
photo:
Fallout Patterns from an Attack, Consistent with the
ALPHA Task of the National Strategic Target and Attack
Policy, on All Active Russian ICBM Silos - larger
version
Just like senior national security officials in the
current Bush administration, who seek to make nuclear
weapons more useable by assigning them bunker-busting
missions, the Nixon Administration wanted to be able
to construct nuclear threats that were more credible
than the catastrophic SIOP options. During a visit to
the Pentagon in late January 1969, only days after the
inauguration, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger
received their first SIOP briefing; they were startled
by what they heard in part because they found the
attack options to be unbelievable and unusable for
East-West crises in Europe, the Middle East, or Asia.
Previous presidential administrations had promoted the
idea of a wider, more discriminating, range of nuclear
options and the RAND Corporation and the Air Force
were analyzing the possibility through the NU-OPTS
studies. Believing that the president should have
military options other than an unbelievable threat of
massive nuclear attacks, Kissinger began pushing the
national security bureaucracy to come up with ideas
and plans for the more selective use of nuclear
weapons that would be more useful for political threat
purposes and even for actual military use. During the
months that followed, White House pressure on the
bureaucracy produced scant results, although
eventually the Pentagon became more responsive to
Nixon's and Kissinger's interest in strategic
alternatives.
>From 1972 to 1974 an internal Pentagon study laid the
way for an interagency study that presented the
rationale for escalation control and selective nuclear
targeting. Although some voices inside the government
raised doubts about the possibility of controlling
nuclear escalation, Kissinger brushed them aside. By
early 1974, President Nixon signed a national security
decision memorandum directing the preparation of a
"wide range of limited nuclear employment options"
that could be used to demonstrate the seriousness of
the situation to an adversary as well as show a
"desire to exercise restraint." This briefing book
also includes documents on Nixon-era planning to make
nuclear weapons more useful politically and
militarily.
Before Nixon signed the NSDM (see document 24A
below), Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, with
whom Kissinger had a competitive working relationship,
made informal remarks to the press that disclosed some
of the features of the new selective targeting policy
with his own spin emphasizing the importance of
counterforce. Schlesinger's remarks received
considerable press coverage and became the subject of
much comment, some highly critical, in Washington,
Moscow, and Western Europe. The new approach was
quickly dubbed, no doubt to Kissinger's dismay, the
"Schlesinger Doctrine." (Note 5) During the months
that followed, the Pentagon initiated a complex, and
not altogether successful, effort to meet the demands
of its political masters for a range of nuclear
options responsive to presidential wishes. (Note 6)
A recently published article by the editor of this
compilation provides more information on the SIOP as
it stood during the Nixon administration and the White
House's search for limited nuclear options; see
William Burr, "The Nixon Administration, the 'Horror
Strategy,' and the Search for Limited Nuclear Options,
1969-72: Prelude to the Schlesinger Doctrine," in the
summer 2005 issue of The Journal of Cold War Studies.
This article draws on archival records and other
declassified material, some of which appears below.
Documents
Note: The following documents are in PDF format.
You will need to download and install the free Adobe
Acrobat Reader to view.
I. SIOP-4
Document 1: "Joint Staff Briefing of the Single
Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP)," 27 January 1969,
Top Secret, excised copy
Source: FOIA release by U.S. Air Force
On January 27, 1969 President Nixon lunched at the
Pentagon with Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird and
then received a briefing at the National Military
Command Center. Prepared by Colonel Don LaMoine of the
Joint Staff, this is the text for the briefing on the
latest version of the war plan, SIOP-4, as prepared by
the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff (JSTPS)
under the supervision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
the Secretary of Defense. SIOP-4 was a revision of
SIOP-64, which was in turn an update of SIOP-63. The
basic options remained the same; SIOP-63 set the mould
for U.S. nuclear war plans through the mid-1970s. The
Air Force has withheld key portions of this briefing
but documents 2 and 3 which follow provide information
on some of the major excised portions, such as the
discussion of the NSTAP and the SIOP options.
Document 2: National Security Council Staff,
"Strategic Policy Issues," circa February 1, 1969, Top
Secret, excerpt
Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential
Materials Project (NPMP), Henry A. Kissinger Office
Files, box 3, folder: Strategic Policy Issues
This staff study includes some useful figures: numbers
of strategic nuclear forces, including missile
warheads, on both sides as well as estimates of
fatalities caused by a nuclear exchange. For example,
in response to "highest threat"--a Soviet first
strike--U.S. forces could still "inflict 40% Soviet
fatalities (90 million) through the early to
mid-1970s." The fatality rates caused by a preemptive
attack on all target categories would have been higher
but such estimates remain classified. (Note 7)
Document 3: Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. to Dr. Kissinger,
"The SIOP," 8 November 1969, Top Secret
Source: NPMP, NSC Files, box 384, folder: SIOP (Single
Integrated Operational Plan), mandatory review release
This memorandum by NSC staffer Lawrence E. Lynn, Jr.,
includes invaluable information on the NSTAP and the
SIOP options. Lynn's memo was a response to requests
from Henry Kissinger for concepts of, and plans for,
smaller, less destructive, strike options that would
enable the White House to make nuclear threats that
were supposedly more credible to an adversary than a
catastrophically massive SIOP strike. Lynn's attempt
to develop the concept for an alternative strike plan
included a critique of a JCS report prepared earlier
in the year that argued that the SIOP was fine as it
was and that trying to change it would weaken the
plan. The JCS report, as transmitted with a memo from
Secretary of Defense Laird, is attached to Lynn's
memo. Kissinger scrawled his puzzled query to his
military assistant, Colonel Alexander Haig--"What does
this mean?"--on the top of Laird's memo.
Document 4: National Security Council, Defense Program
Review Committee, "U.S. Strategic Objectives and Force
Posture Executive Summary," 3 January 197[2], Top
Secret, excerpt
Source: Declassification release by NSC
Important detail on the NSTAP and the SIOP can be
found in a long report prepared during 1971 by an NSC
subcommittee, the Defense Program Review Committee,
chaired by Henry Kissinger. The Committee looked
exhaustively at the U.S. military posture and budgets,
with a close look at the SIOP and the risks and
benefits of developing limited nuclear options (pages
45-56). The declassified report includes significant
information on the NSTAP and the SIOP, including
options and numbers of weapons and targeted
installations (see pages 27-28). Incorporated into the
report was a critical assessment of the SIOP that drew
upon a major JCS study of the SIOP (see document 15b
below). According to the assessment U.S. strategic
forces "cannot destroy a significant part of the
Soviet nuclear delivery capability" which meant that
they "cannot significantly limit damage to the United
States and its allies." Nonetheless, U.S. nuclear
forces could "inflict damage on 70% of the
war-supporting economic targets in the USSR and
China." In addition, the study provides additional
estimates of "prompt" or immediate fatalities (from
blast, radiation, etc.) that would be caused by a U.S.
retaliatory attack on the Soviet Union (see page 18).
This study includes a detailed breakdown (page 35) of
the nearly 13,000 tactical nuclear weapons stationed
overseas, including weapons deployed overseas, e.g.,
Western Europe, East Asia, and "afloat" (storage
ships, aircraft carriers, etc.). It also includes a
review of alternative nuclear strategies toward China
(see pages 99-108) with the pros and cons of a
potential "disarming strike" option geared toward
destroying Chinese strategic forces. Even though
Kissinger had already made his secret trip to China
five months earlier and Sino-American rapprochement
was unfolding, the PRC remained a target for U.S.
military planning until the early 1980s. (Note 8)
Document 5: Haldeman Diary, Entry for 11 May 1969
Source: NPMP, Special Files, H.R. Haldeman Diary
Returning from a trip to Florida on May 11, 1969
President Nixon flew back on the National Emergency
Airborne Command Post (NEACP), a Boeing 707 (or
EC-135) which was designed for commanding military
forces during a crisis. There Nixon participated in a
text exercise which probably involved practicing the
SIOP options. Nixon's chief of staff H.R. Haldeman
observed that "it was pretty scary." Nixon "asked a
lot of questions" especially about the "kill results.
Obviously worries about the lightly tossed about
millions of deaths."
II. The Search for Limited Nuclear Options
Document 6: "Notes on NSC Meeting 13 February 1969,"
14 February 1969, Top Secret
Source: NPMP, NSC Institutional Files (NSCIF), box
H-20, folder: NSC Meeting, Biafra, Strategic Policy
Issues 2/145/69 (1 of 2)
This transcript of the discussion during a National
Security Council meeting does not go into the SIOP but
it provides some insight on strategic thinking early
in the Nixon administration, including recognition of
the danger, and possibility, of launch-on-warning and
the weakness of U.S. nuclear guarantees to allies.
Kissinger also showed his interest in limited nuclear
options by discussing the possibility that the
superpowers would avoid massive nuclear attacks on
each other by resorting to "smaller packages."
Document 7: NSC Review Group Meeting, "Review of U.S.
Strategic Posture," 28 May 1969, with Halperin memo
attached, Top Secret
Source: NPMP, NSCIF, box H-111, folder: SRG Minutes
Originals 1969
When Nixon came to power and appointed Kissinger as
his national security assistant, the latter began
issuing requests for studies to the military and
foreign policy bureaucracy, in part to get a better
grasp of key issues but also to keep the agencies
absorbed in this work so they would not interfere with
White House decisions. One of the requests, National
Security Study Memorandum 3, asked for a study of the
U.S. military posture and the balance of power. The
NSC Review Group, an interagency committee chaired by
Kissinger, discussed the draft of the NSSM 3 study
during a meeting in late May 1969. About half-way into
the meeting, the conversation turned to the
possibility that the Soviets might launch a limited,
"discriminating," nuclear attack instead of a massive
nuclear strike. Kissinger implied that such an attack
was possible because it was not rational "to make a
decision to kill 180 million people," but R. Jack
Smith, Deputy Director for Intelligence at CIA, argued
that a limited attack was the "least likely
contingency - one could not believe that the Soviets
would launch a few nuclear ICBMs against the US."
Document 8: Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. and Helmut
Sonnenfeldt to Dr. Kissinger, "June 18 NSC Meeting on
U.S. Strategic Posture and SALT," June 17, 1969,
memorandum to President Nixon, briefing materials and
reports attached, Top Secret
Source: declassification release by NSC
The response to NSSM 3 was slated for discussion at an
NSC meeting on June 18, 1969. The package of materials
that the NSC staff prepared for Nixon and Kissinger
included some discussion of the problem of
discriminating nuclear strikes, now characterized as
"disarming attacks" or "less than all-out strikes" on
nuclear forces, partly as a means to improve the
attacker's "relative military position" but also as a
way to bring a war to a halt in order to avoid strikes
on cities. Kissinger and the NSC staff saw this "as
the most sensible strategy for us to consider under
the extreme pressures of a nuclear crisis or threat."
The reports also included criteria for "sufficiency"
that the Nixon White House would use as a yardstick
for evaluating the "adequacy of U.S. strategic forces"
as well as the suitability of strategic arms control
agreements with the Soviets. Coined by Henry
Kissinger, the "sufficiency" concept aimed at making
the new administration's strategy look innovative and
moderate, deploying enough forces to deter without
looking inordinately aggressive.
Documents 9a and 9b: Requests for Studies
Document 9a: Kissinger to the President,
"Additional Studies of the U.S. Strategic Posture,"
July 1, 1969, with Lynn memo attached, Top Secret
Source: NPMP, NSCIF, box 56, folder: NSSM-64
Document 9b: National Security Study Memorandum
64, Kissinger to Secretary of Defense, "U.S. Strategic
Capablities," July 8, 1969, Top Secret
Source: NSC Freedom of Information release
Kissinger's search for "more discriminating options
than the present SIOP," which would be appropriate for
the "kinds of situations which the President might
actually face in a crisis," led to a request for
Nixon's approval of a new National Security Study
Memorandum, NSSM 64. The request, which Kissinger
signed on July 8, 1969, did not explicitly mention the
SIOP or "discriminating options" but nonetheless
tasked the Defense Department to evaluate how well
U.S. strategic forces would stand up to strategic
nuclear attacks in terms of their "capability to deter
and respond to less than all-out or disarming Soviet
attacks" as well as a "a range of possible war
outcomes." Other problems to be studied were force
mixes, command-and-control improvements, and possible
changes in the criteria for strategic sufficiency.
Document 10: General Richard A. Yudkin, "The Changing
Context," Address to Tactical Nuclear Weapons
Symposium at Los Alamos National Laboratory, 3
September 1969, with cover memos from Haig and Hughes
attached, Secret
Source: NPMP, NSC Files, box 818, folder: Hughes, Col.
James D., mandatory review release
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the RAND
Corporation and the U.S. Air Force undertook a series
of studies--"NU-OPTS"--on the possibilities and
potential of "selective nuclear operations" as an
alternative to the massive SIOP options. (Note 9) A
key figure on the Air Force side was General Richard
Yudkin, whose Los Alamos speech gave a highly positive
assessment of NU-OPTS as an "additional option short
of full-scale nuclear attack [which] can make more
politically credible our international commitments
which are not directly related to national survival."
While Yudkin acknowledged that once some nuclear
weapons were used, pressures for all-out
attack-"executing the Assured Destruction
capability"-would increase on both sides, he argued
that those pressures "will not reach the same
magnitude as the pressures against" such an attack. "I
believe this resistance to the launching of Assured
Destruction will hold up on both sides-in the USSR as
well as the U.S." NSC staffer Alexander Haig was
enthusiastic about NU-OPTS, although it is unclear
whether Kissinger learned about the studies or even if
Yudkin gave a briefing to top officials at the
Pentagon. The NU-OPTS work presaged, and possibly
influenced, the Foster Panel's work on limited nuclear
options (see documents 16, 18, and 19), although more
needs to be learned about the relationships.
Document 11: L. Wainstein et al., The Evolution of
U.S. Strategic Command and Control and Warning,
1945-1972, Study S-467, Institute for Defense
Analyses, June 1975, Top Secret, excerpt
Source: FOIA release (document published in its
entirety in National Security Archive, U.S. Nuclear
History: Nuclear Weapons and Politics in the Missile
Era, 1955-68 (Washington, D.C., 1998)
The study that the Pentagon prepared in response to
NSSM 64 remains classified, but an Institute for
Defense Analyses history prepared several years later
summarized its "gloomy" conclusions about the command
and control requirements for conducting limited
strategic war. According to the NSSM 64 study, despite
the U.S.'s "good capability" to "execute a preplanned
attack," its "Command Centers do not possess the
combination of survivability and capability which is
required for the conduct of limited strategic nuclear
war." Neither the National Military Command Center
(NMCC) at the Pentagon nor the Alternative National
Military Command Center (ANMC) at Fort Ritchie,
Maryland was survivable while the NEACP had "limited
capability." Those conclusions cast cold water on the
possibility of limited strategic options, but how
Kissinger reacted to them remains unknown.
Document 12: Cable from Commander-in-Chief Strategic
Air Command Holloway to JCS Chairman and Air Force
Chief of Staff Ryan, "Visit of Dr. Henry Kissinger to
HQ SAC," 10 March 1970, Secret
Source: National Archives, Record Group 218, Records
of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chairman Earl Wheeler Files,
box 80, folder: 323.3 CINCSAC, FOIA release
Wanting to learn more about the SIOP, Kissinger flew
to Strategic Air Command headquarters at Offutt Air
Force Base in Nebraska, where he received more
briefings on the strategic threat and SIOP options
from the JSTPS. According to SAC's commander-in-chief
(CINCSAC) and JSTPS director General Bruce Holloway,
the briefings "were well received," with Kissinger
showing interest in the "flexibility" of SIOP options.
Nevertheless, some things Kissinger was not allowed to
learn: "certain aspects of the SIOP were
deliberately not gone into."
Document 13: Record of Telephone Conversation Between
Henry Kissinger and Under Secretary of State Elliot
Richardson, 10 March 1970 2:25 p.m.
Source: NPMP, Henry A. Kissinger Telephone
Conversation Transcripts, box 4, March 10-16, 1970
The briefing might not have been received quite as
well as Holloway believed; a conversation that
Kissinger had with Elliot Richardson suggested his
doubts. While the discussion is not entirely clear,
Kissinger appeared to have been skeptical about the
"limited options" involving an "enormous number of
missiles" and only a "few bombers." He also questioned
SAC's identification of the Soviet SA-5 surface-to-air
missile as an anti-ballistic missile: "I made them
back up."
Document 14: "President's Review of Defense Posture
San Clemente July 28, 1970 [,] Selected Comments," Top
Secret
Source: NPMP, NSCIF, box H-100, folder: DPRC Meeting
11-24-70
During a meeting on defense budgets at the Western
White House, Nixon and Kissinger discussed the roles
and missions of the services and the problem of
cutting defense budgets. Nixon vented some spleen
about the military bureaucracy; both the Pentagon and
the Air Force had "unbelievable" layers of
bureaucracy, with the latter being especially
"disgraceful" in that respect. Predictably, Kissinger
brought up the need to reform the SIOP--the "horror
strategy" as he characterized it--but Nixon did not
show much enthusiasm about ordering a study, despite
Kissinger's request.
Documents 15a-b: SIOP Analysis
Source: FOIA releases
Document 15a: Memorandum from Secretary of Defense
Laird to Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Analysis of
the SIOP for the National Security Council," August
15, 1970, Top Secret
Document 15b: Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Analysis of
the Single Integrated Operational Plan for the
National Security Council," April 23, 1971, Top
Secret, excised copy
Whether Secretary of Defense Laird knew about Nixon
and Kissinger's discussion or not, only a few weeks
later he commissioned a major evaluation of the SIOP.
Certainly, Laird understood that the White House was
not enthusiastic about the inflexibility in the war
plans. For example, in his first annual foreign policy
report, which was prepared by Kissinger's staff, Nixon
questioned the lack of flexibility in nuclear war
plans: "Should a president, in the event of a nuclear
attack, be left with the single option of ordering the
mass destruction of enemy civilians in the face of the
certainty that it would be followed by the mass
slaughter of Americans?" (Note 10) That concern may
have encouraged Laird to support a SIOP review, but he
also had his own doubts whether "some of the
President's advisors" properly understood the
relations between the SIOP objectives and various
important criteria used for planning levels of
strategic forces. To clarify those relationships and
to assess the impact of possible changes in force
levels on U.S. capability to fight a nuclear war, in
August 1970 Laird directed the Joint Chiefs to
prepare, with the assistance of Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Systems Analysis Gardiner Tucker, a
"detailed, comprehensive, and quantitative analysis"
of the SIOP. By the spring of the following year, the
Chiefs had completed the study. This heavily- excised
version--even the substance of Laird's directive is
withheld, despite the earlier release of the August
15, 1970 memorandum--typifies how security reviewers
treat documents with SIOP information. It is worth
noting that the DPRC's assessment of the SIOP (see
document 4, at pp. 29-30) drew heavily on the
conclusions of this JCS study.
Document 16: "The Use of Ad Hoc Groups in DOD," n.d.
[circa spring 1973], Confidential, excerpt
Source: Library of Congress, Papers of Elliot R.
Richardson, mandatory review release
Laird initiated another high-level internal review of
the war plans in early 1972 when he asked Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering John
S. Foster to head a panel part of whose task was to
determine whether "existing nuclear weapons employment
plans provide the flexibility to adapt to crisis
situations." Prepared as background for
newly-appointed Secretary of Defense Elliot Richardson
in early 1973, this report on "The Use of Ad Hoc
Groups in DOD" included a background paper on the
creation of the Foster Panel, also known as the NSTAP
Panel. (Note 11)
Document 17: Memorandum from Ambassador U. Alexis
Johnson to Acting Secretary of State, "DPRC Meeting -
June 27, 1972," Secret
Source: RG 59, Department of State Records, National
Archives, Subject-Numeric Files 1970-73, Def 1 US
While the Foster Panel was working on its report, the
DPRC study on "U.S. Strategic Objectives and Force
Posture" (see document 4) provided a detailed analysis
of alternative nuclear force postures. The record of a
DPRC discussion of the alternatives in June 1972 shows
that Kissinger continued to promote his interest in
what Atomic Energy Commission chairman James R.
Schlesinger called "sub-SIOP options." According to
Kissinger there "was a risk of our being paralyzed in
a crisis because of the lack of plans short of an
all-out SIOP response." He wanted nuclear planners to
start "thinking through what options could be made
available to the President." Schlesinger argued that
the problem required a technical solution: U.S. ICBMs
needed a very accurate capability to strike nuclear
threat targets--a "hard-target kill capability"--if
limited nuclear strikes were to be possible. What
Schlesinger had in mind was the concept of the M-X
missile that was deployed during the 1980s.
Document 18: "HAK Talking Points DOD Strategic
Targeting Study Briefing," Thursday, July 27, 1972,"
Top Secret
Source: Declassification release by NSC
A month after the DPRC meeting, Kissinger learned from
NSC staffer Philip Odeen, who probably drafted this
paper, that the Foster panel had completed a report
that was being reviewed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In spite of an 11-year old FOIA request by the
National Security Archive, the Defense Department has
not declassified the Foster Panel's report;
nevertheless, Odeen's summaries (see also document 19
below) provide significant detail on its contents.
Looking at ways to give command authorities the widest
possible choice and to control the escalation of
nuclear war, so as to limit its destructiveness, the
panel developed concepts of nuclear options, including
Major Attacks (essentially the current SIOP options),
Selective Options, and Limited Options. By exercising
limited options, Odeen argued, it might be possible to
"stop the war quickly and at a low level of
destruction." If, however, escalation could not be
controlled and general nuclear war unfolded, the panel
proposed a new objective for U.S. forces: "to minimize
the enemy's residual military power and recovery
capability and not just destroy his population and
industry."
Document 19: Memorandum to Dr. Kissinger from Philip
Odeen, NSC Staff, "Secretary Laird's Memo to the
President Dated December 26, 1972 Proposing Changes in
US Strategic Policy," 5 January 1973, Top Secret,
excerpts
Source: Declassification release by NSC
Later in the year, with the Foster panel's report
complete, Odeen filled Kissinger in on its status and
Secretary Laird's interest in quick NSC-level approval
of new strategic guidance based on the panel's
analysis. Laird was leaving the Pentagon and wanted to
see closure on nuclear policy before he left office.
Odeen was sympathetic but pointed to "important gaps
and major unresolved issues" such as the lack of
detail in the analysis of limited and regional nuclear
options and the extent to "which we should buy forces
to support our [nuclear] employment policy."
Nevertheless, Odeen saw value in timely action because
it meant an "unprecedented opportunity to develop an
overall policy for a national security issue which for
too long has been out of the President's control."
Document 20: Memorandum for the Record, "SIOP
Expansion Studies," by Eric E. Anschutz, Science and
Technology Bureau, Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency, April 20, 1973, Top Secret
Source: FOIA request to State Department
While the Pentagon and the National Security Council
were working on studies responsive to Nixon and
Kissinger's wish for options, officers at SAC
headquarters had been conducting studies on their own
account. (How much the JSTPS knew about the policy
review at the NSC and the Pentagon remains to be
learned.) During an ACDA staffer's visit to Offutt
AFB, CINCSAC John C. Meyer discussed some of the
attack options that were under review for
"illustrative purposes." Meyer explained that actually
designing limited options would require a Presidential
directive and that the work would "take some time." He
was also doubtful that the Soviets would see "as
limited" any attack "exceeding a few missiles
particularly during a crisis."
Document 21: Memorandum from Secretary of Defense
James Schlesinger to Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs [Henry Kissinger], 13 July
1973, enclosing "NSSM 169 Summary Report," 8 June
1973, Top Secret
Source: declassification release by NSC
In his January 1973 memorandum to Kissinger, Odeen had
recommended an interagency review, chaired by the NSC
staff, to "review, revise and complete the [nuclear]
employment policy and overall strategic policy
guidance." As it turned out, however, John S. Foster,
not an NSC staffer, chaired the interagency review of
U.S. nuclear policy that Kissinger requested under
NSSM 169 in February 1973. By the time that study was
finished, Elliot Richardson had served his limited
tenure as Secretary of Defense (becoming Attorney
General as the Watergate scandal developed) and James
R. Schlesinger had taken over from Richardson.
Schlesinger forwarded the NSSM 169 report with
enthusiasm; as he wrote to Kissinger, the study
provided an "excellent basis" for consideration by
NSC. While the study brought out some problems, such
as whether escalation control was possible once
nuclear weapons were used, on the whole it found
"desirable and feasible" a new nuclear strategy based
on concepts of a "greater range of attack options,"
escalation control, and "targeting in large-scale
retaliation those political, economic, and military
targets critical to the enemy's post-war power and
recovery."
Document 22: Minutes, Verification Panel Meeting,
"Nuclear Policy (NSSM 169)," August 9, 1973, with
cover memorandum from Jeanne W. Davis to Kissinger,
August 15, 1973, Top Secret
Source: NPMP, National Security Council Institutional
Files, box 108, folder: Verification Panel Originals
3-15-72 to 6-4-72 (3 of 5)
Some weeks after the completion of the NSSM 169 study,
Kissinger met with the NSC's Verification Panel to
discuss the preparation of a National Security
Decision Memorandum (NSDM) instructing the Pentagon to
develop the "different options that the President
could absorb before a crisis develops and he is called
upon to make a decision." Worried that the options
might be needed someday, Kissinger explained that: "my
nightmare is that with the growth of Soviet power and
with our domestic problems, someone might decide to
take a run at us." Kissinger, however, did not want
military planners to wait for Nixon to sign an NSDM
before they started developing options: "The JCS
should start planning as though the NSDM were
approved." Expanding the SIOP options would not be a
quick process; according to Joint Staff director
General Weinel, it would take up to two years partly
because there were so many uncertainties, such as
ascertaining which targets had to be destroyed to "do
the most damage." How the Soviets would react was, for
some, another element of uncertainty. While Kissinger
believed that the Soviets "will be looking for excuses
not to escalate," DCI William Colby observed that they
"could get into [escalation] by misunderstanding or by
a misguessing of indications." A reference to target
categories in the PRC (see page 3) apparently
disturbed Kissinger (who was then trying to develop a
strategic alliance with Beijing against Moscow) and
prompted him to ask General Welch: "What are you
talking about? Is this on paper?"
Document 23: Memorandum, Winston Lord, Director,
Planning and Coordination Staff, Council, Department
of State, to Secretary of State Kissinger, "NSSM
169-Nuclear Weapons Policy," December 3, 1973," Top
Secret, excised copy
Source: FOIA request to State Department
Not all in the government agreed with Kissinger on the
merits of limited nuclear options. One of Kissinger's
close advisers, Winston Lord, signed off on a paper
prepared by several members of the Planning and
Coordination Staff that took exception to the new
thinking. While no one quarreled with the merits of
flexibility, the Staff worried about some of the
implications of the concept of "controlled nuclear
escalation," including a "possible adverse impact on
deterrence, overreliance on nuclear forces, and
overconfidence in the applicability of nuclear
escalation in a wide variety of situations." The
arguments did not persuade Kissinger, who scrawled:
"Good paper though I disagree with much of it."
Documents 24 a-b: NSDM 242
Source: NSC declassification releases
Document 24a: Henry Kissinger to President Nixon,
"Nuclear Policy," January 7, 1974," Top Secret
Document 24b: National Security Decision
Memorandum 242, "Policy for Planning the Employment of
Nuclear Weapons," January 17, 1974, Top Secret
With the Arab-Israeli war, among other problems,
intervening, it took some months before Kissinger was
ready to present Nixon with a draft NSDM designed to
facilitate the development of a "broad range of
limited options aimed at terminating war on terms
acceptable to the U.S. at the lowest levels of
conflict feasible." The major SIOP attack options
would be available when escalation could not be
controlled but Kissinger claimed that the goals had
shifted: instead of the "wholesale destruction of
Soviet military forces, people, and industry," the
options aimed at "inhibiting the early return of the
Soviet Union to major power status by systematic
attacks on Soviet military, economic, and political
structures." If there was any meaningful distinction
between destroying "people", on the one hand, and
"economic" or "political structures" on the other,
Kissinger did not clarify it. In any event, he
presented Nixon with a decision memorandum which was
signed ten days later, setting in motion the complex
and difficult process of trying to expand the nuclear
war options available to the White House. Preoccupied
with his own political survival, Nixon was unlikely to
have much interest in the follow-up to NSDM 242.
Document 25: Office of Secretary of Defense, "Policy
Guidance for the Employment of Nuclear Weapons," 3
April 1974, with enclosure from Major Gen. John A.
Wickham to General Scowcroft, 10 April 1974, Top
Secret
Source: NPMP, NSCIF, box 343, folder: NSDM 242 [2 of
2]
Only a few months after the promulgation of NSDM 242,
Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger signed off on
guidelines that came to be known as "NUWEP" (nuclear
weapons employment policy). In keeping with the Foster
panel report and the NSSM 169 study, NUWEP tasked the
military high command to develop strategic plans based
on concepts of deterrence and escalation control.
Developing the concepts endorsed by the Foster panel,
NUWEP called for, and set requirements for, Major and
Selected Attack Options, Regional Nuclear Options and
Limited Nuclear Options. A key goal of Major Attack
Options was the destruction of "selected economic and
military resources of the enemy critical to post-war
recovery," including political and military leadership
targets. With respect to economic recovery targets,
NUWEP called for inflicting "moderate damage on
facilities comprising approximately 70% of [the Soviet
or Chinese] war-supporting economic base." The
"nuclear offensive capabilities of the enemy" remained
a key targeting objective. In keeping with previous
targeting guidance, NUWEP allowed for nuclear strikes
under varying conditions of initiation, e.g.,
strategic warning/preemption and tactical warning of
attack/retaliation. While providing detailed guidance
for the major and selected options, NUWEP discussed
Limited Nuclear Options in only general terms, perhaps
reflecting the difficulty of creating plausible and
realistic options. To regulate the destructiveness of
nuclear attacks, NUWEP guidance also set parameters
for Damage Expectancy (DE). DE could be as high as 90%
(and higher for some attacks) which meant that some
targets would require multiple attacks to assure their
destruction. Based on assumptions about blast damage,
the DE criteria did not take into account the
destruction caused by fire, one of the routine effects
of nuclear bursts in urban areas. (Note 12)
NUWEP guided the creation of SIOP-5, which went into
effect in early 1976. By the end of the decade,
however, the Carter administration had produced new
targeting guidance that downgraded the complex task of
destroying economic recovery targets. (Note 13)
Document 26: Central Intelligence Agency, "Soviet and
PRC Reactions to US Nuclear Weapons Employment
Policy," 1 August 1974, with memo from DCI William
Colby attached, Top Secret, excised copy
Source: Freedom of Information release
NSDM-242 directed the DCI to prepare a report
assessing Soviet and Chinese reactions to the U.S.'s
new nuclear policies. The CIA report, directed by
National Intelligence Officer Fritz Ermarth, suggested
the uncertain state of knowledge about Soviet thinking
on limited strategic options and the limited
possibilities for controlled escalation. The Ermarth
study found that the Soviets were likely to develop
capabilities for "some kinds of limited nuclear
operations," e.g. in the European theater or in a
regional conflict with China. While Soviet planning
was likely to continue to emphasize "massive strikes"
in both regional and intercontinental military
operations, Ermarth believed that over time the
Soviets "will enhance their inherent capabilities for
limited nuclear operations regardless of [their]
views about the feasibility of selective use options."
Nevertheless, the judgment that the Soviets were "less
likely to adapt limited use concepts for
intercontinental nuclear operations" suggested the
risks of assuming that the Soviets would find
"excuses" not to escalate. As for the PRC, the Ermarth
study surmised that Beijing was likely to have an
interest in the "restrained" use of nuclear weapons
because the leadership recognized "the catastrophic
consequences for them" of an "unlimited nuclear
exchange." While China's "modest inventory" of nuclear
forces could facilitate the creation of Limited
Nuclear Options, no evidence of Chinese interest in
"selected operations" was available.
Notes
1. Statement by Henry Kissinger, 9 August 1973; see
document 22.
2. For documents on the first SIOP as well as
references to the published literature on the war
plan, see "The Creation of SIOP-62: More Evidence on
the Origins of Overkill," National Security Archive
Electronic Briefing Book No. 130, at
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB130/press.htm.
3. For early Cold War nuclear planning and the
creation of SIOP-62, see David Alan Rosenberg, "The
Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American
Strategy, 1945-1960," in Steven Miller, ed., Strategy
and Nuclear Deterrence (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1984), pp. 113-182.
4. For the origins of counterforce nuclear strategy,
see Fred Kaplan, Wizards of Armageddon (Stanford,
Stanford University Press, 1991) as well as the
discussion in Rosenberg, "Origins of Overkill." For
the real limits to the capabilities of SIOP
counterforce attacks to spare civilian populations as
well as more detail on the evolution of the plan, see
Matthew G. McKinzie, Thomas B. Cochran, Robert S.
Norris, and William M. Arkin, The U.S. Nuclear War
Plan: A Time for Change (Washington, D.C.: Natural
Resources Defense Council, 2001).
5. Raymond Garthoff, Dtente and Confrontation:
American-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan, 2nd
edition (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution,
1994), 466.
6. Additional information on SIOP developments will
appear in William Burr, "'Is This the Best They Can
Do?,' Henry Kissinger and the Quest for Limited
Nuclear Options, 1969-1975," Vojtech Mastny, Andreas
Wegner, and Sven S. Holtsmark, eds., War Plans and
Alliances in the Cold War (London: Routledge, 2006).
7. According to Kaplan, Wizards of Armageddon, at p.
269, 1960 estimates for a preemptive attack by all
SIOP forces on the Soviet Union and China were 285
million fatalities.
8. Hans Kristensen, The Matrix of Deterrence: U.S.
Strategic Command Force Structure Studies (Berkeley:
Nautilus Institute, 2001), at
http://www.nukestrat.com/pubs/matrix.pdf
9. Kaplan, Wizards of Armageddon, 356-360.
10. "First Annual Report to the Congress on U.S.
Foreign Policy for the 1970s," February 18, 1970,
Public Papers of the President of the United States,
Richard Nixon, Containing the Public Messages,
Speeches, and Statements of the President, 1970
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971),
173. For later statements along the same lines, see
"Second Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Foreign
Policy," February 25, 1971, Public Papers of the
President of the United States, Richard Nixon,
Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and
Statements of the President, 1971 (Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1972), 310, and See "Third
Annual Report to the Congress on United States Foreign
Policy," February 9, 1972, Public Papers of the
President of the United States, Richard Nixon,
Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and
Statements of the President, 1972 (Washington: D.C.,
Government Printing Office, 1974), 307.
11. For a comprehensive study of the Foster Panel,
based largely on interviews, see Terry Terriff, The
Nixon Administration and the Making of U.S. Nuclear
Strategy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995).
12. See Lynn Eden, Whole World on Fire: Knowledge, and
Nuclear Weapons Devastation (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 2004).
13. For useful background on NUWEP and changes in
targeting policy during the mid-to-late 1970s, see
Desmond Ball, "Development of the SIOP, 1960-1983," in
Desmond Ball and Jeffrey Richelson, eds., Strategic
Nuclear Targeting (Ithaca, Cornell University Press,
1986), pp. 70-79.
//////\\\\\\
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
*****************************************************************
26 Guardian Unlimited: Papers: Nixon Sought Plans for Gentler War
[ src=]
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday November 24, 2005 7:01 AM
AP Photo WX106
By CALVIN WOODWARD
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Even the hard-nosed Richard Nixon found the
notion of unrestricted nuclear warfare beyond the pale.
From the first days of his administration until Watergate
consumed his presidency, Nixon sought plans to wage a gentler
war with the most terrible weapons ever devised - a war that
could decisively beat the Soviets while avoiding the apocalypse.
Recently declassified papers from the Nixon years offer a look
behind the scenes at efforts to develop alternatives to ``the
horror option,'' as national security adviser Henry Kissinger
called the scenarios for all-out atomic war then in place.
Qualms about causing so much death were hardly the only
motivation. U.S. officials worried that their nuclear threat
lacked credibility because it was so awful adversaries
questioned whether Washington would ever use it.
In a 1969 diary entry, Nixon's chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman,
recalled the president taking part in an exercise that day
aboard the Boeing 707 outfitted to conduct nuclear warfare from
the air.
``It was pretty scary,'' Haldeman wrote. Nixon asked many
questions about ``kill results,'' his aide said, adding about
his boss: ``Obviously worries about the lightly tossed-about
millions of deaths.''
The picture was pieced together by William Burr, a researcher at
the National Security Archive at George Washington University,
from Nixon-era papers released by the National Archives as well
as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The documents reveal Kissinger's chilling insight that
government budget-crunchers would prefer complete nuclear
warfare because it was already planned for and would be cheaper
than recasting U.S. capabilities to permit limited strikes.
``They believe in assured destruction because it guarantees the
smallest expenditure,'' he told an August 1973 National Security
Council meeting in the White House Situation Room. ``To have the
only option that of killing 80 million people is the height of
immorality.''
The papers show Kissinger struggling with a reluctant military
and intelligence apparatus to sell them on the idea of limited
nuclear strikes. Many doubted the Soviets would settle for a
tidy little nuclear war; they feared a conflagration would
quickly follow, devouring cities and killing millions.
But until Nixon took up the matter, the only options in the
nuclear playbook involved the highest stakes possible and
unspeakable death, and that apparently unsettled him even as he
engaged North Vietnam in a war that was claiming civilian
casualties.
By one official estimate, the United States, even if crippled by
unprovoked Soviet missiles, could retaliate with missiles
killing 40 percent of the Soviet population, or some 90 million
people. Many more people would be killed if the United States
struck first; that estimate remains classified.
Countless studies flowed from the effort to expand nuclear
options to include ``smaller packages.'' But it was not until
1974, the year Nixon resigned, that he signed a directive
setting that process in motion.
Burr said the United States eventually achieved an expanded
range of nuclear options, in part because of the development of
more accurate missiles and other weapons in years that followed.
Nixon's nascent strategy echoes in the debate today over
training nuclear weapons on tough but selective targets. The
Bush administration decided in the fall to abandon development
of bunker-busting nuclear warheads and try to achieve similar
capability with conventional weapons.
Historically, Nixon is known as ``unsentimental and sort of
callous in some ways,'' Burr said, but the documents also show a
president ``worried about the huge number of casualties
involved.''
Even so, the prime concern may have been the credibility of the
U.S. threat, and Burr noted that the narrower options under
review targeted centers of the Soviet government and economy,
not just military assets, and any such attack would have created
untold casualties, too.
Kissinger pushed the idea with urgency even as the Watergate
crisis unfolded. ``My nightmare is that with the growth of
Soviet power and with our domestic problems, someone might
decide to take a run at us,'' he said in the August 1973
meeting.
Years earlier, he voiced skepticism that the Soviets would ever
be the first to unleash a full-scale atomic assault. It was not
rational, he said, ``to make a decision to kill 180 million
people.''
R. Jack Smith, then deputy director for intelligence at the CIA,
countered with skepticism that the Soviets would do anything
less. A limited attack was the ``least likely contingency,'' he
argued. ``One could not believe that the Soviets would launch a
few nuclear ICBMS.''
One secret report concluded that if wider nuclear warfare were
to develop from a limited attack, a restraint, of sorts, could
still be possible.
In that event, the U.S. objective would be ``to minimize the
enemy's residual power and recovery capability and not just
destroy his population and industry.''
---
On the Net:
National Security Archive:
http://www.gwu.edu/nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB173/
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
27 [NYTr] German Sub Sale to Israel & Israeli Nuke-Capable Subs
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:01:42 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by mart
Defense Industry Daily - Nov. 23, 2005
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/germany-may-sell-2-more-dolphin-subs-to-israel-for-117b/index.php
Germany May Sell 2 More Dolphin Subs to Israel for $1.17 Billion
Defense-Aerospace relays reports from Der Spiegel and Focus that Germany
will sell Israel two AIP-equipped SSK Dolphin Class submarines for a total
of EUR 1 billion ($1.17 billion), with the German government picking up
one-third of the cost. They will be constructed at the Howaldtswerke-Deutche
Werft AG (HDW) shipyard, in the Baltic Sea coastal city of Kiel.
The Dolphins are quiet diesel attack submarines that evolved from Germany's
famous and ubiquitous U209 Class. They can fire torpedos and missiles from
their 533mm torpedo tubes, perform underwater surveillance, and even launch
combat swimmers via a wet and dry compartment.
It is also rumored that Israel has tested a nuclear-capable verson of its
medium-range "Popeye Turbo" cruise missile design for deployability from the
two 650mm torpedo tubes in its Dolphin Class submarines. The 2002 launch
tests' location off Sri Lanka suggested that they may have been performed in
cooperation with India.
The AIP system chosen for the 2 newest Dolphin submarines was not specified.
While HDW owns Kockums AB and its successful Stirling AIP system, it also
has its own technology using Siemens PEM hydrogen fuel cells. This HDW
system is used in the U212/214 Class, which the Dolphins resemble and which
also derived from the U209 1300/1400 subs.
Germany had already donated two Dolphin submarines to the Israeli navy after
the Gulf War in the early 1990s. The first-of-class INS (Israeli Naval
Ship) Dolphin was commissioned in 1999, while INS Leviathan was commissioned
in 2000. The Israelis later bought a third submarine at $175 million/ $175
million shared cost with the German government, and INS Tekuma ("revival,
renewal") also entered service in 2000.
The rumours concerning Israel's nuclear-capable cruise missiles had stalled
additional sales in 2003, as had Israeli reluctance over the price. Israel's
Navy is widely considered to be last among the services on the spending
priority list. The $667 million/ $333 million Israeli-German deal for two
more submarines satisfies Israeli price concerns, provides a job creation
benefit for the German government, and completes the second major and
long-delayed arms sale that the Schroeder government has solidified in its
final month in office.
As DID has noted, the outgoing German government recently agreed to sell 298
surplus Leopard 2 battle tanks to Turkey.
***
Related - Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/missile/popeye-t.htm
Isreali Weapons - Missiles:
'Popeye Turbo' Nuclear Capable Cruise Missile
In May 2000 Israel is reported to have secretly carried out its first test
launches from two German-built Dolphin-class submarines of cruise missiles
capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The missiles launched from vessels
off Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean are said to have hit a target at a range
of about 1,500 kilometers [about 930 statute miles]. Israel is reported to
possess a 200kg nuclear warhead, containing 6kg of plutonium, that could be
mounted on cruise missiles.
Israel has reportedly developed an air-launched cruise missile that could be
operational by 2002, called the Popeye Turbo. The Popeye Turbo, with a range
that is variously reported at between 200 km and 350 km, would appear to
represent a turbo-jet powered cruise missile that may incorporate avionics
and other components developed for the Popeye family of missiles. The
AGM-142 HAVE NAP is a variant of the Israeli Air Force "Popeye" missile,
which uses a solid propellant rocket motor. The Popeye II, also known as the
Have Lite, is a smaller missile with more advanced technology. Designed for
deployment on fighter aircraft, Popeye II has a range of 150 kilometers.
The Popeye Turbo missile is probably similar to if not identical with the
Israeli submarine-launced cruise missile carried on the Dolphin-class
submarines. The baseline Popeye missile with a range of 45 miles has a
diameter of 21 inches, and is nearly 16 feet long. For comparison, the
American MK-48 heavy torpedo is 21 inches in diameter, and 19 feet long,
while the BGM-109 Tomahawk SLCM is 20.4 inches in diameter and 20.5 feet
long [including the booster motor], and the Russian SS-N-21 SLCM is similar
in configuration and dimensions to the American Tomahawk.
The reported range of 1,500 km for the SLCM tested in May 2000 is several
times greater than the previously reported range for the Popeye Turbo.
However, the Popeye Turbo is a poorly attested missile, and the open
literature provides little information on this system. Indeed, because of
the small size of the vehicle and the limited testing program to date, it is
entirely possible that even the US intelligence community has only limited
insight into the capabilities of this system. There is no particular reason
to doubt that Israel could develop a variant of the Popeye Turbo with a
range of 1,500 km, simply by lengthening the fuel tank associated with a
300-350 km variant reported by US intelligence. At present it is not
possible to determine whether the US intelligence has under-estimated the
range of this missile, or whether news reports have over-estimated the
missile's range. The longer range reported in June 2000 is certainly
consistent with Israeli targetting requirements.
It is generally agreed that these submarines are outfitted with six
533-millimeter torpedo tubes suitable for the 21-inch torpedoes that are
normally used on most submarines, including those of the United States. Some
reports suggest that the submarines have a total of ten torpedo tubes -- six
533-millimeter and four 650-millimeter. Uniquely, the Soviet navy deployed
the Type 65 heavy-weight torpedo using a 650-millimeter tube. The four
larger 25.5 inch diameter torpedo tubes could be used to launch a long-range
nuclear-capable submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM).
Image: Israel Popeye Turbo Missile Comparison
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/missile/018-1.jpg
Isreali Weapons - Submarines
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/sub/index.html
Three 1,925 ton Type 800 Dolphin class submarines have been built in German
shipyards for the Israel Navy. Modern submarines with the most advanced
sailing and combat systems in the world, they combine extensive
sophistication with very easy operation. The purpose of these submarines is
to enable the Israel Navy to meet all the tasks faced in the Mediterranean
Sea in the 21st century. The submarines cost $320 million each, and are
twice as big as the aging Gal-class submarines that the Israeli navy has
relied on to date.
It is generally agreed that these submarines are outfitted with six
533-millimeter torpedo tubes suitable for the 21-inch torpedoes that are
normally used on most submarines, including those of the United States.
Some reports suggest that the submarines have a total of ten torpedo tubes
-- six 533-millimeter and four 650-millimeter. Uniquely, the Soviet navy
deployed the Type 65 heavy-weight torpedo using a 650-millimeter tube. The
four larger 25.5 inch diameter torpedo tubes could be used to launch a
long-range nuclear-capable submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM).
According to some reports the submarines may be capable of carrying
nuclear-armed Popeye Turbo cruise missiles, with a goal of deterring an
enemy from trying to take out its nuclear weapons with a surprise attack.
Under a system of rotation, two of the vessels would remain at sea: one in
the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, the other in the Mediterranean. A third would
remain on standby.
The project initially was structured to include an industrial team
consisting of HDW and Thyssen Nordseewerke, lead by Ingalls Shipbuilding.
The project, under which the boats would be built in the United States by
Ingalls using US FMS funds, was cancelled in 1990. The crews of the
submarines started training in 1994, and participated in the building
process as well as in the acceptance procedures for weapon systems. Germany
donated two of these submarines to Israel, which were delivered in 1997.
Israel bought a third Dolphin submarine from Germany. The project to build
the Israeli Navy's third submarine, named "Tekumah ," was launched in
Germany on 09 July 1998 with the participation of Defense Ministry Director
General Ilan Biran and other naval officers. Tekumah [T'kuma] is the Hebrew
word for "revival." The third submarine arrived in Israel during mid-1999.
A major role for hunter, killer and patrol submarines is the destruction of
enemy submarines and shipping. In order to achieve this, the submarine must
load, store and launch a range of stores. The submarine must also detect its
target while attempting to remain covert. The Israel Navy has three Gal
submarines. They were built in the 1970s at the Vickers shipyard in Britain,
based on German blueprints. The Gal submarines are an important part of the
main combat force of the Israel Navy.
The German Type 209 diesel electric submarine is the most popular
export-sales submarine in the world, and sales continue as smaller nations
modernize their aging fleets. Greece was the first country to order this
type of submarine from Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG (HDW) of Kiel,
Germany, and the first batch of these submarines entered service in 1971.
The 1,200-ton Type 209 submarine is a hunter killer submarine that India
purchased from HDW, Germany. The initial contract was for 2 submarines to
be sold and for 4 more to be constructed at the Mazagaon docks in Mumbai.
The deal however went sour when it was hit by a bribery scandal, after the
first four ships were delivered to the Indian Navy.
Advances in electric drive and power conditioning were introduced into the
German Type 212. This German submarine has low and balanced signatures
including acoustic signatures, longer submerged mission capability and a
modern combat system with sophisticated sensors and state of the art
torpedoes. The technologies inherent in this design include a fuel cell air
independent propulsion (AIP) system with a back up single diesel generator,
highly modular arrangements of critical areas and the frame carrying the
diesel generator and auxiliary equipment such as the hydraulic pumps,
compressors, etc.- is enclosed in a sound absorbent capsule and isolated
from the pressure hull. The AIP system utilized is more commonly called
'MESMA'. Translated it means Autonomous Submarine Energy Module and was
developed for submarines.
The 1,720-ton Dolphin class is evidently somewhat larger than the 1,500-ton
Type 212 submarines, and incorporates a conventional diesel-electric
propulsion system rather than the AIP system.
Displacement: 1,720 tons submerged
Dimensions: 57 x 6.8 x 6.2 meters (187 x 22.5 x 20.5 feet)
Propulsion: Diesel-electric, 3 diesels, 1 shaft, 4,243 shp, 20 knots
Crew: 35
Sonar: ???
Armament: 6 21 inch torpedo tubes (14 torpedoes & Harpoon SSM)
German-built.
Number Name Year
?? Dolphin 5/1998
?? Leviathan 1999
?? Tekumah 199
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
28 UN Atomic Agency's Nobel Prize UN Cancer Care, Nutrition In Developing World
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:00:23 -0500
The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2005/nobelfunds.html">IAEA), this years Nobel peace Prize co-laureate, announced today that its 525,000 share of the award will be used to create a fund for fellowships and training to improve cancer management and childhood nutrition in the developing world.
The IAEA Board of Governors decided at its meeting in Vienna to set
up a special fund known as the IAEA Nobel Cancer and Nutrition
Fund.
IAEA Director General ElBaradei, co-laureate with the Agency has
already said he will direct his share of the prize money to charitable
purposes.
The Board of Governors said that in the area of cancer management,
the money will be spent on training in radiation oncology to improve
treatment and care, as part of the IAEAs Programme of Action
on Cancer Therapy (PACT).
In the area of nutrition, the focus of the training is on the role
of nutrition to help ensure healthy development of children using
nuclear techniques to identify problems and evaluate the effectiveness
of preventive measures taken.
Fellowship awards target young professionals, particularly women,
from developing Member States, through the Agency's Technical Cooperation
Programme. The Agency proposed to organize training courses
in regional centres in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
At todays Board meeting, Mr. ElBaradei encouraged Member States
and donors to contribute to the Special Fund by giving additional
resources both in cash and in kind. It will be used to maximize
the Agencys ability to build capacity and transfer the needed know-how
to developing countries, he said.
The IAEA and its Director General won the 2005 Peace Prize for their
efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military
purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
is used in the safest possible way.
2005-11-25 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
29 Poland Risks Russian Wrath Re USSR Nuclear Attack Map
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:16:50 -0500
X-Fingerprint: smirnowb@ix.netcom.com-127.127
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1651315,00.html
Poland risks Russia's wrath with Soviet
nuclear attack map
Defence chief reveals old Warsaw Pact
plans
UK spared as European cities faced
destruction
Nicholas Watt in Warsaw
Saturday November 26, 2005
The Guardian
Poland's new rightwing government yesterday
risked a damaging confrontation with Russia when
it published a Warsaw Pact map showing detailed
plans for Soviet nuclear strikes against western
Europe.
Poland threw open the doors of its military
archives to show how most of Europe would have
been laid to waste in a nuclear conflagration
between east and west. Dating from 1979, when
presidents Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev were
discussing detente, the map showed how Warsaw Pact
forces would have responded to an attack by the
Nato alliance.
Article continues
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------
A series of red mushroom clouds over western
Europe show that Soviet nuclear weapons strikes
would have been launched at Germany, the
Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium if Nato had
struck first. Red clouds are drawn over the then
German capital, Bonn, and other key German cities
such as the financial centre of Frankfurt,
Cologne, Stuttgart, Munich and the strategically
important northern port of Hamburg. Brussels, the
political headquarters of Nato, is also targeted.
Blue mushroom clouds, representing the expected
Nato nuclear strikes, are drawn over cities in the
eastern bloc, including Warsaw and the then
Czechoslovakian capital, Prague. France would have
escaped attack, possibly because it is not a
member of Nato's integrated structure. Britain,
which has always been at the heart of Nato, would
also have been spared, suggesting Moscow wanted to
stop at the Rhine to avoid overstretching its
forces. The exercise, entitled Seven Days to the
River Rhine, indicated Warsaw Pact forces aimed to
reach the Franco-German border within a week of a
Nato attack.
Standing next to the fading map in Warsaw
yesterday, Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish defence
minister, said: "The objective of the exercise on
this map is to take over most of western Europe -
all of Germany, Belgium and Denmark."
Mr Sikorski, who made a name for himself
working for the rightwing American Enterprise
Institute thinktank in Washington, made clear he
was prepared for a backlash from Russia, whose
president, Vladimir Putin, has lamented the demise
of the Soviet Union.
Announcing the release of 1,700 Warsaw Pact
papers from Poland's military archive, he said:
"This is crucial to educating the country on the
way Poland was an unwilling ally of the USSR in
the cold war. The map shows a classic Warsaw Pact
exercise - it was a 'counter' attack to defend
itself by going all the way to the Atlantic."
Mr Sikorski, who was appointed after the Law
and Justice party won a surprise victory in the
recent elections after pledging to cleanse the
country of its communist past, believes the map
shows how Moscow was prepared to sacrifice Poland
to save the Soviet Union.
Nato's policy of retaining the right to a
first nuclear strike - because the Soviet Union
had far superior conventional forces - meant
Polish troops dug in by the River Vistula would
have been wiped out.
"This map is a moving and shattering
personal experience," Mr Sikorski said of the
exercise, which estimated that 2 million Polish
civilians would have been killed. "It shows that
the Polish army was being used to participate in
an operation that would have resulted in the
nuclear annihilation of our country."
With ties between Poland and Russia at one
of their lowest ebbs since the break-up of the
Warsaw Pact, Mr Sikorski was asked whether he
feared a Kremlin backlash. He said: "We think the
Soviet regime was very detrimental to Russia - the
Russian people suffered the most."
Commander Waldemar Wojcik, the head of
Poland's Central Military Academy, said: "This was
an exercise based on the assumption of a Nato
attack. The doctrine of the day was that the
Warsaw Pact countries were peace loving." He
added: "I visited the Pentagon in 2001 and was
shown maps that were the mirror image of this."
Other papers released covered Operation
Danube, the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968,
and details of a massacre of Polish strikers in
1970 at Szczecin which led to the downfall of
Wladyslaw Gomulka, the relatively moderate leader.
Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, the new Polish
prime minister, insisted Warsaw was not trying to
provoke Russia, even though it released the map
without consulting Moscow. "The future should be
built on the truth about the past. If the truth is
damaging to international relations that is a bad
thing ... I am sure this will not spoil our
relations with Russia."
Special reports
Russia
Chechnya
Useful links
Itar-Tass news agency
Moscow Times
Russia Today
St Petersburg Times
Caucasian Knot
Advertiser links
Save on All Your Calls with Vonage
When looking for local regional and long
distance calling,...
vonage.com
Research Online College Degree Programs
Locate an online college or university
today. Find the...
classesusa.com
$160,000 Mortgage for $633/mo
Refinance rates are at record lows. Compare
rates - free...
lowermybills.com
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------
Printable version | Send it to a friend |
Save story
Privacy policy | Terms & conditions |
Advertising guide | A-Z index | About this
site
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspa
*****************************************************************
30 [NYTr] From Nuclear Arms Race to the Race to Build Eco-Cities
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:06:08 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Doctress Neutopia - Nov 24, 2005
http:// www.lovolution.net
From Nuclear Arms Race to the Race to Build Ecocities
by Doctress Neutopia
In the article, British to Help China build Eco-cities, the words by
Frank Kane, penetrated my mind with such a fire that my body was
delighted with the possibility of such a noble creation. It stated that
a British engineering firm, Arup, will sign a multi-billion dollar
contract with the Chinese government to design a self-sustaining urban
center the size of a large western capital.
The ecocity model is being embraced by the Chinese government to
overcome the problems of depletion of natural resources, the need to
shelter larger populations, and environmental pollution. According to
Kane, the Chinese government is committed to developing a new paradigm
that combines economic development and ecological health. The ecocity is
intended to be self-sufficient not only in energy, but in water and in
most food production. Transportation systems will be designed for zero
emissions of greenhouse gases. These ecocities are expected to draw
investments into Chinas growing economy.
American architect William McDonough is also working with the Chinese
Housing Industry Association to build seven new environmentally sound
cities. China is planning on rehousing 400 million people in the next 12
years. These cities will be designed with solar energy which may
completely revolutionize the housing industry around the world by
dropping the cost of solar energy an order of magnitude. McDonough says,
For every job making solar panels, there are four jobs putting them in
place and maintaining them. We could import these panels, and for every
job the Chinese give themselves, we get four.
McDonough and his partner Michael Braungart intends to implement their
cradle-to-cradle model of industry into the new Chinese ecocities that
upcycles materials going through the production cycle. Upcycling means
that materials get better when they are used. Since in their ecological
model, everything is recycled, in the upcycle process, materials return
to the soil as safe biological nutrients or return to industry as
technical nutrients to be used in other industrial processes.
China is well as on its way to becoming the biggest economy in the
world. America feels this change. Adopting the ecocity concept and
founding cities on renewable energy sources, the Chinese realize that if
they carried out the American urban sprawl model, it would mean
environmental death for the world. There are simply not enough resources
on the planet for everyone to live the way Americans, 6% of the worlds
population, do now. How can it be fair or sustainable that Americans use
40% of the worlds resources? The American empire was established on the
illusion that land and resources are limitless. But on a small planet,
these are not 21st Century principles.
When asked by Newsweek if growth is good, McDonough replies, Yes, if
you use nature as a model and mentor, if you use modern designs and
chemicals that are safe. Growth is destructive if you use energy not
from the sun and a system of chemicals that is toxic, so its
anti-life. Sadly enough, with the drowning of New Orleans in toxic
flood waters, it is clear to everyone that the American lifestyle is
based on unsafe growth practices that continue to pollute the water and
shortchange the poor. Evolution follows life, and with the Chinese
developing nontoxic, safe ways to live that promote healthy urban
growth, it is no wonder why Americans are feeling a shift in power.
Visionaries have predicted the coming of the solar age and now the
Chinese are inventing it. But will Americans seize the moment and begin
building their own innovative ecocity? The perfect time to do so is now
with the reconstruction of New Orleans and the restoration of the
wetlands of the Mississippi delta. Billions of dollars have been
allotted by Congress for reconstruction efforts, so why not create a
noble civilization based on an ecocity design approach?
We need to enter this new green paradigm with a new spirit of
cooperation with the Chinese, moving from the 20th Century nuclear arms
race to the race to be human; a human race to build the good ecocity
where justice and freedom prevail in maintaining an ecologically healthy
planet for generations to come. The drowning of New Orleans gives us the
opportunity to enter this race with the Chinese. This is a wholesome
competition between people to build the best ecocity, the new model of a
sustaining global economy, and democracy grounded in human rights that
will allow us all to live in peace with the ecology.
A new partnership with China could give us a base for positive trade
agreements that combine the best of socialism and capitalism moving us
to a more automated 21st century industry. Liberated from being slaves
to the machine and a decrepit corporate system, common people finally
could have the time and resources they need to be literate and creative,
time to develop relationships that are based on being responsible
citizens and actualized human beings.
Presently, the United States is stuck in a development model that is
dependent on fossil fuel, nuclear power, and toxic chemicals. It is
causing us to be sick and many of us die as a result of being exposed to
dirty air and poisonous water. Millions of people in the United States
dont even have health insurance when illness strikes. Each year an
average of 40,000 people die and thousands more are injured from the car
based transportation system. And worst of all, our anti-life lifestyle
has caused us to act immorally from stealing Native America lands to
starting foreign wars for oil. Unable to embrace life, we have trapped
ourselves in a deadly paradigm, developing nuclear weapons in Outer
Space, all the while telling other countries that they cant have them.
America was caught totally off guard when the Soviets successfully
launched Sputnik, the first satellite into Outer Space in 1957. It
changed our priorities and began the space race. Seeing the importance
of developing a space program in 1961 President Kennedy challenged the
Soviets to a race to the moon. Kennedy said, Now is the time...for this
nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in
many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth. Will Chinas ecocity
be another Sputnik?
Now, decades after the space race began, we know that finding a way to
live with our precious global ecology in a renewable way is our greatest
challenge. Now is the time for this nation to take a clearly leading
role in ecocity achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our
future of Earth. Not only are ecocities that rely on closed-looped
nutrient cycles, critical to finding the way to live successfully for
extended periods in Outer Space, but is critical to finding a way to
live in peace with nature here on Earth.
The obligation is in front of us to rebuild New Orleans in a way that
releases some of us from endemic urban poverty, revolutionizes industry,
and restores the ecology. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has devised a
plan that combines both socialism and capitalism in that country in
order to enact his Bolivarian revolution to eliminate poverty. With
money collected from nationally owned oil companies in Venezuela, he has
put 3.7 billion dollars into building new social programs. Now millions,
who had never seen a doctor before, receive medical care; 1.3 million
have learned to read. Even though the new constitution protects private
property, the government operates supermarkets in which 35-40% of people
shop.
Recently, the Venezuelan government has begun what many are suggesting
should take place in the US, by redeploying part of its military to do
public works such as building new subways systems. Redeploying our
military from its war footing and assigning them the task of building
Americas first ecocity would do more for national security than
anything else we could do to win world peace. Such a city doesnt exist
in the United States, but its in the zeitgeist. Beginning to plan such
a noble civilization would mean we are finally entering the race with
China to build the worlds first ecocity.
In a New York Times article Are U.S. Innovators Losing Their
Competitive Edge? Timothy L. OBrien reports that United States is
losing it inventiveness to countries like China and India. The article
quotes from a report sponsored by the Lemelson-M.I.T Program saying
openness, tolerance is essential in an inventive modern society.
Creative people, whether artists or inventive engineers, are often
nonconformists and rebels. Indeed, invention itself can be perceived as
an act of rebellion against the status quo." The article cites inventor
and Johns Hopkins professor, Ilene Busch-Vishniac, "For an inventor to
be successful they have to think outside of the box and propose things
that are wildly different. Creative thinkers look for solutions to
problems outside the box, but in corporate America the confines of the
box are becoming our coffin.
To build an ecocity is a national quest to find a new creative identity
for the 21st century. We need to have a project so splendid that it
inspires innovation that has been stifled for decades in square boxes
that have developed the ungodly urban sprawl and the flight to suburbia
that has made us a car dependent economy. Constructing an ecocity is
tantamount to thinking outside the coffin. Without an ecocity vision to
strive towards, our nation could collapse as oil prices continue to
rise. China will own the patents of the ecocity designs if we dont
develop our own. Some things are better left to the private sector and
corporations for improvement, but bold leadership in restructuring
cities and integrating them into healthy environments is not one of them.
The vision of what we must do is clear. America, can we begin to think
outside the coffin in order to save ourselves? With this vision the soul
of America may be liberated as our creativity and ingenuity is used for
the good, the true, and the beautiful. This nation was formed by
revolutionaries. Now the time has come to remember our revolutionary
spirit and build an ecocity for our global common wealth. Only then will
we become a wise leader for the world to prototype.
[Doctress Neutopia has a doctorate in future studies from the University of
Massachusetts. She is available for guiding dialgue about this topic. Other
writings about Arcology New Orleans can be read at:
http://www.lovolutionvillage.org.
For inforamtion about having Neutopia present her
slide show The Inner Wisdom of Arcology to your group, please contact her at
doctress@lovolution.net phone: 520 792-1363]
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
31 Guardian Unlimited: America and Europe should listen to a whispered message from Isfahan
Columnists |
Visiting Iran, I found a regime wedded to violence and
a society eager for peaceful change. We must address both
Timothy Garton Ash
Thursday November 24, 2005
The young lecturer in Isfahan was visibly frightened.
"Keep your voice down," he muttered to his friend as we talked
politics in one of that magical city's many teahouses. Mahmoud,
as I shall call him, went on to blame his people's troubles on
American and European skulduggery - an old Iranian pastime. So
what, I asked him, did he think America and Europe should do
about Iran? Mahmoud gulped. There was a long silence as he
communed with his tea-glass. Then, leaning towards me and
lowering his voice, he said with quiet intensity: "Stick
together. Understand what is happening in Iran. Have a consistent
policy." Article continues As the board of the International
Atomic Energy Agency meets again to consider the Iranian nuclear
programme, we need to work out what to do about Iran. The crunch
will not come quite yet, mainly because the Bush administration
has so many other problems on its plate. The last thing
Washington needs is another Iraq. But some sort of a crunch will
probably come in the first half of next year, perhaps with Iran
being referred to the UN security council. So, don't be scared -
be prepared. And that whispered message from Isfahan is a good
place to start our preparation.
First, understand what is happening in Iran. This is much easier
for Europeans than Americans. We have embassies there. We do
business there. We can travel there. As senior American officials
freely admit, there is no country in the world they have less
contact with. So there's a particular obligation on us Europeans
to go there, to look and listen, and then to share our findings
with our American friends. The weakness of western policy is so
often that it does not start from a realistic analysis of the
country the west is trying to change. That's why I travelled
round Iran for two weeks earlier this autumn, having many
uncensored conversations with people like nervous Mahmoud.
(My longer report is on ).
If you see it at first hand, you will have no doubt that this is
a very nasty and dangerous regime. I will never forget talking in
Tehran to a student activist who had been confined and abused in
the prison where Iranian-Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi was
beaten so severely that she later died of her wounds. Half the
Iranian population are subjected to systematic curtailment of
their liberty simply because they are women. Two homosexuals were
recently executed. The backbone of the political system is still
an ideological dictatorship with totalitarian aspirations:
not communism, but Khomeinism. The Islamic republic's new,
ageing-revolutionary president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a
subordinate but still important part of that power structure, has
just revived Ayatollah Khomeini's call to wipe Israel off the
map. According to an official spokesman, some 50,000 Iranians
have signed up in a recruitment drive for "martyrdom-seeking
operations". Elements connected to the regime have almost
certainly supplied weapons across the frontier into southern
Iraq, where they are used to kill British soldiers.
And, yes, the mullahs probably are trying to get nuclear weapons.
So, as this argument about Iran develops, let's have none of
those confused and/or dishonest apologetics on the European left
that, out of hostility to American policy, try to pretend that
the other side (Pol Pot, Brezhnev, Saddam) is not half as bad as
Washington says it is. Taking our lead from George Orwell, it's
entirely possibly to maintain that Saddam Hussein ran a brutal
dictatorship and that the invasion of Iraq was the wrong way to
remove him. Now it's right to say that the Iranian mullahs run a
very nasty regime and that it would be a huge mistake to bomb
them.
For the second thing you find if you go there is that many
Iranians, especially among the two-thirds of the population who
are under 30, hate their regime much more than we do. Given time,
and the right kind of support from the world's democracies, they
will eventually change it from within. But most of them think
their country has as much right to civilian nuclear power as
anyone else, and many feel it has a right to nuclear arms. These
young Persians are pro-democracy and rather pro-American, but
also fiercely patriotic. They have imbibed suspicion of the great
powers - especially Britain and the United States - with their
mother's milk. A wrong move by the west could swing a lot of them
back behind the state. "I love George Bush," one young woman told
me as we sat in the Tehran Kentucky Chicken restaurant, "but I
would hate him if he bombed my country." Or even if he pushed his
European allies to impose stronger economic sanctions linked to
the nuclear issue alone.
Our problem is that the nuclear clock and the democracy clock may
be ticking at different speeds. To get to peaceful regime change
from within could take at least a decade, although president
Ahmadinejad is hastening that prospect as he sharpens the
contradictions within the system. Meanwhile, the latest US
intelligence assessment suggests that Iran is still a decade away
from acquiring nuclear weapons. But significant, non-military
action to prevent that outcome clearly has to come sooner; for as
soon as dictators have nukes, you're in a different game. Then,
as we have seen with North Korea and Pakistan, they are treated
with a respect they don't deserve.
This is where we need to hear the other half of the message from
my friend in Isfahan: stick together and be consistent. If Europe
and America split over Iran, as we did over Iraq, we have not a
snowball's chance in hell of achieving our common goals.
To be effective, Europe and America need the opposite of their
traditional division of labour. Europe must be prepared to wave a
big stick (the threat of economic sanctions, for it is Europe,
not the US, that has the trade with Iran) and America a big
carrot (the offer of a full "normalisation" of relations in
return for Iranian restraint). But the old transatlantic west is
not enough. Today's nuclear diplomacy around Iran shows us that
we already live in a multipolar world. Without the cooperation of
Russia and China, little can be achieved.
And we have to be consistent. Consistent in our policy to Iran,
embedded in a kind of Helsinki process for the whole region.
Consistent in advocating an international set of rules governing
the use of nuclear power, not just for Iran but for others as
well. Consistent, too, in recognising that our policy must be
addressed as much to the people as the regime. For every step we
take to slow down the nuclearisation of Iran, we need another to
speed up the democratisation of Iran. At every stage, we need to
explain to the Iranian people, through satellite television,
radio and the internet, what we are doing and why. Isfahan is not
just the increasingly notorious location of a nuclear processing
plant; it's also a beautiful city where many critical citizens
live. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a reckless leader, but there are
many other Mahmouds in Iran. We must listen to them.
In the end, it's they, not we, who will change their country for
the better.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
32 Guardian Unlimited: Take the clean, green alternative over macho nuclear rod-waving
Columnists |
There are many energy sources that could provide
efficient power supplies, if only they had government backing
Polly Toynbee
Friday November 25, 2005
The Guardian
This is not cold weather for late November. There is no
energy shortage. Domestic gas bills are the lowest in the EU.
Electricity is 10% cheaper than in 1997. A few imprudent
industries refused fixed prices to play the energy spot market,
but squeal now the market is against them. They represent only
0.05% of industry, despite the CBI's Digby Jones crying wolf
over yet another "government crisis".
Behind this scare is the nuclear power lobby waking like the
kraken to warn of imminent power cuts, in time for Tony Blair's
announcement next week of another energy review. It will be
headed by the energy minister, Malcolm Wicks - a hopeful sign of
sanity - but Friends of the Earth finds it somewhat ominous that
we need another review just three years after the last.
Article continues
A colossal decision on nuclear power will be made through a
thicket of energy factoids. Note how cleverly the language is
framed already, implying that nuclear is common sense and
anything else is "alternative" to it - probably wearing woolly
hats and fingerless gloves.
This will be a case study in political decision-making -
rational and transparent or dismally dysfunctional. Watch how
the wind of opinion changes, who manipulates it, how and why.
See how emotion, political predilection and even gender swing
the debate on both sides. Polls show Britain is evenly split on
nuclear power, but that masks a huge gender difference:
two-thirds of women are against, as they are across the EU. Is
there something intuitively macho about glowing fuel rods? How
cleverly the nuclear lobby insinuates that grown-up, real men -
and by inference real political parties - know what has to be
done. Wind, waves and energy-saving are for silly greens and big
girl's blouses.
In theory this hard decision should have nothing to do with
politics - yet it does. The conservative-minded tend to be
pro-nuclear, while the left of centre is instinctively against,
the debate beginning in the heart, not in the head. Each side
seeks out its own elastic facts to support what it already
believes. Just look how commentators fall in this debate: there
are precious few cross-overs on this apparently non-ideological
question. You could say my colleague Simon Jenkins and I are
exemplars of the phenomenon. Those who claim there is no longer
a left and right these days should ponder how, on the contrary,
left and right still infuse the most unlikely issues. So
remember most "facts" are tainted in this debate either by the
powerful commercial nuclear lobby or by deep political emotions.
What should be the ground rules for this review? Global warming
is more dangerous than any other threat. Its progress is
certain, its deadly effect already striking down the weakest. A
few Chernobyls would do nothing like the damage caused by
melting ice caps, flood and drought. Let's all agree on that,
right? Nuclear power with low CO2 emissions is better than doing
nothing.
So here's the first question: does nuclear give us more clean
kilowatts per buck? Second: if the price of other clean forms of
generation is roughly comparable or even a little more, why
needlessly store up nuclear waste that is a hazard for
centuries? Third: will the government ensure an absolutely
transparent level playing field, so that nuclear decommissioning
costs and accident insurance are upfront and not fudged? Fourth:
if investors demand fixed energy prices for decades ahead to
make it worth investing in unproven technologies (nuclear or
alternative), will that price guarantee be for all technologies?
Now for the factoids. Deliberate confusion is sown, even over
the few hard facts. Figures get bamboozled between electricity
use, total energy use and emissions. Get this clear: for all the
waste and terrorist threats it produces, nuclear power, if it is
maintained, will still only prevent 10% of the rise in our CO2
emissions because electricity represents a relatively small part
of our total energy use. Yet it is discussed as if it were the
only show in town, as if nothing else has to be done.
Here's another hard fact: the government has had to give the
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 56bn to clean up after
existing nuclear plants. That wasted cash is more than enough to
provide as much renewable energy as we could use, by anyone's
sums. Remember the history of nuclear stations, far more
expensive than expected and quite intermittent as they often
went off-line with cracks and failures. Unsurprisingly, the
market has refused to build any for 20 years since Sizewell B:
too costly, too risky. New nuclear stations - as yet built
nowhere - may work better, but no one knows. Finland has started
to build one and the world is watching: the price is unknown as
it is hugely subsidised by France on a fixed-cost deal as a
loss-leader, a market distortion curiously ignored by
pro-nuclear conservatives. We wait to see how cost-effective it
is, even then.
Pro-nuclearists estimate a cost of 10bn to build and 10bn to
decommission if we are to replace our existing stations.
According to the 2002 Cabinet Office review, offshore wind costs
the same per kilowatt. The engineers WS Atkins, reviewing an
application to build a tidal lagoon generator off Swansea, say
that will cost about the same. The Severn estuary could provide
enough tidal power per unit price as three nuclear power
stations. Onshore wind is cheaper again, but its beautiful
turbines distress a countryside lobby that tolerates hideous
pylons and forgets the thousands of windmills in every landscape
a couple of centuries ago. Clean technology using biomass in
coal-powered stations could become CO2 emission negative, eating
more CO2 in growing fuel than is produced in burning it.
Domestic and micro-generation could offer a wind turbine beside
every satellite dish on every house, just as combined heat and
power boilers now generate electricity in homes. Public
attitudes will change when people see smart meters moving
forwards or backwards, using or selling power back to the grid
for the first time. There is a whole array of alternatives that
claim to be able to generate more and emit less, if only they
were given the green light.
We may all have views, but what can we know, who only stand and
watch the economists and scientists argue? The decision is
critical because the market is poised, waiting to decide which
way to invest. If the world is nuclear, all the money will go
into that one technology. If the world is definitely not
nuclear, then it makes it worth investing in a host of tidal,
wind, solar, bio-mass, clean coal, carbon sequestration and
micro home-generators. Any or all of them could employ millions
and develop highly exportable new technologies.
Some things we can know. We can detect cant, commerce and
prejudice. We can be highly suspicious of those who want a big
quick-fix, no complexity or diversity; let's just build nuclear
and forget about global warming. The right thinks nuclear
promises limitless clean energy for no pain at all: it suspects
the green impulse yearns for the hairshirt option just for the
sake of it. The danger is that, when it comes to the crunch,
cowardly politicians may feel it is less politically risky to go
with the great weight of commercial conservative opinion, which
makes the most noise. But the history of nuclear power shows
there is a great risk too with that unknown, expensive
technology.
polly.toynbee@guardian.co.uk
Useful links
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace
British Wind Energy Association
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
33 Guardian Unlimited: Leader: Gas price allegations - both sides cannot be right
Politics | Comment |
Anyone for long-term thinking?
Thursday November 24, 2005
The Guardian
The government's low-key response to allegations about
soaring gas prices and looming winter shortages is a bold move.
If it turns out to be wrong there will be very unpleasant
political repercussions because both sides cannot be right. The
energy minister Malcolm Wicks claimed yesterday that the
national grid was "awash with gas" and that the sharp rise in
spot gas prices on the financial markets was "totally
irrational". Meanwhile, industry secretary Alan Johnson pledged
that tabloid stories about the lights going out this winter were
"not going to happen under any scenario whatsoever". These
statements are in contrast to warnings by the CBI which has
blamed the government for not taking action and warned that jobs
could be lost and that businesses "could be forced to operate at
least one or even two days less each week". It was joined
yesterday by Michael Howard who criticised Mr Blair for lack of
planning, a rich comment from the leader of the party that
privatised the energy industry and opened it up to market
forces, thereby taking the government out of the sector.
Article continues
Who is right? It is vital to distinguish between
short- and long-term factors. In the long term Britain will have
to take a crucial decision: whether to sharply increase
investment in a mix of energy sources to meet a looming shortage
when the 21% of electricity produced by nuclear stations has to
be replaced. The crunch is how much the need to reduce carbon
emissions under our Kyoto obligations - and avoid overreliance
on Russian gas - has become so important that past objections to
nuclear power must be buried. This, the argument goes, is
because other solutions such as "clean coal", wind, solar,
conservation and wave power won't both be able to fill the gap
caused by the withdrawal of old nuclear capacity and cater for
normal growth of demand as well. It needs urgent debate and
cross-party support because of the long timescales involved.
Today's short-term problem is real but much less serious. It is
the product of a long-term decline in Britain's self-sufficiency
in oil and gas - following the Thatcher government's decision to
leave North Sea oil to market forces - aggravated by short-term
forces. These include a lack of domestic infrastructure to cope
with imported gas, and inflexibility of supply from
monopoly-owned pipelines on the continent of Europe, fanned by
fears of an exceptionally cold winter. This has caused serious
problems for some very large industrial users of gas, some of
which take gas on cheaper "interruptible" contracts allowing
cuts in supplies when prices are high or product scarce. There
are reports that some big users are capitalising on volatile
spot prices (which affect current demand more than long term
contracts) by selling on their gas at the higher prices and
switching to oil. Although oil prices did rise strongly until
recently, they were not affected by the structural supply
problems of gas and probably benefited, compared with gas, from
the release of national and international oil reserves.
What is left from all this is a generalised rise in the price of
gas in the wake of the oil increase. It will affect everyone
this winter, particularly poorer people, plus a comparatively
small number of companies heavily reliant on gas which may have
to curtail production or work a shorter week. An exceptionally
cold winter could, of course, make everything much worse. Indeed
if the chancellor had met his growth forecasts for the whole
economy of 3.25% (instead of barely more than half that) then
gas supplies might have been even more expensive. If there is
one lesson to be learned from the events of the past few days,
it is that ministers must now open a serious national debate
about the role of nuclear power compared with renewable sources
of energy in its energy review. This, unlike conjuring up gas
supplies from nowhere, is an area where government can exercise
real power.
Useful links
Opec
International Energy Agency
American Petroleum Institute
Energy Institute
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
34 PTI: 'Amendments to Atomic Energy Act being looked at'
New Delhi, Nov 25 (PTI) Government is "looking at" the possible
amendments to the Atomic Energy Act with a view to allow
participation of private sector in the nuclear energy sector, a
top official said here today.
"We are looking at possible amendments to the Atomic Energy
Act," Dr Anil Kakodkar, Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy
said here after delivering a lecture on `Securing our emerging
needs: what nuclear energy can do'.
"If it happens, any private company will be able to do it...,"
Kakodkar said.
"However, the increasing trends for mergers and acquisitions can
endanger the safety of plants," he said adding for a successul
private participation, there have to be a corporate culture.
"We need a little more enlightended corporate culture," he said.
Whenever that happened, government and safety regulators would
have to examine the private company concerned, he said.
Sources said that the possible participation of private sector
is being looked at as a consequence of recent deal with the US
due to which there may be an opportunity for the country to
expand its nuclear power facilities. PTI
Copyright PTI 2003-2004
*****************************************************************
35 BBC: Rafsanjani welcomes IAEA decision
Last Updated: Friday, 25 November 2005
[Iran's former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, speaks during
Friday prayers ceremony in Tehran ]
Mr Rafsanjani said Iran was ready to co-operate to remove any
doubts
Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has welcomed
the latest statement by the UN nuclear watchdog, the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr Rafsanjani told worshippers at Friday prayers in Tehran the
decision not to refer Iran to the UN Security Council showed
wisdom had prevailed.
Russia has been given time to broker a deal on Iran's nuclear
programme.
But Britain's ambassador left demanding the Security Council be
allowed to analyse key Iranian nuclear documents.
We should work with patien and tolerance to save the region and
the world from a dangerous fate Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani
Peter Jenkins, Britain's permanent representative to the IAEA,
said that some non-aligned countries had opposed giving them a
document Iran had submitted to the agency.
The document contains information on casting and machining
uranium metal - a process that experts say could be used to build
a nuclear bomb.
West 'suspicious'
"It would be helpful if the [IAEA] director general could arrange
for the document to be seen by experts from the five nuclear
weapons states," Mr Jenkins said.
The European Union "sees grounds for deep concern" that Iran had
admitted having the document, Mr Jenkins added.
Iran's representative at the IAEA, Mohammad Mehdi Akhondzadeh,
said that the document contained "simple and non-sophisticated
information which could be found in open literatures and on
internet".
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
Mined urani ore is purified and reconstituted into solid form
known as yellowcake Yellowcake is chemically processed and
converted into a gas by heating it to about 64C (147F) Gas is fed
through centrifuges, where its isotopes separate and process is
repeated until uranium is enriched Low-level enriched uranium is
used for nuclear fuel Highly enriched uranium can be used in
nuclear weapons In depth: Nuclear fuel cycle
Mr Akhondzadeh said his country's submission of the document was
"a clear indication of Iran's full transparency".
The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors decided to put off
referring Iran to the UN Security Council, instead giving Russia
more time to broker a compromise deal under which it would enrich
processed uranium for use in Iran's nuclear reactors.
The US Ambassador to the IAEA, Greg Schulte, welcomed Russia's
efforts, but warned that time was running out for Tehran to
rebuild international confidence.
"There's ample cause to report Iran to the UN Security Council
and that time will be soon if Iran continues to defy the board's
calls to cooperate fully with the IAEA," Mr Schulte told the BBC.
"There's still deep suspicion in the West as to the nature of
Iran's nuclear ambitions."
'Wisdom prevailed'
Mr Rafsanjani, the head of Iran's Expediency Council and a senior
cleric, said the IAEA's decision was a wise step but still had
elements of "intimidation".
"It seems as if a sort of reason, foresight, care and avoidance
of adventurism was dominant at the International Atomic Energy
Agency," Mr Rafsanjani said in a sermon broadcast on Iranian
radio.
"Of course the meeting has not come to an end but so far, it
seems, behaviours have modified, and wisdom has somewhat
prevailed among the negotiators, on our side and the other side."
He said Iran was prepared to cooperate to remove any doubts, but
that this would take time.
"We should work with patience and tolerance to save the region
and the world from a dangerous fate. We cannot tolerate
intimidation."
b
*****************************************************************
36 Xinhua: Sino-US relations show increasing maturity
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-11-24 11:58:25
BEIJING, Nov. 24 -- Sino-US relations have attracted
unprecedented attention this year.
On one hand, since the beginning of the year heated debates
have continued almost non-stop concerning US policy towards
China. The debates have covered nearly all the aspects of
bilateral relations and reached a depth and range unmatched by
any previous nationwide discussion on the topic.
One the other hand, big shots from the US political and
business circles have travelled to China in quick succession
like waves crashing on the shore. Even Secretary of Defence
Donald Rumsfeld, who had been reluctant to visit China, finally
made his first trip to Beijing in his current official capacity.
And the latest visit to Beijing by US President George W. Bush
undoubtedly pushed the ongoing China debate to a new high,
injecting fresh momentum into the development of bilateral ties.
Matching this thorough debate is the complexity found in
Sino-US relations.
The undying noise from various peddlers of the "China
threat" mumbo-jumbo poses a major challenge to Sino-US
relations. Yet, the two countries have seen good results in
their co-operation in fighting terrorism and WMD proliferation
on a global scale, in solving the nuclear issue on the Korean
Peninsula on a regional level, and in preventing "Taiwan
independence." Although some interest groups and congresspersons
in the United States have been complaining about bilateral ties,
the Bush administration has managed to see the bigger picture
and use some pragmatism in its China policy.
What the above-mentioned phenomena and the successful China
visit of President Bush really show is the fact that Sino-US
relations are entering a new historical phase. This new phase is
not only connected to the development of diplomatic ties between
the two countries in the past 30 odd years, but also has its own
unique characteristics.
First of all, Sino-US ties are gaining strategic
significance with growing influence over the status quo of
international politics. As former US President Bush, father of
the current one, pointed out at the China-US Relation Forum held
in Beijing recently, Sino-US ties have become "the most
important bilateral relationship" in today's world. President Hu
Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao also emphasized in their separate
talks with President Bush that the relationship between China
and the Unite States has transcended the bilateral level and is
gaining "global significance" and having a "far-reaching
influence over the whole world."
Second, the background of bilateral relations is undergoing
intricate yet significant changes. To the United States, the
"China issue" is giving way to "the issue of China's rise." As
Americans watch China and ponder the direction of their China
strategy, their view of China is morphing from "a developing
China" into "a rising China;" from "a weak China" into "a strong
China;" and from "the theory of a crumbling China" into "the
theory of a rising China." To China, how to deal with the United
States in an updated way has been the main train of thought
throughout 2005 in adjustment of strategic thinking towards the
United States.
Third, the nature of Sino-US ties is changing. Though no
fundamental changes have taken place in the overall nature of
Sino-US relations, in practice the bilateral relationship has
been upgraded to that between two "important members in the same
system" from that between "an outsider (China) and insider," and
between "a new member and the leader of a system" (of course,
the United States still sees itself as the leader of that
system).
This change hums to the same tune China has been marching to
in recent years of not challenging the United States globally,
not elbowing the United States out regionally and actively
seeking co-operation bilaterally. It signals that the
co-operation and competition between the two countries is now
within "the same system."
Fourth, the state of interaction between China and the
United States is changing quietly. Compared to the responsive
mode of the past, today's China is taking more strategic
initiatives in developing Sino-US relations. This is not only a
result of the fast increase of China's strength, but also a
benefit of the fruitful exploits of the country's new diplomatic
manoeuvres.
Fifth, Sino-US relations are developing in breadth and
depth. In breadth, bilateral exchanges have risen from the
political, economic, military and cultural level to strategic
security at a regional, global and non-traditional security
level. This and the opening of strategic dialogue between the
two countries, concrete co-operation in fighting terrorism, AIDS
and avian flu, and the resumption of exchanges between the two
armed forces, all point to the fact that there are less and less
blank spots in the field of bilateral relations.
In depth, dialogue in various areas is becoming more
systematic and organized. The United States is paying increasing
attention to more profound issues such as China's economic,
judicial, political and religious systems in its China strategy.
China in its US relations is also attaching growing importance
to contacts with not only the government but Congress as well,
not just federal but also state level and bureaucrats, as well
as the broad masses.
More importantly, the two sides seem to be seeking a new
manner of co-operation on the Taiwan question, namely the
recognition that they share common interests in preventing
Taiwan from achieving "independence" and maintaining peace and
stability in the Taiwan Straits area. They have already begun
co-operation to this end, and it has proven beneficial to both
sides.
Sixth, the United States is also showing some new thinking
in its China strategy. That is, it should see the situation as
it is and try to co-exist with China, since the latter's speedy
development is already unstoppable. Trying to "tie down" China
the way it did to the former Soviet Union is both unattainable
and unnecessary; and the best way to deal with a peacefully
developing China is to "integrate with, co-operate with, keep in
contact with and guide," with some "containing, restricting and
defensive" moves as secondary measures.
The author is deputy director of the Institute of American
Studies of the Chinese Academy of Contemporary International
Relations
(Source: China Daily,by Yuan Peng)
Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
37 IRNA: IAEA Board Chairman's conclusion on sub-item 3(b)
Vienna, Nov 25, IRNA
Iran-IAEA-Board
The Japanese Chairman of the International Atomic Energy
Agency's (IAEA) Board of Governors Yukiya Amano has drawn a
conclusion on sub-item 3(b) and other safeguards
implementation issues after the Board's discussions on Iran's
peaceful nuclear program.
The full text of the statement is as follows:
"I have no more speakers on my list. All comments will be duly
reflected in the summary records of the meeting. Therefore, I
will not sum up the discussion in detail.
"The Board took note of the Director General's report on the
implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic
Republic of Iran contained in document GOV/2005/87.
"Some Members stated that only modest progress had been made
since September towards resolving questions arising from Iran's
multiple failures, over an extended period of time, to declare
nuclear material and activities in accordance with its
safeguards obligations. They emphasized that cooperation on the
part of Iran remained inadequate and that the continuing absence
of full transparency was a matter of the utmost concern. They
called on Iran to provide full transparency, beyond the
provisions of Iran's NPT safeguards agreement and additional
protocol, including providing information and documentation
related to P-1 and P-2 centrifuges and dual-use equipment, as
well as facilitating visits to relevant military-owned workshops
and R locations. They expressed concern about the document which
relates to the casting and machining of enriched uranium metal
into hemispherical forms and requested that the Director General
give priority to its investigation.
"Some Members continued to attach the highest importance to the
full suspension of all enrichment-related activities while
outstanding issues were addressed and confidence in the
exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme
established. They expressed their regret that Iran continued to
operate the UCF and was still pursuing construction of a heavy
water research reactor.
They recalled the Board's resolution of 24 September 2005 and
stated that at present the window of opportunity should remain
open for Iran to adopt a responsive attitude to implement the
confidence-building measures called for by the Board, to
refrain from any further unilateral move, such as resumption of
enrichment activities at Natanz, which could aggravate the
situation, and to respond faithfully to requests made in
previous Board resolutions, before the Board would address the
timing and content of
communications to the Security Council envisaged in that
resolution.
Calls were made for Iran to resume the negotiating process with
the EU-3 and support was expressed for the EU-3 effort to
broaden the basis for an international consensus through
additional elements in the negotiating process such as the
recent Russian proposal.
"Some Members noted that Iran had been implementing the
additional protocol and had been more forthcoming in respect of
transparency measures. Iran had facilitated access to additional
documentation, individuals and sites. They expressed their
appreciation for all initiatives by other Member States aimed at
facilitating the speedy conclusion of the Iranian nuclear issue
within the framework of the Agency. They recognized that the
Agency's work on verifying the peaceful nuclear programme of
Iran is ongoing and encouraged Iran's further cooperation as a
confidence-building measure. It was emphasized that those who
have information on illicit supply networks, especially the
countries from which these networks operated or sourced
technology, should share all such information with the Agency
and empower the Agency in every way possible to gain an
understanding of how these networks operate.
They reiterated the basic and inalienable right of all Member
States to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in
conformity with their respective legal obligations. They
referred to the link between non-proliferation and disarmament
and
reiterated deep concern over the slow pace of progress towards
nuclear disarmament. They re-emphasized the distinction between
voluntary confidence building measures and legally binding
safeguards obligations. They encouraged the resumption of
negotiations and cooperation between Iran and the EU-3 to
promote mutual confidence with a view to facilitating the
Agency's work on Iran's nuclear program. The importance of
restraint and flexibility by all parties was noted.
"Some Members emphasized that addressing the issue of the
implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement of Iran was
closely linked to the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free
zone in the Middle East, and reference was made in this regard
to the Tehran Declaration of 2003. The importance of the
implementation of international resolutions in relation to this
matter was stressed.
"The Board reiterated its call that Iran ratify its additional
protocol as a matter of urgency. The Board also reiterated its
support for the resumption of negotiations between Iran and the
EU-3. The Board encouraged Iran to provide further additional
supporting documentation as requested by the Agency and to
expand the transparency measures provided to the Agency.
"One Member State requested that the implementation of Iran's
NPT safeguards agreement be formally included on the agenda for
the next Board meeting and that the Director General provide a
follow-up written report to the Board in advance of that meeting.
"The Board requested the Director General to continue to keep
it informed of developments, as appropriate.
"Is this summing-up acceptable?
"It is so decided.
"May I take it that the Board authorizes the Director General's
reported dated 18 November 2005 to be made available to the
public? "It is so decided."
1420/1420
*****************************************************************
38 AFP: UN nuclear watchdog ends meeting in Vienna -
Fri Nov 25, 1:44 PM ET
VIENNA (AFP) - Non-aligned countries protested a call by Britain
to hand over key Iranian nuclear documents to the world's five
main atomic powers for analysis, as the UN nuclear watchdog
wrapped up a week-long meeting.
Diplomats told AFP that some non-aligned countries opposed
handing over the document to the nuclear weapons states on the UN
Security Council for analysis, which Iran " /> Iransubmitted to
the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency " />
International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA).
The paper is a blueprint for making the explosive core of a
nuclear bomb.
The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors on Thursday put off
taking Iran to the Security Council to give time for new Russian
diplomacy to resolve the crisis over Iran's nuclear program, but
the United States warned that referral would happen soon if
Tehran did not meet its non-proliferation obligations.
British ambassador Peter Jenkins had said "it would be helpful
if the (IAEA) director general could arrange for the document to
be seen by experts from the five nuclear weapons states" in the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), namely Britain, China,
France, Russia and the United States.
Non-aligned states, which back Iran's right to the peaceful use
of nuclear energy, as well as non-nuclear states in the NPT said
the issue should remain within the framework of the IAEA.
States which spoke included Algeria, Brazil, Cuba, Egypt and
South Africa, a non-aligned diplomat said.
British atomic governor Robert Wright told the board that
Britain was not trying pressure the IAEA on this matter and was
merely making a suggestion "to help clarify the contents of the
document," a diplomat added.
Jenkins had said Thursday, in comments echoed by other Western
ambassadors, that the European Union
" /> European Union"sees grounds for deep concern" that Iran
"has admitted to having in its possession a document which was
supplied" by an international black market and which is a guide
to making the explosive core of an atom bomb.
The document tells how to melt and cast enriched uranium into
hemispheres, the IAEA reported last week. Experts said the only
use for such a technology is to make nuclear weapons.
But Iranian ambassador Mohammad Akhondzadeh said Thursday that
this was "simple and non-sophisticated information which could
be found in open literatures and on Internet."
Greenpeace nuclear expert William Peden told AFP however: "The
Internet did not exist as it does today in 1987. Iran's claim is
not credible and is totally laughable because this is highly
detailed, classified information on how to work with uranium to
make it into a bomb."
Meanwhile, the IAEA decided Friday to give the over half a
million euros (dollars) the agency had won with the Nobel peace
prize for aid to developing countries.
The IAEA board of governors "agreed that the agency's share of
the monetary award (five million Swedish kronor, 525,000 euros,
630,000 dollars) should be used for funding the needs of
developing countries in the peaceful application of nuclear
energy, specifically in the human health and food production
sectors," the IAEA said in a statement.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei and the agency itself were joint
recipients of this year's Nobel Peace Prize, which is to be
awarded in Oslo on December 10.
An IAEA spokesman said ElBaradei was "expecting to use his
portion of the money (also 525,000 euros) for charitable
purposes."
ElBaradei proposed using the agency's half for cancer management
"to provide practical training in radiation oncology" and for
nutrition to help "ensure the healthy development of children
using nuclear techniques," the statement said.
The meeting of the 35-nation IAEA board opened Monday.
It considered technical questions from Monday to Wednesday and
then on Thursday the issue of Iran's nuclear program.
Copyright 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
39 spiked-science: What happened to the positive case for nuclear power?
The UK government is trying to promote nuclear by stoking up
fears about the future. Bad move.
by Joe Kaplinsky
Once again the debate over nuclear power is heating up in the
UK - but it hasn't yet reached a sufficient temperature to
generate anything useful.
The greens are upset by reports that the case for nuclear is
gaining ground in government. Jonathon Porritt,
government-appointed chair of the Sustainable Development
Commission, has warned that a revival of nuclear power would be
'foolish' and 'a very serious own goal'. Former environment
minister Michael Meacher has talked of a 'conspiracy', led by
chief scientific adviser Sir David King, to bring back nuclear
(1).
Kate Hudson, chair of CND, is also worried. 'Government spin
doctors and the nuclear industry myth-makers are working
overtime to repackage nuclear power as the green solution to
climate change', she said (2). Friends of the Earth has issued a
press release headed 'Blair must not back new nuclear power
plants' (3).
So what are these reports? Perhaps Blair has made a statement
supportive of nuclear power? Well, not quite. Asked by the House
of Commons Liaison Committee about nuclear power and climate
change, he replied: 'With some of the issues to do with climate
change - and you can see it with the debate about nuclear power
- there are going to be difficult and controversial decisions
government has got to take.' (4) So no actual decisions about
nuclear power, then. But Blair does understand a decision must
be taken, which is nice to know. Indeed some people seem as
worried at the prospect that Blair may have already 'made up his
mind' as by the actual decision.
In fact, decisions have been deferred until after (yet
another) review, due to report next year. Energy minister Malcom
Wicks says: 'I happen to be nuclear-neutral and so is Alan
Johnson [trade and industry secretary]. I think that's helpful.'
(5) The prime minister's official view remains that 'we need to
look at all the options' (6). If there is an orchestrated
campaign to make the case for nuclear energy, it looks well
hidden.
One reason why the case for nuclear power is gaining ground is
practical. Blair told MPs that new nuclear power stations must
be considered a real option because 'the facts have changed over
the last couple of years'. One key fact that is changing is that
the proportion of electricity derived from nuclear power is
falling. It now stands at 21 per cent, but is set to fall
rapidly to four per cent as all but one of Britain's nuclear
power stations close by 2023. Much non-nuclear electricity
generation has also suffered from underinvestment - 52 per cent
of non-nuclear capacity is more than 30 years old (7).
Faith in wind power, in which the government has more publicly
invested its hopes, is a short-term perspective. If wind does
expand at maximum capacity it may cover the growth of up to a
few per cent per year in electricity demand, although after a
few years of such growth the intermittency of wind will become
an increasing problem. Wind cannot begin to replace older
nuclear and coal capacity. As Downing Street tactfully put it,
renewables are 'not 100 per cent effective' (8).
It should be an elementary point, but the argument made by the
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the GMB Union that
the country needs an effective energy supply to function, must
be taken seriously (9). With each passing year the prospect of
an energy shortage becomes a little more plausible.
Instead, nuclear advocates have fixed upon the argument that
because nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide it is an essential
weapon against climate change. Indeed this point has become so
firmly established (although it is contested by
environmentalists) that we are in danger of forgetting why we
build power stations in the first place. After all, if the aim
was just to minimise waste and pollution the simplest solution
would be not to build anything at all.
It may seem peculiar to suggest that anybody, aside from a few
environmentalist extremists, seriously thinks that we should
live without a modern energy supply. But in an age of
uncertainty, when none of the old moral, political or religious
truths seems to stand, few people confidently assert that the
greens are wrong.
We have only just begun to tap the possibilities of
nuclear technologies
It is the sense of moral disorientation that environmentalist
and Guardian columnist George Monbiot appeals to when he writes
about the consequences of climate change:
'Everything we thought was good turns out also to be bad. It
is an act of kindness to travel to your cousin's wedding. Now it
is also an act of cruelty. It is a good thing to light the
streets at night. Climate change tells us it kills more people
than it saves. We are killing people by the most innocent means:
turning on the lights, taking a bath, driving to work, going on
holiday. Climate change demands a reversal of our moral compass,
for which we are plainly unprepared.' (10)
So, were the consequences of electrification good or bad? Did
the spread of electrical consumer goods in the 1950s help to
liberate women from housework, or did it fuel our addiction to
consumption? Did the electrification of rural communities free
them from the capricious tyranny of nature, or did it alienate
them from the land? For many, these are not clear-cut questions.
When all our past achievements are called into question it is
important to remember that we have not just survived problems
such as climate change and pollution, but that life has
improved. Few people would really choose to live in the past.
It is our uncertainty that has turned climate change into an
insuperable problem. The problem with putting climate change at
the centre of decision-making is illustrated by the 2005
advertising campaign run by the Carbon Trust. 'I am become the
destroyer of worlds', it ran. This is a quote from Robert
Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, on
seeing the detonation of the first atomic bomb (11). He was
quoting in turn from the Bhagavad Gita Hindu scripture, and the
message was clear: technology has become a means of destruction.
In these terms, nuclear technology becomes a source of
apocalypse. But in fact we have only just begun creatively to
tap the possibilities of nuclear technologies, not just in power
generation but in applications from space flight to medicine. By
focusing on problems we narrow our horizons, missing out on the
possibilities for future developments. If instead we ask about
innovations that can satisfy new needs and desires, experience
has shown that older problems become more manageable with our
expanded capacities. This should govern our approach to the
expansion of nuclear power.
The government clings to combating climate change as one of
the few unquestioned moral absolutes today. But without a more
positive motivation than staving off the effects of man's
destructiveness, it seems unlikely that it can throw its weight
behind a proper investment in nuclear power.
If this situation continues, we will all suffer the
consequences of a decaying energy infrastructure - and will
forgo as yet unimagined opportunities.
Joe Kaplinsky is a patent and technology analyst.
Read on:
spiked-issue: Energy
(1) Blair warned against 'own goal' in nuclear energy review),
Scotsman, 22 November 2005
(2) Blair says 'facts have changed' on nuclear power, Guardian,
22 November 2005
(3) Blair must not back new nuclear power plants, 21 November
2005
(4) Blair says 'facts have changed' on nuclear power, Guardian,
22 November 2005
(5) 'Decision on UK nuclear power by end of 2006', Financial
Times, 28 September 2005
(6) Blair risks MPs' revolt over new nuclear stations, Daily
Telegraph, November 22 2005
(7) Plugging the Energy Gap, Richard Barry, Prospect, November
2005
(8) Afternoon press briefing from 21 November 2005
(9) Meacher condemns pro-nuclear 'spin', Guardian, 21 November
2005
(10) A restraint of liberty, Guardian, 24 May 2005
(11) The original line historically quoted by Oppenheimer was 'I
have become death, destroyer of worlds'
49-51 Farringdon Road, London, EC1M 3JP
spiked 2000-2005 All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
40 SLO Trib: Next open Diablo meeting is Dec. 14
Posted on Thu, Nov. 24, 2005
The town hall-style meeting is an opportunity for residents to
ask questions and comment on nuclear plant safety and operations
issues
By David Sneed
The Tribune
Federal nuclear regulators will meet with San Luis Obispo County
residents at a town hall-style meeting Dec. 14.
The meeting will be from 6 to 9 p.m. at the Embassy Suites Hotel
at 333 Madonna Road in San Luis Obispo.
The meeting is intended to be an opportunity for the public to
ask questions and make comments to officials with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission about operations and safety issues at
Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. Plant managers with Pacific
Gas and Electric Co. also will be available.
This is the second such meeting held by the agency in San Luis
Obispo. The first was in June 2004.
The meeting will begin with a presentation by NRC officials
about inspections they plan to conduct of an aboveground storage
facility for highly radioactive used reactor fuel under
construction at the plant.
"Our hope is to make that part of the meeting brief and give the
public ample opportunity to interact with us," said Victor
Dricks, NRC spokesman.
The NRC maintains two full-time resident inspectors at Diablo
Canyon. The agency also regularly conducts specialized
inspections of the plant using staff experts from its regional
office in Arlington, Texas.
The results of the inspections are presented to PG&E officials
at public meetings. The agency began holding the town hall-style
meetings to give the public an opportunity to discuss safety
concerns in an informal setting.
The NRC has jurisdiction over security and radiological safety
at the nation's 103 commercial nuclear reactors.
*****************************************************************
41 The Hindu: Rodriguez is Indian Nuclear Society president
Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Nov 24, 2005
Dr. Placid Rodriguez
CHENNAI: Placid Rodriguez, former Director, Indira Gandhi Centre
for Atomic Research (IGCAR), Kalpakkam, was elected president of
the Indian Nuclear Society for a two-year term from 2005 to 2007
at its annual meeting held on November 18 in Mumbai.
He succeeds Dr. R. Chidambaram, former Chairman, Atomic Energy
Commission. Dr. Rodriguez has had a career-long association with
the Department of Atomic Energy. After Dr. Rodriguez (65) retired
as Director, IGCAR, he became the Chairman of the Recruitment and
Assessment Centre, Defence Research and Development Organisation.
He is currently a Raja Ramanna Fellow and a Visiting Professor at
the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Chennai.
Previous chairmen of the Indian Nuclear Society include Dr. P.K.
Iyengar, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, and C.V.
Sundaram, former Director, IGCAR.
Copyright 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of
*****************************************************************
42 ajc.com: Nuclear plants safe? Claim is unsound |
ajc.com> Opinion
Nuclear plants safe? Claim is unsound
By CYNTHIA McKINNEY
Published on: 11/24/05
Just as U.S. Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was telling Georgians in
a Nov. 14 Atlanta Journal-Constitution opinion column that
"nuclear power plants have a sound safety record," Southern
Co.'s Edwin I. Hatch nuclear plant along the Altamaha River near
Baxley was reporting the loss of 68 inches of highly irradiated
nuclear fuel.
As highly radioactive waste, this irradiated or "spent" nuclear
fuel is millions of times more radioactive than new fuel. Hatch
says the missing fuel is either at the bottom of the fuel pool
or it was mistakenly shipped out with radioactive scrap
regularly collected by the filters. The problem? There is no
facility in the United States licensed to accept commercial
irradiated reactor fuel. The containers that it was shipped out
in are said to be safe for hundreds of years. The half life of
irradiated nuclear fuel exceeds a million years. You do the math.
Hatch's safety record is hardly "sound." In 1984, cracks in the
containment system were discovered. Hatch is also on record for
one of the largest releases of radioactive water into our
environment. In 1986, human error and equipment failure led to
the release of 84,000 gallons of radioactive water from Hatch
into a wetlands area on plant property, only a few hundred yards
from the Altamaha. Both the Hatch and Vogtle plants have had
ongoing worker safety violations.
But never mind that, says Frist. Nuclear power is safe. Is it
safe from terrorist attack? Not according to the FBI director
who testified to Congress in February.
In 1986, a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testified
to Congress that he expected a core meltdown to happen within 20
years. It sounds as if we could be overdue. Accidents? Heck,
says Frist, Three Mile Island was no big deal. And Chernobyl?
According to Frist it only killed "scores of people and rendered
about 20 square miles of land uninhabitable."
Frist fails to say anything about the global fallout, which
touched 3 billion people worldwide, or about how incidents of
thyroid cancer in neighboring Belarus are 100 times higher than
before the accident. "Chernobyl heart" is a condition found in
children from the region who develop holes in their hearts and
die without surgery. Thousands of children each year are on the
waiting lists, but only a few hundred receive treatment.
Anyone who raises concerns about nuclear power safety gets
branded as a fearmonger. Were the writers at the Times-Picayune
labeled that when as early as 1998 they predicted that a
Category 3 hurricane could breach the levees and flood New
Orleans? But even when the "fearmongers" turn out to be right,
as they did in Louisiana, why should we worry? Haven't we all
seen how swiftly and judiciously the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security
respond to catastrophe?
Frist wants Georgia to embrace building nuclear reactors. I am
told Frist is a doctor. What kind of doctor would tell Georgians
that their nuclear plants have a "sound safety record" when the
facts say otherwise? Only a spin doctor.
-
U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney is a Democrat representing Georgia's
4th Congressional District.
2005 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution| Customer care|
[Cox Newspapers, Inc.]
*****************************************************************
43 India: Rediff: US, France, Russia agree on N-cooperation
> PTI
November 24, 200519:11 IST
The United States, France and Russia have agreed on the need to
have full international civilian nuclear cooperation with India,
the Lok Sabha was informed.
+ PM's US Tour
Replying to written questions in Lok Sabha, Minister of State
for External Affairs Rao Inderjit Singh said the government was
engaged in discussions with these countries as well as others to
further deepen bilateral cooperation in this sphere and to
achieve the objective of full civilian nuclear cooperation.
+ PM at the UN
He said India has an abiding interest in the goals of universal
nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
India continues to believe that the best and most effective
nuclear non-proliferation measure would be a credible and
time-bound commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons worldwide,
Singh said and added, that as a responsible nuclear weapon
state, India is conscious of its obligations to exercise
effective control over weapons of mass destruction technologies
and their delivery system.
Copyright 2005 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or
Copyright 2005 rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
44 RIA Novosti: Russia's nuclear industry will need $32 bln in next 15 years
24/ 11/ 2005
MOSCOW, November 24 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian nuclear industry
will need $32 billion in investment in the next 15 years, the
Federal Nuclear Energy Agency said Thursday.
Valery Rachkov, head of the agency's nuclear industry
department, told an international conference that the sector was
short on outside investment and had to be financed with its own
money.
"Unfortunately, there is no clearly outlined mechanism for
attracting investment in the nuclear industry," Rachkov said.
Last year, the industry received 5 billion rubles ($174 million)
less than it actually needed, and this year, it is expected to
be short 15 billion rubles ($523 million).
According to the official, one of the main challenges facing
Russia's nuclear industry is the need to maintain the pace of
construction of new nuclear power plants while keeping energy
prices low.
"The price of electricity generated at nuclear power plants is
always lower than at other types of stations," he said.
Rachkov said the main priorities in developing the sector
included upgrading existing nuclear reactors, extending their
service to 15 years and raising their efficiency to 34%,
developing the nuclear energy market, and increasing the
generation of heat at nuclear power plants.
He said that in the years to come, Russia's nuclear industry
would be advanced mostly through innovative projects, including
ones envisaging the development of fast neutron reactors.
The nuclear industry's targeted electricity production level for
2006 is 152 billion kilowatt-hours, Rachkov said. Some 151
billion kWh of energy is to be generated this year; last year's
output amounted to 145.3 billion kWh.
2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
45 The Herald: Nuclear would knock out wind-power
Web Issue 2406 November 24 2005
TONY Blair's declared intention to refurbish some of our
existing nuclear power stations and also build new ones is
eminently sensible. This decision will furnish the UK with an
electricity supply which is secure, affordable, reliable and
free of the CO2 emissions, which contribute to global warming.
But it will have a strange side-effect on this same
government's laissez-faire encouragement of wind-farm
construction. Wind-power electricity is unreliable, unaffordable
and ecologically damaging; the only reason given for indulging
in this wasteful and ineffective technology is the claim that it
saves this many tons of CO2 emission by displacing that many
megawatts of fossil fuel-powered electricity.
But if that amount of fossil fuel-powered electricity is,
according to Tony Blair, to be replaced by new-build
nuclear-powered electricity, then the CO2 emission saving from
wind-power falls to zero and the reason for pursuing this
outdated technology disappears.
France has, for almost half a century, sourced about 90% of its
electricity supply from nuclear power and now enjoys the
benefits of having not only the cheapest and most
climate-friendly electricity in Europe but also one which is
completely immune to outside influence and does not depend on
the vagaries of external markets or the insecurity of foreign
suppliers. There are no good reasons why the UK should not be
similarly blessed.
William Oxenham, 5 Easter Currie Place, Currie.
The manufacture of every tonne of concrete and steel releases
one tonne of CO2 (four tonnes of CO2 for aluminium). The
concrete, steel, aluminium and energy used to build a nuclear
station and store all the many thousands of cubic metres of
waste is enormous. The plutonium waste has a poisonous half-life
in excess of 24,000 years. Just a few grams of this "stuff" will
kill. It has the capacity to damage the environment for over
100,000 years.
The amount of CO2 now in the atmosphere (390ppm) is 50% above
the previous highest levels over the past half million years
(260ppm) eg, the inter-glacial periods. A further two million
tonnes of oil are burned, world-wide, every hour contributing
to the 7000 million tonnes of additional CO2 entering the
atmosphere every year.
Sea-level rise is a now distinct possibility and the UK-built
nuclear stations are sited near sea-level Dounreay (10m),
Dungeness (7m), Hunterston (3m), Heysham (5m), Sellafield (18m),
Sizewell (5m), etc. Apart from the 56,000m (1K per person) of
planned clean-up costs already earmarked for the existing
nuclear industry the prospect of a 5-10 metre sea-level rise
swamping these coastal nuclear power stations is all that
Scotland needs as a burden on the environment and taxpayer.
I believe that the beneficial way to invest in renewable energy
is through the widest mix of options hydro, micro-generation,
solar, tidal, wave and wind-power. If there's an urgent decision
to be made it is to build barriers across the major estuaries
Forth, Severn, Thames, etc that will generate 25-35% of the
nation's electricity, reduce the risk of flooding to coastal
towns and reduce the use of all that foreign gas being bought to
make electricity.
In the long term the only "game-in-town" will be a combination
of better use of existing energy, investment in energy
conservation, CO2 sequestration technology and the full range of
renewables.
Should the government decision permit the market to invest in
the nuclear option then it must include the full, real cost to
us all of the consequences of that choice. There should be no
option for the taxpayer to be involved in subsidising nuclear
waste.
Graham Reed, Kaimes Farm, Dumbarton Road, Stirling.
Both nuclear power and atomic weapons are pursued for much the
same reason. It has nothing to do with needing either: energy
efficiency and conservation can replace the contribution made
currently by civilian reactors at a huge cost savings as well
as not leaving a poisonous legacy for thousands of years or
rendering us reliant on foreign sources of fuel (ie, uranium).
As for the bomb, which served at least as a deterrent during the
bygone era of Mutually Assured Destruction: it has far outlived
its usefulness. Just whom exactly are we targeting today and why?
But both nuclear options are not ruled out (the real
"no-brainer", by the way) because of the unfortunate,
overweening pride of governments and Whitehall mandarins, who
link the perception of national greatness and world leadership
with being a member in the nuclear club. We could do so much
better.
Barry Shelby, 23 Denbrae Street, Glasgow.
Copyright Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
46 Herald: Most expensive way to generate electricity
Web Issue 2406 November 25 2005
One of your recent contributors claimed that nuclear power was
the cheapest way to generate electricity. The figures given were
running costs only. I hope this was not a naked attempt to
deceive. When build costs of 9bn and huge decommissioning costs
and waste storage costs which will still be being paid 100 years
later are taken into account, nuclear becomes 50% more expensive
than any other way yet devised to generate electricity. It is a
nonsense. Spend the money on developing renewable and save a
fortune.
Jim Bryce, 40 Kings Meadow, Edinburgh.
Laugh, I nearly choked on my cornflakes. Iain Macwhirter's
assertion (November 23) that the (Westminster) government would
have a "political headache taking on the Scottish Parliament"
over the building of new nuclear power stations is quite risible.
These lapdogs of the Labour/Liberal coalition, who cry
"reserved matter" at every turn, and who resort to Sewell
motions whenever anything controversial appears, will never be a
problem to their metropolitan masters. The high heid yins in
London have nothing to fear from them.
The recent events concerning Jack McConnell and the treatment
of asylum-seekers amply prove the point.
William Douglas, 252 Nether Auldhouse Road, Glasgow.
Iain Macwhirter's incisive and sober view of Scotland's nuclear
future only failed in a couple of respects. When he states that
the first nuclear power station isn't likely to be built in
Scotland and that somehow the Scottish Parliament could do
something about it. Unfortunately as nuclear power will probably
be considered a "development of national strategic importance"
by Labour's lame leaders in London so there will be little our
parliament could do under their own proposed new planning laws.
This is the time and issue that any Scottish Labour politicians
of any standing rejected Tony's toadying and thoughts of
ministerial Montegos, stood square with the Scottish people and
said "Nuclear power? Not on my watch!"
T Proudfoot, 136 Whitehouse Loan, Edinburgh.
Early on Wednesday morning, my barometer registered 1043mb,
after a week of settled weather. Unsurprisingly at this time of
year, a big "high" over the British Isles has brought frosty and
foggy conditions, with little or no wind. We've all turned up
the heating.
Nothing could illustrate more clearly the problem with
wind-power as a source of renewable energy. At times like this,
when you need power most, you get it least.
According to Ofgem, the electricity regulator, average load
factors achieved by UK wind-farms over the last two years were
25.5% and 26.5% respectively dry if rather shocking
statistics. There is much cogent argument about the dangers of
grid instability trying to manage the constantly varying outputs
from wind energy, but what happens when they all stop together?
In quiet, cold, weather, wind-farms produce nothing at all for
many hours, even days, at a time, not just locally but right
across the country.
So where has our power been coming from? From conventional
power-stations and non-intermittent sources, of course.
If we need 100% back-up from conventional sources for days on
end at times when demand is high, more wind-power just means
more 100% back-up, megawatt for megawatt, doesn't it? Where is
the sense in this? It is not as though these weather phenomena
are unknown or even uncommon.
There will be lots of wind over the next few days to push up
the average load factors. But averages, however shocking, are
irrelevant: it is the worst case we have to plan for, when all
wind-farms are out of action, not just some.
Andrew Russell, Tigh na Leven, Tarbert, Argyll.
Copyright Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
47 iafrica.com: sa news: Koeberg in controlled shutdown
CAPE TOWN
Thu, 24 Nov 2005
Koeberg, South Africa's only nuclear power station, shut down
completely for the third time in two weeks on Wednesday evening.
Though the previous two were blackouts that led to widespread
power failures in the Western Cape, Wednesday's was a
"controlled shutdown", the parastatal said in a statement on
Thursday morning.
Chemical concentration
"Yesterday's controlled shut down was initiated due to the
chemical concentration in the safety injection system being
slightly below specification," the statement read.
"The chemical concentration has been returned to the required
specifications and Koeberg will be synchronised to the national
electricity grid during the course of today."
The safety injection system is a backup system of large tanks of
water mixed with chemicals which can be released to cool the
reactor in case of an accident.
Standard procedure
Eskom said the variance was identified during routine sampling
on Wednesday. The shutdown was standard procedure.
To compensate for the shutdown, the Acacia gas turbine in the
Western Cape and Port Rex in the Eastern Cape were switched on
to deliver electricity to the Western Cape.
Sapa
iafrica.com, a division of Metropolis* - a Primedia company
*****************************************************************
48 iafrica.com: Blackouts continue in the Cape
CAPE TOWN
Fri, 25 Nov 2005
What Eskom called a "rolling blackout" continued in the Western
and parts of the Eastern Cape on Friday after the shutdown of
Koeberg nuclear power station on Wednesday evening.
Eskom spokesperson Trish da Silva said the utility was asking
consumers in those areas to switch off geysers and air
conditioners to lessen the load on transmission lines.
She said Koeberg which shut down when an irregularity in a
safety backup system was detected planned to come back on line
on Friday, but she did not know when this would happen.
Though electricity was being drawn from elsewhere in the
country, it did not meet demand, and the rolling blackouts that
began on Thursday were continuing.
She said this involved deliberately cutting the supply to
particular areas for about an hour at a time in order not to
overload the system.
The blocks were on a "predetermined list", and Eskom was trying
to use radio stations to give people who lived there at least
half an hour's notice.
They included areas of the Cape Town metro.
Sapa
iafrica.com, a division of Metropolis* - a Primedia company
*****************************************************************
49 Cincinnati ENQUIRER: Uncertain future for power in West
Friday, November 25, 2005
Fast-growing areas require more lines
By William McCall
The Associated Press
PORTLAND, Ore. - There is general consensus that the West needs
more long-distance power lines.
The big question is, who pays for them? Another is, who controls
them? And finally, how much should it cost to use them?
Utility managers and regulators say those questions need to be
answered soon - before demand outstrips the power supply to some
of the fastest-growing areas of the nation.
Otherwise, the risk of a blackout, like the one that left the
East Coast in the dark in 2003, keeps rising.
Two years ago, the Bonneville Power Administration completed a
transmission system expansion project in the Seattle area,
reducing the risk of massive power failures.
"It reinforced a key link that would have, for sure, put the
Seattle area in danger of blackouts had it not been
constructed," said Ed Mosey, spokesman for the Portland-based
federal power marketing agency.
In Arizona, the largest utility in the state is proposing a new
$3 billion pair of 500,000-volt lines to bring power 600 miles
from coal and wind turbine plants in Wyoming. It would also let
the Arizona Public Service Co. send excess power from the
Southwest to the north.
"Arizona's one of the two fastest-growing areas of the country,
along with Nevada," said Jim McDonald, spokesman for Arizona
Public Service.
The utility relies on coal, nuclear and natural gas-fired
generating plants for electricity to accommodate growth that
includes Arizona cities like Gilbert, which topped the U.S.
Census Bureau's list of fastest-growing cities, with at least
100,000 new people from April 2000 to July 2004.
But that generating capacity has to have a way to reach new
businesses and homes - meaning more high-voltage wires, McDonald
said.
"So it's very important to have additional infrastructure in the
West because of the way the region is growing," McDonald said.
"And there hasn't been a substantial investment in that
transmission infrastructure."
On Nov. 17, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposed
transmission-pricing reforms to promote what commissioners said
was long overdue investment in energy infrastructure.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which President Bush signed in
August, directed the commission to develop incentive-based rates
for interstate power transmission. The reforms adopted Nov. 17
will implement those incentives and provide regulatory certainty
needed to reassure utilities and investors, officials said.
The goal is to increase power-grid reliability and lower costs
by reducing transmission congestion between states,
commissioners said.
"No one is looking at the lights going out," said U.S. Rep.
Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. "But what we're looking at now is how do
you make the system work better, and how do you avoid duplicate
investment in very expensive transmission lines."
Reliability and congestion are issues that have been a struggle
for utility managers and regulators across the West for more
than a decade, as they have watched transmission line
construction fail to keep pace with electricity demand.
"We should have been making plans to build out the transmission
system years ago," said David Kvamme, spokesman for PacifiCorp.
The Portland-based utility serves 1.6 million customers in six
Western states and must balance regulatory demands in each state
with the need for additional transmission capacity.
But transmission investment actually declined for 23 years from
1975 to 1998, according to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
figures.
And over that period, electricity demand more than doubled,
resulting in a significant decrease in transmission capacity.
Investment has been up and down since, but still trails well
behind demand, regulators said.
"We're in the midst of a historic shift in the way this country
regulates electric utilities," said Bryan Lee, a
commissionspokesman in Washington, D.C.
[Cincinnati.Com]
*****************************************************************
50 AFP: Fire shuts down Brazilian nuclear plant
Fri Nov 25,11:14 AM ET
ANGRA DOS REIS, Brazil (AFP) - A transformer fire forced the
shutdown of Brazil's Angra nuclear power plant, which provides
power to two eastern states.
Officials said the fire broke out in an electrical transformer
in the Angra II plant. The blaze caused the immediate automatic
shutdown of the Angra I and Angra II nuclear facilities at the
site, which is on the coast in Rio de Janeiro state.
About 60 percent of the Rio de Janeiro state and Espirito Santo
state's power supplies are provided by the nuclear plant.
A plant official, Jose Costa Mattos, told reporters that the
Angra I should restart later Friday.
Other officials said the Angra II plant might not be re-started
until January, but said this would not spark power cuts.
"We are awaiting a visit from the transformer-maker Siemens,"
said Ricardo Santos, manager of the Angra II plant.
"There is no risk of power cuts," Santos said, adding "The worst
hypothesis is that we will have to change the transformer, which
could not be done before the start of 2006."
He said maintenance work on the Angra II reactor, which had been
planned for January would now be brought forward because of the
shutdown.
Copyright 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
51 Statement of nuclear incidents at nuclear installations
+ Updated 23.11.05
A statement on incidents at nuclear installations in Britain
that meet Ministerial reporting criteria is sent to the
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of
State for Scotland and is published every quarter by the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE).
For the period 1 July 2005 to 30 September 2005 there were no
incidents at a nuclear licensed installation that met the
reporting criteria
Notes to Editors
1. The arrangements for reporting nuclear incidents were
announced to Parliament by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of
State for Energy on 30 April 1987 (Hansard col. 203-204). A
minor modification to the arrangements was announced in HSE
press notice E108:93 of 30 June 1993.
2. Normally each incident mentioned in HSE's quarterly incident
statements will already have been made public by the licensee or
site operator, either through a press statement or by inclusion
in the newsletter for the site concerned.
Statement of Nuclear Incidents at Nuclear Installations: Third
Quarter 2005 - single copies of each free from the Information
Centre, Nuclear Safety Directorate, HSE, Room 004, St Peter’s
House, Stanley Precinct, Bootle L20 3LZ.
Public Enquiries : HSE InfoLine, Tel: 0845 345 0055, visit:
www.hse.gov.uk/contact or write to: HSE InfoLine, Caerphilly
Business Park, Caerphilly CF83 3GG.
Press Enquiries : Journalists only :
Mark Wheeler 020 7717 6905
*****************************************************************
52 AFP: Greenpeace activists break into grounds of Dutch nuclear power plant
Wed Nov 23,11:35 AM ET
THE HAGUE (AFP) - Two dozen Greenpeace activists broke into the
grounds of a Dutch nuclear power plant to demonstrate that the
facility is nott secure and protest against plans to keep it
open another quarter of a century.
"Greenpeace warns that a nuclear power plant is an easy target
for terrorist attacks," the environmental organisation said in a
statement after its activists broke into the grounds of the
facility in Borssele on Wednesday.
"Nuclear energy is never safe."
The group's activists, dressed as Romans, unfurled a banner
saying "if the Romans had nuclear power plants we would still be
guarding their nuclear waste."
The Dutch security services arrested 11 protesters.
In the coming weeks the Dutch government is set to decide on
proposals to keep Borssele open until 2033.
Copyright 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
53 SouthofBoston.com: License to ask
MPG Newspapers 9 Long Pond Rd. Plymouth, MA 02360 (508) 746-5555
By Daniel Axelrod MPG Newspapers
PLYMOUTH (Nov 23) The first of several upcoming public hearings
about whether the Pilgrim nuclear power plant should be allowed
to operate until 2032 is set for Dec. 6, at 7 p.m. at the
Plymouth Public Library's Otto Fehlow room.
Plymouth's Nuclear Matters Committee will host this session,
which is designed to get public feedback about what issues town
officials should raise while Entergy officials attempt to
relicense the plant.
Come January, Entergy officials will officially begin the more
than two-year process of having the federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) consider extending the plant's original 40-year
operating license 20 years beyond when the license expires in
2012.
Plymouth's elected officials will play a key role in the
relicensing process. Since Entergy's current annual structured
tax agreement would automatically end if the plant is
relicensed, town officials could be able to negotiate for more
property tax revenue from the plant.
Plymouth officials can also highlight concerns to the NRC about
how the Pilgrim plant's continued operation may affect the area
around town and Cape Cod Bay, which the plant uses for cooling
purposes.
"There are pulses of water that go out into the bay that may be
hotter than they're supposed to be and there's a question of
whether the temperature should be considered on an average or
whether it should be considered lethal above a certain
temperature regardless of the duration the water is discharged,"
Nuclear Matters Committee chairman Jeff Berger said.
"A fish hit with 130 degree water is dead from that burst, but
that's just a deviation from the average temperature of the
water the plant discharges."
Berger knows the key to town officials making the right moves
depends upon how well they solicit public input. His committee
is charged with recommending whether Plymouth should support
relicensing the plant and assembling a list of concerns for town
officials to bring up.
Besides the upcoming question-and-answer session at the library,
the nuclear matters committee will meet Dec. 15, at 7:30 p.m. at
the emergency operations facility off Obery Street to come up
with its final relicensing recommendations.
"Before we go ahead and potentially endorse allowing the NRC to
extend the license of this plant to 2032, we need to know
exactly what the people of Plymouth think so our committee can
make intelligent recommendations to the board of selectmen,"
Berger said. "Then town officials can decide what steps need to
be taken for and against relicensing."
The NRC will also hold as-yet-unscheduled public hearings,
beginning next year, to gauge Plymouth residents' environmental
concerns.
Under the relicensing process, Plymouth residents and officials
are not allowed to raise questions about the plant's security,
evacuation plans or its active systems.
The NRC only judges whether a plant's passive systems, such as
its pipes, are too old. The NRC doesn't address security or
evacuation plans during relicensing because the government said
it regularly monitors these issues.
"We have evaluated the safety, security and active systems such
as pumps and valves of these plants all along, with regular
inspections, and we have resident inspectors at each plant," NRC
spokesman Diane Screnci has said.
Meanwhile, Berger knows his committee has much challenging work
ahead.
"I think just weighing everything appropriately is most
challenging because there are a lot of factors that play into
relicensing the plant," Berger said. "If the plant's license is
renewed, it'll be operating until 2032 and that's a long time
for a plant that was built in the 1970s."
Plymouth must also address whether the town has any potential to
collect fees from Entergy if the utility starts burying concrete
casks full of spent nuclear fuel rods at the site.
Every bit of nuclear fuel ever used to power the Pilgrim plant's
boiling water reactor since 1972 is still at the plant cooling
in a concrete pool full of water.
The spent fuel pool will fill up during 2012.
If safety questions surrounding whether the federal government's
proposed nuclear waste repository in Nevada's Yucca Mountain
aren't answered by then, Entergy officials said the utility will
bury spent fuel rods in thick concrete containers under the
grounds.
The Pilgrim plant sits on 150 acres of industrial-zoned land
while Entergy owns another 1,600 acres of forestry land to the
west of the plant.
"If dry cask storage has to be adopted, what compensation should
the town be entitled to as a result of the liability of having a
lot of nuclear waste being stored in town?" Berger said.
Berger said his committee would still ask tough questions and
thoroughly examine even the issues the federal government
doesn't allow residents to raise in the relicensing process. If
need be, town officials will lobby to congressmen to change the
rules of relicensing.
"We don't feel handcuffed," Berger said. "I tend to be an
optimist. Goliath doesn't scare me and I don't think it scares
the committee."
MPG Newspapers, 9 Long Pond Rd., Plymouth, MA 02360
Telephone: (508) 746-5555
*****************************************************************
54 CBC Saskatchewan: Nuclear energy debate heats up
Last Updated Nov 23 2005 03:10 PM CST
CBC
News
The debate about expanding the nuclear industry in
Saskatchewan shows no sign of fizzling out.
Two groups representing Saskatchewan municipalities are teaming
up with the University of Regina to hold a public forum that
will look at uranium mining, processing, nuclear power plants
and nuclear waste disposal.
The presidents of the uranium mining companies Cogema and
Cameco are two of the keynote speakers at the Jan. 16-18
conference in Regina.
"We hope to determine if expanding the nuclear industry in
Saskatchewan whether it's processing, power or even disposal
is both environmentally safe and economically feasible," said
Don Schlosser, the president of the Saskatchewan Urban
Municipalities Association.
The future of the nuclear industry was debated last weekend at
the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party's annual convention.
Delegates voted down a proposal to ban uranium refining, a move
that pleased Premier Lorne Calvert.
Calvert was recently on a trade mission to Asia where he talked
about finding new markets for Saskatchewan uranium. He later
said he would not allow a nuclear waste disposal facility in
Saskatchewan.
Copyright CBC 2005
*****************************************************************
55 Fort St. John: Fort St. John Ont. eyeing nuclear expansion - sources
- canada.com network
Canadian Press
Thursday, November 24, 2005
TORONTO -- Ontario may be eyeing an expansion of its Darlington
nuclear power station.
Sources tell The Canadian Press the province is investigating a
project to build new Candu reactors at Darlington, some 80
kilometres east of Toronto.
Premier Dalton McGuinty has said the province's nuclear
generating capacity could be expanded if it's recommended in an
upcoming report on energy supply needs.
But sources say the province is already considering adding to
Darlington, which was originally built to accommodate more
reactors.
The government will want assurances that contracts to build new
reactors stay on budget.
Past nuclear projects endured multibillion-dollar cost overruns.
Canadian Press 2005
Copyright CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest
MediaWorks Publications Inc.All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
56 Sofia Morning News: Sofia Asks for Additional EUR 280 M for Nuke Reactors Closure
www.novinite.com "Sofia News Agency"
Politics: 24 November 2005, Thursday.
Bulgaria will ask the European Commission for additional EUR 280
M for the closure of units 1-4 of the country's only nuclear
power plant in Kozloduy.
Bulgaria's Cabinet authorized Foreign Minister Ivaylo Kalfin and
Energy and Economy Minister Rumen Ovcharov to negotiate with the
European Commission for the earlier closure of the units.
The matter for the continuation of the EU financial aid for
Bulgaria over the Kozloduy nuke after 2009 has already been
raised at preliminary consultations in the "Enlargement" GD in
July.
Back then it was agreed that the EC might allot additional
financing of EUR 280 M (EUR 70 M annually for the period 2010 -
2013). During that meeting it was also agreed that a second
round of negotiations should be launched.
Bulgaria, which aspires to join the European Union in 2007,
accepted EU-safety requirements during its accession
negotiations and agreed to close down four of its six nuclear
reactors at Kozloduy.
novinite.com
All Rights Reserved Novinite Ltd., 2001-2005 - Copyright
*****************************************************************
57 Radio New Zealand: Tahiti nuclear test veterans suspect removal
of evidence of contamination
Posted at 2:54pm on 24 Nov 2005
The French Polynesian nuclear test veterans group, Mururoa e
Tatou, is calling on the French government not to dismantle a
shelter in which islanders took refuge during nuclear weapons
tests.
Roland Oldham of Mururoa e Tatou says ten Ministry of Defence
personnel accompanied by the police are examining the shelter
today which was built in the 1960s for islanders on the atoll of
Tureia.
Mr Oldham says the shelter has been tested as having levels of
radiation which are four times higher than the normal by the
territorial assembly's Commission of Inquiry which was set up to
look into the effects of nuclear testing.
He says almost forty years on, the French government has still
not accepted responsibility for the effects on people's health,
and he suspects the Ministry of Defence wants to try to remove
any proof of contamination.
"We want to go till the end of this Commission to get the final
report and conclusion so we can find out the responsibility of
the french government on these issues. So that's why we don't
want this shelter to be removed now."
Roland Oldham of Mururoa e Tatou.
The Commission of Inquiry is due to present its findings in
January.
Copyright 2005 Radio New Zealand International
*****************************************************************
58 adn.com: Neighbors hope to derail radioactive isotope plans
Anchorage Daily News: Alaska's Newspaper
CYCLOTRON: Community council, Assembly ordinance target Park
Strip businessman.
By ROSEMARY SHINOHARA
Anchorage Daily News
Last Modified: November 24, 2005 at 01:22 AM
A community council issued an urgent plea to the Anchorage
Assembly a few days ago: Please stop a plan to make radioactive
materials in our neighborhood.
Al Swank, who owns two houses along Delaney Park Strip, wants to
manufacture radioactive medical tracers there. The material, a
radioactive isotope, is injected into patients to locate cancer
and is used in conjunction with PET scanners.
Swank and some experts say producing these medical tracers is
safe and won't harm anyone.
But the South Addition Community Council's concerns prompted
state health officials to adopt emergency rules Tuesday.
And an Anchorage Assembly member has put together an ordinance
to try to halt the project altogether.
Swank said he was even visited by an FBI agent wanting an
explanation. He did not invite the FBI in.
Isotopes are made with circular accelerators called cyclotrons.
Swank works as a civil engineer and consults nationally and
internationally on cyclotrons. He intends to install a small,
used model, which he is buying from Johns Hopkins University, on
his property. It has not been shipped yet, he said.
The neighbors have "grave concerns for the risk to public health
and safety" if Swank is allowed to do that, council president
Kathleen Weeks said in the letter to Assembly members.
"It appears that using a cyclotron to manufacture even discreet
amounts of radioactive isotopes ... for medical purposes, as Mr.
Swank intends, raises an extremely serious health threat to the
community," she wrote.
"I would probably feel all right if Providence hospital were
running the medical isotope-maker," said Bonnie Harris, the
community council vice president. "I bet it would be in a very
protected environment. I bet they would have a safety monitoring
program."
Weeks was not available for comment Wednesday.
The community council's letter contained some evident mistakes.
For example, it compared the damage from a potential cyclotron
accident to the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident, the
experts said.
But Assemblyman Allan Tesche, who represents the area, said,
"The concern expressed is entirely legitimate."
He introduced an ordinance Tuesday that would prohibit using
cyclotrons in home occupations or in any sort of residential
district. It is scheduled for an Assembly public hearing Dec. 20.
"There are so many aspects that make it not the thing you want
in a neighborhood," said Tesche, who lives four blocks away. For
example, he said, "we don't know what kind of security he will
have. We don't know what procedures he's going to use for
emergencies."
Tesche said he doesn't doubt that production of radioactive
isotopes can be done safely.
"These are handled safely all over the world. But they are not
done in an unregulated environment in residential neighborhoods.
... To me, it's a classic zoning issue."
Swank said he wants to produce the isotopes from his residences
because it's allowed under municipal law, his costs would
increase significantly if he has to do it elsewhere, and he
wants to be near schools that might benefit from the science
involved.
He was a star science student at West High School in 1967 and
1968.
State radiological health chief Clyde Pearce said Swank's
cyclotron is a baby model.
It is described as being about 5 feet tall and 4-by-6-feet
around.
"The machine itself would not produce radiation that you would
be able to measure outside the building," Pearce said. "Assuming
he does what he says he will do, I don't see why it could not be
operated safely."
Swank has registered the machine with state health authorities,
as required, Pearce said.
Jeff Clanton, a board-certified nuclear pharmacist who runs the
cyclotron for Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., said
he, too, thinks the device could be operated safely in a
residential area.
But he wouldn't put one there.
"I just don't think residential areas are conducive to having
industry in the middle of them," he said.
The drugs that can be made with the cyclotron all have a
half-life of two hours or less, meaning they lose their
radioactivity, Clanton said.
That also means to be ready for a hospital's use in the morning,
the drugs would have to be made and transported in the wee
hours, Clanton said.
"I don't know how his neighbors would feel about production
being started at midnight."
Even though state radiology expert Pearce said the isotopes can
be made without hurting anyone, the state Department of Health
and Social Services rushed some regulations through Tuesday.
"We just want to make sure his employees are safe and the
community is safe," said Dr. Richard Mandsager, state public
health director.
The new rules say Swank will have to submit plans for storage,
disposal and operations; demonstrate proper training; comply
with zoning laws; and allow the state to inspect.
Mandsager said the authority for the state to regulate such a
business was unclear until the new rules were created.
The quick state action resulted from Weeks having called the
governor's office last week, Mandager said. "This rapidly moved
up the priority chain."
Tesche said he's confident the Assembly will agree that making
isotopes is not appropriate in residential areas.
If not, he said, "it would send a bizarre message to the world
that Alaskans are truly unique -- and perhaps not in a way we
want to be proud of."
Daily News reporter Rosemary Shinohara can be reached at
rshinohara@adn.comor 257-4340.
Copyright 2005, The Anchorage Daily News, a subsidiary of The
*****************************************************************
59 MSN-Mainichi Daily News: Radioactive water released into public drain -
November 25, 2005
A Tokyo research facility accidentally released slightly
radioactive wastewater into a public drain, while water
containing a small amount of radiation leaked on two separate
occasions at a nuclear power plant in western Japan, officials
said Friday.
Researchers at pharmaceutical company Seikagaku Corp. failed to
shut off a tap in a laboratory on Wednesday, causing a tank of
radioactive wastewater to overflow into a local drainage pipe,
the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology said in a
statement.
The approximately 10 cubic meters of water released into the
drainpipe contained only small amounts of radiation and did not
pose a health or environmental hazard, the ministry said.
Company officials reported the incident after a security guard
raised the alarm at early Thursday, the ministry said. No
workers were injured, according to a separate statement by
Seikagaku.
Seikagaku was ordered to temporarily stop experiments involving
radioactive material, improve safety procedures at its labs and
submit a report by early December, it said.
Seikagaku uses radioactive isotopes to develop a wide range of
drugs, said company spokeswoman Mikako Torii.
The two leaks at Unit 1 of Tsuruga Nuclear Power Station in
Fukui Prefecture were discovered during a regular inspection
earlier this month, Japan Atomic Power Co. said in a statement.
Radiation did not leak outside the unit in both incidents, and
no workers were exposed, according to company spokeswoman Miki
Yamamoto.
Inspectors found about 300 millimeters of cooling water seeping
out of a condensate pump on Nov. 12, while another 30-liter leak
was discovered near a separate supply pump in the same building
the next day, the statement said.
The radiation leak involved in both instances was "minuscule,"
much lower than the level at which nuclear power plants must
inform the government under Japanese law, Yamamoto said.
The unit stopped operating on Nov. 12 for regular inspections,
and was set to restart on schedule at the end of December,
according to Yamamoto.
The incidents came after a similar leak in September forced the
Tsuruga unit to temporarily reduce reactor output. The company
was still investigating the causes of all three leaks, according
to Yamamoto.
The government has been aggressively pushing nuclear power to
meet the energy needs of resource-poor Japan, but public trust
has been badly shaken by a series of safety violations, reactor
malfunctions and accidents.
In August 2004, a corroded cooling pipe carrying boiling water
and superheated steam burst at another reactor in western Japan,
killing five workers. No radiation was released in that
accident. (AP)
Copyright 2004-2005 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All
*****************************************************************
60 AP Wire: 40 years later, South Dakota uranium mines slated for cleanup
| 11/25/2005 |
CARSON WALKER
Associated Press
LUDLOW, S.D. - For Randy Feist, who lost a kidney to cancer, the
estimated $22 million cleanup of Cold War-era uranium strip
mines can't happen soon enough.
He was born and raised in the sparsely populated far
northwestern South Dakota area known as Cave Hills. He worries
about his four children - and wonders why it took so long.
"If there would have been more people here, this would have been
cleaned up 40 years ago," said Feist, 47.
The 13 contaminated bluffs on Custer National Forest land are in
Harding County, an area about the size of Rhode Island and
Delaware combined, with a population of about 1,200.
Tests show levels of arsenic, uranium and other contaminants in
concentrations higher than what occurs naturally, said Laurie
Walters-Clark with the U.S. Forest Service in Camp Crook,
coordinator of the Riley Pass Abandoned Uranium Mines project.
And local health care workers say "a lot of the people they
treat do have cancer," she said.
But figuring cancer rates is difficult because of the sparse
population, said Lon Kightlinger, South Dakota Health Department
epidemiologist.
He said 89 Harding County residents died of cancer from 1969 to
2002, which is a cancer death rate of 166 per 100,000
population. The statewide rate for that period is 187 deaths per
100,000, Kightlinger said.
"Compared to other counties, Harding County actually had one of
the lowest cancer rates in the state," he said.
"I was surprised."
However, Kightlinger said he does not have data showing the
number of cancer survivors, such as Feist.
The restoration plan is to take soil that was pushed off the top
of the bluffs and use it to cap exposed areas and eliminate
toxic runoff, Walters-Clark said.
"Our goal is to stop that sediment from moving," she said.
Feist said runoff has created huge gullies in the land where his
cattle graze five months of the year.
"See how deep that cuts," he told a reporter while prodding his
pickup through one groove.
"This is Bluff B. This is the big one," Feist said of the land
mass up the hill from the rut. "You get up there, there's
nothing growing. It's like a moon landscape."
Feist said he had a cancerous kidney removed in September 2004
and all of his siblings, two brothers and three sisters, have
had thyroid ailments.
Despite it, this straight-talking rancher has not lost his sense
of humor and offers praise for the person leading the cleanup
effort.
"I think it would have been kicked under the rug if it weren't
for Laurie Walters-Clark," he said.
Of the 13 bluffs in the remediation project, eight were mined in
the 1960s by what is now Kerr-McGee, Walters-Clark said. The
company is negotiating with the government but has not agreed to
pay for the cleanup, she said.
"It is the largest mined area. It is not the most toxic,"
Walters-Clark said. "It is contributing the most to the
environment sedimentation."
Laws at the time did not require miners to reclaim the land.
Officials at Kerr-McGee, of Oklahoma City, did not return a
telephone call seeking comment.
Smaller "mom-and-pop operations" mined uranium from the other
five bluffs, but there's no way to seek compensation from them,
Walters-Clark said.
Other bluffs on private land may also need remediation.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which is providing
technical assistance on the project, also approved $200,000 so
the Forest Service can check contamination on private property,
said David Rathke, an EPA official in Denver.
"From there we'll decide what we'll need to do with the
material," he said.
Some work on the Forest Service bluffs could happen in 2006,
such as fencing and pond construction, but the major cleanup
will start in 2007 at the earliest, Walters-Clark said.
Feist is optimistic but wary.
"It took 40 years to have a meeting to let us know it's bad," he
said. "So I'm not holding my breath."
*****************************************************************
61 AP Wire: Uranium mining history goes back 50 years
| 11/25/2005 |
Associated Press
History of uranium mining, cleanup and restoration in
northwestern South Dakota:
_ 1954: First major uranium mining starts.
_ 1962: Major uranium mining developed under contracts through
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Mining was permitted unrestricted
under the General Mining Laws and Public Law 357 and required no
form of restoration. Strip mining involved overburden (topsoil)
being pushed off outer edges of pits on top of bluffs. Exposed
radioactive material was left when mining ended in 1964. Kermac,
now Kerr-McGee, expected to make a profit of more than $2
million.
_ 1962-1964: U.S. Department of Energy said Kerr-McGee mined
28,934 tons of ore, from which it extracted 156,657 pounds of
uranium oxide.
_ 1965-2004: Road sections rebuilt because of erosion; dikes,
dams and ponds built to trap runoff and sediment; sediment
removed from two of five ponds.
_ 1992: Environmental assessment completed for Bluff B, the
largest disturbed area but not the most contaminated. It
revealed high levels of Radium 226, elevated levels of arsenic,
lead, iron, molybdenum and selenium. Forest Service did not
recommend cleanup because of high reclamation costs of more than
$2 million.
_ 1996: Custer National Forest started review to determine if
cleanup could be funded under CERCLA (Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act).
_ 2002: Investigation showed waste in sediment ponds from Bluff
B required action. Kerr-McGee declined agreement to clean ponds,
build a new pond and restore the site. Total cleanup cost
estimated at $14 million. Forest Service installed warning signs
warning that exposure could cause health problems.
_ 2005: Environmental engineering evaluation and cost analysis
reports were delivered to Forest Service and public comment
period ended Sept. 8. Discussions with the state of South
Dakota, Environmental Protection Agency and American Indian
tribes continue. Forest Service continues to seek CERCLA funding
for remediation of eight bluffs mined by Kerr-McGee. Discussions
are ongoing between Forest Service and Kerr-McGee on remediation
funding. Forest Service continues to assess other abandoned
uranium mines that could pose health risks.
Source: Custer National Forest
*****************************************************************
62 AU ABC: Boswell urges start on .6b uranium mine
Thursday, 24 November 2005. 14:00 (AEDT)Thursday, 24 November
Queensland Nationals' Senator Ron Boswell rejects claims by the
Member for the north-west state seat of Mount Isa, Tony McGrady,
that further debate is required on the stalled Valhalla mine
development in the north-west.
Senator Boswell was the first federal politician to visit the
site this week.
He believes the $2.6 billion uranium mine should proceed and
further discussion is a waste of time.
"That's a holding pattern. I mean, I think there are 350 jobs
here, there's probably another 560 jobs in the building phase,"
he said.
"I think as long as all environmental safeguards are met - go
ahead with it. I mean, debate is just a way of getting into a
holding pattern and getting yourself out of trouble."
*****************************************************************
63 Daily Yomiuri: Tons of rebar said buried under N-plant
The Yomiuri Shimbun
A whistle-blower told the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency
that 8,500 tons of structural reinforcement steel unused during
the construction of Kyushu Electric Power Co.'s nuclear power
plant in Satsuma-Sendai, Kagoshima Prefecture, had been buried
to hide it, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.
The Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry agency calculated the
earthquake-resistance of the facilities and the ground, and
concluded that although such a large quantity of reinforcing
steel had not been used, the facility was perfectly safe.
Investigations into the unused reinforcing steel continue and
the focus of attention now is on who buried it and how.
The plant has two 890,000-kilowatt pressurized-water reactors.
Construction on Reactor No. 1 began in January 1979, and on
Reactor No. 2 in May 1981.
The foundation work and construction of the main facilities were
undertaken by Taisei Corp., the country's largest general
contractor.
According to the whistle-blower, the reinforcing steel was
buried between autumn 1981 and winter 1984. Because the majority
of the steel ordered for structural reinforcement was left
unused, senior Taisei employees at the site decided to bury it
under concrete.
The steel was a special order, and delivery to site took about
two months. Kyushu Electric Power ordered the products at the
request of Taisei.
However, when construction on Reactor No. 1 began, Taisei could
not accurately estimate the amount of steel needed because
blueprints had not been completed on time, so it told Kyushu
Electric Power to order more steel than required.
The unused steel was left at a storage site near the sea where
it rusted, the informant said.
"The payment Taisei received from Kyushu Electric Power was
based on the amount of steel ordered and Taisei would have had
to take responsibility for over-ordering if it told Kyushu
Electric Power that some steel had not been used," said a worker
who helped bury the steel. "Therefore, it was decided to bury
the steel secretly."
Taisei asked a subcontractor to cooperate in burying the steel,
which took place after 8 p.m. when Kyushu Electric Power
officials and other workers had left the site, to early in the
morning, the whistle-blower said.
The reinforcing steel was buried under:
-- The ground around a containment building for reactors No. 1
and No. 2.
-- A water tank for the emergency core-cooling system.
-- Beneath a spent nuclear waste storage building at a depth of
two to 10 meters.
The places the steel is buried are below facilities that have a
highly sophisticated earthquake-resistance design.
About 3,000 tons of steel was buried around the containment
building, while about 4,000 tons were buried under the water
tank.
About 1,500 tons were buried under the spent nuclear waster
storage building. Some of the steel was also buried under the
concrete base of the containment building.
According to building experts, there is a risk that buried steel
could cause cracking in concrete and the earthquake-resistance
of structures could be inaccurately calculated. (Nov. 26, 2005)
The Yomiuri Shimbun.
*****************************************************************
64 Bellona: Spent nuclear fuel from Bulgaria arrived at Zheleznogorsk
On November 9, 48 tons of spent nuclear fuel from Bulgarian
Kozloduy nuclear power plant arrived at Mining Chemical Combine
in Zheleznogorsk, Krasnoyarsk region.
2005-11-24 17:37
According to ITAR-TASS, the shipment went on without incidents.
The train with the spent fuel was guarded day and night by the
police special forces. The Combines specialists also
accompanied the train and monitored the conditions of the casks
containing spent nuclear fuel. A nuclear storage facility with
6,000 tons capacity is situated in Zheleznogorsk. A new dry
storage facility capable to accommodate and reprocess 38,000
tons is scheduled for 2009.
Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
65 RIA Novosti: Russia must double uranium output by 2020 - TVEL
24/ 11/ 2005
MOSCOW, November 24 (RIA Novosti) - Russia has to increase its
annual uranium production nearly twofold from the current 3,200
metric tons to 7,500 metric tons by 2020, state-owned company
TVEL said in a report Tuesday.
By 2050, the country needs to increase uranium production to
12,000 metric tons, according to TVEL, a nuclear fuel and
uranium producer.
The company said, however, that fast neutron reactors that are
scheduled to be phased in between 2030 and 2040 would
considerably raise the efficiency of uranium burning, the
conversion on nuclear fuel and uranium and plutonium fuel cycle
closure.
Experts said this would allow for the gradual reduction of
uranium production to an annual output of 50,000 metric tons
worldwide and to 4,000 tons in Russia from 2010 to 2050-2060.
The International Atomic Energy Agency said countries with
nuclear power plants would be building thermal neutron reactors
before 2050, meaning their demand for uranium per year would
grow from the current 68,000 metric tons to 142,000 by 2050.
TVEL also conducts research to improve fuel for BN-600 reactors
and is developing new fuel production technology for fast
reactors with closed fuel cycle.
2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
66 Salt Lake Tribune: Yucca proposition by EPA has critics
Article Last Updated: 11/25/2005 01:38:32 AM
End of comment period: The agency received more than 120 written
statements on its 2-tiered standard
By Suzanne Struglinski Las Vegas Sun
WASHINGTON - This week marked the end of an almost four-month
comment period on the standards for the Yucca Mountain project.
The Environmental Protections Agency has to create a new
standard after a federal appeals court threw out the existing
ones last year.
The agency received at least 120 written comments. As
expected, those who support and oppose the standard expressed
their thoughts, although those against it have different stances
on what is wrong with it.
The agency proposed a two-tiered standard. One tier maintains
a 15-millirem standard for up to 10,000 years and the second
limits exposure to 350-millirem per year for 10,000 to 1 million
years for those living in a certain area around Yucca Mountain,
90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Yucca critics, including state officials, strongly oppose the
standard for a number of reasons. They claim the proposed rules
do not satisfy what the court ordered last July, do not protect
health and safety of future Nevadans and is written in a way to
automatically let the mountain ''pass.''
But some opposed the standard because of the 1 million year
time frame, saying it was ridiculous.
''I find the extension of the time frame for the Yucca
Mountain rules to 1 million years to be absolutely
preposterous,'' wrote Frank Albini, a retired research professor
of mechanical engineering at Montana State University, Bozeman.
''The rules should apply no longer than the current life of
the nation, about 200 years. By then, the people of the U.S., if
such still exists, will probably not even be able to read, much
less interpret, the rules. This is silliness in the extreme.''
It is not clear when the agency will finish reviewing the
comments and issue its final rule.
The last time the agency proposed a radiation standard, it
took two years to take public comment, respond and make the
final standard public.
© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
67 Pahrump Valley Times: LETTER: Highways to hell
November 25, 2005
I recently read that over 139 truckloads of (low-level)
radioactive nuclear waste has been transported through Pahrump
this past year. I have seen several of these trucks as well as
other trucks transport hazardous waste along Highway 160 through
Pahrump myself.
Any truck hauling these shipments is off the major truck routes
to waste disposal and treatment facilities north of Pahrump
along Highway 95. High-level nuclear waste shipments going to
the Yucca Mountain repository will soon be traveling along
Nevada highways.
We need to stop these indirect shipments of hazardous waste,
both chemical and radioactive, from traveling through Pahrump.
Trucks transporting these dangerous hazardous waste and nuclear
waste shipments need to be regulated to Highway 96 and not on
Highway 160. An accident involving a truck transporting any of
these hazardous waste loads could be disastrous for Pahrump.
RICHARD MARSH
For comment or questions, please e-mail
Copyright Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2005
*****************************************************************
68 AU ABC: Doctors association supports nuclear dump calls.
25/11/2005. ABC News Online
The president of the Australian and New Zealand Association of
Physicians in Nuclear Medicine say a nuclear repository would
benefit all Australians.
Dr George Larcos said the existing reactor at Lucas Heights in
Sydney is vital for the provision of nuclear medicine producing
radio isotopes.
The Commonwealth wants to build a nuclear waste dump in the
Northern Territory.
Dr Larcos says there needs to be a low level waste repository
somewhere in Australia.
"The important thing to recognise about the low level
repository is that it benefits all Australians as does nuclear
medicine.
"Even though the reactor is based in NSW, the provision of radio
isotopes is used to support endeavours throughout the whole
country," he said.
He says a waste dump will need to be built in the near future.
*****************************************************************
69 Whitehaven News: Sellafield unions in talks over pensions
Published on 24/11/2005
CRUCIAL talks have been taking place between the Sellafield
unions and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority over the type of
pension scheme for some 7,000 British Nuclear Group staff.
The NDA has to set up a new group-wide pension scheme before it
can invite any tenders from bidders to take over the running of
the Sellafield site.
The government promised that workers would not lose out as part
of the proposed sell-off, and unions are keeping a close eye on
the negotiations to see what deal will be offered to staff.
Peter Kane, GMB convenor, said: “There is no contentious issue
at the moment, but we are involved in the talks.
“It is something that we are going to have to watch closely
but talks are at an early stage and we are still waiting to see
exactly what the offer is going to be.”
Peter Clements, of Prospect, said the unions had held meetings
with Peter Vaughan, the Pensions Manager tasked to set up the
new Industry Wide pension scheme for the NDA.
Mr Clements said: “We are rigorously watching to ensure that
the NDA honours the government commitment that the new pension
scheme will be ‘no less favourable’ than the existing final
salary scheme, which is under written by the Treasury.”
*****************************************************************
70 La Canada Valley Sun: Water Cleanup Plan Discussed
La Canada Flintridge, California
11-25-05
By Charles Cooper
NASA will begin drafting plans soon for a $1 million water
cleanup project adjacent to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the
project director said Friday.
Steve Slaten said the agency will issue an official record of
decision (ROD) on the project in about six months, with the work
to begin after that.
About 20 people attended a meeting last week in Altadena to
discuss the new cleanup effort. Slaten said no new issues were
raised at the Nov. 16 meeting.
The space agency is planning to spend about $1 million to drill
two additional wells to deal with perchlorate in groundwater near
the lab in La Caada.
Perchlorate is connected to solid rocket propellant, and was a
part of JPL's work in the 1940s and 1950s. The chemical has been
associated with thyroid damage.
Cleanup efforts have been underway near JPL since 1992, first for
volatile organic chemicals and now for perchlorate. Two wells
have been drilled near the lab and a treatment plant built, to
pump out contaminated water and return processed water. The new
project will double that effort.
NASA has also worked on cleanup efforts for Lincoln Avenue Water,
in Altadena, and will soon begin developing a plan to deal with
issues raised by the city of Pasadena. At one time, Pasadena had
as many as nine wells closed because of concerns over
perchlorate.
The water flows to wells serving Altadena and Pasadena, but is
not part of any wells serving La Caada.
*****************************************************************
71 Pahrump Valley Times: NO TO SPROAT Nevada senators not happy
November 25, 2005
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
LAS VEGAS - Nevada's senators are blocking confirmation of
President Bush's pick to lead nuclear waste disposal efforts at
Yucca Mountain.
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said Wednesday that he and Sen. Harry
Reid, D-Nev., have placed holds on Ward Sproat, the
administration nominee to direct the Energy Department's Office
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
Ensign, who met with Sproat on Nov. 2, said he and Reid will
relent on Sproat "once we can get answers about where the
administration is going" on nuclear waste. Reid had no comment.
Energy Department spokesman Craig Stevens said Bush
administration officials "will work with senators ... to remedy
their concerns."
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved
Sproat's confirmation last week, by a voice vote, sending it to
the Senate floor. But senators can invoke procedural holds to
block final action on nominees and legislation.
The Energy Department got approval from Bush and Congress in
2002 to entomb the nation's most radioactive nuclear waste at
Yucca Mountain, near Beatty in Nye County.
The project has been without a Senate-confirmed leader since
Margaret Chu resigned in February. Paul Golan, the principal
deputy director, has been serving as acting director.
For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2005
*****************************************************************
72 Las Vegas SUN: Support for Yucca softens a little more
Today: November 23, 2005 at 12:15:55 PST
By Benjamin Grove
Sun Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- A key senator who was once a strong advocate of
Yucca Mountain offered some of his harshest words yet about the
proposed nuclear waste repository.
"As most of you know, it was not a good solution either on
straight science, or surely, on economic grounds," Senate Energy
Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said Tuesday in a
speech to a group of U.S. and Japanese nuclear power leaders.
"So clearly, we have to move in another direction."
Domenici has long been a supporter of the nation's policy on
dealing with the radioactive spent fuel from nuclear plants and
U.S. defense sites: burying it in underground tunnels at Yucca
Mountain.
But Domenici, a vocal advocate of nuclear power and considered
the Senate leader on nuclear issues, has distanced himself from
Yucca in recent public comments.
"For years Yucca Mountain was the answer, and we ran around
talking about it as if it were the singular answer," Domenici
said Tuesday. "But we all know that it was a creature of
nineteen-hundred and eighty-two.
"While Yucca was created as the final resting place, there can
be no doubt that it is not the final answer."
Domenici's comments came as the Energy Department is preparing
a new national nuclear waste policy that is likely to embrace
recycling. While the department is now pushing for a simpler
plan for Yucca, it will not abandon the project.
"Our administration is committed to successfully establishing
Yucca Mountain as the nation's permanent repository for spent
nuclear fuel," Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said in a
speech Monday. "Solving the problem of how to store spent fuel
will reap tremendous benefits for America's future and will
greatly facilitate the expansion of nuclear power."
Industry observers and interested lawmakers have eagerly
awaited the department's new policy for months, but it is not
likely to be unveiled this year, department spokesman Craig
Stevens said.
Domenici said he has heard enough about the developing policy
"to know it's exciting, but I've not heard enough about it to
say I'm clamoring for it."
Domenici has not publicly advocated that long-delayed Yucca
program be scrapped. He has said he envisions a new, broader
national nuclear waste policy in which Yucca Mountain plays some
role.
"In this environment, the current U.S. policy regarding Yucca
Mountain clearly won't do," Domenici said. "And it won't do all
by itself. I believe we must completely re-evaluate our policy
on spent nuclear fuel."
Domenici is quietly discussing waste policy with the Energy
Department. He also has discussed it with strident Yucca foe
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
Domenici has not embraced a proposal advocated by Reid and the
rest of the Nevada congressional delegation -- leaving waste
where it now sits on site at the nation's nuclear power plants.
Domenici has expressed interest in storing waste at government
interim sites.
"Interim storage is a very good solution," Domenici said
Tuesday.
Domenici also said the nation should pour its "scientific
passion and creativity" into developing new waste-handling
technology in the next 20 years.
Domenici also advocates a policy that includes plans to recycle
spent fuel, which ultimately could reduce the toxicity of the
waste bound for Yucca.
President Jimmy Carter banned recycling because of fears that
the process, which separates plutonium from waste, could enable
terrorists to obtain the bomb-making material. Domenici said
those fears are unfounded.
Domenici is not the first lawmaker to soften his stance on
Yucca. Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, in September scrapped his
support for it, and others are re-thinking their positions, Sen.
John Ensign, R-Nev., has said.
Domenici's speech fell just two weeks after he and Reid led an
effort to slash this year's Yucca budget from a Bush
administration request of $651 million to $450 million. Domenici
is chairman of an appropriations panel that also allocated $50
million for waste recycling technology.
"I am convinced that our great nation cannot be self-reliant,
prosperous and green without more nuclear energy," Domenici said.
Benjamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or
bgrove@lasvegassun.com.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
73 Rocky Mountain News: A whole town built by the bomb
For Los Alamos' anxious residents, the lab is a way of life
Dennis Schroeder News
Pedestrians walk past the Los Alamos Alliance office in Los
Alamos, N.M. The alliance, made up of the University of Texas and
Lockheed, opened the downtown office last month to answer
questions and address concerns about the future of the national
lab.
By Sara Burnett, Rocky Mountain News
November 25, 2005
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. - There is no separating Los Alamos National
Laboratory from this town it calls home. Most everyone here
either works at the lab or is related to someone who does.
Everywhere you look, there are nods to scientific history, from
Oppenheimer Drive - named after the physicist who built the first
atomic bomb at Los Alamos - to the Trinity Beverage Company, the
bar that shares its moniker with the Trinity Test, the world's
first nuclear explosion.
So when it comes to the impending decision of who will next
manage the lab, the speculation and fear are not limited to
inside its walls.
From coffee shops to restaurants - even to cyberspace - the
announcement is all anyone is talking about.
"I think the general feeling now is people are resigned," said
Doug Roberts, a recently retired Los Alamos computer scientist
who started an employee blog during a controversial shutdown of
the lab last year.
"They're ready for the winner to be announced so they can put
all this business behind them and move on."
Sometime in the next few weeks, the U.S. Department of Energy is
expected to choose either the University of California and
Bechtel, the team that runs the lab now, or a new partnership
led by the University of Texas and Lockheed Martin. The
UT-Lockheed bid includes an academic network made up of 19
universities, including the University of Colorado and Colorado
School of Mines.
For the people of Los Alamos, it's not just the integrity of the
lab and the nation's security that's riding on the decision.
It's also more personal things, such as how much vacation time
they'll have, whether the retirement plan will be any good, or
whether they'll like their boss. For some, there's the question
of whether they'll still have a job at all.
To alleviate some of those concerns, the UT-Lockheed team, known
as the Los Alamos Alliance, opened an office around the corner
from a Starbucks in downtown Los Alamos last month. Two weeks
ago, the alliance opened another office in nearby Espaola.
More than 150 people have dropped in the Los Alamos office since
it opened, alliance member John Seabrooks said.
He and other staff welcome visitors to the narrow space, last
occupied by a travel agency, with friendly smiles and stacks of
Los Alamos Alliance literature. On a front table there's a plate
of cookies, a jar of Hershey's miniatures and some comfortable
chairs where people can pull up a seat and talk a while.
The idea isn't to sell visitors on the Los Alamos Alliance,
Seabrooks said, but instead to listen to their concerns and try
to answer their questions.
"The thought of change, certainly, can create a lot of anxiety,"
he added.
The office also has done its share of squelching rumors,
Seabrooks said.
In recent weeks, those rumors have run rampant, Roberts said.
One rumor had the Department of Energy ready to make its
announcement last Friday. Another one, posted on Roberts' blog,
stated a member of the University of California team was spotted
in a local cafe, looking "ebullient." The implication, Roberts
said, is that he must have inside knowledge that California has
won the bid.
It's not just the scientists - the most vocal of whom are
supporting the UT-Lockheed bid - who are eager to know.
In a Los Alamos restaurant last week, two real estate agents
discussed which homes new lab directors might be in the market
for, and how many new employees - if there are any - would live
in Los Alamos, versus commuting from nearby Santa Fe.
In the end, the women decided to pull their active listings so
they'd have a file ready come decision day, whenever that may
be.
"It's a big deal," Roberts said. "It's people's lives."
About the lab
Los Alamos National Laboratory opened in 1943 as a secret
Manhattan Project laboratory - the birthplace of the atomic
bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
15,475: The number of employees, including guest researchers and
contractors.
$2.2 billion: Fiscal year 2004 budget. The majority - 73 percent
- is spent in the area of national security and nuclear
nonproliferation.
36: The size of the lab, in square miles. It is made up of more
than 2,100 individual facilities, containing between 8 million
and 9 million gross square feet.
The bids
Los Alamos Alliance
Leaders: University of Texas, Lockheed Martin
Other members: Fluor Corp., CH2M Hill
Also includes an academic network of 19 universities -
including the University of Colorado and Colorado School of
Mines - that would participate in and review research.
Lab director would be C. Paul Robinson, current director of
Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque and former arms
negotiator under President Reagan. Jack Burns, CU's vice
president of academic affairs and research, would go to work for
UT and oversee the academic network.
Los Alamos National Security
Leaders: University of California, Bechtel
Other members: BWX Technologies Inc., Washington Group
International
UC has led Los Alamos National Laboratory since it opened in
1943.
Lab director would be Michael Anastasio, a nuclear physicist
who has been director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
in Livermore, Calif., since 2002.
Who's involved
The bid being led by the University of Texas and Lockheed Martin
includes a team of 19 universities. The group that would be
known as the Network for Education and Research in Science and
Technology LLC:
Arizona State University
Carnegie Mellon University
Colorado School of Mines
Florida State University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Indiana University
Johns Hopkins University
Lehigh University
Michigan Technological University
Purdue University
Rice University
Texas A system
University of Arizona
University of Colorado system
University of Florida
University of Michigan
University of Utah
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Texas system
Source: Los Alamos Alliance, Los Alamos National Security
*****************************************************************
74 Albuquerque Tribune: Agency delays decision on lab pact
By Sue Vorenberg Tribune Reporter
November 24, 2005
Two words: government paperwork.
That's why the National Nuclear Security Agency expects a short
delay before it's ready to announce who will operate Los Alamos
National Laboratory, agency spokesman Al Stotts said.
The decision was originally scheduled for Dec. 1, but on
Wednesday Stotts said the agency pushed it back to better
prepare its report analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the
two bidders: Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas team or
the University of California and Bechtel.
"It's not supposed to be a significant delay," Stotts said. "The
Source Evaluation Board simply needs a little more time to
finish its report. It won't delay implementation down the line."
The agency hasn't announced a new date for the decision yet, he
said.
UC has held the operating contract for the lab since it was
founded in the 1940s. That contract expires on May 1. The
deadline and transition will continue as planned despite the
delay, Stotts said.
The news likely adds to the stress of Los Alamos employees
wondering what will happen to their benefits and daily lives
under a new contractor, said Doug Roberts, a former lab employee
who operates a popular blog on the topic at
www.lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com.
"I imagine the news of the delay is disappointing - people would
like to get the announcement behind them so they can move on,"
Roberts said.
"Los Alamos is a funny place, though. For the people thinking
about it, I'm sure it's stressful, but there's not an
insignificant fraction of people who aren't stressing at all.
They're just going about their jobs."
Traffic on his blog has increased over the past few weeks, as
rumors spread that the National Nuclear Security Agency might
make an announcement before the Dec. 1 deadline, Roberts said.
"It's certainly the most common topic of conversation around
town," he said. "People are hungry for news. They want to know
what's going on."
The news didn't change plans for either of the bidding teams,
spokesmen on both sides said.
Jeff Berger, a spokesman for the UC-Bechtel team, said his group
is eager to hear the results but understands the process is
difficult.
"We've been preparing all along to effect a smooth transition if
we're selected, and we'll continue with those preparations,"
Berger said.
Don Carson, a spokesman for the Lockheed-UT team, said his group
also isn't reading anything into the delay.
"We delivered a pickup truck full of boxes with copies of our
proposal," Carson said. "Each copy was about a foot high. That's
a lot of information. This is a very complex and detailed
proposal, and I think the selection committee is just making
sure it does its job right."
2005 The Albuquerque Tribune Privacy Policy| User Agreement|
*****************************************************************
75 New Mexican: Feds delay decision on lab contract
By Andy Lenderman
November 24, 2005
The National Nuclear Security Administration has delayed an
announcement of who will take over management of Los Alamos
National Laboratory. Tyler Przybylek, who chairs a group of NNSA
employees studying the matter, has requested more time to analyze
proposals from two groups competing to take over managing the
lab.
A decision on the selection of a contractor to manage and
operate Los Alamos National Laboratory will not be announced on
Dec. 1 as previously projected, a Wednesday morning news
release from NNSA said. Przybylek said he does not anticipate a
significant delay in the selection decision, the release said.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N .M., said the delay would be brief. U.S.
Rep. Tom Udall, D-N .M., said he was disappointed with news of
the postponement. People have been in a limbo situation up
there for a while, he said by telephone. ... I certainly hope
this is a short delay. Lab employees do good work at the lab
and have a right to know when the new contractor will be
selected, Udall said. Government needs to keep up its end of
the bargain, stay on schedule , he said.
An NNSA spokesman in Washington, D.C., declined to elaborate
beyond Wednesdays news release.
Przybylek chairs the Source Evaluation Board, an eightmember
body of NNSA employees based in Albuquerque that is preparing a
report on the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals to take
over management of the lab. The board will give its report to an
NNSA deputy administrator, Thomas DAgostino , who will make the
decision, an NNSA spokesman has explained.
Two coalitions of private companies and large public
universities are competing to manage the countrys premier
nuclear-weapons lab.
The University of California and Bechtel National have formed
one team. The University of Texas and Lockheed Martin Corp. make
up the second .
The delay came as a surprise to officials from the teams.
Michael Anastasio, who leads the University of California group,
said he thought the government should do what it feels is
necessary. We look forward to that decision whenever they will
make it, he said. So we wait.
Rod Geer, a spokesman for the Lockheed/Texas group, said the
team is anxious for the decision . But we also know that (the
Department of Energy) and NNSA want to do this right, he said.
The winner can earn up to $79 million a year to manage the lab,
which has a $2.2 billion annual budget and more than 15,000
employees and contractors .
The University of California has managed the lab alone since
1943. The lab has been plagued in recent years by a series of
security, financial and safety scandals.
After the announcement, the NNSA has planned for a sixmonth
transition period. The new contractor would take over day-to-day
management of the lab June 1, 2006.
Domenicis office issued a statement shortly after the
announcement Wednesday.
I continue to have faith that (the Department of Energy) is
conducting a fair, thorough and exhaustive evaluation of the two
bids, and Im confident that no matter what the outcome, the lab
will have an excellent management team and the employees will be
well treated, Domenici said. I do not expect this delay to
inhibit lab operations . Domenici chairs the Senate
appropriations subcommittee that pays for energy and water
projects, including the national laboratories. A lab spokesman
said Los Alamos employees received a memo about the matter on
Wednesday. For more information, go to
www.doeal.gov/lanlcontractrecompete /New.htm. The Associated
Press contributed to this report. Contact Andy Lenderman at
995-3827 or alenderman @sfnewmexican .com.
*****************************************************************
76 RIA Novosti: U.S. energy department delegation due in Georgia
25/ 11/ 2005
MOSCOW, November 25 (RIA Novosti) - A delegation from the United
States State Energy Department will arrive in Georgia December
9, a spokesperson for the Georgian Interior Ministry said Friday.
Eka Gigauri, deputy chairman of the ministry's border
department, said an agreement on U.S.-Georgian cooperation to
prevent the smuggling of nuclear and other radioactive materials
was scheduled to be signed during the visit.
Under cooperation agreements, the U.S. will gradually equip all
of Georgia's border checkpoints with detectors to identify
radioactive and other prohibited materials. State-of-the-art
equipment will be installed at three checkpoints during the
first stage.
2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
77 kgw.com: Feds offer new way to manage elk on Hanford Reach
| News for Oregon and SW Washington | AP Wire
11/24/2005
By SHANNON DININNY / Associated Press
To folks driving by, the massive elk roaming freely across
south-central Washington's rugged, sagebrush-dotted federal land
are a delightful sight. To hunters, they are an enticing target
that can't be touched.
For Bud Hamilton, a wheat farmer whose property abuts the
Hanford Reach, the large stands of elk pose a bust to his crop.
"They come out at night, eat my fields or trample my crops, and
go back to the federal land in the morning," Hamilton said.
"What am I supposed to do?"
Managing the rapidly growing herd has been a problem for state
and federal wildlife managers for years. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is offering up some new options in an elk
management plan for public comment including hunting on
federal property that hasn't been opened to the public in
decades.
Former President Clinton created the Hanford Reach National
Monument by proclamation five years ago. The monument, an odd,
almost horseshoe-shaped property surrounding the Hanford nuclear
reservation, stretches along a free-flowing leg of the Columbia
River renowned for salmon runs, bird habitat and rare plant life
on its banks.
The area includes land, known as the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve,
that is considered one of the few large, contiguous blocks of
arid shrub-steppe habitat remaining in the Northwest. The
reserve used to be part of Hanford and has been closed to the
public since the nuclear site was created in the 1940s.
That closure, along with the nearby Yakima Training Center, a
U.S. Army training site, give the elk vast room to roam _and
reproduce on federal land.
During a recent tour of the monument, dozens of elk could be
spotted thundering through canyons and coulees. Even more stood
still across a dry, dusty field, bugling. Wildlife managers
estimate the herd at 770 elk roughly 400 more than some
believe the area can support and certainly more than area
farmers are willing to tolerate.
Since 2000, the state has paid more than a half-million dollars
in crop damages just from this herd.
"For about a decade now, we have been trying pretty much
everything we can think of to manage this elk herd," said Jeff
Tayer, regional director for the state Department of Fish and
Wildlife. "Hunting is a tool ... it's effective, it's cost
effective and biologically effective. It's a tool that hasn't
been used up until now,"
Five years ago, the herd stood at about 800 animals. Fire forced
many elk off the federal land, allowing hunters to kill some
animals on private land. Wildlife managers also captured and
relocated another 200 elk.
Today, the population is booming again, as elk continue to seek
refuge during hunting season.
The state has issued a select number of hunting permits to
landowners on the edges of the reserve, who may charge hunters
to hunt on their private land as long as they haven't made crop
damage claims, Tayer said. But with too many hunters shooting
bull elk for their antlers rather than cow elk that produce
calves additional hunting is needed.
"The primary goal was to get as much hunting access, and
therefore harvest, around the monument as we could, at the same
time knowing that unless and until there was some remedy to the
escape zone on the monument, that we weren't going to be able to
solve this problem. And we haven't," Tayer said. "Hunting up
there would be a huge step forward."
Rick Leaumont, conservation committee chair for the lower
Columbia Basin Audubon Society, disagrees. Leaumont argues that
the proposed seven-month hunting season would cause too much
damage to the near-pristine reserve and drive elk to yet another
closed area: the remaining land of the nearby Hanford nuclear
reservation, the nation's most contaminated nuclear site.
"We're not resolving the problem, we're just relocating the
problem," he said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages the Hanford Reach,
issued three alternatives for managing the area's elk. The
agency's preferred alternative calls for controlled public
hunting, a trap and relocation program and, if necessary, a
government cull, in which wildlife officers could hunt the
animals by ground or air to reduce the size of the herd.
The plan follows years of debate and public meetings to discuss
all of those options, some of which have proven controversial.
Many residents have spoken out against government culls,
believing hunters should get a crack at the elk first. Still
others believe the reserve is too sacred and pristine to open to
the public.
At the same time, some farmers are willing to open up their land
for hunting, while others don't want anyone on their property
regardless of the size of the herd.
"There's no consensus," said Greg Hughes, Hanford Reach project
leader for the Fish and Wildlife Service. "But if your goal is
to reduce the size of the herd, we need to find a common goal.
The Fish and Wildlife Service will be accepting public comment
on the elk management plan through Dec. 18, while working with
area American Indian tribes separately to include them in the
process and ensure their continued access to ceded lands, said
Mike Ritter, deputy project leader for the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The Yakama Nation hasn't asserted its right to hunt in the ALE
since Hanford was created, respecting the federal government's
security concerns, said E. Arlen Washines, wildlife manager for
the Yakamas. However, he said, the Yakamas may also participate
in controlled hunts in the area if it is opened to public
hunting.
"We don't have any problem with anybody hunting, or hunting up
there," Washines said. "As long as they continue to recognize
our federal-given right to hunt in that area."
If the agency adopts its preferred alternative, the first hunt
would occur next fall.
Not soon enough, said Hamilton, the farmer who has opened his
cropland to hunters for several years in an attempt to ease his
elk woes.
"I just want my property rights back that the game department
isn't telling me what to do with my land, the hunter isn't
telling me what to do with my land, the elk aren't destroying my
land," Hamilton said. "I want my hill back."
___
On the Net:
http://www.fws.gov/hanfordreach/
; 2005, KGW-TV
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************