***************************************************************** 03/17/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.68 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 SA: CT questions Koeberg legality 2 Nuclear energy phase-out to take 30- 40 yrs: Sweden 3 NATIONAL NEWS: Move to avoid shortage of skills in nuclear 4 US: Bush flatly refuses to hand over energy papers 5 Swedish Nuclear Plants Considered 6 Sweden wrestles with nuclear phase-out commitment NUCLEAR REACTORS 7 Germany: BRUNSBUETTEL INQUIRY PROBES WHETHER, WHY UNIT NEVER BACKFIT 8 Lithuanian officials recover uranium stolen from nuclear plant 9 Ukrainian nuclear reactor stopped for unscheduled repairs NUCLEAR SAFETY 10 Green World activist attacked 11 Iraqi MDs blame U.S. for deformities 12 Iraqi MDs blame U.S. for deformities NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 13 US: State soil order is ‘standard’ says Cotter 14 Letters - All that nuclear material out there - 15 O'Rourke gets tough over Sellafield shutdown 16 Norway and Ireland again demand a stop to Sellafield pollution 17 US: Canon City residents, Cotter at odds 18 US: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Reid may cut nuclear waste disposal budget 19 US: Idaho won't play role in investigation of Goshute finances 20 Postal protest over Sellafield planned 21 US: Tribe rejects Reid land-sale bill 22 US: I-65 Reopened After Radioactive Waste Spill 23 US: Leavitt Welcomes FBI Probe of Goshute Deal 24 US: Army Engineers get lead role in Parks nuclear waste cleanup 25 US: Opinion (Fear_No_Evil) NUCLEAR WEAPONS 26 US: Nuclear fallout 27 Annan rules out Iran as part of 'axis of evil' 28 North Korea: Atomic energy bureau delegation leaves for Russia 29 US: US may abandon nuke test moratorium 30 Faslane chief: ‘Let them eat cake’ 31 US: Bunkers, Bombs, Radiation 32 US: Nuclear Fears Abound 33 West must say `no' to nuclear option 34 US: Experts: US policy may encourage nuclear proliferation 35 China lashes out at US over `nuclear blackmail' 36 NZ - No nukes policy here to stay, says PM W&H 37 US: U.S. Nuke Report: Benign Online 38 China lashes out at US over `nuclear blackmail' 39 US: Bush Nuclear Policy Termed 'Schizophrenic, Dangerous' 40 AU: Why nuclear is not the answer 41 US: US may abandon nuke test moratorium 42 Fallout at the nuclear frontier -- 43 US: Bush policy on nuclear weapons traced to Cheney after Gulf War 44 US: Powell Reaffirms Nuke Policy 45 US: Nuclear policy review no cause for alarm - yet 46 US: Nuclear Posturing 47 US: Nuclear Preemption 48 US: The Fallout of Desperation 49 Be Afraid, Very Afraid 50 US: DoD News: DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Pace 51 US: Report: Pentagon interested in new nukes 52 Khatami says US nuclear strategy a threat to "all humanity" 53 US: James S. Robbins on Nuclear Posture Review 54 US: Experts: US policy may encourage nuclear proliferation 55 US: 'Nuclear arms foes extend past the fringe' 56 US backs IAEA chief's reform initiatives US DEPT. OF ENERGY 57 Women managers offer visions for Livermore Lab 58 Bush's 2003 budget bodes well for ORNL, but Congress is the final ar 59 Is It Really Fusion This Time? OTHER NUCLEAR ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 SA: CT questions Koeberg legality 14/03/2002 18:44 - (SA) The Koeberg nuclear reactor outside Melkbosstrand. (Antonie Robertson, Die Burger) Decision on power station soon New nuke plant raises concerns Eskom nuclear plans progressing Cape Town - The City of Cape Town says it may take legal steps to challenge the environmental impact assessment being carried out on the proposed pebble-bed nuclear reactor at Koeberg north of the city. It says the assessment (EIA) has been under way for more than two years, but has failed to assure the city that its concerns will be addressed. In a letter sent on Thursday to the consortium carrying out the EIA, city exco member for planning and environment Brian Watkyns also said the impression has been created that the reactor project was already "going ahead at full steam". "This undermines the EIA, the National Nuclear Regulator licence application and the continued involvement of interested and affected parties, including the City of Cape Town," he said. The pebble-bed reactor is a nuclear-powered generator that uses tennis-ball-sized "fuel elements". Each has an inner graphite core embedded with thousands of smaller fuel particles of enriched uranium (up to 10%) encapsulated in multi-layers of non-porous hardened carbon. Too little time The slow circulation of fuel through the reactor provides for a small core size that minimizes excess core reactivity and lowers power density, all of which is credited to safety, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service & World Information Service on Energy explains on its website. The "pebbles", rather than the long rods of conventional reactors, are cooled by helium instead of water. Its developers say it is small, safe, clean, cost-efficient and inexpensive. Watkyns said in his letter however that inadequate time had been allowed in the EIA for a comprehensive review of key documents, and that technical, feasibility and energy planning studies had not been made available to the city. 'Looking into the legality' He said the media had reported that contracts had been signed between a number of role players including the company supplying the pebble-bed reactor and a significant construction company. "The signing of this agreement, in advance of any EIA authorization and the granting of a nuclear licence, is not acceptable and totally undermines the intent and efficacy of the EIA regulations authorizations. nuclear reactor "We find these circumstances unacceptable and intend looking into the legality of the actions taken thus far." It was reported in January this year that two South African companies and a United States-based subsidiary of Shaw Group Inc had been awarded the consulting contract for the development of the reactor, which is to be built as a demonstration project. The Koeberg site is already home to South Africa's only - and ageing - nuclear power station. Eskom has a 30% stake in the pebble bed project, the Industrial Development Corporation 25% and UK nuclear company British Nuclear Fuel a 20% stake. The balance is to go to a black empowerment investor. Eskom hopes to make R1 billion a year in exporting the technology and create 200 000 jobs in South Africa. However, its critics include environmentalists, who say South Africa is moving in the opposite direction to the international trend, which is to seek alternatives to nuclear power. ***************************************************************** 2 Nuclear energy phase-out to take 30- 40 yrs: Sweden - The Times of India AFP [ SATURDAY, MARCH 16, 2002 6:10:27 AM ] STOCKHOLM: Sweden, which voted in a 1980 referendum to phase out nuclear energy by 2010, on Friday admitted for the first time that shutting down all of its nuclear plants could take up to 40 years. The 2010 target to close all 12 nuclear plants was abandoned in the late 1990s after officials acknowledged that the availability of sufficient energy sources to replace the output from the nuclear plants was unrealistic. Sufficient alternative energy sources were a condition of the phase-out. The minority Social Democratic government on Friday agreed with the ex-communist Left party and the Center party to negotiate with Swedish energy companies on when they would shut down their plants and how they would be compensated for doing so. Industry and Commerce Minister Bjoern Rosengren told a news conference that Sweden aimed, like Germany, to close all its plants in 30 to 40 years. Last December, the German parliament voted to become nuclear-free by 2033, enacting a key program of the Social Democratic-Greens led government. The Swedish plan to become nuclear-free is opposed by the conservative Moderate and Liberal parties, while the Green party denounced the plan as a step back for Sweden's energy policy. The country's two main electricity companies, Vattenfall and Sydkraft, said they were open to negotiations with the government, and welcomed the announcement on the future of nuclear power. The Swedish energy agency STEM said last year that in 2010, nuclear energy would still provide 40 per cent of the country's electricity supply, and 31 per cent of Sweden's total energy needs -- the same as today -- if the 11 operational reactors were still running. The development of renewable energy sources has been affected by the limited capacity of hydro-electric plants, which currently provide 13 per cent of the country's energy needs and around half its electricity needs. Only one of the nuclear reactors, the 600-megawatt Barsebeck plant, is now closed, with plans to shut a second one by 2003. Copyright © 2002 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. | ***************************************************************** 3 NATIONAL NEWS: Move to avoid shortage of skills in nuclear industry Financial Times; Mar 16, 2002 By BEN HUNT The Department of Trade and Industry moved yesterday to avoid a skills shortage in the nuclear and radiological industries with the commission of two studies. The DTI, backed by four other departments, has commissioned a skills audit of the industry's demands and its ability to meet them, as well as a foresight study that aims to predict the shape of the industry. The studies will cover a range of activities from nuclear clean-up to the use of radiology in medicine. Brian Wilson, energy and industry minister, said the country did not yet have a skills crisis, but could avoid one if only action were taken immediately to identify the right skills and the right numbers of workers needed. "The key issue for the future is to ensure that the UK has the capability to exploit technologies using radiation in healthcare, defence and other sectors, as well as ensuring the protection of existing nuclear plant and decommissioning activities," he said. The government would use the foresight report, due in May, as the foundation of a "stimulation" phase to encourage a flow of workers into nuclear industries. More than 4,000 companies are registered with the Environment Agency as users of radioactive materials, while 8,500 people are employed in nuclear power generation. Copyright: The Financial Times Limited 1995-2002 ***************************************************************** 4 Bush flatly refuses to hand over energy papers USA: March 15, 2002 WASHINGTON - A defiant President George W. Bush flatly refused to divulge details of internal energy task force meetings to congressional investigators, calling the information privileged and the request a threat to executive authority. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, sued the administration in February for records of the task force's meetings. Democratic lawmakers allege Enron Corp. and other energy companies played a disproportionately large role in the task force's deliberations, whereas environmentalists were largely shut out. The task force, headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, produced a policy favoring more oil and gas grilling as well as a revival of nuclear power. Cheney's office has acknowledged that representatives of Enron , Bush's biggest financial backer in the 2000 campaign, were among industry experts the task force consulted. But Bush insisted that releasing the documents would damage the executive branch's ability to obtain candid outside advice, signaling he was ready for courtroom combat. "When the GAO demands documents from us, we're not going to give them to them," Bush told a White House news conference. "These were privileged conversations." "I have an obligation to make sure that the presidency remains robust and that the legislative branch doesn't end up running the executive branch," he added. Enron declared the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history in December, destroying thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investor equity, and prompting 10 congressional committees, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department to launch investigations. An internal inquiry ordered by Enron's board alleged senior managers used off-the-books partnerships to hide losses, fool investors and enrich themselves. During the 45-minute press conference, the president did not mention by name Enron or its long-time auditor, the accounting firm Andersen. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 5 Swedish Nuclear Plants Considered Friday, 15-Mar-2002 9:50AM Story from AP / KARL RITTER, Associated Press Writer Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press (via ClariNet) STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- The Swedish government has suggested a new approach to phasing out nuclear power that would give the industry a greater say on when to close the reactors. The suggestion, part of an energy proposal unveiled Friday, was welcomed by the power industry while nuclear opponents worried it would slow down the phasing-out process. Energy Minister Bjoern Rosengren insisted the government still was committed to pull the plug on nuclear power but added it would take time. "In my opinion, it will take 30 to 40 years before it can be phased out," he told Swedish radio. About half of Sweden's energy supply comes from nuclear power plants. The plan will be presented to the 349-seat Riksdag, or parliament, next Thursday. It was not clear when a vote would be held. The energy proposal also suggested introducing a system of "green certificates" that would boost incentives to use renewable energy sources, such as hydro and wind power. In 1980, following a referendum, parliament decided to close the Scandinavian country's 12 reactors by 2010. But Sweden has since moved away from a specific deadline and has closed only one of the reactors at Barsebaeck. Parliament has set a tentative date for closing another in 2003. The new proposal, based on a German model, suggested giving the power industry a fixed amount of energy to be produced at the 10 remaining reactors. Power companies would then decide on their own when to close the plants. The chief executive of Sydkraft, one of Sweden's largest power companies with stakes in the reactors, said it would be hard to replace nuclear power efficiently. "To substitute for it without heavy economical or environmental consequences for society is a very demanding task," Sydkraft's Lars Frithiof said in a statement. "Sweden will therefore rely on nuclear power for many years in the future." Nuclear opponents applauded the government for keeping its commitment to phase out nuclear energy but said the plan could cause further delays. "Before, it was elected officials who decided the pace. Now, the industry, which doesn't want to dismantle, makes the decisions. It could slow down the process," Greenpeace spokesman Dima Litvinov said. http://www.ptd.net ***************************************************************** 6 Sweden wrestles with nuclear phase-out commitment Saturday, 16-Mar-2002 12:20PM Story from AFP Copyright 2002 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet) STOCKHOLM, March 16 (AFP) - Sweden, struggling to find alternative energy sources to replace nuclear power which it voted to phase out by 2010, admitted this week shutting down all of its nuclear plants could take up to 40 years. The country voted in a 1980 non-binding referendum to phase out all 12 nuclear reactors by 2010, but that target was abandoned in 1997 after officials acknowledged that the availability of sufficient energy sources to replace the output from the nuclear plants was unrealistic. Unable to present any viable alternatives, the minority Social Democratic government said Friday it had agreed with the ex-communist Left party and the Center party to negotiate with Swedish energy companies on when they would shut down their plants and how they would be compensated for doing so. Presenting the details of the accord, Industry Minister Bjoern Rosengren said it would "take time to find alternative energy sources, and I think it will be 30 to 40 years before nuclear power can be phased out." The timeframe and the decision to allow the nuclear industry to set the conditions of the phase-out sparked outrage from the Green Party. "There is no agreement to phase out nuclear power. All there is is a loose idea to look into the possibility to reach a voluntary agreement with the nuclear power industry," party leader Matz Hammarstroem said. Even Prime Minister Goeran Persson said he was caught off guard by Rosengren's reference to a 40-year phase-out. "I've spoken to Bjoern about that and I think that was more of an opinion from his side," Swedish news agency TT quoted Persson as saying from Barcelona where he was attending an EU summit. "We don't have the political support for 40 years," he added. But Persson refused to expand on what he considered to be a more realistic time frame for shutting down the nuclear reactors. "I don't know when, we are going to negotiate with the nuclear industry about that. They are going to be allowed to determine the pace, but not the time frame for the entire process," he stressed. Nuclear power accounts for just under half of Sweden's electricity supply. Under the agreement, which is similar to an accord reached in Germany in 2001 on phasing out nuclear power, negotiations between government and industry are to take place in 2003-2004. The two sides will agree on how long each nuclear reactor will remain in use and how much electricity each reactor will generate before it is phased out. The agreement also calls for the production of renewable energy to increase from the current six terrawatt hours, of a total of 150, to 16 terrawatt hours in the next eight years, and stipulates that a certain quota of all electricity bought by consumers must come from solar or wind power or biofuels. A system of so-called "green certificates" will also be introduced, whereby electricity suppliers who buy renewable electricity must also buy a green certificate for each megawatt hour sold. Producers are thus paid twice -- once for the electricity and once for the certificate -- a system designed to compensate for the higher cost of renewable energy. The country's two main electricity companies, Vattenfall and Sydkraft, said they were open to negotiations with the government, and welcomed the announcement on the future of nuclear power. Only one of Sweden's 12 reactors, the 600-megawatt Barsebeck plant, is now closed, with plans to shut a second one by 2003. This article is Copyright 2002 by Agence France-Presse. ***************************************************************** 7 Germany: BRUNSBUETTEL INQUIRY PROBES WHETHER, WHY UNIT NEVER BACKFIT Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:11:49 +0100 BRUNSBUETTEL INQUIRY PROBES WHETHER, WHY UNIT NEVER BACKFIT An investigation by federal and state regulators into the Brunsbuettel operator's reliability, following discovery last month of a core spray system pipe rupture there, is focusing on whether management should have known the rupture had happened and whether the event could have been avoided by backfits urged years ago, investigating officials told Nucleonics Week. The first issue is whether management should have concluded, based on information available in the control room, that a steam leak it detected inside containment in December pointed to a pipe rupture and not, as management asserted then, to a "spontaneous flange leak" having no safety significance. Based on that assessment, Hamburgische Electricitaets- Werke AG (HEW), majority shareholder of Kernkraftwerk Brunsbuettel GmbH (KKB), did not lower power or shut the BWR for an inspection until Feb. 18, when it was threatened by regulators from the Schleswig-Holstein State Ministry for Finance & Energy (MFE) with a shutdown order. Only then was it discovered that a three-meter-long section of pipe connected by an isolation valve to the reactor vessel had blown up. The cause is tentatively being identified as a hydrogen detonation. The second issue in the investigation, where German safety experts say they are making some headway, is whether utility management acted in good faith to make recommended plant changes to prevent such a hydrogen build-up in this piping. Warnings were sent down to all BWR owners from the German Reactor Safety Commission (RSK) beginning in 1981. Especially critical, investigating sources said, is preliminary information suggesting that Brunsbuettel was unique among German BWRs in that it was never backfit to either isolate its core spray system from the primary circuit or to flush out radiolysis gases into the offgas system and thereby preempt an explosive gas buildup. 69 BWRs 'Identical' Brunsbuettel, which went into operation in 1976, is one of three so-called "69-generation," 800-MW-class Siemens BWRs. The other two are Isar-1 and Philippsburg-1. Those units, operated by a consortium led by E.On-Energie AG and by Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg, respectively, began operating in 1977 and 1979. Karl-Heinz Kienberger, a veteran of Isar-1 technical management who retired last year and who in 1993 authored a paper on the problem of radiolysis gas in German BWRs' steam systems, said March 12 that the original design of the core spray systems of all three BWRs was "virtually identical." Unlike later-design 1,300-MW-class German BWRs at Gundremmingen, the core spray system of the 69-generation units was designed with a main 100-millimeter diameter pipe, connected via a valve to 25-millimeter-diameter piping in the primary steam circuit. The core spray system, normally held in a standby mode to be able to inject condensed steam into the top of the core when the reactor is shut down, is constantly filled with steam at primary circuit pressure and temperature (NW, 7 March, 1). According to German experts, deficits in the 69-genera- tion design were addressed by backfits to prevent radiolysis gas explosions. All units added platinum or titanium recombiners to the systems but, one expert said, Brunsbuettel was "apparently unique" in not having a capability for periodically flushing radiolysis gas to the offgas system to prevent an explosion. State regulators in Bavaria said in a formal statement Feb. 28 that, after the Brunsbuettel explosion was detected, they found the core spray system at Isar-1 to be "configured differently" than the one at Brunsbuettel and suggested that the differences would mitigate against gas buildup and potential explosions. A spokesman for regulators in Baden-Wuerttemberg said that, unlike Brunsbuettel, Philippsburg-1 had been backfit with equipment to flush out radiolysis gases from the core spray system piping. He said that no instructions have been given so far by federal regulators to examine other piping systems for radiolysis gas buildup potential. The Brunsbuettel explosion, Kienberger said, showed "without that kind of equipment, this is what can happen." HEW, which owns two-thirds of Brunsbuettel (the other third is owned by E.On) was not available for comment March 12. According to one expert assisting regulators probing Brunsbuettel, piping analyses and other comparisons showed that at the other BWRs, changes were made to prevent an explosion of radiolysis gases such as occurred in December. The Brunsbuettel core spray system was specifically vulnerable, he said, "because it had never been upgraded" to isolate it from primary steam or install flushing equipment. Were any other of the two 69-generation BWRs found to be vulnerable to a repeat of this event, regulators said, it would be ordered indefinitely shut down to look for radiolysis gas buildup. That hasn't happened. German officials said that during the late 1970s, safety experts had investigated the potential for radiolysis gas explosions in various steam systems of 69-generation BWRs, including the core spray systems. In 1981, they said, the RSK formulated recommendations--never codified as formal orders --for utilities to backfit. However, after discussions with KWU design engineers and BWR owning utilities, "it was agreed that the utilities would take appropriate measures on a voluntary basis without being ordered to do so by regulators," one expert said last week. Temperature Excursion? In a report to the German Power Plant Operators' Association (VGB) in 1993, Kienberger said that 69-generationdesign BWRs at full power produce about 120 cubic meters of hydrogen gas and 60 cubic meters of oxygen gas in the pressure vessel by radiolysis. From the condenser, the gas is sucked into the offgas system where recombiners catalyze the gases back into water. But that is not the case for the core spray systems of these units, where piping filled with stationary steam is subject to radiolysis. While steam normally inerts the gases and prevents it from exploding, Kienberger said, "that's not the case" when steam condenses in stationary parts of the steam system such as the core spray system. "There is no more inerting, the radiolysis gases remain, and the danger exists that gas builds up and then ignites and has an impact on both personnel and the plant," he said. The danger, he added, is particularly great in "piping sections or components which are held on permanent standby" and which are "filled with steam." Last week, regulators said that it is not yet known what ignited the gases in the core spray system at Brunsbuettel. The matter has been indirectly addressed in questionnaires which MFE has sent to HEW about the event, officials said. According to Kienberger, when steam-filled components are filled with radiolysis gases, they cool. If these are suddenly warmed up, heat stress together with an increase in the oxygen content in condensed steam can lead to cracks which are subject to stress corrosion cracking. For built-up gasses to explode, he said, the ignition temperature would have to reach at least 450 degrees C. The wetter the gas mixture is, the higher the temperature must be to ignite. Ignition could be sparked by various sources, including by friction of metallic surfaces in the vicinity of the gas, by a sudden increase in pressure set off, for example, when a valve is engaged, or by catalytic reactions. One investigating official said March 11 that it is "not yet clear" whether KKB and HEW had enough information on hand from the control room to conclude that the steam leak detected Dec. 14 pointed to a pipe rupture. If it is demonstrated that management should have been concerned about that possibility, he said, "then at that point the operator handbook makes very clear that the plant should be shut down right away." Kienberger's 1993 paper said, however, that "because radiolysis gases collect in isolated parts of the plant, it cannot be assumed that a sudden buildup of gases will be detected" by operators. "There is the danger that (a rupture or crack) will not be noticed and that damage will be confirmed only if leaks are later found or when in-service inspections are carried out."--Mark Hibbs, Bonn ***************************************************************** 8 Lithuanian officials recover uranium stolen from nuclear plant BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 16, 2002 Text of report in English by Baltic news agency BNS Vilnius, 16 March: Law enforcement officials confiscated during a successful operation on Friday [15 March] around 20 kilograms of radioactive uranium stolen from Lithuania's Ignalina nuclear power plant nearly a decade ago. The uranium was found in Utena District, eastern Lithuania. According to the Respublika daily, the radioactive find emits 400 microroentgens per hour, whereas the natural background radiation is 8-12 microroentgens per hour. Ramutis Jancevicius, chief prosecutor of Vilnius District Prosecutor's Office that is investigating the case, told BNS that the pieces of uranium found were stolen from Ignalina in the period 1992-1994, [the perpetrators] having arranged for the theft of a 270-kilogram uranium nuclear cassette with the staff of the plant's nuclear reactors and security. Two years after the theft the first eight kilograms of the uranium tablets were seized when metal traders from Lithuania's second largest city Kaunas tried to sell it. When one of the organizers of the theft, former plant security staff member Ramunas Macerauskas, was detained in 1997, pieces of uranium were found in various hiding places. The radioactive fuel had been hidden in Visaginas (eastern Lithuania), Kaunas, near the capital city Vilnius and, as the last find showed, in Utena District. Over 80 kilograms of the stolen nuclear fuel were found during 10 years. It is expected that all the stolen uranium will be found. The container with uranium was found in Utena District when examining the fields with a dosimeter and a metal detector, the daily said. After long hours of searching, a container was found, dug not deeply into the earth. Although the expertise has not been carried out yet, it is believed that the container is the one searched for. Having stolen uranium worth 40,000 US dollars, the plant's staff did not profit much from it. The thieves sold the non-ferrous metal of the nuclear cassette and then attempted to sell the uranium too. However, the buyers would always be undercover agents from the State Security Department. All the suspects in the nuclear fuel theft were identified and convicted several years ago. However, having taking into account the fact that they indicated the hiding places, the thieves did not receive a real punishment by deprivation of liberty, except for the driver of the bus in which the uranium was taken out of the nuclear plant, Vladas Navickas. He has already served his term. Uranium tablets were also recently found in neighbouring Belarus. The officers of the country suspect that it was the nuclear fuel stolen from the plant. It is believed that the remainder of the stolen fuel will found in the near future. Source: BNS news agency, Tallinn, in English 1020 gmt 16 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 9 Ukrainian nuclear reactor stopped for unscheduled repairs BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 16, 2002 Text of report by Ukrainian news agency UNIAN Kiev, 16 March: The No 2 generating set of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant was halted for unscheduled repairs on 15 March at 2253 [2053 gmt], UNIAN has learnt from the information centre of the Ukrainian State Committee for Nuclear Regulation. The halt had been agreed the day before with the controller services of the national power grid. Repairs are to be done to the temperature monitoring system of one of the pumps that ensure the reactor's cooling. A scheduled check of the speed of the reactor's emergency shutdown system was carried out and no faults discovered. Repairs are expected to be completed by the evening of 21 March. At the moment, 11 of the 13 Ukrainian nuclear reactors are in operation. Repairs are being done to the Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant's No 2 and No 6 generating sets. Source: UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 0822 gmt 16 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 10 Green World activist attacked (St. Petersburg:) Oleg Bodrov, director of the enviromental organization Green World, was attacked by unknown assailants who his collegues say meant to send a threatening message regarding the activist's work on preventing nuclear contamination. Charles Digges, 2002-03-15 04:10 The attack, which occurred outside the Green World offices on Feb.18 at about 8 P.M. left Bodrov hospitalized with a concussion for 10 days. He was released without any permanent injuries, according to colleagues, and was well enough to make a planned trip to Germany later in the month. Green World is located 70 kilometers west of St. Petersburg in Sosnovy Bor, which is home to the beleaguered and aging Leningrad Atomic Energy Station, or LAES, which has long been a target of Green World criticism and ecological exposes. Bodrov's colleagues characterized the attack as "professional" noting that he was felled by a single blow from behind and that none of his valuables, including his wallet or mobile phone, were missing after the attack. "The attacker meant to deliver a message with attack," said Sergei Kharitonov, an activist with Green World and Bellona. "They wanted to tell us that nuclear technology is the priority and that it will continue around here despite protests." Sosnovy Bor police said they were investigating the attack as an act of "hooliganism," for which they had no suspects or leads. LAES - which has four RBMK-1000 Chernobyl-style reactors -- is often in dangerous disrepair and its waste storage facilities have been at full capacity for years. The town also hosts a metal reworking plant that re-smelts formerly radioactive metal into household items, a practice that has drawn outcry from Bodrov's Green World and other organizations - but which, Kharitonov alleged - is bolstered by $10 million worth of investments from, among others, Gazprom, which were brokered by former Prime Minister Victor Chernomyrdin. 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 ***************************************************************** 11 Iraqi MDs blame U.S. for deformities Doctors link cancer and abnormalities found in children living in the south to depleted uranium contained in bombs that were used in Persian Gulf war, TIMOTHY APPLEBY says By TIMOTHY APPLEBY Wednesday, March 13, 2002 – Page A4 BASRA, IRAQ -- When a baby is born in southern Iraq these days, the mother's first question is not whether the child is male or female. "What she wants to know is whether her baby is normal," says Janan Ghalib, head of the cancer unit at Basra's Maternity and Children Hospital. The doctor needs only to flip open a photo album filled with horrors to explain why. There are pictures of babies without eyes, and some with too many eyes. There are infants with huge growths, amphibian-like limbs and other deformities so grotesque that the babies barely resemble human beings at all. And there are before-and-after photographs of normal-looking young children who have apparently been transformed into monsters -- the result, Dr. Ghalib believes, of depleted uranium used by the U.S. military during the Persian Gulf war. The worries at Basra's main children's hospital are about more than the uranium-laden bombs that rained down on southern Iraq in 1991. If the United States carries through with threats to again strike President Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraqis such as Dr. Ghalib fear the fallout will again hit them. Although independent studies have not been carried out, Iraqi medical experts in Basra, near the Kuwaiti border, believe a sharp rise in recorded deformities and cancer -- especially leukemia -- is linked to the depleted uranium contained in U.S. bombs dropped during the war. And they fear much more may be coming their way. Until the early 1990s, doctors say, the rate of what is termed "congenital malformation" in the babies of southern Iraq was no higher than anywhere else. But beginning in about 1995, they say, the numbers began steadily rising. Last year, the doctors knew of at least 260 instances of deformation in the region, accounting for 3 per cent of all births. That compares with 221 in 2000 and just 11 in 1994. As for leukemia, the hospital treated 15 children in 1993, 60 in 2000 and 73 last year. Those figures are incomplete, the physicians stress, because some children are taken to Baghdad for treatment, while others in the impoverished south are never brought to their attention. Health experts warn that the growing numbers, which are not dissimilar to rates found in the West, could be the result of other factors such as better information, worsening health-care conditions or an environmental disaster -- a nuclear leak, for example -- that has not been reported. Still, the World Health Organization believes they are worth investigating. It has tried to launch a research program, but needs better data and equipment that would have to be cleared by the United Nations sanctions committee, which must approve all Iraqi imports. In Basra, doctors believe the time lag between the gulf war and the beginning of the trend is because of the depleted uranium's "incubation" period of several years. They cite a similar postwar delay in Japan after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Pentagon has acknowledged using depleted uranium, not only in Iraq and Kuwait but also in Kosovo during the 1999 conflict there. Depleted uranium is favoured in missiles because it enhances their armour-piercing capacity. However, the U.S. military has stated repeatedly it does not believe the substance can have the effect on humans that the Iraqi government is saying it does. In nearby Kuwait, there has been no recorded increase in child abnormalities since the war. Another major difficulty with verification is that Iraq's medical records, like much else within the health-care system, are in shambles. But while the Iraqi government is often accused of producing disinformation, Dr. Ghalib and her colleague, Assad Essa Achim, the hospital's chief doctor in residence, come across as dedicated professionals who have become almost weary of relaying their findings. "You reporters come in and listen, then you go away and nothing ever happens," said Dr. Ghalib, visibly impatient. While the Basra doctors await help, their hospital, like almost every other one in Iraq, is in dire straits. Despite the United Nations oil-for-food program that is supposed to allow the import of humanitarian assistance, including medical equipment, Dr. Achim says, the hospital is getting only 20 per cent of what it needs. Chemotherapy is not available because the necessary equipment is considered to have military uses. As a result, Dr. Achim says, 80 per cent of the children diagnosed with leukemia die, compared with a 15-per-cent to 20-per-cent rate in the world's rich countries. "Bush and Clinton really don't know what is happening here," he said of U.S. President George W. Bush and former president Bill Clinton. "If they did, they would hang themselves." © 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 Iraqi MDs blame U.S. for deformities Doctors link cancer and abnormalities found in children living in the south to depleted uranium contained in bombs that were used in Persian Gulf war, TIMOTHY APPLEBY says By TIMOTHY APPLEBY Wednesday, March 13, 2002 – Page A4 BASRA, IRAQ -- When a baby is born in southern Iraq these days, the mother's first question is not whether the child is male or female. "What she wants to know is whether her baby is normal," says Janan Ghalib, head of the cancer unit at Basra's Maternity and Children Hospital. The doctor needs only to flip open a photo album filled with horrors to explain why. There are pictures of babies without eyes, and some with too many eyes. There are infants with huge growths, amphibian-like limbs and other deformities so grotesque that the babies barely resemble human beings at all. And there are before-and-after photographs of normal-looking young children who have apparently been transformed into monsters -- the result, Dr. Ghalib believes, of depleted uranium used by the U.S. military during the Persian Gulf war. The worries at Basra's main children's hospital are about more than the uranium-laden bombs that rained down on southern Iraq in 1991. If the United States carries through with threats to again strike President Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraqis such as Dr. Ghalib fear the fallout will again hit them. Although independent studies have not been carried out, Iraqi medical experts in Basra, near the Kuwaiti border, believe a sharp rise in recorded deformities and cancer -- especially leukemia -- is linked to the depleted uranium contained in U.S. bombs dropped during the war. And they fear much more may be coming their way. Until the early 1990s, doctors say, the rate of what is termed "congenital malformation" in the babies of southern Iraq was no higher than anywhere else. But beginning in about 1995, they say, the numbers began steadily rising. Last year, the doctors knew of at least 260 instances of deformation in the region, accounting for 3 per cent of all births. That compares with 221 in 2000 and just 11 in 1994. As for leukemia, the hospital treated 15 children in 1993, 60 in 2000 and 73 last year. Those figures are incomplete, the physicians stress, because some children are taken to Baghdad for treatment, while others in the impoverished south are never brought to their attention. Health experts warn that the growing numbers, which are not dissimilar to rates found in the West, could be the result of other factors such as better information, worsening health-care conditions or an environmental disaster -- a nuclear leak, for example -- that has not been reported. Still, the World Health Organization believes they are worth investigating. It has tried to launch a research program, but needs better data and equipment that would have to be cleared by the United Nations sanctions committee, which must approve all Iraqi imports. In Basra, doctors believe the time lag between the gulf war and the beginning of the trend is because of the depleted uranium's "incubation" period of several years. They cite a similar postwar delay in Japan after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Pentagon has acknowledged using depleted uranium, not only in Iraq and Kuwait but also in Kosovo during the 1999 conflict there. Depleted uranium is favoured in missiles because it enhances their armour-piercing capacity. However, the U.S. military has stated repeatedly it does not believe the substance can have the effect on humans that the Iraqi government is saying it does. In nearby Kuwait, there has been no recorded increase in child abnormalities since the war. Another major difficulty with verification is that Iraq's medical records, like much else within the health-care system, are in shambles. But while the Iraqi government is often accused of producing disinformation, Dr. Ghalib and her colleague, Assad Essa Achim, the hospital's chief doctor in residence, come across as dedicated professionals who have become almost weary of relaying their findings. "You reporters come in and listen, then you go away and nothing ever happens," said Dr. Ghalib, visibly impatient. While the Basra doctors await help, their hospital, like almost every other one in Iraq, is in dire straits. Despite the United Nations oil-for-food program that is supposed to allow the import of humanitarian assistance, including medical equipment, Dr. Achim says, the hospital is getting only 20 per cent of what it needs. Chemotherapy is not available because the necessary equipment is considered to have military uses. As a result, Dr. Achim says, 80 per cent of the children diagnosed with leukemia die, compared with a 15-per-cent to 20-per-cent rate in the world's rich countries. "Bush and Clinton really don't know what is happening here," he said of U.S. President George W. Bush and former president Bill Clinton. "If they did, they would hang themselves." The Globe and Mail ***************************************************************** 13 State soil order is ‘standard’ says Cotter The Pueblo Chieftain Online - Saturday March 16th, 2002 By TRACY HARMON CANON CITY - The State Health Department's temporary halt on radioactive soil headed for the Cotter Uranium Mill here is "standard business," according to the Cotter mill manager. At the urging of Gov. Bill Owens, the health department is conducting a thorough review of the proposed shipments of 470,000 tons of radioactive material over a seven-year period from the Maywood Superfund Site in New Jersey to the Cotter Corp. Uranium Mill for disposal. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently awarded a contract for cleanup to Stone & Webster, a company that will oversee the project, while Cotter Corp. will be the subcontractor responsible for disposal of the radioactive soil that was left by Maywood Chemical Co., which extracted thorium to make lantern mantles from 1916 to 1959. The health department on Thursday responded to a Cotter work plan by characterizing the plan as incomplete and finding "receipt of materials should not occur until the Materials Acceptance Report and mill work plan are improved and accepted," wrote W. Jacobi, manager of the radiation services program. The health department wants more information on how materials would be unloaded from rail cars; how materials would be placed in the Cotter impoundment; and how materials would be kept from blowing during the unloading, moving and placement process. "What they are asking is very standard business," said Cotter Mill Manager Patrick Mutz, "Whenever we do anything unusual we submit work plans and often times they ask for more, so we should be able to supply them with the information they need in this case." Mutz said due to political pressure on the health department, "they will probably ask for more detail than usual and that will help them understand the peaks and valleys of what we are getting into." For instance, the health department asked for more detailed information on the material to be shipped even though Jacobi points out that "at-site radiological characterizations, using field measurements and lab analyses, appear to have been extensive." "There has already been a tremendous amount of sampling that was made available through the prime contractor (Stone & Webster)," Mutz said. Mutz said there is no question that Cotter's license will permit the mill to accept the material. "We cleared everything up from a license standpoint months ago with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the (Environmental Protection Agency). The material is designated as a byproduct material, and fits our license criteria," Mutz said. For now, Mutz said, "it is business as usual. We have been in discussions with various local citizens and are working to get the information out through fact sheets published in the newspaper." ©1996-2002 Chieftain.com The Star-Journal Publishing Corp. Pueblo, Colorado U.S.A. ***************************************************************** 14 Letters - All that nuclear material out there - Japan Today Japan News - Dear Editor, March 8,2002. This is what comes of stupidity. There is 22-year-old technology which can transmute high level radioactive waste into non-radioactive elements and generate electric power as a by-product. It is known as the Roy Process (check out http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess). It can be done with existing infrastructure, commercially available machinery and current supporting technology. The late Dr Roy estimated the cost in 1979 at $80 million to construct the Roy Process pilot facilities and should take about three years to build. Instead of employing this vital new science which will eliminate radioactive products and would guarantee international security, the U.S. Congress enacted the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act making geologic isolation (burial) federal policy putting alternatives in scientific limbo. But safe and secure burial for 486 years, 20 half-lives of plutonium 239, is a scientific impossibility. Now the chickens have come home to roost. Dennis F. Nester, 4510 E. Willow Ave Phoenix,AZ 85032 E-Mail: theroyprocess@cox.net ***************************************************************** 15 O'Rourke gets tough over Sellafield shutdown Irish Newspapers - THE Gov ernment was determined to have the controversial Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant closed, Public Enterprise Minister Mary O'Rourke said last night. As pressure grows on British Prime Minister Tony Blair to order a cessation of operations at the Cumbrian facility Mrs O'Rourke said in Norway: "We want Sellafield shut and we are determined to continue our legal actions to secure that." In the toughest statement on the plant for some time the Minister added: "Sellafield is more than simply a threat to marine life. Its continuing operation threatens every man, woman and child in Ireland. It must shut down immediately." After a meeting with Norwegian Environment Minister Borge Brende, Mrs O'Rourke said while Norway had its own problems "we have more fundamental concerns about the health of our people and a threat of a nuclear accident." And the opening of an Irish embassy this week in Oslo "will help greatly in our ongoing campaign." Minister Brende said it was completely unsustainable "that on one hand BNFL was discharging nuclear materials into the Irish Sea and on the other hand declaring it was unsafe to store materials on British soil." Frank Khan © Copyright Unison ***************************************************************** 16 Norway and Ireland again demand a stop to Sellafield pollution The Norway Post - Doorway to Norway 16. Mars 2002 Norway and Ireland have repeated their demands for a stop to the emissions of radioactive pollutants from the Sellafield nuclear reposession plant. The joint call for a halt to the radioactive emsissions came after a meeting in Oslo Friday between the Irish Minister for Public Works, Mary O´Rourke and Norway's Environmental Minister Boerge Brende. The main item for their disussions was how Norway and Ireland may cooperate in order to make Britain stop the pollution from the Sellafield reposession plant. -It is a paradox that Britain does not want to store the radioactive waste material on land because they are afraid the radioactive Tecnetium will pollute the underground water resources, the Irish Minister said. The Irish authorities are taking Britian to court, in order to make Britain stop the nuclear wastes which pollute both the Irish Sea and the North Sea. (NRK) Rolleiv Solholm ***************************************************************** 17 Canon City residents, Cotter at odds Rocky Mountain News: State Townspeople alarmed over plan to accept tainted dirt from N.J. By Dick Foster, News Southern Bureau CANON CITY -- A new nightmare image is haunting residents of this quiet Arkansas River town southwest of Colorado Springs. Picture those 100-car coal trains that trundle up and down the Front Range. Imagine 47 trains filled with radioactive dirt pulling into town and dumping their load. The Cotter Corp., which has a uranium refining mill in Canon City, has contracted to receive 470,000 tons of radioactive dirt from an Environmental Protection Agency Superfund cleanup site in Maywood, N.J. The Army Corps of Engineers is supervising the cleanup. Rail shipments to Cotter were to begin this month. Cotter's plan touched off the latest battle in the long and stormy relationship between town and company. Townspeople have fought Cotter for decades over contamination from its uranium mill, itself a Superfund site with 3.5 million tons of radioactive wastes on 135 acres. Cotter's plan to accept out-of-state wastes is made worse, residents say, by efforts to conceal the plan from the public. "We don't want to be a national toxic waste dump," said Sharyn Cunningham, co-chairperson of the Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste, a group formed two weeks ago to confront state health officials, the EPA and Gov. Bill Owens to halt Cotter's plan. Neighbors learned of the plan Feb. 27, when the local newspaper broke the story. "Everyone was just shocked," Cunningham said. "Then the initial response from our elected officials from local, state and federal government when people voiced opposition was that there wasn't anything they could do. It was already completed." On Thursday, Owens halted the plan, ordering the state health department to review it and ensure that Cotter was within its state radioactive materials license. "If we can't tell the public how this is going to be done to ensure the public safety, we do view it as serious. They (Cotter) won't ship it out here until we're convinced that they can do it according to the license that was issued to them," said Doug Benevento, state health department director of environmental programs. But Owens' action may be only temporary if Cotter's permit and materials handling plan are in order. Its permit allows it to "receive, store, process, transfer and dispose of uranium-bearing and thorium-bearing soil, solids and liquids," said Jake Jacobi, the health department's manager for radiation services. Cotter Executive Vice President Rich Ziegler said the Maywood soil is acceptable under its permit, and the health department review is standard procedure. "These are normal questions that the health department would ask on a material review, and we are licensed to receive this material," said Ziegler. The Maywood soil's radiation level is only about one-tenth that of the tailings produced by Cotter's own uranium processing, said Ziegler. Bringing radioactive material into the state is not unprecedented. Cotter imported 100,000 tons of mill tailings from St. Louis from 1968 to 1972 to extract uranium. But Cotter's credibility is strained in Canon City after years of stormy relations with the town. The mill, which opened in 1958 to refine uranium "yellow cake" from ore for nuclear power plant fuel, was declared an EPA Superfund site in 1984 when radioactive contamination of surrounding land and domestic wells was traced to the mill. Residents from the nearby Lincoln Park neighborhood began filing class-action lawsuits against Cotter in 1989, claiming property damage, birth defects, excess cancers and death due to radioactive contamination of their wells. Two class-action lawsuits last year awarded 58 residents a total of $57 million. Cotter has appealed both cases. The Superfund cleanup removed contaminated soil in Lincoln Park and as far away as the downtown railroad station, where railroad cars of ore and other radioactive materials were unloaded onto trucks for the mill. Uranium-laced wells remain under Superfund monitoring, state health officials said. The plant ceased milling in 1987 due to the collapsed uranium market but reopened recently to refine zirconium for the electronics industry, said Ziegler. Townspeople believe Cotter's plan to receive radioactive soil only illustrates its indifference to their town. They charge the company and state health officials with secrecy for not publicly disclosing the plan. Cotter held an open house March 5 after a local newspaper made the plan public. No public comment period was allowed, so about 150 people staged an impromptu demonstration. Local residents obtained a memo from a state health department meeting Jan. 8 that cautioned against public disclosure of the dumping plan while the Army Corps of Engineers inspected the Cotter facility for its suitability. "In conducting these technical reviews and due diligence inspections, all parties must be sensitive to premature public disclosure," the memo stated. "It is in the interest of all parties to keep these inquiries confidential so that the integrity of the source selection procurement process is not compromised." "This sounds to me like the citizens were not to be made a part of the decision process," said the citizens' committee co-chairwoman Jeri Fry. Benevento said the letter appeared to be from a contractor, not the health department, and assailed Cotter for "doing a poor job of talking to the community about its plans." "While they do have a license, we would hope Cotter would try to remedy its past errors and try to talk and listen to the community," he said. March 16, 2002 ***************************************************************** 18 YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Reid may cut nuclear waste disposal budget Saturday, March 16, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Move would slow government work on program, despite Bush support By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Sen. Harry Reid said Friday he will consider cutting the budget for Yucca Mountain again this year, a move that could slow the government's work on the nuclear waste program even after its endorsement by President Bush. The Nevada Democrat, who engineered a deep Yucca Mountain budget cut in Congress last year, said further reductions were an option but disclosed no definite plans in brief remarks after a Senate hearing. "We'll have to see how much money we'll have," Reid said, alluding to wartime belt-tightening on Capitol Hill. "We're a little short of money, so we may have to cut every place." Last year, his first as chairman of the energy and water subcommittee, Reid formed a Senate energy spending bill that cut the Bush administration's budget request for nuclear waste disposal by 38 percent, to $275 million. The amount later was boosted to $375 million, still below the administration's $445 million request. It was the eighth consecutive year that the Energy Department's budget for nuclear waste disposal was reduced by Congress. Yucca Mountain program managers have said years of cutbacks have forced them to delay a repository license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission until 2004. Nevada leaders and other Yucca Mountain critics view the congressional budget process as a way to slow the program while they press lawsuits and look for routes to attack the repository they contend will expose residents to leaks of radioactive materials from nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel. Even though Bush has approved Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste disposal, Congress will play a role in determining how fast the Energy Department is able to move forward to get the Nevada site licensed and a repository built. Current DOE plans call for a 2010 opening. Even if Congress adds its votes later this year for a Nevada repository, Reid, as the Senate's majority whip, is expected to wield a voice on the Yucca Mountain budget. The Energy Department is requesting $527 million for nuclear waste disposal activities for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Congress will begin working on an energy spending bill in the spring. Reid, who was highly critical of the president's backing of Yucca Mountain when it was announced last month, said Friday that Bush "doesn't run the (appropriations) committee, he runs the White House. And we do our best to run things up here" in Congress. At Friday's hearing, Reid and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., heard DOE budget presentations from Lake Barrett, acting director of the Yucca Mountain program; William Magwood IV, director of the Office of Nuclear Energy; and Ray Orbach, director of the Office of Science. Barrett, who announced this week he was retiring from government this spring after more than 20 years at the Energy Department and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, drew no questions. But Reid and Domenici told Magwood to expect that Congress will restore budget cuts the administration made in programs that research accelerator transmutation and other alternatives to nuclear waste disposal. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 19 Idaho won't play role in investigation of Goshute finances Saturday, March 16, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal News Wrap SALT LAKE CITY Gov. Mike Leavitt said Friday the state won't have a role in a federal investigation into the Goshute tribe's financial records concerning a proposed nuclear-waste storage site on the Skull Valley reservation. Leavitt has been a strong opponent of storing spent nuclear waste in Utah, but maintained that any investigation into the finances of the plan is being handled exclusively by the federal government. At his monthly news conference, Leavitt said despite this, the state should know about any money received by the tribe. "Public money went into tribal coffers and that ought to be accounted for," he said. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 20 Postal protest over Sellafield planned BBC News | ENGLAND | Friday, 15 March, 2002, 15:50 GMT [MOX reprocessing plant, Cumbria] The approval of the MOX plant has provoked anger Plans for the people of Ireland to bombard Downing Street with postcards in a protest over the Sellafield nuclear power site, have been unveiled. Campaigners want to send nearly one and a half million postcards to homes in the Republic urging people to send them on to tagets in the UK. Organisers of the scheme are looking for financial help from the Irish Government and business to allow the the mass postcard protest to go-ahead. Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern has already offered preliminary support. The plans for the postcard campaign would need to be examined carefully but as long as it is all legal it would have his backing Spokesman for Bertie Ahern A scheme spokesman said: "We are working on trying to establish the campaign which still depends on us being able to pay for it, but we hope it will be up and running soon. "The idea is that the cards will be delivered to homes in the Republic and people will be urged to send them on to Tony Blair and Prince Charles, as well as to Sellafield itself." "It is hoped that we will be able to get corporate and government backing for the campaign. Some individuals have already made personal financial commitments." Contentious issue The Irish Post Office An Post confirmed it would drop the postcards through 1.3 million homes in the Republic for people to forward to the UK. Supermarkets and banks will be asked to sell the cards to customers for one euro. Terrorist target The commissioning of a new mixed oxide (MOX) reprocessing facility at the end of 2001 caused outrage in the Republic. Mr Ahern's party, Fianna Fail, itself launched a high profile protest against the nuclear plant towards the end of last year, publishing full page articles in the British press demanding its closure. A spokesman for Mr Ahern said: "The Taoiseach has made it quite clear that he is opposed to Sellafield and would like to see it closed. "Obviously the plans for the postcard campaign would need to be examined carefully but as long as it is all legal it would have his backing." ***************************************************************** 21 Tribe rejects Reid land-sale bill Las Vegas SUN March 15, 2002 Shoshones say deal would pave way for nuke waste dump By Mary Manning The Western Shoshone Nation's leaders are opposing a bill sponsored by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that would distribute $120 million to tribal members in exchange for the sale of their lands. Those lands include Yucca Mountain, site of a proposed nuclear waste repository. Tribal leaders believe the repository would be more likely to open if they accept the payment. Reid intends to reintroduce the bill on March 22, Nathan Naylor, the senator's spokesman, said. In a straw poll conducted in June 2000, about 1,200 members of the 10,000-member Western Shoshone tribe favored accepting cash payments for the land. Reid based his bill on that vote, Naylor said. A representative of the tribe suggested that poll did not reflect the feelings of the entire tribe. "It's not about money, it's about land," said John Wells, Western Shoshone southern representative of the tribe's national council. Chief Raymond Yowell and council secretary Ian Zabarte will testify against the measure next week. Wells noted Yucca Mountain is included in the tribe's land claim. "We could stop (a) Yucca Mountain (nuclear waste repository), they can't," Wells said, referring to the state. The tribe is considered a sovereign nation under federal law. The national tribal council may consider filing a lawsuit in an international court to try to stop the nuclear waste repository, he said. "We haven't filed any suit because it goes to a U.S. court and we don't believe it will go anywhere," Wells said. "Besides, it costs a lot of money." Nevada officials have not joined the Indians in the Yucca Mountain repository battle, but that could change, said Bob Loux, director of the state Agency for Nuclear Projects. "We could have them potentially as allies," Loux said of the Shoshones. Both the state and the tribe oppose a repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "That is exactly what the Shoshones are concerned about, a repository," Loux said. The Western Shoshones claim a total of 24 million acres in Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Southern California. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 22 I-65 Reopened After Radioactive Waste Spill WKRN.COM Home > March 17, 2002 Truck Spills Radioactive Waste Things are up and running again along Interstate 65. The road had to be closed down for several hours Friday when a tractor-trailer carrying radioactive medical waste overturned. It happened just south of the Columbia/Chapel Hill exit in Maury County. According to the Tennessee highway patrol, right at 5:00 AM the driver of a double tractor-trailer hit the Duck River bridge and a guard rail before it overturned next to the road. It was hauling radioactive material. "We just had Type A containers, class 7, which means it was packaged in cardboard," said Sgt. Christine Faulkner. TEMA now says the load was low level nuclear medical material that posed no immediate danger to people or the environment. Maury County officials say they're relieved. This could have been a major disaster. With no immediate hazard, workers off-loaded the truck to tow it away - a process that took several hours and shut down a major interstate. Interstate 65 was finally reopened Friday afternoon shortly after 2:00. 03.15.02 Tractor Trailer Overturns Carrying Radioactive Material A tractor trailer hauling some forms of radioactive material has over turned on Interstate 65 in Maury County. A truck pulling a double trailer has overturned on Interstate 65 near Columbia. A nine-mile stretch of the highway is closed and traffic is being diverted onto secondary routes. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2002 WorldNow and WKRN. ***************************************************************** 23 Leavitt Welcomes FBI Probe of Goshute Deal The Salt Lake Tribune -- Saturday, March 16, 2002 BY DAN HARRIE Gov. Mike Leavitt said he has no independent knowledge of an FBI investigation into the Goshute Tribe's Skull Valley nuclear waste storage proposal but believes a probe is merited into the allegations of misuse of funds. "It's certainly not unwelcome," Leavitt said Friday. "This is one that needed to be looked at." The comments were made following the taping of Leavitt's monthly news conference at the University of Utah's KUED-TV. During the taped question-and-answer exchange, Leavitt said he could not confirm the investigation but believes a federal inquiry could provide answers to substantial questions swirling about the private contract between Private Fuel Storage (PFS) and tribal leaders. "I do have great concern over the allegations that have been made," Leavitt said. "It has always been a very reasonable question to ask, 'How much money, and where did the money go?' And those answers have been withheld. And not just from the public, but from the other tribal members," said the governor, whose administration has attempted through legislation and lawsuits to block the proposed nuclear waste storage facility. PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said the consortium is "not aware of any wrongdoing by the tribal leadership. We have made it a point not to get involved in internal tribal matters." Leavitt said what "cracked" the wall of silence about project finances was a comment made by a PFS representative at a public meeting that the consortium had given $1.4 million to the tribe. "Well, a lot of antennas went up," said Leavitt. "Well, where did the $1.4 million go, and how much was there other than that." Martin said Leavitt's information is erroneous. "I was at that meeting and that [$1.4 million] statement was never made," Martin said. The governor said the state is not considering launching its own investigation. "This is a federal investigation conducted through the U.S. Attorney's Office and every experience I've had with those is you just stay away from them. Let them conduct their deal," he said. © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 24 Army Engineers get lead role in Parks nuclear waste cleanup PittsburghLIVE.com - [Valley News Dispatch] By Mary Ann Thomas [mathomas@tribweb.com] Friday, March 15, 2002 PARKS: The Army Corps of Engineers will take the lead role in the cleanup of the nuclear waste burial site along Route 66. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission held the lead role in the cleanup, but authorization by Congress for immediate action at the site was included in the defense appropriations budget for fiscal year 2002. A report released by the Army Corps on Thursday stated that the Parks site potentially has 23,500 cubic yards - about the size of a football field at a depth of 11 feet - of soil contaminated by uranium, thorium and a variety of waste. "The completion of report signals the beginning of the Corps taking the reigns for the cleanup," said Brad Clemenson, spokesman for U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown. The site poses no immediate threat to the public, officials from the Army Corps said Thursday. But the site has coal mines beneath it, which could pose problems in the future. The 41-year-old burial grounds - owned by BWX Technologies (formerly Babcock &Wilcox) and previously by Atlantic-Richfield and NUMEC - was one of only two sites identified by Congress for immediate action in the defense appropriations budget. "We've managed to cross a number of big hurdles in working to clean up this nasty site," said Murtha, who included the Parks site in the defense appropriations budget. "And when this report is finalized, it should be the last of the big hurdles. Now it's just a matter of delivering the money to complete the cleanup." Costs for the cleanup could range from $21.5 million to $65.6 million, according to documents reviewed by the Corps. But Corps officials said it's too early to determine how much the cleanup will cost at Parks. To date, $5 million has been authorized for the Corps at the Parks site. About $2 million has been slated for the site in fiscal year 2003. After that, Congress will have to come up with more money to clean up the site. Although the Corps initially will pay for the project, it will pursue reimbursements from the companies who own or owned the burial grounds. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice is negotiating with representatives from Atlantic-Richfield to agree on what portion of the cleanup the company and government will pay for. The Parks cleanup will fall under the Corps' Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). Parks is one of 21 sites across the country under the program. The most serious potential threat at the Parks site is the tight catacomb of coal mines under the burial grounds. There are unlined burial trenches spread over a 40-acre area. Radiological and chemical wastes were buried in the trenches from the NUMEC facility in Apollo between 1960 and the early 1970s, which produced nuclear fuel during the Cold War for the government and private industry. "If mine subsidence occurs, "it could create a pathway for contamination to sink into the ground water," said Dilip Kothari, Corps' project manager for the Parks site. There has been no evidence of subsidence at the site, Kothari said. But there have been fractures in the rock layers above the mines, which has been documented by studies by Atlantic Richfield. "I'm happy the Army (Corps of Engineers) is involved and conducting an investigation, however, the parameters they need to concentrate on doesn't take a lengthy amount of time for the assessment," said Patty Ameno, a Leechburg-based activist who is founder and chairman of the Citizens Action for a Safe Environment. Ameno said that the Corps should closely study the areas adjacent to the burial grounds and former plutonium fuel facility as well as the ramifications of the abandoned coal mines over a wide area. Sandy Stash, a vice president at Atlantic Richfield, said, "We think it's good the Corps is taking a look at the underground mines and other potential risks." "The advantage of the FUSRAP process is that it allows for a careful weighing of risks," Stash said. "We're confident they will factor that into deciding what to do on the site." "We compliment the Corps on getting this report out quickly," Stash said. "Everyone wants to see closure." Officials from BWX Technologies were glad to see movement in the cleanup process. "We have not received the report," said Ron Hite, director of government and public relations for BWX Technologies in Lynchburg, Va., "but the completion of the report is a good first step in the process." Parks Supervisors' Chairman Bud Shannon said he was happy with the Corps involvement in the township. "They gave assurances that the work on the site can and will be done safely," he said. "We support the remediation of the site and, hopefully, the removal of contamination." The Corps plans to hold a public meeting in late spring or early summer in Parks. The cleanup process will include an investigation of the site, which could include more testing, said Corps spokesman Richard Dowling. "We welcome anyone who has stories, recollections of activities at the site," Dowling said. "What we will have to do is sort out the truth from the legends." Ameno said she wants the Corps to consider more information than what was provided by the companies and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "The information that Babcock &Wilcox and Atlantic Richfield have provided to the NRC for years is at least inadequate and full of contradictory historical events," Ameno said. "I would trust that the Army Corps of Engineers would seek out and depend on other input as well." To read the Preliminary Assessment of the Parks Shallow Land Disposal Area, go to www.LRP.USACE.ARMY.MIL. Click on the FUSRAP icon. Mary Ann Thomas can be reached at mathomas@tribweb.com [mathomas@tribweb.com] or (724 )226-4691. 2002 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 25 Opinion (Fear_No_Evil) Las Vegas City Life Sunday, March 17, 2002 From Cancer Alley to our backyard By Saab Lofton "Years ago, Louisiana struck a Faustian deal with the chemical industry. Today Black residents are paying the price with their health, their communities, their very lives, and their history." -Censored 2000: The Year's Top 25 Censored Stories And Vegas knows all about those Faustian deals, huh? According to the Environmental Protection Agency (and an innocent yet imprisoned journalist named Mumia Abu-Jamal), seven oil refineries and more than 150 heavy industrial plants annually pump millions of pounds of toxins into the air over an area of southeast Louisiana that's mostly poor and brown. As a result, whole towns have been rendered practically uninhabitable. Their names were Sunrise, Revelltown and Morrisonville, but now they're "toxic ghost towns," says Project Censored out of Sonoma State University. The entire region has been nicknamed "Cancer Alley," and if Nevada can't compel Congress or the courts to keep that nuclear crap out of Yucca Mountain, then our region will be stuck with a nasty nickname as well. "Yucky Mountain" sounds too juvenile. ... How about "The Valley of the Shadow of Death"? If the worst occurs, the only tourists this town will see will be on Greenpeace tour buses, which regularly survey ecological disaster areas like Cancer Alley. I called Rick Hind, one of Greenpeace's toxic specialists, and asked him how many people have died thus far due to the aforementioned toxins. Hind said the death toll was "incalculable" and that it's "impossible to arrive at that number." I then asked if the situation had at least improved a bit, and he said it's "gotten worse in the past decade." So much for any future, CONservative attempt to inaccurately depict the 1990s as an ultra-liberal era which supposedly needs to be counterbalanced somehow. And while no societal demographic has a monopoly on pain and suffering, one still has to wonder why more hasn't been done to end this madness. If as many whites (or people who could pass for whites) were dying in such a manner, we'd have already seen the Marines sent in to take these polluting plants and refineries the fuck out! Steven Seagal's On Deadly Ground depicted a commando defending his people and their property by destroying an oil rig - and it should be looked upon as a training film! For once, let's give our boys in uniform something positive and constructive to do! Liberate Louisiana! It's not just a job; it's an ethical adventure! The only thing Clinton did was call for an investigation in 1993. What a wimp! What's to investigate? Did Bubba (as opposed to Dubya) "think" everyone in those toxic ghost towns faked their own deaths? Nigger, please! And all the Jews who died during WWII are really kickin' it in a secret bunker underneath Israel, watching Schindler's List and laughing their yarmulkes off at our collective gullibility. ... Two sisters born and raised in Louisiana, Carrie and Audrey Henry, told me that their grandfather died of lymphoma, their uncle had his voice box removed due to vocal cord cancer and their mother is living with lung cancer. Carrie said Cancer Alley breezes carry an odor 24/7 and there's "no such thing as a breath of fresh air"; Audrey said Exxon, Ethyl and Copoylmer sit side by side on a scenic highway which was initially and ironically set aside for sightseers! And right here in Sin City we have someone who used to be a secretary for a short-lived organization that tried to sue all those companies away. Doloris Hayden, who now stays at the Charleston retirement home, watched her husband die of an ailment she still can't positively identify. Hayden also commented on how bad the air is in Cancer Alley and that "the wind could blow those chemical fumes anywhere." Although Hayden's organization didn't win anything more than some token settlements for a chosen few, the 2001 Guinness World Records reported that the biggest environmental petition is credited to Greenpeace. In 1995, President Jacques Chirac of France was petitioned to end nuclear testing near the Polynesian isle of Mururoa. Eight million five hundred thousand signatures ... And guess what? In January of 1996, the tests ended! As Noam Chomsky once wrote, everything is under public control! You can do it! Oh, how I wish environmental racism would magically disappear simply because someone wasn't in the mood to deal with it. It's a damn shame all too many are inwardly hoping, wishing and praying that postmodern/New Age solipsism will act as a force field against whatever's on the horizon. Because while certain humans are sticking their heads in the desert sand like ostriches insofar as Cancer Alley and Yucca Mountain go, the very history these moral relativists refuse to trust is trying to remind their dumb asses that, oftentimes, trends start in the black community and spill over into other communities. In other words, I don't mind blond dreadlocks or hip-hop slang coming out of pale faces as much as some of my compatriots. Except imitation isn't always the sincerest form of flattery, so letting Las Vegas become another Cancer Alley ain't too cool. ... Saab Lofton's first novel got him kicked out of one college yet helped get his degree from a better college two years later, making him living proof that karma exists. Lofton makes ends meet by substitute teaching and drawing portraits for tips. Copyright 2002 Las Vegas City Life ***************************************************************** 26 Nuclear fallout sunspot.net - op/ed A classified document on U.S. nuclear arsenal plans was leaked recently, but the White House didn't seem too upset. Some say Bush is taking a risky gamble, playing the leak as a deterrence card. By Michael Hill Sun Staff Originally published March 17, 2002 In Stanley Kubrick's movie Dr. Strangelove, the Soviet Union has developed the ultimate nuclear deterrence, the Doomsday Machine that will blanket the world with deadly radioactive fallout in the event of a nuclear attack on that country. Peter Sellers' title character has a fundamental question for the Russian ambassador. "Why didn't you tell anybody about it?" he asks from his wheelchair. It turns out the Soviet premier was saving the news for a holiday celebration, but Strangelove had pointed out their fatal error - the Doomsday Machine wouldn't deter anyone who didn't know about it. And that may well be why there has been no histrionics about the leaking of a classified Pentagon document this month that detailed the latest plans for the U.S. nuclear arsenal - possibly developing new types of weapons that could be used against places such as China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Libya. The story reporting the details of the administration's Nuclear Posture Review first appeared in the Los Angeles Times. There have been no denials of the document's veracity from the White House, no calls for a hunt to get the leakers. And therein lies the delicate paradox that comes with having a stock of the most devastating weapons ever devised. They are so horrendous that a sane person could not contemplate using them, but if everyone thinks you would never use them, they do no good. Avner Cohen, a senior research fellow in the Program on Global Security and Disarmament at the University of Maryland, College Park, says that such documents are usually kept within what he calls "the highly classified nuclear bubble" where chilling contingencies are often discussed. When they get out of that bubble, then the documents may have a very different meaning. "The administration seems not to be so upset about this leak from a classified document," he says. "So maybe the document is somewhat embarrassing when you sit down to talk to Arab leaders, but the leaks may also play a purpose in terms of deterrence of Saddam Hussein," Cohen says. "The U.S. is still as committed to the nuclear taboo as before, or so I hope. But in the eyes of the adversary you are trying to deter, you want to give them some kind of worry, some element of uncertainty." But many fear that if the Bush administration is playing a deterrence card with this leak, it is a risky gamble. For one, it potentially changes a longstanding policy of the United States not to expand its nuclear arsenal by suggesting building new tactical weaponry. "The notion that has leaked out that the U.S. is going to be building new kinds of nuclear weapons for new situations in the future [is] actually not what the U.S. has promised to do in its attempt to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons," Richard Butler, former head of U.N. weapons inspection in Iraq, said in an interview on CNN last week. "It has promised it wouldn't be doing that." Butler said this was the most disturbing part of the leaked document. "The U.S., I think, cannot argue successfully to others that we have to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction if the U.S. is itself building new ones, new types," he said. 'Contrary' to assurances Targeting the countries named in the leaked document also potentially calls for a violation of a tenet of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that promises no nuclear strike against any non-nuclear country that signed the treaty unless they attack in conjunction with a nuclear power. "We have promised our allies, and adversaries for that matter, that these weapons will only be used for deterrence," says Gar Alperovitz, also at Maryland's Program on Global Security and Disarmament. "This document is contrary to those assurances." Paul Boyer, a historian at the University of Wisconsin, says he thinks the document represents the kind of contingency planning that is the job of such Defense Department analysts, but still has the potential for a dangerous resonance. "I don't anticipate a nuclear attack on these [targeted] countries, but what I think it does is lower the threshold by introducing the idea of nuclear war as feasible and possible," he says. "That definitely is a move away from the absolute firewall policy that supposedly has been the American position in the past." Boyer agrees that this adds to the problems of proliferation, and raises the possibility of nations that have nuclear weapons using them. "If the U.S. is perceived as a nation seriously thinking of using nuclear weapons to resolve its problems, what signal does that send to India, Pakistan, Israel and other nations that have nuclear weapons?" he asks. Milton Leitenberg of the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland, says that serious consideration of using nuclear weapons for anything other than a response to a devastating nuclear attack ended a quarter century ago when President Jimmy Carter killed the development of the neutron bomb. "Certainly since then, nobody thought we would be hearing of this again," he says. Though the leaked document had its genesis in the Clinton administration as analysts considered the country's changing defense needs, Leitenberg does not think it was an accident that it surfaced in the Bush administration. "These guys are nuclear weapons war fighters," he says of the Bush administration personnel in the Defense Department, meaning many of them have always wanted the armed forces to have tactical nuclear capability. He notes that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld was last in the Cabinet before Carter, when these issues were still on the table. "My reaction is that Rumsfeld has gone back to the desk he had in 1976 and envisioned that every stack of papers is still in the same place. He doesn't agree with the last 25 years. "These are nuclear weapons war fighters who think these things are to be used for our benefit and advantage, screw the rest of the world. Who cares about proliferation?" Leitenberg says. U.S. 'more vulnerable' Alperovitz argues that anything that encourages nuclear proliferation damages the security of the United States. "The U.S. is surrounded by oceans," he says. "No one is going to take us out with conventional weapons, so we are more vulnerable to the nuclear threat than anybody. So any spread of nuclear weapons reduces the security interests of the United States." Alperovitz says that those in the Defense Department now are "unilateralists." "They think they are protecting the security of the country by using all the weapons we have available," he says. "I just think their judgment is wrong. Their thinking comes from a motivation to protect security, but it is more likely to weaken security." Strong taboo But others argue that the nuclear taboo is too strong to be damaged by a document like this. Thomas Schelling of Maryland's School of Public Affairs notes that the taboo has been in effect for more than 50 years. "The inhibition against using nuclear weapons is very, very strong," he says. "The Soviets didn't use them in Afghanistan where they could have made good use of them. The Israelis didn't use them in the '73 war when there were two Arab armies on the move. I don't think Nixon ever had the slightest notion of using them in Vietnam, and Margaret Thatcher wouldn't dream of using them off the coast of Argentina." Cohen notes that though the first President George Bush, via his Secretary of State James A. Baker III, threatened Iraq that the United States might use any weapons at its disposal should Iraq use chemical or biological weapons in the gulf war, Bush did not even allow nuclear warheads in the war zone. "He was very, very cautious," he says. "In his conduct, I think he was respecting the nuclear taboo. I don't think this George Bush is any more trigger happy than his father." Still historian Boyer says raising the possibilities mentioned in the leaked document is scary. "In the Cold War period, the big fear was a global nuclear holocaust, the big one, that set the threshold of terror so high no one thought of crossing it," he says. "But when contemplating using smaller nuclear strikes against a single nation, somehow that seems more acceptable since you're not going to blow up the world. "Nevertheless, with any nuclear strike, you are talking about massive levels of destruction and radiation with incalculable after effects. The idea that this is legitimate strategic thinking since you're not going to blow up the world is really very chilling when you stop and think about it." Deterrence value And Boyer, who has studied the Cold War, questions if nuclear weapons have the same deterrence value now than they did then. "During the Cold War, we were dealing with a clearly structured apparatus of state power in the Soviet Union, a clear command structure," he says. "We may not have liked the Soviet Union, but in general we trusted them to behave in a responsible, rational fashion. "But when you are dealing with rogue states, with terrorist groups, beneath the level of a national command structure who could be getting access to nuclear weapons in underhanded, clandestine means, the idea of deterrence, it seems to me, becomes largely irrelevant," Boyer says. "Many of these groups have an apocalyptic mindset, so the idea of a conflagration that would engulf a large part of the world is a turn-on, it's exciting, it's the fulfillment of prophecy." Whether rattling the nuclear sword in the manner of this leaked document deters the possibility of such a war, or encourages it, there has been a muted reaction, much less than Boyer remembers from the Cold War when anti-nuclear protests were powerful political movements. "We are coming up on 60 years since the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki," he says. "The kind of terror the atomic bomb initially generated in the public mind is largely an abstraction for most people today under the age of 50. But the terrible events of Sept. 11 are very vivid in everyone's mind. That sense of vulnerability everyone felt is a way to provide justification for all kinds of military thinking that would not have been contemplated just six months ago." Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun ***************************************************************** 27 Annan rules out Iran as part of 'axis of evil' Updated on 2002-03-16 10:22:26 UNITED NATIONS, Mar 16 (PNS): UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on Thursday said the world body has no information to suggest that Iran has nuclear weapons or is protecting members of the al-Qaeda network. He said Iran had extended "very good" support in dealing with the crisis in Afghanistan. The United Nations has received no report from the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, he told reporters here. The United States has described Iran as part of an "axil of evil". He said the Iranian government was very helpful in Bonn, where the interim administration for Afghanistan was chosen, and at the time of inauguration of interim leader Hamid Karzai. "I visited them when I was in the region and appealed to them to work with us in ensuring a peaceful and stable Afghanistan. And since then, Chairman Karzai has visited Iran", Annan said adding the Iranian leaders assured all possible support and cooperation. Replying to a question, he said the Security Council is likely to extend the mandate of the international security force in Afghanistan, but discussions are still on. Ends. ***************************************************************** 28 North Korea: Atomic energy bureau delegation leaves for Russia BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 16, 2002 Text of report in English by North Korean news agency KCNA Pyongyang, 16 March: A delegation of the General Bureau of Atomic Energy of the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] led by its Director-General Ri Je-son left here today to attend a meeting of the plenipotentiary representatives of governments of the member nations of the combined institute for nuclear studies due to be held in Dubna, Russia. Source: KCNA news agency, Pyongyang, in English 0935 gmt 16 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 29 US may abandon nuke test moratorium The Frontier Post From Peshawar Pakistan Updated on 3/16/2002 12:10:23 PM WASHINGTON (APP): The United States may abandon an international moratorium on nuclear testing to make way for development of a new generation of bunker-busting nuclear weapons, according to excerpts from a nuclear posture review made public here Thursday. “While the United States is making every effort to maintain the stockpile without additional nuclear testing, this may not be possible for the indefinite future,” said the document obtained by GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington think tank, and posted on its Web site. The authors of the review pointed out that some problems in the US nuclear stockpile due to aging and manufacturing defects of the weapons have already been identified. © Copyright 2001 The Frontier Post ***************************************************************** 30 Faslane chief: ‘Let them eat cake’ NEWS.scotsman.com - Scotland - Sun 17 Mar 2002 Peace and war: Commander Borley welcomes the Faslane protesters for focusing the public’s attention on the submarine base’s indispensable contribution to the nation’s defence. STEPHEN FRASER THE man in charge of Britain’s nuclear deterrent has given his support to peace protesters camped outside his Scottish base, and promised to give them a birthday cake. Commodore John Borley, the director of the Royal Navy’s Trident submarine fleet at Faslane, said the protesters "serve a useful purpose to society". Borley, who was recently blockaded in the base for three days, has also distanced himself from attempts by the local council to shut the peace camp, which celebrates its 20th anniversary on June 12. He told Scotland on Sunday that he will order a cake for the anniversary, which will be presented to peace camp residents. Last night, however, the protesters were less than disarmed by his gesture, insisting the cake would have to be vegan, and that Borley would have to taste it first. Faslane, which employs 7,000 people, has been the target of repeated high-profile blockades by hundreds of protesters in recent years. ‘They should know it has to be a vegan cake or no one here will eat it’ Last month, Britain’s most senior naval officer, Admiral Sir Nigel Essenhigh, was flown in by helicopter to the base during a blockade, while other senior officers, including Princess Anne’s husband, Commodore Timothy Laurence, were delayed at the base’s gates by protesters who momentarily blocked their vehicle’s path. The peace camp is permanent village of around 20 caravans and makeshift shelters on a roadside verge next to the base. Borley, speaking exclusively to Scotland on Sunday, said: "I wouldn’t want to be part of a military that did not tolerate peaceful protest. "They have a right to be there and mount protests such as the regular blockades, which incidentally, though the protesters make a lot of noise about it, do not disrupt the life of the base in any significant way." He added: "I don’t have any problems with them and would see their presence as fulfilling a valuable purpose for society in terms of ensuring there is a debate about the future of our defence policy. "They are entitled to their point of view and it all helps to get the debate going. The blockades cause some concern to civilian employees here who worry about getting home on time at night, but the protests do not cause us major worries. "Every time they protest at our presence here it focuses attention on the job we are doing as the home of Britain’s nuclear deterrent and the contribution we make in terms of offering highly skilled work to engineers in Scotland. "We will organise a cake for their 20th anniversary, though I’m not sure if they’ll take it from us." The Faslane nuclear base is home to Britain’s four Trident nuclear missile armed submarine fleet, as well as a five-strong fleet of nuclear-powered ‘hunter-killer’ submarines, equipped with cruise missiles, also based in its pens. Borley, 46, took over as director of the base last year after a stint as an adviser to the government on the shape of the navy in future. His laid-back attitude to the peace camp and protesters is not shared by Argyll and Bute council, which won the right to evict protesters in 1998 but has held off because of the likely Ł250,000 cost of clearing the site. Councillors recently passed a motion last month calling for "urgent" action to enforce the eviction. Borley said: "I believe the local council is making efforts to evict the camp as they have concerns over the impact it has on local house prices, but I have no problems at all with their presence." Borley is even grateful to the protesters for their repeated attempts to breach security at Faslane, despite the presence of commandos and Ministry of Defence police. In the most recent incident, last April, a Danish peace campaigner, Ulla Rder , swam past MoD naval patrols and under a protective barrier to reach two subs, on which she painted the word "useless". Borley said: "We are grateful to protesters for their help in testing our defences." He revealed the incident had led to a review of security and the introduction of new electronic protective measures. Last night, Zoe Weir - who gave birth to her one-year-old daughter, Tabitha, at the camp where she has lived for four years - said: "We’re very grateful to the navy for the offer of a cake, but they should know it has to be a vegan cake or no one here will eat it." She added: "We’ll want Commodore Borley here with us when we eat it to make sure it’s not poisoned. " We think we are winning the arguments. There is no point in having a nuclear deterrent since September 11 because that showed the real threats to Britain are terrorists, not individual countries." Alastair Bovaird, the head of corporate policy for Argyll and Bute council, said: "We will not comment on our plans for the future of the peace camp. We appreciate the commodore’s views but we are concerned over the disruption the camp and the protest blockades represent to the lives of ordinary people in the area." sfraser@scotlandonsunday.com ©2002 scotsman.com | contact ***************************************************************** 31 Bunkers, Bombs, Radiation March 17, 2002 Talk about itE-mail storyPrint By SIDNEY DRELL, RAYMOND JEANLOZ and BOB PEURIFOY, Sidney Drell is an emeritus professor of physics at Stanford University's Linear Accelerator Center. Raymond Jeanloz is a professor of geophysics at UC Berkeley. Bob Peurifoy was vice president at San A myth is emerging that we can develop low-yield nuclear weapons that will destroy hardened, deeply buried targets of military interest without contaminating the atmosphere with deadly radioactivity. Such weapons, delivered by bombers, must penetrate below the Earth's surface before detonating in order to create the maximum destructive ground shock. There are problems with this myth: Its validity is doubtful and its consequences are dangerous. Low-yield nuclear weapons have limited effectiveness against buried targets and they would disperse significant amounts of radioactivity. Perhaps more important, however, the deployment of such weapons would likely have an extremely harmful effect on ongoing efforts to slow--if not prevent--the proliferation of nuclear weapons. First, some technical facts. Yields greater than 1 kiloton are required to damage hard targets deeper than about 200 feet. Much larger yields--in the range of 100 kilotons or more--are needed to create enough ground shock to destroy a hardened structure at a 1,000-foot depth. Taking into account realistic limits on material strengths, 50 feet is about the maximum depth a warhead can dig and maintain its integrity in dry, hard soil, the likely locations for buried targets. Even a 1 kiloton warhead--1/20th the yield that destroyed Hiroshima--detonated at a depth of 20 feet would eject about 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris from a crater about the size of ground zero at the World Trade Center. The U.S. has produced a high-yield weapon capable of destroying a number of underground targets of interest. Such an explosion would dig a much larger crater and create substantially larger amounts of radioactive debris. The U.S. capability against a reportedly growing number of military targets buried at relatively shallow depths--less than 100 feet--can be greatly enhanced by delivering several conventional bombs on the same target with precision guidance. If nuclear weapons are used to attack buried targets, however, there is no possibility of a so-called "clean" attack, free of extensive radioactive contamination spreading in the atmosphere. Actions by the U.S. to deploy new designs of nuclear warheads for new military missions would also strike at the heart of the current worldwide effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Currently, 185 nations have endorsed this effort by signing on to the indefinite extension of the Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, agreed to in 1995. Many of the NPT signatories based their support on the explicit assumption that the nuclear-armed powers would honor a commitment to cease all underground nuclear explosive tests and continue efforts to reduce their reliance on nuclear weapons, rather than to create new missions for new ones. This commitment is supported by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the U.S. has signed--along with more than 160 other nations--but not yet ratified. A ban on all nuclear testing enhances our national security for the foreseeable future. The U.S. should ratify the test ban treaty, joining the 89 other nations that have already done so, because the U.S. is the natural and necessary leader for advancing the cause of nuclear nonproliferation. Already, three nuclear powers--Russia, England and France--and many of our NATO allies plus Japan have ratified the test ban. China has declared its intent to sign once the U.S. does, while India has also expressed interest. Bringing the test ban treaty into force requires U.S. ratification, which would then trigger the completion of an international monitoring system to enhance our ability to verify worldwide compliance. Attaching false hopes to low-yield nuclear weapons for destroying buried targets is no reason to undermine the so-far-successful efforts to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And resumption of underground nuclear explosions in the quest for these so-called "more usable" nuclear weapons would harm the nonproliferation treaty and, thus, our national security. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 32 Nuclear Fears Abound March 17, 2002 Talk about itE-mail storyPrint The Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review, disclosed recently in The Times, raised a fierce outcry in the international press. The nations targeted for possible preemptive nuclear strikes--Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya--were predictably outraged. But U.S. allies--from South Korea to tiny Papua New Guinea--were also concerned, warning that U.S. nuclear brinkmanship would put the world at risk. What follows is a sampling of opinion from foreign newspapers. (Compiled by Gale Holland) * AUSTRALIA What does [the Nuclear Posture Review] say to the rest of the international community? It says that nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is a mug's game, and that we should all get our hands on the damnable things. --Andy Butfoy, The Age * CANADA If any other country but the U.S. started talking about launching preemptive strikes on nonnuclear players, Bush would be furiously denouncing it as an "axis of evil," a rogue state, or worse ....What reason do the countries on the Pentagon hit list for "preemptive" attack now have to show restraint? Either way, they are targets. And if the Americans, even with their devastating conventional arsenal, feel justified in dropping a "small" nuclear bomb down some Iraqi bunker, why should lesser players not want to incinerate their foes' major cities? --Unsigned editorial, Toronto Star * CHINA The new U.S. strategy is a "full-spectrum" strategy of military deterrence, oriented at all possible future foes as well as an excuse for the establishment of all-round military superiority ....Once the United States gets rid of the fear of nuclear reprisal from countries with a few nuclear weapons, the possible use of U.S. nuclear weapons in real combat will be further augmented. --Zhu Qiangguo, China Daily * ENGLAND Will [Vice President Dick] Cheney [during his trip abroad] grasp the perception common outside the U.S. that never has a nation squandered sympathy and moral advantage so quickly and with such wantonness? And if he does, will he care? Does America mind becoming a global hate figure? What happens to the mentality of a country when it's not loved, only feared? What patterns of aggressive defensiveness take root? These are the questions that trigger anxiety ....It is not so much Islamist hijackers as U.S. bombs that make the world feel a precarious place. --Madeline Bunting, The Guardian The dangers of a nuclear war have never been greater. Because this is no longer a Cold War. It's hotter than hell, and it's only too real. --Unsigned editorial, Daily Star * FRANCE It will be said, to reassure us--in vain--that the job of military planners ... is to foresee the worst eventualities and the means to respond to them.... Nevertheless, the revelation ... of a [Nuclear Posture Review] sends chills up the spine. It reveals a Bush administration that has drawn only military conclusions from Sept. 11....It uproots the principle of atomic nonproliferation. Why sign, or remain signatory to, a treaty which, in exchange for your absolute renunciation of nuclear arms, does not guarantee that they will not be used against you? In invoking the possibility of a first strike, it accepts as normal the idea of putting to use a weapon that was originally conceived as a deterrent. The Pentagon document is worthy of a state in the grip of panic; not of a world power conscious of its responsibilities. It is frightening. --Unsigned editorial, Le Monde * GERMANY Diplomatic niceties have never been George W. Bush's strong suit.... But what became known [last week] topped everything that came before it. In a 56-page secret report, Bush's military developed sweeping plans for a future nuclear war ....The new plans ... are creating unease in the entire world." --Unsigned editorial, Der Spiegel "For the non-atomic weapons states in NATO this development is especially explosive. At least six of them, including Germany, are obliged, in the framework of the alliance's internal system "nuclear participation," to make available missiles that could be armed with American nuclear weapons....The [German] government wants to avoid having "nuclear participation" even come up for discussion. But a debate is more urgent than ever. --Roland Heine, Berliner Zeitung * IRAN Like King George III, who misjudged the Boston events and lost the American colonies, God-willing, President Bush will preside over the end of the U.S. as a world power, but not [before] he creates more catastrophes for other civilizations. Nevertheless, the world is prepared to pay the price for peace without being cowed by American contingency plans for use of nuclear weapons. After all, the Americans manufactured the atom bomb to use, as they so criminally demonstrated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and not for keeping weapons of mass destruction in a showcase as pieces of aesthetic art. --S. Nawabzadeh, Kayhan International * IRELAND European nations--Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Russia--with long memories of the ultimate fate of overreaching empires are understandably uneasy. May God bless the coalition, said President Bush yesterday, in a strategic variation on God Bless America. May God bless and preserve us all is a reasonable prayer as the consequences of Sept. 11 take us ever more rapidly into a downward spiral of international violence. --Unsigned editorial, Belfast News * NEW ZEALAND These days, when the going gets sticky, the fashionable smokescreen for the squirming politician or chief executive is to blame it on Sept. 11 .... In Washington, it was the excuse needed to draw up a nuclear hit list of unloved countries; in Tel Aviv, it gave the chance to tighten the noose around Palestine. --Brian Rudman, New Zealand Herald * PAKISTAN The leaked Pentagon Nuclear Posture Review's ... most important, but generally overlooked, aspect is that it raises the nuclear threshold to a new level. It suggests that the U.S. should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in case an ally is attacked even with conventional weapons, as in the possible scenario of an Arab-Israeli conflict or an attack from North Korea on South Korea. --Tahir Mirza, Dawn * PAPUA NEW GUINEA Here's a chilling thought for the day: If the U.S. budget appropriations for defense and military expenditure currently before Congress are approved, Uncle Sam will shortly preside over a defense budget that is significantly bigger than the defense budgets of all other countries in the world combined. Perhaps the word "defense" should be redefined. --Unsigned editorial, The National * SOUTH KOREA President Bush and his nuclear strategists must not brush aside the deeply perturbed voices of those who advise them to throw out highly dangerous ideas. Their "posture" is not only imprudent but also menacing in a manner least becoming their unchallenged status as the world's only superpower--militarily and otherwise .... One reason we are painfully involved in the issue, of course, is because North Korea is one of America's perceived targets of nuclear warfare. In spite of the North's notorious unpredictability and diplomatic brinkmanship, this is no time for the United States to discourage the very faint signs of change from the poverty-ridden communist state. It would be much wiser to salvage old treaties signed by the North and the United States or South Korea, that address weapons of mass destruction and seek ways to get them to work better. --Unsigned editorial, Korea Herald * UNITED ARAB EMIRATES The Pentagon wants to use nuclear weapons on a battlefield level, which creates far more opportunities to use the weapon of last resort. For example, they could have dropped a nuclear shell into the Tora Bora caves, and given the worst possible example to the two most recent nuclear states, Pakistan and India. Both these states would have drawn the lesson that tactical use of nuclear weapons was acceptable. Nuclear weapons are too awful to contemplate as part of the normal armory of any nation because the destruction they offer is so total and all embracing. The Cold War is over, and the balance of terror is not required. Better understanding between nations is far more effective than aiming nuclear weapons at friends. --Unsigned editorial, Gulf News Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 33 West must say `no' to nuclear option Thestar.com/ Sun Mar 17, 2002 - Updated at 04:04 AM Even if America used only a fraction of its arsenal in a carefully targeted attack it would be disastrous Jonathan Power IN HIS autobiography A Soldier's Way, U.S. Gen. Colin Powell recounts the buildup to the 1991 Gulf War when he was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defence. "Cheney kept assigning me last-minute tasks...He had a third question and I jotted it down in my notebook simply as `prefix 5', my nuclear qualification code. "Let's not even think about nukes", I said, "You know we're not going to let that genie loose." "Of course not", Cheney said. "But take a look to be thorough and just out of curiosity." Powell played the same role in the administration of Bush father as he does in that of Bush son. He is the voice of reason; not the token black, but the token liberal, who is allowed to speak, in some areas even to lead, but on the crucial decisions of prime policy is simply ignored. His advice to rely on sanctions, rather than war, to contain Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein, was brushed aside in 1991, and his qualms on nuclear weapons did not stop then-secretary of state, James Baker, delivering what was, in effect, a nuclear threat if Saddam should use chemical or biological weapons. Neither did it stop, under questioning, senior officials in both the U.S. and British governments refusing to rule out the right to go nuclear. Only French President Francois Mitterand replied unambiguously, "I say no to that." So now, compromising with the devil of nuclear weapons is back on the table. The leaked Pentagon review of nuclear policy reveals that not only are the "axis of evil" states on the target lists, but also Syria, which has recently backed the Saudi peace plan for Palestine and Israel; and Libya, which is generally regarded as a success for hard-edged diplomacy in converting a would-be terrorist state into one that countries can do business with. Powell, now secretary of state, has bravely tried to put a gloss on the report. But he knows, better than anyone, the formidable political pressures that would be brought to bear to use nuclear missiles in a war with Iraq, if a desperate Saddam tried to use his chemical or biological weapons on Israel in a last attempt to get Muslim opinion on his side. President George Bush may give the order to fire a low yield nuclear missile at Saddam's command bunker or the concentrated formations of the Republican Guard, if only to pre-empt a larger Israeli nuclear attack and to remove Israel from the likelihood of a future revenge attack. America will then have crossed a threshold that has become sacrosanct, in effect, in the 57 years since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In historian E. P. Thompson's telling remark, Bush will have allowed "the unthinkable to become thinkable, without thinking". Robert McNamara, defence secretary under two presidents, Kennedy and Johnson, recounts in his new book how, at the height of the Cold War, he and the president used to discuss whether nuclear weapons could be used in the event of a Soviet attack. McNamara made it plain, he said, that if deterrence had failed and an attack was underway, nuclear weapons had already lost their use. "Although I believe Kennedy and Johnson agreed with my conclusion, it was impossible for any one of us to state such views publicly because they were totally contrary to established U.S. and NATO policy." Even such tough practitioners of realpolitik as Gen. Charles de Gaulle and Henry Kissinger admitted in their biographies that nuclear weapons were never a truly credible deterrent. If used, they argued, they would have destroyed user as well as target. Even if America used only a tiny part of its arsenal in a carefully targeted attack on an underground, otherwise impenetrable bunker, it would be disastrous and counterproductive. World opinion would heap untold censure on the perpetrator of such an attack. Stalin saw the issue clearly in the age before the Soviet Union developed its own bomb. He seized hold of Eastern Europe bit by bit, knowing the U.S. would never use the nuclear monopoly it had then to stop him. Likewise, Beijing and Hanoi went to war with American armies in Korea and Vietnam without fear of being halted by American nuclear weapons. (According to a recently-revealed White House tape of a conversation between President Richard Nixon and Kissinger, his national security adviser, when Nixon raised the possibility of nuking North Vietnam, Kissinger slapped him down as Powell did Cheney.) Perhaps some will conclude that history suggests, "Watch what people do, not what they say." Therefore we should all relax about the latest Pentagon leak, just as Powell tells us to. But words do count. They are heard. They do produce reactions. A hostile adversary does not know if you are bluffing or not and takes precautions and prepares retaliatory options. Popular opinion, unaware of the subtleties of nuclear brinkmanship, is deeply affected too. Given what we know from both reporting and opinion polls of the degree of bitter anti-Americanism among Muslims far and wide this revelation in Washington is sure to backfire. The tolerance for the Al Qaeda type of terrorism will be ratcheted up more than a few notches. This is the time for all the Western leaders to write a joint letter to their colleague in the White House, "We say no to that." Jonathan Power is an international affairs writer based in Britain. Notice:- Copyright 1996-2002. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All ***************************************************************** 34 Experts: US policy may encourage nuclear proliferation The Star Online > News > World Sunday, March 17, 2002 WASHINGTON: The new US nuclear posture review, which hints at abandonment of an international moratorium on nuclear testing, could lift the taboo on use of such weapons and possibly encourage proliferation, experts suggested. “One cornerstone of non-proliferation agreements is the idea that there is a norm against the use of nuclear weapons, whether it is moral or military or whatever,” said Chris Helman of the Centre for Defence Information, a liberal Washington-based think tank, on Friday. “There is a widespread acceptance that they are unsuitable weapons, but as soon as they have a value, other people will have them,” he added. The Nuclear Posture Review, a secret report to Congress leaked by the US press, suggests the need for new nuclear trials “to meet the nation’s defence goals in the 21st century.” It points to the potential use of US nuclear strikes against non-nuclear armed nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction, as well as former Cold War enemy Russia and China. The United States must be prepared for potential national security contingencies involving non-nuclear armed neighbours “in setting requirements for nuclear strike capabilities,” the review said. Immediate contingencies could include an Iraqi attack on Israel or its neighbours, a North Korean attack on South Korea, or a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan, the report suggested. Iran, Syria and Libya could also become immediate contingencies because of their “long standing hostility toward the United States and its security partners,” it said. The review also underscores the Pentagon’s concern that a growing number of countries and hostile groups rely on deep underground facilities to hide their weaponry and command posts. — AFP Copyright © 1995-2002 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D) Managed by I.Star. ***************************************************************** 35 China lashes out at US over `nuclear blackmail' The Taipei Times Online: 2002-03-17Sunday, March 17th, 2002 REUTERS, BEIJING China, using its strongest language against the US in months, accused Washington yesterday of "nuclear blackmail." State television said Vice Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing (§ő»F¬P) called in US Ambassador Clark Randt Jr to deliver "solemn representations" on a Pentagon nuclear policy review and a visit to the US by Taiwan Defense Minister Tang Yao-ming (´öÂ`©ú). It said Li protested strongly at a US policy review reported to describe contingency plans to aim nuclear weapons at China, among several other countries. "China wants to make it very clear that China will never yield to foreign threats, including nuclear blackmail," the television report quoted Li as telling Randt. "The days when China could be bullied are gone forever." Threats would "simply increase the determination of the Chinese people to safeguard their sovereignty," he said. Li accused Washington of breaching three joint communiques, which paved the way for a normalization of ties, by offering Taiwan advanced weapons. "The United States must abandon the idea of Taiwan as an unsinkable aircraft carrier," he was quoted as saying. "Taiwan has been a burden on the US shoulders for more than half a century. We don't see any good in the US continuing to shoulder that burden," he said. "It will simply drop a stone on its own toes." This story has been viewed 592 times. URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/03/17/story/0000128025] Copyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 NZ - No nukes policy here to stay, says PM W&H New Zealand News - Helen Clark 17.03.2002 Prime Minister Helen Clark says New Zealand's anti-nuclear policy is here to stay and that won't be a problem when she meets United States President George W Bush. The Sunday Star-Times reported today that the US would test New Zealand's commitment to its 15-year-old anti-nuclear stance at the meeting in just over a week's time. But Miss Clark today said that was "rubbish". "Nothing has changed. They still think we're wrong, we still think we are right". Officials from both countries have been doing the ground work for the meeting. Miss Clark said both sides wanted a productive meeting, wanted to improve the relationship and weren't seeking to create conflict. Officials had been "making sure we understand exactly what each other's position is. The worst thing that can happen from a visit like this is they have expectations of us that are unrealistic and vice versa." Miss Clark said the officials had been positive and "there is a determination in Washington that the visit will go well". The two countries' nuclear positions would "be noted, but not dwelt on". The Sunday Star-Times reported the US would try to change New Zealand's thinking on the no-nukes law, which ended visits from US navy ships. Heightened global insecurity following the September 11 terrorist attacks and the US-led war on terrorism had brought the nuclear-free issue into stark relief, the paper said. Admiral Dennis Blair, US navy commander in chief, recently said that New Zealand's stance continued to be a barrier to joint military exercises between the two countries. Foreign Minister Phil Goff said he had met US ambassador to New Zealand Charles Swindells and officials from the Bush administration in recent weeks and no one had said the no-nukes position would become a sticking point. "We have agreed to disagree... the general view is that it is going to be a positive meeting. There is a lot of gratitude in America over New Zealand's strong stand against terrorism and a number of other areas. "There will no doubt be disagreements over areas, for instance the steel tariffs... but we look to the areas we can agree on." The meeting is seen as an historic diplomatic opportunity for the Government as it will be the first meeting between a Labour prime minister and the US President in decades. National's leader Bill English, who is currently in the United States, said the Government's support for the war on terrorism hadn't "fixed the long-standing problems in our relationship with the United States... (it) has raised the bat and conceded nothing more than a photo opportunity with President Bush". - NZPA ©Copyright 2002, New Zealand Herald ***************************************************************** 37 U.S. Nuke Report: Benign Online Declan McCullagh"> By Declan McCullagh [declan@wired.com?subject=U.S. Nuke Report: Benign Online] 2:00 a.m. March 16, 2002 PST WASHINGTON -- Part of the U.S. government's secret Nuclear Posture Review that was leaked to the press last week is now online. The review [http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm] is not as interesting as it sounds. Here's a sample: "A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking political, military or technical courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security. U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including NBC weapons and the means to deliver them over long distances." Using nuclear weapons to deter hostile nations from attacking the U.S.? Now that's a novel idea. The banality of the report hasn't stopped the Pentagon from kvetching. "There's been some press discussion about leaks from the classified Nuclear Posture Review," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said [http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/03/dod031302.html] this week. "Needless to say, whoever leaked it violated federal criminal law." [http://www.lycos.com/lycosinc/legal_terms.html] ***************************************************************** 38 China lashes out at US over `nuclear blackmail' The Taipei Times Online: 2002-03-17 Sunday, March 17th, 2002 REUTERS, BEIJING China, using its strongest language against the US in months, accused Washington yesterday of "nuclear blackmail." State television said Vice Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing (§ő»F¬P) called in US Ambassador Clark Randt Jr to deliver "solemn representations" on a Pentagon nuclear policy review and a visit to the US by Taiwan Defense Minister Tang Yao-ming (´öÂ`©ú). It said Li protested strongly at a US policy review reported to describe contingency plans to aim nuclear weapons at China, among several other countries. "China wants to make it very clear that China will never yield to foreign threats, including nuclear blackmail," the television report quoted Li as telling Randt. "The days when China could be bullied are gone forever." Threats would "simply increase the determination of the Chinese people to safeguard their sovereignty," he said. Li accused Washington of breaching three joint communiques, which paved the way for a normalization of ties, by offering Taiwan advanced weapons. "The United States must abandon the idea of Taiwan as an unsinkable aircraft carrier," he was quoted as saying. "Taiwan has been a burden on the US shoulders for more than half a century. We don't see any good in the US continuing to shoulder that burden," he said. "It will simply drop a stone on its own toes." This story has been viewed 591 times. URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/03/17/story/0000128025] Copyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 39 Bush Nuclear Policy Termed 'Schizophrenic, Dangerous' U.S. Newswire 12 Mar 19:00 To: National Desk Contact: Scott Lynch of Peace Action, 202-862-9740, ext. 3030 or 703-725-5680 (cell) Web site: [http://www.peace-action.org/] WASHINGTON, March 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- "The recent leak of classified sections of the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review shows that Bush's nuclear policies are schizophrenic and dangerous. Twelve years after the end of the Cold War, Bush policies are pushing the world closer to the use of nuclear weapons," said Kevin Martin, executive director for Peace Action. The revelations in the L.A. Times show that under the NPR the President intends to produce a wide array of new nuclear weapons and to expand the conditions under which nuclear weapons would be used. Bush's NPR is the first nuclear review to target non-nuclear nations and the first to list the nations Pentagon planners are slating for nuclear targeting. The nations listed are non-nuclear weapons nations: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria; and nuclear weapons powers China and Russia. "On one hand, in the wake of the revelations, we have Condoleezza Rice saying that, 'The only way to deter the use (of a weapon of mass destruction) is to be clear it would be met with a devastating nuclear response.' And, on the other hand, we have George Bush saying that he has to have his pet project, Star Wars missile defense, because the rogue nations could not be deterred with nuclear weapons," continued Martin. The administration's NPR lowers the bar for nuclear weapons use. According to the March 11 L.A. Times, "It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or 'in the event of surprising military developments'." Martin concluded by saying, "Under Bush's schizophrenic nuclear policy we wind up with the worst of both worlds. His NPR shreds any vestige of integrity that the U.S. has left in relation to the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- by building new nuclear weapons and targeting non-nuclear states, Bush specifically breaks our treaty obligations to the world. This encourages nuclear proliferation by further legitimizing nuclear weapons. At the same time, existing nuclear states -- Russia, China, India and Pakistan -- are forced by Bush's Star Wars plans to increase or modify their nuclear arsenals so as to avoid having them be nullified by a U.S. missile defense system, should it ever exist. "Taken together, Bush's policy of new nuclear weapons, first strike nuclear targeting and the attempt to build a workable missile defense will look to the rest of the world like a country building an offensive nuclear capability. A world leader -- an only superpower -- who, by example, eschews the laws, treaties and norms that enable global cooperation is a world leader that is setting the stage for nuclear proliferation and nuclear war. In the end, Bush is creating a nuclear legacy that will have tragic results for the entire world." Peace Action, (formerly Sane and The Freeze), is the nation's largest peace and disarmament organization. http://www.usnewswire.com ***************************************************************** 40 AU: Why nuclear is not the answer theage.com.au - The Age - By Richard Butler March 17 2002 Seven weeks ago, in his first State of the Union address, US President George Bush declared the existence of an "axis of evil". The three states he identified as forming that axis - Iran, Iraq and North Korea - were included because of their alleged support of terrorism and their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Last week, we learnt through the leaking to the press of the secret portions of a Pentagon document - the Nuclear Posture Review - key elements of the planning being carried out to deal with the axis of evil, and another few of the traditional adversaries of the US. Simply, the US would nuke them. Naturally, the axis of evil concept drew attention. The Bush administration would have been disappointed if it had not. It was formulated to deepen already strong domestic support for the post-September 11 war on terror, and proved to be a brilliant success. Americans loved it - from Joe Sixpack to the Star Wars crowd. Elsewhere, reactions have been largely negative, ranging from concern about the manifest implausibility of the notion of an axis, to outright alarm. The fact that Secretary of State Colin Powell had to spend four to five weeks explaining the concept to members of Congress, the media and world leaders, demonstrated that the President's rhetorical flourish had incurred heavy costs for the US. Much more compelling, though, was how the truly significant portion of the same address was sidelined by the glitzier "axis" remark. This was where the President declared the US's new willingness to strike first at its perceived enemies: "I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most dangerous weapons." Mark these words. At least three factors were new here: the overtness of the statement; its replacement of a posture of deterrence with a policy of pre-emptive strike; and, its underlying rationale that the US can hold, deploy, and now, it seems, use weapons of mass destruction to protect its own security but others absolutely may not. The Nuclear Posture Review document went a considerable distance towards answering the question of how such pre-emptive action may be taken in the future - with nuclear weapons, including newly developed, special-purpose weapons. The document calls for the production of new missiles, bombers and submarines, and new, smaller, more mobile and ground-penetrating weapons, nuclear "bunker busters". It is important to understand what all of this might mean, beyond its merely muscular aspect. First, and above all, it places nuclear weaponsin a category no different from conventional weapons. They would become incorporated into the regular,war-fighting arsenal. This would reverse 50 years of recognition that nuclear weapons are different, that their capacity for devastation, including radiological and environmental damage, sets them apart from all other weapons. It is for this reason that nuclear weapons have always been, and remain, a special source of moral concern. It is odd that an American government with deep roots in a Christian moralistic movement would so lightly set this concern aside. Second, the largely successful collective action taken by virtually all nations for more than 30 years to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons has rested on the promise, given in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, that states that have nuclear weapons will progressively reduce them and those that do not will never acquire them. The US is one of the former and, in May, 2000, made an "unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination" of its nuclear arsenals. That the US now proposes to abrogate that commitment will have grave consequences. It is inconceivable that other states will not follow suit and develop new nuclear weapons. Third, the goal of preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction has always had a gut problem embedded in it - equity. Other countries have repeatedly asked of major weapons states, such as the US, why does your security justify your holding such weapons but ours does not? This, for example, was India's question for more than a quarter of a century. It got tired of waiting for an answer and, three years ago, gave its own by going nuclear. Pakistan immediately followed suit, illustrating the axiom of proliferation- that as long as any state holds such weapons others will seek to acquire them. Fourth, the actions the US President proposes to take are, of course, driven by September 11. But, they raise the question of whether the cure may be worse than, or at least greatly exacerbate, the disease. Simply, if the US now turns upside down a bedrock principle of the age of nuclear weapons - that if they have any utility it lies in deterrence not in their use - it is possible that others, including terrorist groups, will welcome this development, in which the inadmissible will have become acceptable. The bottom line is this. If the US now cedes the moral ground previously staked out in the policy of nuclear deterrence - the hallmark of which was no first use of nuclear weapons - it will fulfil the terrorists' and the outlaws' most demonic picture of the US as a state that preaches probity and restraint to others but reserves complete freedom of action to itself, now apparently including the use of nuclear weapons. Were this to occur, the previous doctrine of deterrence - mutual assured destruction - would be replaced by unilateral assured destruction American-style. If this develops, the response will be a runaway nuclear arms race. The proposed use by the US of nuclear weapons as a regular part of war fighting would require it to abrogate a solemn commitment it has given the world community and would change our world far beyond the way in which it was changed by the outrages of September 11, 2001. Where this would then lead is beyond human calculation. Richard Butler is the former head of the United Nations Commission to disarm Iraq and former Australian ambassador to the UN. His book, Fatal Choice: Nuclear Weapons and the Illusion of Missile Defence, was published this year. Copyright © 2002 The Age Company Ltd ***************************************************************** 41 US may abandon nuke test moratorium ©The Frontier Publications (Pvt) Ltd. Updated on 3/16/2002 12:10:23 PM WASHINGTON (APP): The United States may abandon an international moratorium on nuclear testing to make way for development of a new generation of bunker-busting nuclear weapons, according to excerpts from a nuclear posture review made public here Thursday. “While the United States is making every effort to maintain the stockpile without additional nuclear testing, this may not be possible for the indefinite future,” said the document obtained by GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington think tank, and posted on its Web site. The authors of the review pointed out that some problems in the US nuclear stockpile due to aging and manufacturing defects of the weapons have already been identified. maintained by PakCyber.Com ***************************************************************** 42 Fallout at the nuclear frontier -- The Washington Times March 16, 2002 Martin Schram What was strange, after the newest news leak of a secret Pentagon document changing the threshold for America's use of nuclear weapons, was the sound we didn't hear. We didn't hear the traditional wailing of top administration spokespeople — the folks who typically react to such scoops by performing like pro wrestlers pounding the mat in feigned pain. There was the Pentagon's classified Nuclear Posture Review splashed all over the unclassified front pages of the Los Angeles Times on Saturday, March 9, and the New York Times on Sunday, March 10. It told the world of a new American planning blueprint that was the first public indication that the United States is now considering a first-use policy for nuclear weapons in certain circumstances. The contingency document disclosed that the Bush administration is drafting plans for the first use of nuclear weapons against nuclear nations such as China and North Korea and (although it is not considered foreseeable) Russia. And in certain circumstances, for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations that have supported terrorists — Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya. The Pentagon document called for the development of a smaller nuclear weapon suitable for battlefield use and for a nuclear device capable of busting underground bunkers and facilities that are now too deep to be penetrated by non-nuclear bombs. According to the Los Angeles Times, the secret document said U.S. nuclear weapons could be used in three circumstances: against targets that were able to withstand non-nuclear attack; in response to an attack by any weapon of mass destruction — nuclear, chemical or biological; or, in the catchall phrase quoted from the document, "in the event of surprising military developments." The newspaper reports noted prominently that the secret report had been provided to some members of Congress on Jan. 8. This predictably sparked the conventional wisdom in Washington that this was a journalistic wink-and-nod code meaning that meant someone in Congress leaked the document. And that in turn, led to one of those merry moments on the Washington Sunday brunch circuit. A prominent senator told me the leak surely seemed timed to complicate things for Vice President Dick Cheney, who was embarking that day on a trip to countries in the Middle East — adding Mr. Cheney must be fuming, the senator opined. To which I opined right back that it is possible the senator, while wise in all manner of things, had this one all backward. Because: This was not the sort of saber-rattling message a president wants to deliver in a speech. Nor was it one that a vice president would relish springing on unsuspecting diplomats at every stop. But now all Mr. Cheney had to do was calmly put things in context, big-time. He didn't have to be the big-stick bearer of bad news — we in the media have done that — just the calm-but-firm explainer. Well, at that the senator nodded and opined that this made sense. So I confessed that I had cheated. I had seen the Sunday morning talk shows and the administration's Sunday mainstays hadn't wailed about the leak at all, as we have seen so many of our top brass do after other secret documents were splashed all over the news. "We should not get all carried away with some sense that the United States is planning to use nuclear weapons in some contingency that is coming up in the near future," said Secretary of State Colin Powell. "What the Pentagon has done with this study is sound, military, conceptual planning and the president will take that planning and he will give his directions on how to proceed." And presidential national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the document was really "nothing new," just a few options about "how do we deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against us?" Actually, it is quite new. And in the days that followed, Washington's nuclear think-tankers weighed in to say just that. Nuclear weapons have always been deemed valuable for their role in deterrence against other nuclear nations. That was the Mutual Assured Destruction policy of the Cold War. But any policy contemplating first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations, even evil ones, is a major change. Consider how India and Pakistan, nuclear nations now in a standoff over Kashmir, might view a new U.S. first-use policy. The development of a new generation of small nuclear weapons for first use against non-nuclear wrongdoers can only be interpreted as a sign that Washington, hometown of thinkers who in another context and another time came up with the policy of "Don't ask. Don't tell," have now come up with a new one: You can't. We can. Martin Schram is a nationally syndicated columnist. ***************************************************************** 43 Bush policy on nuclear weapons traced to Cheney after Gulf War KRT Wire | 03/15/2002 | BY DANIEL SNEIDER Knight Ridder Newspapers SAN JOSE, Calif. - (KRT) - Revelations that the Bush administration is developing new nuclear weapons to target Iraq, North Korea and others have been greeted with alarm as a radical departure from established U.S. policy. In reality, the Bush administration's nuclear strategy marks only the next step in the evolution of a policy that originated more than decade ago, during the previous Bush administration, and continued during the Clinton administration. Pentagon officials and nuclear planners have already put this into action, as revealed in government documents, including previously classified material made available to the San Jose Mercury News. "What is new is that it's on the front page of the newspapers," said Jacqueline Cabasso, head of the Western States Legal Foundation, an anti-nuclear organization. The Bush policy is laid out in a classified Pentagon report called the Nuclear Posture Review, excerpts of which an anti-nuclear group revealed online Thursday. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the review, which is intended to guide the U.S. use of nuclear weapons, "puts in motion a major change in our approach to the role of nuclear offensive forces." The focus moves from deterring traditional nuclear-armed foes such as Russia toward coping with the spread of weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical and biological - to countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria. A shift in this direction began in 1990 under Vice President Dick Cheney when he was secretary of defense, and was accelerated after the Persian Gulf War. By the mid-1990s the Pentagon already was working to integrate the possible use of nuclear weapons to respond to biological or chemical attacks. The Clinton administration issued a secret presidential directive in 1997, PDD-60, to retarget nuclear weapons toward rogue nations, experts say. The following year, as revealed in a previously classified document, the 4th U.S. Air Force Fighter Wing carried out an exercise testing its ability to withstand a North Korean chemical attack in South Korea and retaliate with nuclear weapons dropped from U.S. aircraft. According to the excerpts, the review stresses the need to develop weapons that can burrow into and destroy buried bunkers where biological or chemical arms might be stored. It states that neither conventional weapons nor existing nuclear weapons ``provide a high probability of defeat of these important targets.'' The document does not mention whether the United States would ever use nuclear weapons first to prevent a possible attack, a point of concern among opponents. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday that the United States would stand by a 24-year pledge not to use nuclear weapons against states that don't have them. Bush administration officials have described this as the beginning of a policy review, denying there is a ``day-to-day target list'' for nuclear attack, as Powell put it. ``There is no new design out there,'' he told Congress earlier in the week. Some critics, however, have assailed the review as a dangerous change in U.S. nuclear doctrine. "The NPR reflects a major shift in the military and ethical rationale for nuclear weapons, no longer defining them as devices of deterrence, but as weapons of war," said the San Francisco-based Global Security Institute. But nuclear specialists, including some who are critical of this policy, argue that in one sense Powell is right - this is not new. "There is a substantial history of statements and declassified information that provides overwhelming documentation that - declared policy or not - a shift occurred very early on," says Hans Kirstensen, a nuclear researcher at the Bay Area-based Nautilus Institute who provided some materials to the San Jose Mercury News. He traces the roots of this to 1990 when, with the Cold War winding down, Cheney told Congress that U.S. nuclear forces were needed not only to deter the Soviet Union but also "because there is a growing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated weapons technology in the Third World." During the Gulf War, the United States hinted directly to the Iraqi leadership that any use of biological or chemical weapons would trigger a U.S. nuclear response, although then President George Bush revealed later in his memoirs that he had ruled this option out. But the policy of keeping the enemy guessing - "calculated ambiguity" - remained intact. "For obvious reasons, we choose not to specify in detail what responses we would make to a chemical attack," Clinton's second defense secretary, William Perry, told Congress in 1996. "However, as we stated during the Gulf War, if any country were foolish enough to use chemical weapons against the United States, the response would be `absolutely overwhelming' and `devastating.' " In the wake of the Gulf War the military grew increasingly concerned about programs to develop chemical and biological weapons and place them in protected underground bunkers, as the Iraqis had apparently done. During the Bush administration the U.S. Strategic Command, which controls nuclear forces, began to do "adaptive planning," allowing them to flexibly respond to emerging crises rather than rely on a fixed set of targets. In 1993 the Clinton administration initiated the first review in an attempt to radically reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal. It met substantial resistance from the military and the nation's nuclear labs, and its 1994 Nuclear Posture Review ended up largely endorsing the status quo. In a previously secret working paper from the review, the strategic command argued for the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons close to a "potential proliferator." "An `on-the-scene' or rapidly deployable nuclear force offers the potential of providing a more `visible' and viable theater response than a force residing in the U.S.," the command wrote. The Joint Chiefs of Staff codified this use of nuclear weapons in a "Doctrine for Joint Theater Nuclear Operations," issued in 1995 and revised the following year. While the dissolution of the Soviet Union has reduced the possibility of a nuclear exchange, the threat from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has grown, the Pentagon warned. The document details the use of specific nuclear weapons in places such as Europe, the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula and how they can be integrated into the battle plans of regional commands. During this same period, the nuclear labs - Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia - began developing new weapons that could penetrate deep into the earth. In 1993 they began a program to modify the B-61, an older bomb dropped from aircraft, for this role. The redesigned bomb entered the nuclear stockpile by 1996, when a Clinton administration defense official described it as the "weapon of choice" to take out a buried Libyan chemical weapons plant. The nuclear review, however, says that more capable nuclear weapons still must be developed. As reported by the San Jose Mercury News, programs to design these weapons are well under way. This broad effort is detailed in a "Report to Congress on the Defeat of Hard and Deeply Buried Targets," issued in July 2001 and made public recently by a New Mexico anti-nuclear watchdog group. The report says there are hundreds of targets with shielding equivalent to 70 to 300 feet of concrete protecting command and control facilities and possible weapons of mass destruction. Only nuclear weapons, the report says, may be able to reach such targets and destroy the biological and chemical agents stored there without dispersing them into the surrounding environment. "Nuclear weapons have a unique ability to destroy both agent containers and (chemical and biological) agents," the report tells Congress. "Lethality is optimized if the fireball is proximate to the target." The report says that regional commands must be ready to carry out attacks on such targets on short notice. The Bush administration's nuclear review is the product of policymakers who have been longtime advocates. Stephen Younger, who heads a key Pentagon planning agency, is a Los Alamos nuclear weapons designer who argued publicly two years ago for deploying such bunker-busters. Others now in senior positions authored a study published in January 2001 arguing for developing new weapons for this purpose. "This is a continuum, not an abrupt break with the past," said Janne Nolan, a specialist on nuclear weapons policy and the director of the Eisenhower Institute. "The whole policy just crept along like a slow-moving car accident." Excerpts of the Nuclear Posture Review are available at [http://www.globalsecurity.org] . © 2002, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.). ***************************************************************** 44 Powell Reaffirms Nuke Policy The Salt Lake Tribune -- Saturday, March 16, 2002 BY BARRY SCHWEID THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON -- As the Bush administration weighs possible confrontations with Iran and Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday the United States would stand by a 24-year pledge not to use its arsenal of nuclear weapons against states that don't have them. In an interview with The Associated Press, Powell also said that he hoped Israel's pullback of troops and tanks on the West Bank would continue but that the withdrawal may not be permanent. A Pentagon policy review that surfaced last weekend raised the prospect of the United States possibly using its powerful nuclear stockpile in a wide range of conflicts. President Bush's denunciation earlier of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" and the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism already had raised chances of using American military power generally. Bush said at a news conference Wednesday he was leaving "all options on the table" as the Pentagon reworks its nuclear weapons policy to deter any attack on the United States, including from non-nuclear states such as Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria. A U.S. pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states was taken by President Carter's administration in 1978 and reaffirmed, most recently, by the Clinton administration in 1995. "We have not changed our policy," Powell said Friday, reaffirming that commitment. He also offered assurances that the United States did not have nuclear missiles targeted on Russia or any other nation. But, he said, to be "perfectly honest," a missile can be redirected quickly and "we have nuclear weapons obviously that are capable of being targeted." By contrast, Powell said up to 13,000 of the 28,000 long-range nuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile during the Cold War were targeted on the Soviet Union and its allies. Reports of the new policy review named Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea and Libya as potential targets of a U.S. nuclear strike. Russian officials reacted angrily. But, Powell said, "once they got over the headlines" and received an explanation from administration officials, "they could see that, if anything, they should feel less threatened than they might have before reading the study." The United States and Russia are in the midst of negotiating cutbacks of about two-thirds in their arsenals of long-range nuclear warheads. Powell said any agreement would be legally binding as Russia had insisted from the outset. © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 45 Nuclear policy review no cause for alarm - yet Asheville Citizen-Times POSTED: March 15, 2002 5:13 p.m. Well, that could've been handled better. "That'' being the disclosure of the Pentagon's "Nuclear Posture Review'' - and the subsequent furor generated by it. In a nutshell, the main points of the Review that raised alarms both at home and among allies are: The development of contingency plans using nuclear weapons against seven nations said to be developing weapons of mass destruction: China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Russia and Syria. A proposal to build - and possibly use - a new generation of nuclear weapons, including "mini-nukes'' designed to destroy underground bunkers. Widening the number of situations where a nuclear attack might be threatened. One instance mentioned is an Iraqi invasion of Israel. There seem to be two schools of thought about the Review revelations. One, that this classified document was intentionally leaked to the press to send a message to enemies and would-be enemies that the U.S. is serious about its response to terrorist attacks and the need to prevent new attacks. The other is that this issue simply wasn't thought through. Considering administration officials were all over the Sunday morning talk shows defusing many of the Review's points and that worldwide (indeed, domestic) reaction to the news was one of general shock and demands for explanations, the latter school of thought seems to be the more likely. The central questions are whether what's outlined in the NPR is worth all the hand-wringing or is it only a matter of prudent planning. The answer in both cases would appear to be "yes.'' Certainly, the line between using nuclear weapons and other options should remain firm; nuclear weapons aren't just any other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical or biological agents. They are the ultimate doomsday devices. As such, talk of their use, even on a small scale, is not something to be treated lightly. It is adding another deadly component to an already dangerously unstable world. And the wording in the NPR which practically links the U.S. military to Israel (which hasn't needed our help in its previous wars and has its own nukes) is probably what Osama bin Laden and his ilk would love to see. Further, coming on the heels of our declarations of intent to abandon the Anti- Ballistic Missile treaty and build a defense shield, such declarations could well carry a high price in regard to a global proliferation of nuclear weapons. Certainly, if the shoe were on the other foot the U.S. would be reacting with alarm - if not launching a pre-emptive strike. On the other hand, it pays to read the NPR carefully. Because there are words that keep popping up. Words like "proposed'' and "contingency'' and the like. It is also worth noting the NPR includes a reduction of U.S. nuclear stockpiles by almost two-thirds in the next 10 years. It's also worth noting that the Pentagon should be planning for every conceivable military scenario. It always has; that is the Pentagon's function. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. In the end, a dramatic shift in U.S. nuclear policy - which has, after all, helped avert the use of those terrible weapons for 57 years - will not fly with the American public or Congress. At this time of crisis, when we need allies and diplomacy to help rid the world of this cancer called terrorism, it is hoped the NPR revelations turn out to be a tempest in a teapot. Because, in all likelihood, it's just that, and not some masterfully engineered leak to send a message to our enemies and potential enemies. After all, if they haven't figured out we're serious by our actions since Sept. 11, 2001, they never will. At their own peril. ***************************************************************** 46 Nuclear Posturing (washingtonpost.com) By Michael Getler Sunday, March 17, 2002; Page B08 A week ago Saturday the Los Angeles Times reported on its front page that the Bush administration "has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations, according to a classified Pentagon report." The Sunday New York Times had two front-page stories on the new nuclear posture review. Then the Los Angeles Times did two more front-page stories, and the New York Times did a third. Administration officials were questioned on the Sunday TV talk shows, and strong reactions arose abroad to the press accounts. The Post handled the story in a much more subdued fashion. A news story Sunday on Page A27 said the administration "is preparing new guidance for the Pentagon on where to target" the nation's nuclear arsenal and "giving greater emphasis to potential use against China, North Korea and several threatening Middle Eastern states." On Tuesday a story on Page A4 said the Bush nuclear review follows a pattern set five years ago by the Clinton administration. Some readers asked, "What in the world are your editors up to when a news item of this importance is buried deep inside the paper?" as one e-mail put it. Another said The Post accounts "largely debunked the importance" of the stories in the other papers, "implying that it was no big deal. It is a big deal. Although the administration says it is routine contingency planning, the review does envision development of new tactical nuclear weapons, the conceivable use of nuclear weapons on non-nuclear countries and the possible resumption of nuclear testing." The Post stories were carefully done, seeking to put the review in context. But readers cannot be blamed for feeling The Post was playing down this story. The irony is that veteran Post reporter Walter Pincus has been leading the way on this for months. On Dec. 20, for example, Pincus reported about completion of initial studies on how nuclear weapons can be modifed to attack underground bunkers and tunnels that conventional weapons can't destroy, and also about studies on "the need for a new, low-yield nuclear weapon" against such facilities in North Korea, Iraq and China. That story went on Page A29. On Feb. 19 Pincus reported, on Page A13, that the recently completed nuclear posture review indicated the administration was studying "a new generation of nuclear weapons . . . at the same time it has announced its intention to sharply reduce the number of operationally deployed U.S. nuclear warheads." So what's going on here? Did The Post play the story properly, given what insights had been reported before? Did The Post's rivals overplay the story? A Post editorial on Wednesday seemed to suggest as much, stating: "Recent reports about the Bush administration's review of U.S. nuclear weapons strategy have tended to obscure the fact that much of what the administration laid out in the congressionally mandated report isn't new." Yet the end of that editorial says the administration's new plans for an old idea -- the development of low-yield nuclear weapons for smaller targets -- "is troubling" and "could lower the threshold for launching a nuclear attack." That sounds to me as though it makes the case for this to have been a front-page story here somewhere along the line, especially given the generally muscular approach the administration has taken toward its enemies' list. Adding to the spectacle of such widely differing news display among the nation's three top dailies is the attitude of the administration toward the leak -- to the New York and Los Angeles papers -- of this supposedly secret document; hardly a peep -- until Defense Secretary Rumsfeld blasted the leakers on Wednesday -- from an administration that threatens federal employees if they utter an unauthorized word about the war in Afghanistan. It makes you wonder if White House officials didn't mind this leak, so they could get their "don't mess with us" message out without launching it and then look cool and calm, explaining that this kind of review goes on all the time, and it's nothing new. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 47 Nuclear Preemption (washingtonpost.com) By Jim Hoagland Sunday, March 17, 2002; Page B09 Nuclear weapons have posed the heaviest burden of leadership for every American president since Harry Truman. There can be no more awesome responsibility than having to think about the circumstances under which a nation or perhaps even the world would be destroyed on your command, as George W. Bush has just been reminded. The classified version of this administration's first important statement to itself about nuclear weapons found its way into the Los Angeles Times last weekend. The disclosure provoked outcries of alarm from anti-nuclear activists and a determined effort by officials to minimize or dismiss the document. Don't buy the smoke screen. The nuclear posture review written at Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon is a revealing statement. This planning document helps establish an ethos of nuclear strategy that will inevitably influence what and how the president thinks about atomic weapons. Ronald Reagan was horrified by his first detailed briefing on American nuclear strategy, according to a famous story told by his aides. Reagan was so revolted by the doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD) and its balance of terror that he demanded an alternative: a strategic defensive shield against Soviet nuclear attack. The idea collapsed along with the Soviet Union. Reagan's emotional response to the ultimate weapon resembled the nuclear antipathy expressed by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton during their presidencies. A calculated, highly pragmatic approach seems to characterize the Presidents Bush, father and son. I found candidate George W. Bush's campaign discussions of nuclear strategy to be careful to businesslike. In his initial exposure to the grim details of how much destructive power he would have at his fingertips, Bush posed a deceptively workaday question: Why do we need so many nuclear weapons now that the Soviet Union has disappeared? The Soviet attack on Europe that U.S. nuclear weapons were to deter had lost all plausibility in Bush's mind. He prodded discussions about unilateral reductions in the U.S. arsenal that would save money and perhaps contribute to better relations with Russia. His version of missile defense is far more tentative and far less ideological than was Reagan's Star Wars notion. When the Russians insisted on a legally binding document to cover strategic arms reductions, Bush went along. So there was little theology or Strangelovian analysis in Bush's original contemplation of nuclear strategy. Then came Sept. 11 and the war in Afghanistan. Those events have significantly darkened this administration's nuclear ethos. Any weapons that can be used to preempt worst-case scenarios are being looked at in a new light. This is one of the three important indirect revelations of the nuclear posture review: It suggests that deterrence is a meaningless concept for suicidal terrorists like Mohamed Atta and probably for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. That may be true for Iraq's Saddam Hussein or North Korea's Kim Jong Il as well. The review makes clear a turn by the Bush team to a strategy of preemption, including by nuclear weapons if necessary, to prevent these rulers from passing on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to terror networks. This represents a devaluation of deterrence by the Bush administration. Second, the authors of the defense paper document the administration's deepening skepticism about the effectiveness of traditional U.S. and international nonproliferation policies and arms control treaties. Thinking they were talking in private, the planners list seven countries as candidates to glow in the dark permanently if they get out of line: Russia and China, because of the size of their arsenals and the uncertainty of their political futures; Iraq, Iran and North Korea, performing "axis of evil" encores here because they support U.S.-targeted terrorists and have or seek WMD; Libya and Syria, not previously spotlighted but secret makers and stockpilers of chemical weapons. Finally, like most bureaucratic exercises, the paper works backward from a desired conclusion. The goal is a resumption of nuclear testing. The authors sing the praises of new mini-nuclear weapons and radioactive bunker-busters that, alas, cannot be developed if the United States continues the voluntary moratorium on testing being observed by the world's established nuclear powers. That, for me, is the least convincing part of the exercise. The losses from going first and thereby encouraging China or France to test new nuclear devices outweigh the gains that a resumption of U.S. testing now would bring. And it would do nothing to lessen Bush's Toxic Texan image abroad. The administration is right in insisting that this is the beginning, not the end, of an important internal discussion. But it is being intellectually dishonest in disowning the shaping power of what has already been written and which must now be weighed by the president. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 48 The Fallout of Desperation March 12, 2002 by Robert Scheer The news that the Pentagon had secret contingency plans to fight terrorism with nuclear weapons has the marks not of considered military doctrine but rather of an infantile tantrum born of the Bush Administration's frustration in making good on its overblown promise to end the terrorist scourge. There is desperation in the air; the giant that is America feels humbled by the Lilliputian terrorists who have not been brought fully to account. There still is not a clear line of command connecting the hijackers with Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders whom the President has yet to capture, "dead or alive." Neither has there been progress on the source of the anthrax that killed five people and crippled the US Postal Service, except the disconcerting evidence that this particular evil seems to be home-grown. Nuclear weapons also are a made-in-the-USA product, and given that we are the only nation to have used them, one would expect that we would have a special responsibility to eschew their future use. Instead, the Administration's plan not only targets the three "axis of evil" nations--Iran, Iraq and North Korea--but Syria, Libya, Russia and China as well. Consider the absurdity: We risk escalating a worldwide nuclear arms race to nuke a shadow terrorist enemy whose most effective military action to date was begun with box cutters. Clearly, that threat could have been met best by taking the modest steps of maintaining armed air marshals on civilian planes and employing better-trained airport security guards. Nuking our own or anyone else's airports would not have saved the World Trade Center and the human beings who were there September 11. The hijackers succeeded because our $30-billion-a-year intelligence apparatus failed to perform and we consistently coddled Saudi Arabia's backers of religious hate even after their minions blew up our embassies. Having squandered the Clinton-led Israel-Palestine peace initiatives, President Bush watched from the sidelines as the Mideast caldron, the source of most of the world's terrorist threats, boiled to overflowing. The enduring terrorist threat has little to do with the caves of Afghanistan and everything to do with the failure to secure the Mideast peace promised by Bush's father's Gulf War. Clearly, Arab-Israeli peace should be the highest order in a war on terrorism. This administration, however--whether to gain poll approval or because of its allegiance to military contractors--has raised the military options above any diplomatic efforts. So why not also throw some nuclear weapons into the mix? Because it is ludicrous. Does anyone really believe that nuclear weapons might save the lives of Israelis and Palestinians, when it assuredly would incinerate them? Or that targeting Russia and China for potential nuclear attacks would lead those nations to embrace further moves toward nuclear stability and arms control? Or cause them to be less threatened by our announced plan to scrap the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and build a missile defense? In fact, Chinese or Russian military planners would be attacked by their own hard-liners if they failed to respond to this report by placing even greater emphasis on making their own nuclear forces more robust, survivable and again on hair-trigger alert in anticipation of an American first strike. To encourage heightened fears of US nuclear intentions at a time when the Russians and Chinese are our allies in the war against terrorism is dizzyingly counterproductive. We need to encourage those countries and other nuclear powers to think of nuclear weapons as dangerous junk that at best will boomerang and destroy all that they care about. As the anthrax example demonstrates, our own investment in weapons of mass destruction can easily turn into our own undoing. What madness to even entertain the thought that nuclear weapons are anything other than the means to the world's destruction. What we need instead is a US-led worldwide campaign to shun nuclear weapons as inherently genocidal, to effectively end proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and material and to treat those nations that dally in the business of nuclear arms as barbarians in need of restraint. It is we who have defined rogue nations as those bent on developing weapons of mass destruction. How then can we so cavalierly entertain the idea of again leading the world down the path to nuclear Armageddon? thenation.com Webmanager | Subscribe | Subscription Help | Privacy © 2002 The Nation Company, L.P. Permissions | Letters to the ***************************************************************** 49 Be Afraid, Very Afraid Rich Lowry on North Korea on National Review Online Surprise! North Korea may already be a nuclear-weapon state. March 14, 2002 11:30 a.m. When you testify to Congress in measured tones, what you say doesn't always get the attention it deserves. That's the lesson from Robert Walpole's March 11th testimony before a Senate subcommittee. Walpole is the National Intelligence Officer for Strategic and Nuclear Programs for the CIA and was there to update senators on the National Intelligence Estimate. He calmly delivered the following blockbuster: "The Intelligence Community judged in the mid-1990s that North Korea had produced one, possibly two, nuclear weapons." That means North Korea may already be a nuclear-weapon state. This is news. Just last Sunday, the Washington Post reported, "North Korea may have enough fissile material for one or two nuclear weapons, U.S. analysts say." But this conventional wisdom appears to be outdated. Also according to Walpole, the North Korean "multiple-stage Taepo Dong-2, which is capable of reaching the United States with a nuclear-weapon-sized payload, may be ready for flight testing." Feeling secure yet? The conventional wisdom also previously held that Iran could probably achieve an ICBM capability within 15 years. Walpole reports, "All agencies agree that Iran could attempt to launch an ICBM about mid-decade." That could, then, be in three or five years so. (He went on to say, "[the agencies] believe Iran is likely to take until the last half of the decade to do so. One agency further judges that Iran is unlikely to achieve a successful test of an ICBM before 2015.") It is clear that Iran has been overachieving when it comes to nuclear and ballistic-missile technology. Walpole again: "The Intelligence Community judges that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon. Most agencies assess that Tehran could have one by the end of the decade, although one agency judges it will take longer. All agree that Iran could reduce this time frame by several years with foreign assistance." Foreign assistance is the great friend of rogues generally. If it bought the right engines, according to Walpole, Iraq "could test an ICBM within about five years of the acquisition." And if it slipped out from various U.N. prohibitions, "Iraq would be likely to test an ICBM probably masked as an SLV [space launch vehicle] before 2015, possibly before 2010 with significant foreign assistance." The bottom line, according to Walpole: "All this leads us to assess that the probability that a missile with a weapon of mass destruction will be used against U.S. forces or interests is higher today than during most of the Cold War, and it will continue to grow as the capabilities of potential adversaries mature." It is worth noting that all this was occurring before the Bush administration pursued missile defense and thought about designing a low-yield nuke to deter rogues from developing and using weapons of mass destruction. So, the administration's critics have it backwards — Bush isn't creating a threatening international environment, he's reacting to one. Unless the New York Times and others will now consider North Korea just another mature, responsible country — since, after all, it may already have joined the nuclear "club." ***************************************************************** 50 DoD News: DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Pace Presenter: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld Friday, March 15, 2002 - 11:15 a.m. EST DoD News Briefing Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld Friday, March 15, 2002 - 11:15 a.m. EST END HEADER (14 lines) --> (Also participating was Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.) Rumsfeld: Operation Anaconda continues in the area south of Gardez in eastern Afghanistan. The fighting is winding down as you know; although, there has been some in the last 24 hours. Coalition forces are for the most part in an exploitation phase, doing the difficult work of searching caves and clearing areas where the battles and fighting has taken place. Our forces are finding weapons, ammunition, some intelligence information. There's been some discussion about how many of the enemy have been killed during this past whatever it's been, eight or 10 days, during the course of Anaconda. There are clearly a lot of people who are willing to guess at those numbers. I'm not one of them. We can't yet know how many fighters or bodies are still in the caves that have not been searched; how many -- or how many dead al Qaeda were buried, which is, of course, their custom, to do that very rapidly, nor can we know precisely how many have escaped, although we suggest there are people in all of those categories. We do know, of course, that very few have surrendered. That we can know. However, progress in one area of Afghanistan does not mean that we can relax elsewhere. There are still pockets of Taliban and al Qaeda fighters at a number of locations in Afghanistan, and certainly there are others just across the various borders of that country that would like to come back. They're determined to attack U.S. military forces and U.S. interests in Afghanistan and elsewhere to attempt to show their strength. Six months have now passed since September 11th, yet on Tuesday of this week, six months and one day after the attacks, more than a dozen additional bodies were pulled from the ruins of the World Trade Center, including firefighters who lost their lives in the burning towers. They're a reminder of the fight we face. We are fighting because of firemen and friends and families and neighbors who were under attack, and they -- we continue to be threatened. We lost thousands of Americans on September 11th, and if we don't stop the terrorists, the next attacks could clearly be considerably worse. At the outset of this campaign, I outlined our objectives for Afghanistan, and they were to drive the Taliban from power, to end the use of Afghanistan as a haven for terrorists, to provide humanitarian relief for the Afghan people, and to help the Afghan interim authority restore some stability in Afghanistan. We're making good progress. Looking forward, we will continue to work with Mr. Karzai and the Afghan interim authority so that the Taliban and al Qaeda will not return and are not able to create a haven for terrorists out of that country again. And we need to make sure that the well-trained terrorists who left Afghanistan do not set up sanctuaries in other nations. We are providing training and equipment to other governments that are threatened by terrorists within their borders, in the Philippines and in Yemen. As President Bush has said, there must be no refuge for terrorists and no sanctuaries. One final note: In 1802, 200 years ago tomorrow, the United States Military Academy at West Point was founded by President Thomas Jefferson. For two centuries, "the long gray line" has marched into the history books, heroic in war and vigilant in peace. Over the decades, graduates of West Point have become leaders in literally every walk of life, and today many of those leaders are active in the global war against terrorism, men and women serving in far-flung places across the globe. We respect their service to our country, and we thank them. I did the honors for the 200th anniversary of West Point, rather than General Pace. (Light laughter.) Sir. Q: I thought you were going to say 200 years ago -- (inaudible). (Laughter, groans.) Rumsfeld: (Laughs.) Sir. Pace: Thank you, sir. I just go back from a short trip to the European theater, had a chance to go into Macedonia, Kosovo, and Bosnia to visit our commanders and our troops, and that's a -- just a great thing to do. The dedication, the focus on the mission, the pride that they all demonstrate when you look them in the eye and shake their hands just really makes you feel good, as an American, to see what they're doing over there. So to everyone there who may be watching this right now, who hosted me, I appreciate the opportunity. The secretary already mentioned Operation Anaconda. The troops involved in that operation right now are down below about a thousand. About a half are U.S., and the other half are Afghan and coalition forces. And they continue, as the secretary said, to finish their following sweeps of the area and to exploit the caves and the other locations that they found over there. And we will continue to look for other pockets of resistance and continue to seek out Taliban and al Qaeda and to attack them. With that, we will answer your questions. Rumsfeld: Charlie. Q: Mr. Secretary, as you pointed out, it's six months after the attacks on New York and Washington. Have you made any decision yet on the military commission/trials of the detainees you are holding? Rumsfeld: We have. We have made no decisions with respect to who might or might not be assigned to a commission. We have, however, pretty much completed the work as to how the commissions generally will be conducted, in the event someone is ultimately appointed to be tried by a commission. As I mentioned, I think, on an earlier occasion, what we've done is, we've come to conclusions with respect to 6, 8, 10, 12 of the critical issues, and then some of the decisions can be left to the convening authorities, as is the case in most judicial systems. So -- so we've not answered every single question, but we've answered the ones that we need to, in the event someone is assigned. Q: Could you briefly outline what those positions are? Rumsfeld: I really can't. I could, but I won't. (Laughs; laughter.) The reason I say that is, because it's not something that ought to be done briefly. If you'll recall, we all agree that our criminal justice system can produce just outcomes, and it is quite different from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which also can produce just outcomes. So -- the point being that you can have different systems, each of which, in their own way, produce an outcome that is acceptable to society. So, too, with the military commissions. The answer to the questions are going to be different from both the criminal system and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And the reason they're different is because of the -- the differences in the kinds of people that will be tried and the need for both security and protection for the people involved, whether the panel members or witnesses, counsel and so forth. As you may know, from the World Trade Center trial some years ago, I understand that some of those people are still being -- needing security today. And so we're going to be handling this in a way that's different, although it too will produce a just outcome. I give you that background because if I were to try to do a quick cursory summary, it would be pieces. And it seems to me it's critically important for people to look at the totality of it. Therefore, when we do release it, it will be released in writing. There will be questions and answers, and we will see that there is as little confusion as is humanly possible, because we and the individuals we've discussed this with inside the government, the people we've discussed it with who are experts from outside the government, a very distinguished group of people -- we're comfortable that it will produce a just, fair, balanced outcome; but I do not want it leaked out piecemeal in a way that people start taking a single element of it and shaking it in their teeth like a dog and concluding that there's something wrong with it because it's different from the criminal justice system or the Uniform Code of Military Justice, because they will be different. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any reason to have had commissions. So, with that long answer to your first question, we'll pray there's not a follow-up. (Laughter.) Q: Could we ask that you do that quickly, so that perhaps readers and listeners will not worry about what you said? Rumsfeld: You could ask that we do that quickly, and I would rather do it well than quickly. And -- so what we're doing is we're in the process of preparing papers and questions and answers and getting expert lawyers to read them over and make sure that no one can say that something's wrong with it. So it takes a little time to do things well. Q: Mr. Secretary? Mr. Secretary, you mentioned in your opening statement the desire to help the interim government achieve stability. Where are you in your thinking now about the U.S. role in that and the possibility of expanding either a peacekeeping mission or some other kind of international security role currently limited to Kabul? Rumsfeld: We're farther along than we were last week, in this sense. There have been discussions taking place between the Brits that are heading up the International Security Assistance Force, the United States and some countries that are potential ISAF countries for the period going forward towards the end of this year. As you know, the current group, I believe, expires in June. The current ISAF commitment was through some early date in June. We all feel that that needs to be extended beyond into -- towards the end of the year so that the successor government that takes over isn't faced with the absence in Kabul of such an organization. There have been some people who have speculated about the possibility of expanding ISAF, in the press and elsewhere. One of the problems with that concept is there's no one who's volunteering to do it. That is to say, the people who are the likely successors to the Brits as the lead are not enamored of that idea, the other people who are currently involved are not enamored of that idea, and I don't know -- the line of countries volunteering to step up and do that is a very short one. It's about as -- like that. Which suggests to me that that is not going to happen. It's not an opinion of mine. It's not a preference necessarily. It's an observation, that I don't know of any volunteers. Second fact: The situation in Afghanistan is relatively peaceful. Now, I use that word relatively. That is to say, there is not a serious security problem generally in the country. The forces that exist in various parts of the country, including ours, as well as the Afghan forces and other ISAF forces in Kabul are creating a situation that has been relatively peaceful. Now, will it be tomorrow or the next week? No. Somebody could get killed for sure, and there's still a lot of landmines and there's crime. But there is not a critical security problem at the present time. We do have the ability to assist with quick reaction in the event there is a security problem that is terrorist-related or the -- so that's a fact. Our government is working with the Interim Authority and others to begin that process of training. They're going to need -- the Interim Authority -- the government of Afghanistan is ultimately going to need a border patrol. It's going to need policemen and it's going to need an army. The ISAF is currently beginning that training process and we have offered to help with that training process, and other countries will. So it isn't for the United States government to make a decision. It's more for the countries that are willing to be helpful. Someone also is going to have to raise some money. And it's very likely that the United States and the UK and the country that may very well succeed the UK in the lead will be out to other nations around the world pointing out the fact that if we want this to be a secure situation, we do need the ISAF, and we'd best come up with some money to help fund this interim period. Q: Mr. Secretary -- Rumsfeld: Regrettably, the money that was -- I apologize; I'm taking too long on these questions, but they're important questions. The Tokyo -- so-called Tokyo Conference that raised money for Afghanistan regrettably has a lot of that money phased over one, two, three, four, five years, number one. And number two, a lot of it was in-kind, maybe food, maybe some other kinds of assistance. And third, to my knowledge, none of it was for security. And without security in a country, nothing else happens. So it was unfortunate, in my view, that there was not a reasonable pot of money that could be helpful to Afghanistan getting their security situation going. Q: Mr. Secretary. Rumsfeld: Yeah. Q: Mr. Secretary, I'd like to call on your reputation as a straight-shooter, see if you can clear up something. All this week the Washington Times has run a series of articles that suggest that a pilot from the Gulf War is still alive and being held captive in Baghdad. The public statements from government officials have been a little ambiguous. Can you tell us just straight out whether you have any credible evidence that suggests a pilot is being held alive in Iraq for more than a decade since the Gulf War? Rumsfeld: This is a very well-known case. It is a pilot that was shot down during the Gulf War. In that general time frame, he was declared killed in action. At some later point, in more recent years, he was declared moved from "killed in action" to "missing in action." We have a very real interest in his circumstance, if he's alive -- indeed, in knowing about his circumstance, even if he's not alive. And one would hope and pray that he is a alive. We do not know. There has been a very serious effort on the part of the United States government over a sustained period to try to gather as much information as possible. And some of it is information that is from sources that require it to be classified. Some of it isn't. Some of it's speculation. Some of it -- most of it is unauthoritative. That is to say, it is coming from people who heard from somebody about something, or believe there might be a situation that could be characterized as encouraging from our standpoint. But I do not have any -- I have not seen any intelligence on this in the last week myself. Q: You say you hope he's alive, but do you have any evidence that would lead you to believe that he's still alive and being held at this point? Rumsfeld: And I've answered that to the best of my ability. I have not seen -- you mentioned the articles during the course of the week. I've read them. I have not seen any current intelligence in the last week that would enable me to cast any additional light. How about you? Q: What about prior to the last week? Rumsfeld: Oh, I've seen intelligence over the last year on this subject, because we're interested. I don't know who asked that, but -- Q: Mr. Secretary, since you're waxing eloquent this morning, I wonder if you would -- Rumsfeld: You want shorter answers. I know. Q: No, no, not -- I'd like a rather lengthy answer on this one, if I may. The leak of the Nuclear Posture Review -- has that caused you personal embarrassment, particularly since your counterpart was here at the time from Russia? And has the content of this leak, as much as we are able to ascertain it, caused or is causing serious problems or even a rift between this country and Russia, particularly since the summit is coming up in May? Rumsfeld: The answer's no. I am disturbed by the leak because I think it's just enormously unprofessional. Is it embarrassing? No, it's not embarrassing. It's just a fact of life in Washington, D.C., in the 21st century that there are a lot of people running around who are perfectly willing to compromise the national security of the United States of America. And I don't like it. But is it embarrassing? No. It's a very fine piece of work, the Nuclear Posture Review. It has not caused any difficulties with Russia. The Russians had been briefed on it previously, as had our allies. It was even fortuitous, as a matter of fact, because Mr. Minister Ivanov was here, and we could give him a personal full briefing on it and discuss any of the issues that came up. There's nothing surprising or particularly notable in there with respect to Russia, except for the fact that the president of the United States had indicated that he's going to draw down deployed defensive strategic nuclear weapons by some two-thirds, which certainly ought not to -- Q: Can I do a follow up really quick? Rumsfeld: -- which certainly ought not to disturb Russia or anyone else. (Cross talk.) Q: Just a quick follow-up, if I may, Mr. Secretary. Quick follow up? Quick follow up, sir? A precedent established here long ago. Rumsfeld: Everyone in favor of a quick follow-up, hands up. (Cross talk; laughter.) Q: Give him a follow up. (Laughter.) Rumsfeld: All right. Q: Oh, go on. (Cross talk; laughter.) Q: (Inaudible.) Q: Thank you, sir. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, (inaudible). Rumsfeld: Seeing the one, the one has it. Okay. Q: It seems that the one key disagreement here perhaps in the shift in U.S. policy is that if the leak is correct, five of the seven nations do not now possess nuclear weapons. This seems to be a shift almost shifting towards an offensive deterrence rather than the defensive deterrence of the Cold War. Rumsfeld: The threshold for the use of nuclear weapons has not changed. The Cold War is over. The whole orientation of the United States of America for many decades was to the Soviet Union, properly so. They had, and even today have the largest number of offensive strategic nuclear weapons. We don't consider them an enemy today, so the orientation of our nuclear posture is significantly different today than it needed to be during the Cold War. Other countries are interested in developing nuclear weapons and engaged in activities that demonstrate their intent and their purpose. And the United States is perfectly -- it's perfectly proper for the United States to take note of those things and be sensitive to them. Yes. Q: Mr. Secretary, on the body count issue, some of the very rough estimates of the numbers killed did come from this podium as well as from Bagram, and they were in quite a contrast to your determination earlier in the campaign to avoid any kind of speculation about that. How -- first of all, how was it that we did begin to hear estimates of enemy kills? Do you now, in hindsight, feel that was a mistake to make any reference to it? Can you explain that a little bit? Rumsfeld: Well, you know -- who knows? Different people have different views as to how to handle things. I guess I'm so old I watched the Vietnam War, and the body counting and didn't -- never found it impressive. It -- it is -- I know what I know, and I know what I don't know. And how can I stand up here when I know I don't know how many people were killed? I don't. And I don't think anyone does. But there -- there may be people who are in positions where we can be more comfortable estimating. If you recall, when the attacks took place in the United States on September 11th, there were two locations. One was in New York, and one was here. New York made a series of estimates of how many people were killed, and they started in many, many thousands and went down by a thousand and down by a thousand and down by a thousand and down by a thousand over a period of six months, and they just found more bodies. We didn't do that here. I said to everyone, " I do not want to make an estimate." We don't know, and the only thing I did do was, when the estimates in the press were six (hundred) or seven (hundred) or 800, I started tapping 'em down. I'd say that I -- we have no reason to believe that the number's that high. And that's all we did. Now, was that the right way to handle it? I don't know. In retrospect, I'm comfortable with it. The reason we're not giving you numbers is, we don't know. Q: Mr. Secretary -- Pace: If I might add -- if I might add to that: Having been a rifle platoon leader in Vietnam, asking questions from Washington about how many dead today is truly counterproductive and can seriously, negatively impact the safety of our forces on the ground. We want them to be focused on executing their mission, doing it safely, taking care of their fellow soldiers and Marines and getting the job done. And at the tactical level, it may be important to the tactical commander how many enemy killed there are. But at the strategic level, what we are about is to free Afghanistan from al Qaeda and Taliban and to ensure that that country does not become again a haven for terrorists. So at this level, asking questions about how many dead today is truly counterproductive. Q: Mr. Secretary -- Pace: (Off mike) -- that you gave up in favor of the follow-up? Rumsfeld: Yeah, right! Q: Which I thought meant that it automatically had something -- (laughter). Q: Maybe I was wrong on -- Q: You should've -- Q: Statutorily, can either or both of you give an overall assessment of Operation Anaconda? It's now winding down. This was a major operation. Can you provide an assessment of what you have actually accomplished versus what you had planned or hoped to accomplish? And more specifically, can you address a question that's come up in some press reports about, you know, so-called escapees over the border and the suggestion in some accounts that the Pakistanis have not sealed off that border area quite as tightly as we had hoped, as the United States had hoped? Rumsfeld: You want to do that? Pace: I'll start that. Sure. Started out with an area of about 65 to 75 square miles, inside of which there are several suspected pockets of Taliban and al Qaeda. Had a force of upwards of -- over 2,000, not only of Afghan, U.S., but coalition forces, working together very well and supported by aircraft -- over a hundred-plus sorties per day -- dropping ordnance in support. Since the operation began, they have in fact gotten to the point now where they're going through the final sweeps of the area, looking into the caves that have been uncovered and those types of things. The enemy forces that were there, to the best of our ability to monitor, are not there now. As the secretary mentioned before, some have been killed, some have escaped. We don't know the exact numbers. But I think, from a standpoint of the military operation, the intent to go in and to take this area in Afghanistan and to clear it of Taliban and al Qaeda -- that has been highly successful to date. Rumsfeld: I would agree. Pam? Q: Could you -- there was something that was released earlier this week from a week ago. On March 6th, there was a vehicle that was bombed by tactical aircraft in eastern Afghanistan. It was leaving the area, I guess, on the edge of Operation Anaconda. Women and children were in there. The release said this. We got the release a week later, and one of the things that the release said was that a child was immediately taken to a military hospital. Rumsfeld: When you say "a release," it was from -- Q: A press release from Central Command. Rumsfeld: From Central Command. Q: Right. Rumsfeld: Good. Q: A child was taken to a military hospital immediately and was, you know, in stable condition. I'm wondering why it took a week for this information to get out when it was obviously clear that a child had been at least wounded in this attack, if that child was taken to a military hospital. It looks bad. It's a week's delay between announcing that there were civilians -- women and children killed by U.S. forces. Rumsfeld: Well, I don't know that it looks bad at all. When we -- Q: (Off mike.) Rumsfeld: When we discovered that this situation had occurred, the first thing one wants to do is to determine what actually happened. There's a conflict going on. There are people fighting. And people are busy both at CENTCOM and in the Anaconda region. It has been a period -- today's the 15th -- it is -- the last 10 days have been rather busy days for everybody. And as the information was developed, I was made aware of it, discussed it with Torie, and the decision was made to make sure that that was put out. It takes some time to tell people to do that. They put it out. And no -- I mean, I think that -- I suppose where you stand depends on where you sit, but I would say it would be -- it should look good, not bad. If one puts out information immediately after something happens, you end up misinforming people, as happened out of New York and did not happen out of here. If you take a pause, try to figure out what took place, and do it properly, then you have fewer things you have to correct later. And that process seems to me to be -- to in fact look worse, if there is a worse. Q: Has it been determined, Mr. Secretary -- Rumsfeld: Just a second. I'd like to have Pete go ahead and talk about the details of it. (To General Pace) You're knowledgeable, if I recall. Pace: Thank you, sir. Q: And the breakdown of the folks that were killed in that? Pace: Sure. The target itself was developed, as we do with all of our targets, with the best intelligence that we had at hand. It appeared to be then and in retrospect still appears to have been a correct target to be struck. The number killed were eight men, three women and three children, and one child who, as you mentioned, was medevac'ed. And the belief at the time of the strike was that the men were al Qaeda/Taliban, and that is still the current understanding. Q: And they were medevac'ed by U.S. fores, Afghan forces, coalition? Pace: I've got to check it. I'm pretty sure it was U.S. -- U.S. forces, yeah. Q: General, did the intelligence at the time indicate there were women and children in that vehicle, or did you only know that after the fact, when the ISAF forces got there? Pace: To the best of my knowledge, we only knew that after the fact. Q: Mr. Secretary? Rumsfeld: Yes? Q: I have just returned from the subcontinent of India. You are very popular in India among -- including in their military. But what they are saying, sir -- Rumsfeld: Including where? Q: Including in the military, in the army, Indian Army, because I went on the Kashmir border and all that, where the India- Pakistani border -- for several days in Kashmir. What they are saying, sir, that you are fighting against terrorism; this is the first time that this administration is officially or publicly fighting against the evil of terrorism around the globe. But now they're asking you, that you're not doing enough to fight terrorism which -- inside of the last two months ago, that al Qaeda and Taliban are regrouping and they might come back in the future again. (Inaudible) -- that's what's happening and they just went from Afghanistan into Pakistan. And what they are saying is there is evidence there that all these people are inside of Pakistan, so how can you -- until -- unless you fight the terrorism in Pakistan, you cannot have a peace in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Rumsfeld: There's no question but that when the al Qaeda were concentrated and the Taliban were concentrated in Afghanistan, and no one was there to bother them, that they were perfectly free to stay there, come and go, conduct terrorist training camps, bring in recruits and send them out across the world to kill people. Once you go after those people, you end of killing some, capturing some and others go across the borders. And there is no question but that's true. There is also no question but that many of them, we know, have not left -- have not stayed in neighboring countries, but have departed neighboring countries and gone elsewhere in the world, some to the Middle East and some to elsewhere. Now, are we better off today than we were? Yes. We're better because Afghanistan is not a sanctuary for terrorists. Did we prevent everyone from going across a border and getting out of a landlocked country and going where it is they wish to go? No. We did not. Does that pose a slight problem for some of those countries? You bet. And I must say that I am very pleased with the way that other countries have participated and are cooperating and are arresting people. The Pakistanis have arrested people. I know that India has been involved in dealing with the terrorist problem. People are being arrested in the Middle East. They're being arrested in Singapore. They're being arrested in Europe. And that -- those folks are on the run. And that's a good thing. The fact that we have not caught them all is a fact, and we've just got to keep working. Yeah. (Cross talk.) Q: Can you answer one more thing on the -- Q: Mr. Secretary, I'd like to bring you back if possible to the nuclear issue. You were extremely insistent on the fact that the ABM Treaty constrained the United States in the development of anti- missile defenses. There are legal constraints, U.S. legal constraints on the develop of new nuclear weapons, particularly low-yield nuclear weapons. Can I get your comment on the existence of those constraints and whether or not you would like to see the constraints on that development done away with just as the ABM Treaty is going to be done away with? Rumsfeld: Interesting connection. It's correct that I was -- accurately characterized the ABM Treaty as being designed to prevent the deployment and the development of missile defenses. That is exactly what it did do. And so you've properly characterized it. And by June, it will no longer restrain the United States, and we will be able to test and develop, and at some point, if we make the decision and have decided what's the best way to do it, actually deploy missile defenses. We have made no such proposals with respect to nuclear weapons. Q: I'm aware of that; I'm asking you about -- Rumsfeld: And I'm trying -- I'm answering. Q: -- whether or not you see that as a constraint -- that -- Rumsfeld: I -- if we felt that we were unduly constrained, we would be making requests for changes. And we did so with respect to the ABM treaty; we have not done so with respect to nuclear weapons, any speculation to the contrary notwithstanding. (Cross talk.) Rumsfeld: Way in the back! Q: Since the fighting has wound down in the last few days, have coalition or U.S. forces or Afghan forces caught any al Qaeda or Taliban escaping from the mountains or found any credible evidence that they were escaping? Rumsfeld: They -- when they have seen people, they have either gotten them to surrender or to flee, and they were lost; or they were killed. But the answer is yes; they have seen people trying to leave the area, and to the extent they've seen them, they've -- they've stopped them. (Cross talk.) Q: (Inaudible) -- Charlie's question earlier, on the military commission, you seemed to indicate that there would be a need for a high level of security for those involved in the commissions themselves. Has the decision been made to conduct those commissions in total secret, the identities of those involved not to be released - Rumsfeld: No, as I indicated -- Q: -- and would they be held at Guantanamo Bay? Rumsfeld: The location has not been announced or decided conclusively. I -- as I indicated to Charlie -- Q: Give us a hint. Rumsfeld: As I've indicated to Charlie, I do not think it would be useful at all to answer individual questions on how those -- how the commissions would function, because, as I indicated, it's terribly important for people to have confidence that they'll produce a just outcome, which there was no doubt but that they will. But if people look only at one element of it and start droning them out, one after another, everyone will chew it up, shake it around and say "Oh, that's not right; it's not the same as the criminal justice system. It's not the same as the Uniform Code of Military Justice." When they look at the totality of it, drop a plumb line through it, there's not a doubt in my mind rational people will nod and say, "Pretty good. That's fair. That's balanced. That -- it isn't the way this was done over here, and it's not the way that was done, but, taken together, it -- it's a -- it's the right kind of a picture." Q: And do you believe that a just outcome could be achieved if these commissions are conducted in total secret? Rumsfeld: If I wanted to discuss any single element, I would have brought it up. (Cross talk.) Q: Apparently, the U.S. military is wrapping up some of its investigations that have been looking into the civilian deaths and the friendly fire. And I was wondering if you could give any sort of overview on that, as well as I'd like General Pace's views. Rumsfeld: We've not seen any aggregated -- I've not seen any aggregated numbers in terms of -- we know -- I believe we know, because it's knowable, each instance of friendly fire. In fact, I met one of the young men out at Walter Reed last week. And I'm going to be meeting some of the ones who were brought in very recently who were wounded today. But the one I met happened to be with Mr. Karzai when that friendly fire occurred. Q: Can you clear up one more thing? Q: And on the civilian deaths and the reports -- and the reports? Pace: At the tactical level, which is where the folks in the field are actually doing the war, data is still being collected at the operational level, which is where General Franks is in Tampa, still looking at that data. As we do with all of these events, we take a look at our procedures, our policies and make adjustments. But we've got some truly great, dedicated Americans executing this mission, and the term investigation then to me is a little bit pejorative. We do our after-action reviews to see what procedures need to be modified so that whatever problems we had won't recur. Q: Are you concerned -- Rumsfeld: We're going to make that the last question. Q: Mr. Secretary, yesterday, General Hagenbeck said second- and third-tier al Qaeda leaders were killed in Operation Anaconda, said the big names were not there. But, he said that now U.S. troops have very good indications where some senior al Qaeda leaders are. Has some new information been gathered in this operation to indicate where senior al Qaeda leaders are? Rumsfeld: Not to my knowledge. Q: Can you tell us, in the top 25 -- (laughter) -- Rumsfeld: In the top 25 al Qaeda, we know some are dead and we know some may be dead; we know some are captured and there are a larger number that we don't know. And roughly the same proportions with respect to Taliban. Q: Have a good weekend. (Cross talk.) Q: (Inaudible) -- status of the POWs -- (Laughter.) http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/t03152002_t0315sd.html ***************************************************************** 51 Report: Pentagon interested in new nukes 03/15/2002 - Updated 07:58 AM ET WASHINGTON (AP) — The military wants to develop nuclear bombs that could destroy — not just disturb — deeply buried and fortified underground targets, according to excerpts from a classified Pentagon report. The report, called the Nuclear Posture Review and completed in January, said more than 10,000 underground military facilities exist in more than 70 countries. About 1,400 of the underground facilities are considered specially important because they house weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles or top-level military command stations, the report said. "At present the United States lacks adequate means to deal with these strategic facilities," it said. The U.S. military's only earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, known as the B61-Mod 11 gravity bomb, cannot penetrate many types of terrain in which hardened underground facilities are located, it said. "Given these limitations, the targeting of a number of hardened, underground facilities is limited to an attack against surface features, which does not provide a high probability of defeat of these important targets," it said. The extensive excerpts were posted Thursday by GlobalSecurity.org, an Internet site that specializes in military and intelligence topics. Portions were reported last weekend by the Los Angeles Times and New York Times. On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld publicly lamented the disclosures and said the person who leaked the information had violated federal criminal law. John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, said in an interview Thursday that he saw no reason to believe that publication of the information would harm U.S. national security. He declined to say how he obtained the excerpts. "The point is to let the voters and taxpayers read it for themselves," he said. Last weekend's news reports about the Nuclear Posture Review emphasized that it names countries against which the United States might use nuclear weapons — including five non-nuclear states. The report said the United States needs to develop nuclear weapons better suited for striking targets in countries that could be involved in "immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies." It said these are North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya. "North Korea and Iraq in particular have been chronic military concerns," it said. "All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and all have active WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and missile programs." Some or all of those five also have extensive underground military facilities. A key theme in the report is that the United States needs to modernize its nuclear force and develop a more flexible array of weapons that can be used to deter attack by unpredictable countries like North Korea. As part of that approach, the report stressed the need to develop nuclear weapons that are more effective against deeply buried targets. U.S. military officials have said for years they are greatly concerned about the vast number of tunnels and underground military facilities in North Korea. The report proposed developing an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon with a much lower yield than would be required with a nuclear weapon designed to explode at the surface. "This lower yield would achieve the same damage while producing less fallout — by a factor of 10 to 20 — than would the much larger-yield surface burst," it said. "For defeat of very deep or larger underground facilities, penetrating weapons with large yields would be needed to collapse the facility" The report set a goal of fielding "a new level of capability" against these targets by 2012. It said the Defense and Energy departments will begin a joint effort in April to decide whether an existing 5,000-pound warhead would provide significantly more penetrating power than the current B61-Mod 11 nuclear warhead. The report also said the Pentagon and Energy Department are working on "agent defeat weapons" — arms that could immobilize, neutralize or destroy chemical and biological weapons. Concepts under study include thermal, chemical, or radiological "neutralization" of chemical or biological materials in storage facilities; also being considered are bombs to immobilize the materials. Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 52 Khatami says US nuclear strategy a threat to "all humanity" Friday, 15-Mar-2002 4:46PM Story from AFP Copyright 2002 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet) ATHENS, GREECE, 15-MAR-2002: Iranian President Mohammad Khatami (C-L) shakes hands with the head of the Greek Orthodox Church, Archbishop Christodoulos, during their meeting in Athens, March 15 2002. Khatami leaves Athens 15 march, after a three-day official visit to Greece. [Photo by Giorgos Karahalis, copyright 2002 by AFP and ClariNet] ATHENS, March 15 (AFP) - Iranian President Mohammad Khatami warned on Friday that a reported US nuclear weapons strategy which targets seven countries -- including Iran -- was a threat to the entire world. "The power that threatens another people with nuclear arms threatens not only these people but all of humanity," Khatami said in Athens after meeting the head of the Greek Orthodox church, Archbishop Christodoulos. According to reports leaked to the US media, a Nuclear Policy Review by the US Defense Department calls for a shift from the Cold War posture of using the US nuclear arsenal to deter a nuclear strike from the former Soviet Union. It sees China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Russia and Syria as potential targets for US nuclear strikes, according to a Los Angeles Times report. "If there is such a development, no-one is safe, not even the leaders of the country threatening to use nuclear force," Khatami said. In a separate interview with Greek daily Ta Nea to be published on Saturday, Khatami said US forces in Central Asia were "not there to fight terrorism, but to create bases." He added "the US military presence could provoke the arrival of other military forces from China and from Russia." US officials have tried to allay international fears, saying the policy review merely listed options at the disposal of US authorities. In January, US President George W. Bush also labelled Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" because of their alleged attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Iran and the United States broke off ties 22 years ago following the Islamic revolution. Khatami, who wraps up a two-day visit to Greece later on Friday, urged the world's monotheist religions to cooperate more closely, a view echoed by Christodoulos. He also called on the international community to "recognize the the rights of the Palestinian people, particularly those refugees who have lost their land." ***************************************************************** 53 James S. Robbins on Nuclear Posture Review on National Review Online Why the Leak? More nuclear posturing. By James S. Robbins, a national-security analyst &NRO contributor March 15, 2002 8:20 a.m. When the Los Angeles Times reported details of the classified version of the Nuclear Posture Review (ironically, NPR) that had been reported to Congress at a closed briefing January 8, I figured it would be a one-day story. There wasn't much new in the report, at least not new to those who follow these issues. The unclassified version and other public statements by the administration contained most of the framing logic, such as the new deterrence framework, the capabilities-based approach, and so forth. This story added some sensational details, but nothing that one could not figure out using open sources and common sense. Now, a week later, the issue has reached something of a hysterical tone (at least on the part of the NPR's critics) and Bush administration officials and spokesmen have been at pains to point out the disproportionate level of response to what is a hardly unanticipated policy framework. NRO has done its bit to bring reason to the debate. Last January on the initial spasm of discontent from the myrmidons of arms control. Mackubin Owens covered very ably yesterday. One leaked detail that is drawing particular attention is the list of seven states that might be candidates for nuclear retaliation under extraordinary circumstances. Now, seriously, is anybody really shocked by the list? Are some countries missing, or some placed there by mistake? If so, which? In fact the list contains only potential adversary states that are pursuing (or possess) both WMD and advanced-missile capabilities, i.e., those states that might, under plausible circumstances, have the capability (if not the intent) to inflict catastrophic damage on the United States. Russia and China are obvious candidates for inclusion — but what of Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and Syria? Is it fair to list them? Is it surprising? Well, they are the first five countries noted in the CIA's required semiannual " [http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/bian/bian_jan_2002.htm] ." This was alluded to by Sen. James M. Inhofe (R., Ok.) at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings in February: "...it's disturbing to me when we have evidence that is not even classified evidence that China, Russia, and North Korea are trading systems and trading technologies with countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya...." They are the same states mentioned last July by Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz in [http://www.senate.gov/%7Earmed_services/statemnt/2001/010712wolf.pdf] . Furthermore, the seven largest potential adversary states measured by military expenditures are — you guessed it — Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. I can't add too much more to what has already been said by others about the strategic issues. But I am interested in the leak. Who did it, and why? And why isn't the press more engaged on that topic? Mac Owens speculated that maybe it was the administration, enhancing deterrence by giving warning that the U.S. is willing to take forceful action should the need arise. I doubt it was the Bush team, for several reasons. First, it was done sloppily, which is not quite their style. Second, the administration response to the leak does not have the tone of a planned campaign, it seems too reactive. Most importantly, a leak of this type gains them nothing. Why bother with skullduggery? If they wanted the information to get out they could simply state it (and in fact have over the past year in various venues). This is an administration that prides itself on plain speaking, on straight shooting, on telling it like it is. Hiding behind leaks would make them look weak. Besides, if the president wanted to threaten Saddam or anyone else, he would probably use the daily press briefing, not a months-old report to Congress. If I had to bet I would look to the Hill. The Democrats had opposed the NPR since was first suggested in the summer of 2000 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001. Sen. John Warner (R., Va.) proposed it as amendment 3184 to amendment 3183 by Sen. Bob Kerrey (D., Neb.). The Kerrey amendment gave the president the power to unilaterally reduce the number of strategic nuclear-delivery systems in the U.S. arsenal. The Warner amendment enjoined this action until the completion of the pending Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the submission of a new Nuclear Posture Review due by December 2001 (the previous one having been completed in 1994). The Republicans argued that before the president made any drastic and irreversible decisions on an issue of such importance he should be supplied with the most up to date assessment of the strategic situation. Democrats — who voted 98 percent against the NPR — charged that this was a political move geared towards taking the decision out of the hands of president Clinton and leaving it to his successor, which the Republicans hoped would be Bush. Republicans responded that the risky decision could as easily fall to Al Gore, but whoever the president was in 2001, he would still need the most current information. The amendment passed 51-47. Congressional guidance on the content of the NPR was very specific, and mandated details on the role of nuclear forces in U.S. strategy, the relationship among deterrence policy, targeting strategy, and arms-control objectives, and a number of other such [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/118.notes.html] . The NPR was reported to Congress during a recess and the top-secret briefing was allegedly attended mainly by staffers. Presumably, those members of Congress who were most interested were filled in later. A [http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/t01092002_t0109npr.html] was presented the next day by J. D. Crouch, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. Some members of the arms-control establishment were alarmed by the NPR, despite the fact that it called for a two-thirds reduction in the number of deployed nuclear warheads (a salient fact not frequently noted in the current hysteria). Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) criticized the NPR for not actually destroying the warheads but storing them, or as he called it, "warehoused terror." As noted above, the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Sen. Levin, held hearings on the report on February 14. A very interesting exchange developed between Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith, chairman Levin, and Sen. Warner: LEVIN: So let me ask you this question. Does the Department of Defense have any requirement for a low-yield nuclear weapon for hardened deeply buried targets? FEITH: I do not believe that we have a requirement for low-yield nuclear weapon. LEVIN: And the capabilities... Did you want more time (inaudible)? WARNER (?): Chairman, they want to consult among themselves there. It could be we could explore that question in closed session in greater detail. (CROSSTALK) WARNER (?): ... explore that question in greater detail in closed session... FEITH: Certainly, sir. I'd be delighted to do that. WARNER (?): ... if you won't reply on open. LEVIN: Apparently he submitted a study to us last August saying that there was no such requirement — that was not a classified study. Is there a change from that? FEITH: I don't believe so. Of course, the leaked document — if it is genuine — indicates that there are plans for the employment of low-yield nuclear weapons in cases where conventional weapons are insufficient to meet objectives. So why ask the undersecretary to discuss publicly a classified change from an unclassified study? The issue was raised earlier by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.), who stated with respect to low-yield weapons that "we should concern ourselves if there are going to be new weapons, new nuclear weapons designs pursued that's been contrary to the policy of previous administration's. And, if there's a change in that policy, I think we need to have a discussion about it and a chance to express our views." Undersecretary Feith assured the senator that they would be fully engaged. But why press the topic? Why did that particular secret have to be made public? To embarrass the administration? Was the revelation a month later a preemptive strike, an attempt to set the agenda on the nuclear issue? Or to create an election issue now that the recession is over? Or to find a way to erode the high levels of public support for the president? Or just a way for arms-control advocates to have something to talk about given that the ABM Treaty will soon be history? ***************************************************************** 54 Experts: US policy may encourage nuclear proliferation Sunday, March 17, 2002 WASHINGTON: The new US nuclear posture review, which hints at abandonment of an international moratorium on nuclear testing, could lift the taboo on use of such weapons and possibly encourage proliferation, experts suggested. “One cornerstone of non-proliferation agreements is the idea that there is a norm against the use of nuclear weapons, whether it is moral or military or whatever,” said Chris Helman of the Centre for Defence Information, a liberal Washington-based think tank, on Friday. “There is a widespread acceptance that they are unsuitable weapons, but as soon as they have a value, other people will have them,” he added. The Nuclear Posture Review, a secret report to Congress leaked by the US press, suggests the need for new nuclear trials “to meet the nation’s defence goals in the 21st century.” It points to the potential use of US nuclear strikes against non-nuclear armed nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction, as well as former Cold War enemy Russia and China. The United States must be prepared for potential national security contingencies involving non-nuclear armed neighbours “in setting requirements for nuclear strike capabilities,” the review said. Immediate contingencies could include an Iraqi attack on Israel or its neighbours, a North Korean attack on South Korea, or a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan, the report suggested. Iran, Syria and Libya could also become immediate contingencies because of their “long standing hostility toward the United States and its security partners,” it said. The review also underscores the Pentagon’s concern that a growing number of countries and hostile groups rely on deep underground facilities to hide their weaponry and command posts. — AFP Copyright © 1995-2002 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D) ***************************************************************** 55 'Nuclear arms foes extend past the fringe' - timesunion.com By MATTHEW MILLER, First published: Saturday, March 16, 2002 For all the outcry over the Bush administration's supposedly scary new "Nuclear Posture Review,'' the real story isn't that the Pentagon has contingency plans for using nuclear weapons against rogue states -- that has been true for at least a decade. The more interesting question is this: Why don't the voices advocating abolition of nuclear weapons get more mainstream attention? The general perception, carried over from the macho days of the Cold War, is that calls to abolish nuclear weapons are the delusions of cranks and peaceniks. Yet this is simply not the case. As author Jonathan Schell documented in his indispensable 1998 book, "The Gift of Time: The Case for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons Now,'' the people most passionate about abolition -- and for dramatic cuts in stockpiles and new safeguards against accident or theft in the meantime -- are the officials who presided over our nuclear forces and doctrines for decades. Schell showcased the voices of men like Robert McNamara, Mikhail Gorbachev, Helmut Schmidt and military leaders both here and in Russia, most of whom had their fingers near the button for years, and all of whom feel we're missing a historic chance to change course. These are practical men who've held responsible positions. They don't think their vision is a pipe dream. "We need a whole new way of thinking,'' says retired Gen. Charles Horner, who ran the Air Force Space Command from 1992 to 1994. "Reasonable people will find the issue is not whether to get rid of nuclear weapons but how and when.'' "There is no security in nuclear weapons,'' agrees retired Gen. George Lee Butler, who ran the Strategic Air Command until 1994. "It's a fool's game.'' There's a fascinating issue presented by this gap between the inadmissibility of "abolition'' as a goal in mainstream political debate and the reality that this goal is advocated by serious people who can't be dismissed as left-wing loony-tunes. Schell offered insight in his book as to how such gaps can eventually yield changes in the climate of opinion. "Those who bring about radical change in the order of things can be divided into pioneers, settlers and the new establishment,'' he wrote. The pioneers are the visionaries imagining a new order and placing their faith in it. The more pragmatic settlers follow, "clearing a field and building a house where before only a trail had been blazed.'' Then comes the new establishment, "creating an orthodoxy out of what not long before was a dream.'' The abolition movement that led to the end of slavery in the 19th century is a classic example of this process, which can unfold over decades. Listen to Schell: "At a distance from every 'center' there are always 'the extremes.' Although those in the center and those far from it are usually antagonistic, they are often tacitly interdependent. If a respected person suddenly takes a strong position at an extreme, several things may happen. The defenders of established opinion circle their wagons against the defector. Immediately, a ready-made language of condescension, dismissal and rejection is brought into play. ... Yet even as the machinery of expulsion is operating, another, opposite process may be taking place. The centrists find themselves, possibly without even noticing it, beginning to take their bearings from new points. "And then,'' Schell concludes, "the center moves.'' Leading politicians won't discuss abolition today because it is perceived to be beyond the pale, a view that disqualifies one for national leadership. But imagine if The New York Times (or one of its able national competitors) used the current nuclear debate as a point of departure for a Pulitzer-seeking examination of the credible voices calling for abolition -- picking up, in effect, where Schell left off. It would begin to change the climate of opinion -- and thus politicians' perceptions of what it is "safe'' to discuss -- overnight. Like it or not, this evolving minuet between what seems safe to discuss and how elected leaders actually lead is the way democracy works. A look by the press at reputable abolitionist figures would do more for the long-term health of our nuclear posture than any of the "isn't Bush a nut?'' hand-wringing now under way. Matthew Miller's e-mail address is mattino@worldnet.att.net. ***************************************************************** 56 US backs IAEA chief's reform initiatives - The Times of India AFP [ SATURDAY, MARCH 16, 2002 2:54:14 AM ] WASHINGTON: The United States said Friday it would support reform initiatives to be presented next week by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), aimed at hindering terrorists' access to nuclear weapons. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Washington would also back IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei's calls for an increase in the UN watchdog's budget, to be considered Monday when the group's board of governors begins a week-long meeting in Vienna. "The United States strongly supports (ElBaradei's) initiatives and will urge member states to ensure that the International Atomic Energy Agency has the resources needed to carry them into practice," Boucher said in a statement. Washington values ElBaradei's "constructive leadership, and looks forward to a timely contribution by the (IAEA) board of governors to the global effort against terrorism," he said. Boucher noted that US President George W. Bush had committed the United States to supporting and working with the IAEA, which he has called "a key part of the coalition against terrorism." In November, ElBaradei delivered a report commissioned after the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington that called for the world's governments to take urgent action to prevent a nuclear terrorist attack. "We need urgently to identify the most vulnerable locations and see they get the necessary security upgrades," said ElBaradei said at the time. "We have the solutions. Now governments have to come up with the resources." He said the IAEA's budget needed to be increased by $30-50 million annually and lamented that the agency is already underfunded by about $40 million. He also proposed an upgrade of the IAEA's emergency response center, saying it had "the only international response system in place that would be in a position to immediately react... in the event of a radiological emergency caused by a nuclear terrorist threat." In the report, the IAEA report listed key threats as the theft of an atomic weapon, the acquisition of nuclear or radioactive material, and an attack on nuclear facilities such as power plants. Copyright © 2002 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. | ***************************************************************** 57 Women managers offer visions for Livermore Lab Tri-Valley Herald Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 3:12:32 AM MST By FROM STAFF REPORTS Saturday, March 16, 2002 - -->LIVERMORE -- Three women who are managers at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory will offer their visions for the lab during a panel presentation for employees Tuesday. The event is one of several planned by the lab Women's Association as part of a Women's History Month celebration. Dona Crawford, who leads the lab's computation program; Merna Hurd, associate deputy director for lab operations; and Laura Gilliom, director of the lab's University Relations Program, will participate on the panel, titled, "Three New Views." Other events planned this month include a March 26 broadcast at Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore on "Framing the Model Workplace," and a March 28 reception celebrating the 31-year history of the Livermore Lab Women's Association. ©1999-2001 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 58 Bush's 2003 budget bodes well for ORNL, but Congress is the final arbiter Monday, Mar 11 By Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer At the risk of repeating what should be obvious and apparent and well understood, I'll offer this disclaimer regarding the 2003 budget President Bush's folks sent over to Congress last week: It's a budget request, a detailed proposal, a financial plan for the nation. It's not a done deal. U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, whose congressional district includes Oak Ridge and its federal operations, offered this perspective. "All in all, there is good news in the President's request, but the real 'heavy lifting' will come in the weeks and months ahead on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue." The statement distributed by Wamp's staff was self-serving, of course. It's another way to remind folks that Congress will have the final say-so and that Wamp himself will play a role in determining the Department of Energy's budget because of his strategically important seat on the energy and water subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. But Wamp's quote was also accurate. The budget process has just begun, and it's good to keep that in mind. With that said, the early returns look good for Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ORNL Director Bill Madia said he received an early-morning phone call on Budget Monday from someone in the know in Washington. This person told Madia he would be very happy when the budget documents were released. Indeed, Madia was pleased. As he listened to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham deliver his DOE budget speech, the lab director jotted down notes on the major initiatives highlighted for fiscal 2003. "I was struck by how many of those hold a substantial opportunity for activity here at Oak Ridge National Laboratory," Madia said. "ORNL appears to be very central to this new budget." The programs targeted for growth range from genetics and nanoscience to high-temperature superconductors and homeland security Much of the funding has not been assigned to national laboratories at this point, but Madia knows Oak Ridge will get a share of the work because of previously established links to the DOE programs or a recognized expertise in certain research fields. "We happen to be in the hotter areas," he said. Just as Madia was getting wound up and excited about the lab's budget outlook, he paused. "I don't want to overplay this," he said. Science institutions are not, Madia pointed out, seeing the "explosive growth" in funding seen at defense-related facilities - including the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant a few miles from ORNL. Y-12, which comes under the direction of the National Nuclear Security Administration, is poised to get a budget boost of almost $100 million. Despite all the positive things he saw in the budget regarding ORNL, Madia was openly jealous of the money being proposed for modernization of weapons facilities. He's happy for Y-12 because the plant's storage and manufacturing facilities are old, outdated and in need of replacement. But he would like to see ORNL and DOE's other science research labs get the same treatment as Y-12 and the weapons facilities that come under NNSA - the quasi-independent agency within DOE that runs the nuclear weapons complex. "They are not materially worse off than the science labs," Madia said. "Yet there is substantial (funding proposed) for modernization of the weapons complex. I don't begrudge that, but we certainly could use a lot more emphasis in modernizing the science infrastructure. It's, for my liking, too modest of an investment. ... I keep beating this drum, but the irony is we started this press on modernization ... and we're being outfunded by another agency." Oddly, Madia was happiest not about what he saw in 2003 but something several years away - in fiscal 2007. As part of the package sent across to Congress, budget targets are set up for the next five years. For the first time, the operating funds for the Spallation Neutron Source were put into budget type, and the figure was established at $150 million for FY 2007 - the Oak Ridge research center's first year of operation. That is the amount of annual funding that Madia and others closely tied to the science project say is necessary once construction is completed in June 2006. He was delighted to see that got the necessary blessing in Washington, especially because an earlier baseline figure for yearly operating expenditures was about $44 million less than that. "Nailing that number is important," he said. Meanwhile, the 2003 budget request included $225 million to continue construction of the SNS atop Chestnut Ridge. That is significantly less than the current year's funding ($291 million), but it's the full amount needed to keep the project on schedule. The SNS is supposed to be 61 percent complete by the end of fiscal 2003, and at this point there doesn't seem to be anything standing in the big project's way. Madia, like a quarterback who regularly takes his offensive linemen out to dinner, made this verbal offering to friends in high places: "Once again, I need to thank our congressional folks for keeping a priority on SNS." Copyright 2002 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 59 Is It Really Fusion This Time? BW Online An Oak Ridge National Laboratory team says yes, and some peers agree. But there are doubters Fusion on a tabletop? Shades of 1989, when reports about cold fusion sparked headlines and wide-eyed fantasizing about cheap, clean, and unlimited power. Cold fusion fizzled, leaving scientists bitterly disappointed. So it's no surprise that many are skeptical about the latest report of of tabletop fusion in the Mar. 8 issue of the prestigious journal Science. But if the research holds up and can eventually be commercialized, the technology would end the world's dependence on oil and eliminate the production of radioactive byproducts at today's nuclear power plants, which release energy by splitting atoms, not fusing them. To date, the main--and ghastly--use of fusion has been in hydrogen bombs. No existing technology can both control and sustain such a fusion reaction in a way that could be used to generate electricity. Nuclear physicists have been trying ever since the first hydrogen bomb exploded in 1952. So imagine their surprise when a team of engineers asserts that they have developed a new method that may produce sustained nuclear fusion. The technique is called sonofusion--sound-triggered fusion--because it supposedly works by pumping ultrasound waves and a beam of neutrons into a modified form of acetone, a common solvent that's used in fingernail polish remover, for example. Even though the new claim is already provoking a heated debate similar to the furor that engulfed cold fusion, this time the official announcement comes with the imprimatur of Science--and more than a year of peer reviews by leading scientists. While not all of the sonofusion reviewers voted in favor of publication, the report of tabletop fusion does come from an outfit well versed in nuclear physics: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. However, the team consists mainly of engineers, not nuclear physicists, hence much of the initial skepticism. In fact, even Oak Ridge management had second thoughts and asked two of its nuclear physicists to verify the work. They failed. The sonofusion team insists that the double-check effort was flawed. Claims and counterclaims have been flying across the Internet. "These guys are almost to the point of calling each other liars," says Seth J. Putterman, a University of California at Los Angeles physicist and a reviewer for Science. Clearly, getting published in Science doesn't guarantee acceptance. Claims of fundamental scientific breakthroughs, says William C. Moss, a reviewer and a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, must be held to the highest standards. Tabletop fusion would be potential Nobel prize work, he explains, "so it's easy for people to lose their objectivity." But Moss isn't writing off sonofusion altogether. "In fact, I wrote a paper a few years ago saying that it might be possible." The Oak Ridge team that took up that challenge is led by senior scientist Rusi Pesi Taleyarkhan. It consists of two other Oak Ridge researchers, plus Richard T. Lahey Jr., an engineering professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Robert I. Nigmatulin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. To generate the immense heat needed to fuse nuclei, they turned to an obscure phenomenon called sonoluminescence. Sonoluminescence uses ultrasound energy to create little bubbles in a liquid--bubbles that grow to many times their original size, then swiftly collapse and disappear with a wink of light. It all happens in a tiny fraction of a second, so determining what goes on is extraordinarily difficult. Even after studying sonoluminescence for two decades, Putterman can't say precisely how much heat is released by the imploding bubbles, but temperatures may reach as high as those in the sun. Harnessing the sun's source of power would be the ultimate energy technology. In a world where fusion is possible, seawater could be fuel. A cubic kilometer of seawater contains as much energy as all the world's oil--in the form of deuterium, a "heavy" variant of hydrogen that has a neutron as well as a proton in its nucleus. And the oceans have millions of cubic kilometers of water. However, five decades of painstaking fusion research have failed to tap the energy locked up in seawater. The two orthodox roads to forcing deuterium to fuse are expensive and confoundingly complex. Magnetic confinement, the leading candidate, would create an artificial sun suspended in a magnetic field, since no material can withstand temperatures of 100 million C. The other would use a football-stadium-size array of powerful lasers to zap little glassy spheres of deuterium. Both can achieve fusion, but only briefly, and they consume much more energy than they produce. The latest hope for magnetic confinement is ITER, short for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. The U.S., Canada, Europe, Japan, and Russia began designing it in the late 1980s. But when the price tag hit $10 billion, the U.S. had second thoughts and yanked its support in 1999. Since then, a redesign has trimmed the size of ITER and slashed the projected investment to $4.5 billion. Early this year, the U.S. began to think about rejoining the program. Groundbreaking for ITER is expected around 2003 or 2004. ITER would cap a 50-year quest--but wouldn't end it. Fusioneers have always said commercialization is at least 20 years in the future, and it probably still is. ITER is just one more stepping-stone to harnessing fusion energy. And despite fusion-research budgets in the U.S. of upwards of $250 million a year, scientists say they could use even more. So when a small group from outside the fusion Establishment claims it can produce fusion on a shoestring, researchers working on the big-bucks programs tend to worry about the future of their pet schemes. Rensselaer's Lahey hints that this might have affected the replication effort by Oak Ridge nuclear physicists Dan Shapira and Michael J. Saltmarsh. But Putterman points out that Shapira and Saltmarsh measured something not in the Taleyarkhan team's paper: correlating the detection of neutrons, which are one of the telltale signs of fusion, with when bubbles imploded; no meaningful relationship was found. Lahey retorts that Shapira and Saltmarsh didn't set up their instruments properly. The first order of business is to end the bickering, says Lawrence A. Crum, a researcher at the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory in Seattle and a reviewer. "What matters now is to confirm whether there really is fusion going on. If this really is confirmed, there'll be a bunch of companies started," he predicts, to build bubble-fusion power sources. Lahey is cautiously optimistic that his group's design could turn into a big source of future energy. "The first step would be to increase the neutron yield by replacing the deuterium with tritium," an even heavier form of hydrogen with two neutrons. Adds Taleyarkhan: "We've already filed patents on lots of ideas for scaling up." Even small units could find immediate markets. Applications would include sterilizing food, boosting the production of chemicals by raising the temperature of reactions, and producing the streams of neutrons needed for small, inexpensive detectors for sniffing out explosives at airports and remotely peering into cargo containers at seaports. Actually, the entrepreneurial phase has already begun. Three years ago, engineer Ross Tessien founded Impulse Devices Inc. His Grass Valley (Calif.) startup has hired a leading sonoluminescence researcher--D. Felipe Gaitan, a protege of Crum's--and is working on simulations of sonofusion reactors up to 20 feet in diameter that would create giant bubbles. Tessian is now negotiating with Los Alamos National Laboratory to verify his computer models. Among the original sonofusion pioneers is Roger S. Stringham, a former researcher at SRI International. He co-founded First Gate Energies in the mid-1990s, and the Woodside (Calif.) company has recently built several demonstration sonofusion devices. He will discuss his latest efforts on Mar. 22, during a final-day cold-fusion session at the American Physical Society's Annual March Meeting in Indianapolis. Session moderator Scott R. Chubb, head of Research Systems Inc. in Arlington, Va., predicts that researchers will eventually uncover "some very exotic reactions" that explain how tabletop fusion works. For instance, he suggests the physical dynamics of sonofusion "become deeply intertwined with electromagnetism," causing deuterium to behave somewhat like electrons. "This is something you'd never expect to see in conventional fusion reactions," he adds. As more physicists get intrigued by sonofusion in coming months, he anticipates many other surprises. By Otis Port in New York BusinessWeek Online story. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************