NucNews - December 21, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- depleted uranium A Monumental War Crime ... DU Gerry Hiles, Iraqwar.ru 21-dec-2005 16:16 ECT http://www.uruknet.info?p=18886 http://www.iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/74185 At last the facts are coming out about depleted uranium munitions ... and it is a horror story. Follow the links in the article I am posting, if you want to begin to realize the full horror of what is being done to Iraq and, indeed, the world: Heads roll at Veterans Administration Mushrooming depleted uranium (DU) scandal blamed by Bob Nichols Project Censored Award Winner 12/21/05 SF Bay View http://www.sfbayview.com/012605/headsroll012605.shtml Considering the tons of depleted uranium used by the U.S., the Iraq war can truly be called a nuclear war. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War. Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated, “The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military.” Bernklau continued, “This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed.” He added, “Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of ‘Disabled Vets’ means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems!” The disability rate for the wars of the last century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam. “The VA Secretary (Principi) was aware of this fact as far back as 2000,” wrote Bernklau. “He, and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret’s report, (it) ... is far too big to hide or to cover up!” “Terry Jamison, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, at the VA Central Office, recently reported that ‘Gulf Era Veterans’ now on medical disability, since 1991, number 518,739 Veterans,” said Berklau. “The long-term effects have revealed that DU (uranium oxide) is a virtual death sentence,” stated Berklau. “Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers (from the 2003 Iraq War) as ‘spectacular … and a matter of concern!’” When asked if the main purpose of using DU was for “destroying things and killing people,” Fulk was more specific: “I would say it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people!” Principi could not be reached for comment prior to deadline. References 1. Depleted uranium: “Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets: A death sentence here and abroad” by Leuren Moret, http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml. 2. Veterans for Constitutional Law, 112 Jefferson Ave., Port Jefferson NY 11777, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director, (516) 474-4261, fax 516-474-1968. 3. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter. Email Gary Kohls, gkohls@cpinternet.com, with “Subscribe” in the subject line. Email Bob Nichols at bobnichols@cox.net. -------- india India defends nuclear deal with U.S. 21 Dec 2005 21:23:42 GMT Reuters By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N21233516.htm WASHINGTON, Dec 21 (Reuters) - India on Wednesday defended a controversial new civilian nuclear cooperation deal with the United States and rejected demands by American critics that New Delhi accept curbs on its atomic weapons program. Ahead of talks with senior U.S. officials, Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran said he was bringing "ideas" to address a centerpoint of the July 18 deal -- India's commitment to place nuclear facilities associated with its civilian energy program under international inspection. But he declined to give details, including how India would treat its Canadian-supplied Cirus nuclear plant, which experts say was intended for peaceful use but was diverted for military purposes. "We are not talking here about a capping of India's strategic (nuclear weapons) program. We are not talking here about a fissile material cutoff" but about how to meet India's burgeoning energy needs, he told the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank. Saran, who later met Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said a fissile material cutoff halting India's production of bomb-grade nuclear fuel, and other changes suggested by nonproliferation advocates, would be "deal-breakers." The agreement, which must be approved by the U.S. Congress, would give India access to nuclear technology, including fuel and reactors, that it has been denied for 25 years. Experts fear that as the deal is now written, India would acquire nuclear fuel from the United States for civilian use, thus freeing up its own stocks for more weapons. Carnegie experts say India has enough weapons-grade plutonium for 75 to 110 nuclear bombs. For more than two decades, Washington led the fight to deny India access to nuclear technology because it rejected the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and developed nuclear weapons. But President George W. Bush, aiming to build an alliance with the world's largest democracy, reversed that approach. U.S. and Indian officials are keen to work out differences on this and other initiatives in time for Bush's planned visit to New Delhi in early 2006. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he had "every expectation that it will be the historic visit that everybody wants." CONCERN OVER CIRUS REACTOR Experts and some U.S. congressmen say the July 18 accord undermines nonproliferation objectives by rewarding a state that built a nuclear arsenal in contravention of international norms. Under the deal, India made certain nonproliferation commitments and Saran said bringing India into the fold this way was "indispensable for the emergence of a new global consensus" on halting the spread of weapons. He said India met its past international commitments and would assure that U.S. civilian technology supplied in the future would not be diverted to military uses or third parties. But former U.S. energy official Leonard Spector said the 40 megawatt Cirus reactor located north of Mumbai was proof of an "apparent diversion" and must be resolved. The United States is affected because it supplied Cirus with heavy water, which is used to moderate nuclear fission. Spector and other experts want Cirus formally designated a civilian facility open to international inspection and the plutonium it produced sequestered from the military inventory. Only four of nearly 60 Indian nuclear facilities are now open to inspection, according to Carnegie experts. Central to the agreement is a plan specifying how many and what plants and personnel India will designate as related to its civilian program versus its military program. "Yes, I have come with certain ideas ... but the place to discuss this is in the joint (U.S.-India) working group," not in public, Saran said. Asked if the U.S.-India deal means American companies would be favored over other countries for nuclear-related contracts, Saran only promised a "level playing field." He also said that U.S. calls for India to agree to international inspections "in perpetuity" could only be agreed if the United States guaranteed fuel in perpetuity. ---- US businesses lobbying for India on Capitol Hill December 21, 2005 Keralanext http://keralanext.com/news/print.asp?id=487925 WASHINGTON: The Indian-American community along with a few major US corporations has begun lobbying for the successful passage of the US-India nuclear cooperation agreement through Congress. Earlier this month, the US-India Business Council announced twin initiatives to promote enactment of legislation needed to implement the July 2005 agreement between President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for the transfer of civilian nuclear technology to India. The Council said that the fate of the ‘strategic partnership’ between the two countries, as embodied in the joint statement signed by the two leaders, is the key to the overall US-India relationship. The lobbying firm chosen by the Council to push the agreement towards successful enactment on Capitol Hill is Patton Boggs. In order for that to happen, Congress will have to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, under which such transfers are barred at present. The lobbying on the Hill will stress the secular nature of the Indian state and the stability of its democracy. In addition, the US Chamber of Commerce, consisting of three million American companies, has agreed to host an initiative called the Coalition for Partnership with India. It is designed to serve as the convener and umbrella organisation to coordinate the efforts of parties that favour a positive outcome of the civilian nuclear technology transfer legislation. The Coalition will be chaired by Lt Gen Daniel Christman, a senior official of the Chamber’s international division. The Coalition has also been assured of support by Vickery International and The Lichfield Group. Planning meetings are already underway and will acquire ground momentum in the new year. Meanwhile, University of California’s Professor Tom Plate has said that India must make up for much lost time, adding that there is already strong political consensus between the country’s two major political parties that it needs to liberalise its economy and engage with the dynamic economies of the world. He predicts that in 2006, Manmohan Singh will be one of the "world’s most watched leaders". The reason, he argues, is in part sheer numbers. India, with relatively young demographics, now has one billion people. By 2030, it is believed that its population will outstrip that of China and by 2050, the world’s economy will be led by the Asian-Pacific/Western quartet of China, India, Japan and the United States. Prof Plate says that India both "flourishes from and festers under a democratic system of government that is long on federal, state and local checks and balances but short on efficiency". However, its basic system may be well suited for the long haul. In the last decade or so, governments have come and gone as political coalitions have risen and fallen, but the overall Indian vision of modernisation and globalisation has remained intact despite the state bureaucracy. Plate calls Manmohan Singh "a fascinating fellow". Though no Koizumi of Japan or anything like Gandhi and Nehru, he says, Manmohan is a "quiet revolutionary" who as finance minister implemented economic reforms in the early 90s that helped uncork India’s pent-up entrepreneurial energies. -------- iran Takeyh: New Talks Unlikely to Produce Agreement to Curtail Iran's Nuclear Program Interviewee: Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor December 21, 2005 Council On Foreign Relations http://www.cfr.org/publication/9470/takeyh.html Ray Takeyh, the Council's top expert on Iran, says that the latest round of diplomatic talks between Iran and Britain, France and Germany—representing the European Union—are unlikely to produce any agreement on curtailing Iran's nuclear program. In fact, Takeyh says the EU side, backed by the United States, is hoping "the Iranians would reject" any proposals such as having uranium reprocessing work done in Russia. If Iran does, he says the hope is "perhaps the Russians would support a referral of Iran's portfolio to the Security Council for some kind of punitive pressure. So these negotiations are more aimed at Russia than they are at Iran, from the perspective of the Europeans and the Americans." He says that from Iran's perspective, "These are negotiations designed not so much to resolve the issue in a conclusive manner, but perhaps to once again cause some degree of division within the international community and prevent a referral of Iran's portfolio to the Security Council, because you can say that Iran is in the process of negotiations and discussions, and therefore referral is no longer necessary at this time." As to Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose nationalist comments have aroused concern at home and abroad, Takeyh says the luster is already off his image at home. He says Ahmadinejad is in the tradition of all of Iran's post-revolutionary presidents, whose powers are so limited that each has disappointed. Takeyh was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor for cfr.org, on December 21, 2005. The latest round of diplomatic talks between Britain, France and Germany, representing the European Union, and Iran are beginning today, and they will probably go on for a while. What is the general atmosphere? Is there much likelihood of progress in getting Iran to agree to curtail its nuclear program in any way? No, not particularly. The atmosphere is chilly and these are not necessarily negotiations. They're negotiations about negotiations for a framework and the issues that would be discussed in any forthcoming rounds. But it's interesting from the perspective of both sides, I think, that these negotiations are designed not necessarily to resolve Iran's nuclear issue, but to garner a consensus among the international community for other measures. I think the Europeans and the Americans, behind the scenes, are engaging in these negotiations in the hope that the Iranians would reject them and, in effect, reject the Russian offer that accompanies them. Therefore in subsequent rounds of International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] meetings perhaps the Russians would support a referral of Iran's portfolio to the Security Council for some kind of punitive pressure. So these negotiations are more aimed at Russia than they are at Iran, from the perspective of the Europeans and the Americans. From the perspective of Iranians, these are negotiations designed not so much to resolve the issue in a conclusive manner, but perhaps to once again cause some degree of division within the international community, and prevent a referral of Iran's portfolio to the Security Council, because you can say that Iran is in the process of negotiations and discussions and therefore referral is no longer necessary at this time. The important point is neither side is going into these negotiations with the hope of resolving the issue actually on the table. The important point is neither side is going into these negotiations with the hope of resolving the issue actually on the table. I understand. When we talked last in November, the Russian proposal was just surfacing. Could you discuss the details of that again, and what Iran's objections have been to it so far? Well, there are some ambiguities about it. I'm not quite sure if there is a Russian proposal per se. I think there is a set of Russian ideas. They essentially entail conducting part of Iran's more sensitive fuel cycle activities on Russian territory. Mainly, Iran can mine for uranium and even produce yellowcake, but then that would be transferred to Russian plants partly owned by Iran in Russia, where it would be enriched into uranium and brought back to Iran for use for energy purposes. So the essential enrichment of the uranium would take place outside the territory of Iran. And then the fuel rods that are produced would be sent back to Russia? Yes, that's right. I see. And Iran's objections to this are that they don't want to depend on some other country? Well, Iran's objections are twofold. First, as you mentioned, this is a sensitive national issue and they're not going to be dependent on external powers for their domestic energy purposes. Second of all, they suggest that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] does grant countries—at least implicitly—the right to conduct uranium enrichment activities on their territory, to complete a fuel cycle, and to do so under the safeguards and the inspection processes of the IAEA. This essentially constitutes a relinquishment of the treaty rights, which they're unprepared to do. Well, now what are the IAEA's problems with Iran? Are they not getting the access they say they're entitled to? The IAEA is in a very difficult position because all the IAEA is, is an inspection arm of the United Nations. It conducts inspections. It visits facilities to make sure a member state is in compliance with its nuclear non-proliferation obligation. The IAEA complains Iran has had a lack of transparency, a lack of timely response by Iran to IAEA queries, and has prevented the inspectors from visiting various facilities. Yet at the same time, the IAEA has suggested that although the level of cooperation should be improved, there is a level of cooperation and the inspectors are going about their business. At this point, the IAEA satisfies neither party. For the United States and others who want to see Iran referred to the Security Council, the IAEA is suggesting that, at this particular point, there is no evidence Iran has misused its nuclear resources for military purposes. Yet at the same time, the IAEA doesn't satisfy the Iranians, because the Iranians are saying after two and a half years of inspections the IAEA should conclude its inspections and once and for all suggest conclusively that Iran is in compliance with its obligations and therefore should be given a clean bill. So the IAEA is in the middle, satisfying neither side. Now, since the middle of the year, we've had a new president in Iran [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] and he has come into power with a very nationalistic, I guess you'd have to say, extremely conservative ideology similar to that of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979, of whom he was a young follower. Do you get the impression that he and his associates feel that Iran really needs to have nuclear weapons to protect itself? I can't say with any conclusive determination that that is what is happening. I think you can try to piece together circumstantial evidence. As I have said, the background of the new president and his supporters lay in the war with Iraq in the 1980s, and that war has conditioned their ideology, their strategic perspective, and their perception of national requirements. Among the lessons learned during the war were: Iran requires a credible deterrent capability and a credibility retaliatory capability, and Iran cannot rely on international opinion and international treaties to safeguard its essential national interests. It has to be self-reliant; it has to be self-sufficient. That particular philosophy makes acquisition of nuclear arms more plausible than not. And I guess the rash statements he's been making lately have added a sense of urgency in the West to finding a way to deal with this question. Sure. Now, why are those statements being made at this point? Again, this is Iran, so everything you say is speculative and tentative. Number one, he always said during his campaign and subsequently, that we should go back to the roots of the revolution, and among the ideological pillars of the revolution is a rejection of Israel, asserting it is "an illegitimate state" that should not exist. But beyond that there are some domestic political calculations as well. I think one of the things that happened during the past several months is an attempt by the elders of the revolution to restrain Ahmadinejad, and this is his way of actually trying to put them on the defensive by invoking themes that the Ayatollah Khomeini pursued. Perhaps the third set of reasons why he's making the statements that he's making is to actually scuttle the negotiations that are resuming in Vienna. So it's a combination of ideological predilection for domestic political considerations that tends to guide him, I suspect. Well, I noticed just the other day he ordered that state radio and television stop playing western music. That was one of those irritants that have no real bite in them, since I gather Iranian youth play western music all the time. Yes, I think state radio has played western music as instrumentals like elevator music, not so much in regular programming. But that's part of the old ideology, yes? Yes, that's going back to the roots of the revolution. You know, it seems to many people that everything he says seems consistent with a sense of "revanchism" in Iran, that they want to make up for what happened in the Iraq-Iran war and create a much tougher military including a nuclear component. Yes. If your defining experience was eight years in a warfront, that will do that to you. If you perceived that the country as a whole has moved on in unimportant ways since the war, and [has forgotten] its memories and symbolism, and if you think in national security planning there is a lack of sufficient attention paid to the lessons of the war, then that's not an unusual development. Everything Ahmadinejad has said would tend to be viewed as sort of a religious orthodoxy, but when you read his speeches in a consistent way, it's not so much religious, it's very strident nationalism: Iran's rights, Iran's national obligations, Iran's national prestige are all defended, not so much in a religiously guided manner. There is a lot of nationalism, there is a lot of north-south divide with the capitalists transgressing against the developing world. At one time before these elections you thought it would be very useful for the United States to have a general dialogue with Iran on all the questions before the two countries, but I guess there is really no chance of that now, is there? No. I don't think there is an inclination on the part of the United States or the Iranian regime. I thought then, as I do now, that probably the only manner of addressing Iran's nuclear portfolio in a significant way would be to have the same sort of negotiating framework the United States has with the North Koreans, a sort of six-party talk framework, which in this case I guess, would be seven: the United States, China, Russia, the EU three, and Iran, and sort of approach Iran as a unified group, but also with a greater degree of concessions and compromises from the United States. That might make an impression on Iran's nuclear deliberations, it might not. But the current round of diplomacy with its set of incentives, which from the Iranian perspective are inadequate, and its set of threats, which from Iranian perspective are insignificant, is unlikely to do the trick. What about Iran's attitude toward Iraq right now? I guess Iran's been very involved with what is going on in southern Iraq right now. Sure, and elsewhere in Iraq. I see U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad was authorized to meet with Iranians on this subject. I don't know if he has or not. I'm not sure what is happening with that. Iranians rejected that offer. But that doesn't necessarily mean negotiations and discussions won't take place. Whenever there is an offer of discussions and negotiations, there is a reflexive Iranian rejection of it, and then [there are] negotiations about negotiations and then maybe negotiations. How do you gauge Ahmadinejad's popularity in Iran now, six months after his election? I think he's experiencing what every Iranian president in the postwar period -- Rafsanjani, Mohammed Khatami -- has experienced. There is great anticipation and hope when a new president is elected, but then when the reality sets in and he's incapable of realizing his promises, then the luster comes off and the popularity begins to wane. It happened to Hashemi Rafsanjani when he came into power in 1989 pledging reconstruction, which led to a great degree of corruption and mismanagement. It happened to Khatami when he came in calling for political reform and democratic rights, and once again you saw the process of reforms stalled and eventually collapsed. It's happening to Ahmadinejad: he came in calling for economic justice and redistribution of wealth, and once again you begin to see the poor are not as rewarded and the middle class remains hard-pressed. In a sense, what is happening to him is not that unique compared to the fate of presidents Iran has had, at least since the end of the Iran-Iraq war, when internal concerns, as opposed to external aggression, became the principal area of concern for the electorate. That, to me, seems to suggest that no Iranian president can break through a system designed to produce a stalemate. And that's because of the veto power of the clerics? Well, there is veto power, there are so many checks and balances, the system is so disorganized, so messy, that it's just hard to get things done. It was constitutionally designed to produce a lack of results. This is the Khomeini constitution? Yes, the system has to be streamlined [and] rationalized. There are too many competing centers of power and so on and so forth, and some of it is [Ahmedinejad's] own failings, his lack of economic planning, his lack of understanding that his rhetoric does have an impact in terms of international investors' confidence in his country. Some of the problems Iran is having in terms of its nuclear portfolio have scared off investors, particularly investment that Iran requires in order to rehabilitate its oil infrastructure and so on. So it's a combination of his own activities, and of just what generally happens to Iranian presidents when they actually assume power and begin to realize that they're incapable of achieving some of their campaign promises. Did he ever get an oil minister approved after several were rejected as incompetent? Yes, he did. He got an oil minister approved. The parliament approved him with a pretty good margin, as well. The individual, Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh, seems to more of a technocrat and more competent, but you know, we'll see. ---- Iran seeks timetable to resume nuclear work Wednesday, December 21, 2005 IranMania.com http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=38980&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs LONDON, December 21 (IranMania) - Iran is seeking a timetable to resume uranium enrichment in key talks with the European Union over its nuclear activities that open Wednesday, an official said, according to AFP. "From Iran's point of view the subject of the talks is to remove the suspension of the uranium processing facilities and this must happen within a clear timetable," Hossein Entezami, spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told Iraian state radio. Iranian and EU officials were due to meet in Vienna on Wednesday, with diplomats warning that hopes were slim for getting Tehran to abandon making the nuclear fuel the West says could be used to manufacture atomic bombs. The talks are the first contact between the two sides since negotiations broke off in August, when Iran resumed uranium conversion at its Isfahan facility. Conversion is the first step in making enriched uranium that can both be nuclear reactor fuel or the explosive core of nuclear weapons. Entezami said, however, that there would be no going back on the resumption of conversion. The talks in Vienna are aimed at seeing if any common ground exists and whether long-term negotiations on finding guarantees Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon can restart. The Europeans want to push a proposal from Moscow whereby Iran could conduct much of the fuel cycle at home but only enrich its uranium on Russian soil, meaning the most sensitive nuclear work is out of the country. Iran has already rejected such a plan. "We welcome any proposals that guarantee Iran's rights, that is enrichment must happen on the Iranian soil by Iranian technicians," Entezami said. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has suggested that foreign firms could be involved in enrichment on Iranian soil as a form of supervision. -------- japan Japan, North Korea to hold new talks despite nuclear impasse Wed Dec 21, 3:03 AM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051221/wl_afp/nkoreanucleartalksjapankidnap_051221065200 TOKYO - Japan said it will hold fresh talks with North Korea this weekend in Beijing, despite the communist state's vow to suspend six-nation talks with the United States on ending its nuclear program. The talks Saturday and Sunday will touch on North Korea's military development and its abductions of Japanese nationals, an emotional issue here that has prevented the two countries from normalizing relations. "We are still in an urgent situation," said Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe. "We'll urge Pyongyang to deal with the abduction issue sincerely by returning abductees, unveiling the truth and handing over suspects." "Unless the issue is solved, normalization of the diplomatic relations won't be possible," he told reporters. The meeting comes despite a rise in verbal attacks from North Korea, which last week said that six-party nuclear talks would be suspended indefinitely unless the United States lifts sanctions. The Beijing meeting, to be held between foreign ministry officials, will discuss how to proceed with future negotiations, the Japanese foreign ministry said. In the last negotiations held on November 3-4, Tokyo proposed to Pyongyang holding three separate talks concurrently on the issues of abductions, the North's nuclear and missile development and normalization of diplomatic ties. North Korea in 2002 admitted having kidnapped Japanese citizens to train its spies, mostly in the 1970s. It declared the issue settled after repatriating five kidnap victims along with their families. The North says that other abducted Japanese are dead. Japan has insisted the others -- at least eight of them -- are still alive and being kept under wraps because they know too many secrets. -------- ukraine Ukraine to Halt Shipments of Spent Nuclear Fuel to Russia Created: 21.12.2005 MosNews http://mosnews.com/news/2005/12/21/ukrainenuclear.shtml As of 2009 the national atomic energy generating company Energoatom, which operates all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, intends to stop shipments of spent nuclear fuel to Russia completely, the company’s president Yuri Nedashkivsky was quoted by Interfax as saying. On Dec. 26 Energoatom and the winner of an international tender, the U.S. firm Holtec International, will sign a contract for the design and construction of a centralized storage facility for spent nuclear fuel from three Ukrainian nuclear power plants — Rivne, Khmelnytsky and South-Ukrainian. The storage-facility will be built using the investors’ funds. “After that, in the second half of 2009 or at the end of 2009, we will stop shipping spent nuclear fuel from Ukrainian nuclear power plants to Russia completely,” Nedashkivsky said. -------- u.s. nuc weapons U.S. nuclear forces, 2006 By Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen (December 21, 2005) January/February 2006 pp. 68-71 (vol. 62, no. 1) © 2005 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf06norris Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, the United States continues to spend billions of dollars annually to maintain and upgrade its nuclear forces. It is deploying a larger and more accurate preemptive nuclear strike capability in the Asia-Pacific region, and shifting its doctrine toward targeting U.S. strategic nuclear forces against "weapons of mass destruction" complexes and command centers. As of January 2006, the U.S. stockpile contains almost 10,000 nuclear warheads. This includes 5,735 active or operational warheads: 5,235 strategic and 500 nonstrategic warheads. Approximately 4,225 additional warheads are held in the reserve or inactive stockpiles, some of which will be dismantled. Under plans announced by the Energy Department in June 2004 (and possibly revised in spring 2005), some 4,365 warheads are scheduled to be retired for dismantlement by 2012 (see Nuclear Notebook, September/October 2004). This would leave approximately 5,945 warheads in the operational and reserve stockpiles in 2012, including the 1,700-2,200 "operationally deployed" strategic warheads specified in the 2002 Moscow Treaty or Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT). To understand the composition of the U.S. stockpile, it is helpful to examine the terms used to describe the different categories of warheads. Active warheads are maintained in a ready-for-use status, with tritium and other limited life components installed, and may be either deployed or stored. The active warhead inventory is broken down into deployed warheads, responsive force warheads, and spares. Deployed warheads consist of operationally deployed warheads (for example, warheads on fielded strategic forces), warheads associated with weapon systems in overhaul, and fielded nonstrategic weapons. Responsive force warheads consist of active warheads not on deployed systems. These are kept in secure storage but are available to be returned to the operationally deployed force. Depending on the particular weapon system, this task may take days, weeks, or months. Spare warheads are part of the active but not operational inventory, and support routine maintenance and operations. Inactive warheads do not have limited life components installed or maintained, and may not have the latest warhead modifications. New war plans. The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat today's adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044. Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard B. Meyers described some of the planning changes in April 2005 Senate testimony: "[U.S. Strategic Command] has revised our strategic deterrence and response plan that became effective in the fall of 2004. This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies." One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy--preemptively, if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in the world. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that directed the military to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect. As a result, the Bush administration's preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). ICBMs. In 2005, the Pentagon completed the retirement of the MX Peacekeeper ICBM, after almost 20 years of service. The missile's long and controversial history stretches back to the 1970s, when officials proposed many elaborate basing schemes to try and prevent a supposed "window of vulnerability" from increasing numbers of accurate Soviet ICBMs. By 1979 the program called for the deployment of 200 missiles, hidden among 4,600 shelters (one missile in each cluster of 23 shelters), in a kind of mobile shell-game spread over approximately 40,000 square miles of Utah and Nevada. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan canceled that basing scheme and cut the number of missiles to 100, to be placed in Minuteman missile silos, tacitly conceding that the vulnerability problem could not be solved or never existed in the first place. Two years later, Congress limited deployment to 50 missiles. The first 10 missiles, located at Warren Air Force Base (AFB), Wyoming, were declared operational on December 22, 1986, with the full force of 50 on alert two years later. The Pentagon phased out the MX over a three-year period beginning in October 2002; it deactivated the last missile on September 19, 2005. In the end, billions of dollars were expended to rectify an imaginary strategic vulnerability. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) calls for MX silos to be retained, rather than destroyed as was required in the now-abandoned Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) II. The United States will keep MX missiles for possible use as space-launch vehicles, as target vehicles, or for redeployment. The missiles' 550 W87 warheads will be temporarily stored, and a portion will eventually replace W62 warheads on Minuteman III ICBMs under the Safety Enhanced Reentry Vehicle (SERV) program beginning this year. All W62s are scheduled to be retired in 2009. A Minuteman missile can carry one or two SERVs with W87 warheads, but apparently not three. In total, we estimate that 200 W87 warheads will be used to complement the W78 warheads assigned to Minuteman IIIs, with the balance placed in the responsive force of reserve warheads. Full operational capability of the SERV is scheduled for autumn 2010. The 500-strong Minuteman III force remains basically unchanged from last year. Under START I, the air force downloaded the 150 missiles located at Warren AFB to single-warhead configuration in 2001. With START II's ban on multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) now a dead letter, U.S. officials revised earlier plans to download all Minuteman missiles to a single-warhead configuration. Although the air force plans to reduce the operational warhead loading on Minuteman IIIs to 500, it is considering keeping as many as 800 warheads for the Minuteman force. Minuteman modernization continues under an ambitious $7 billion-$8 billion, six-part program intended to improve the missile's accuracy and reliability and extend its service life beyond 2020. The United States test-launched four Minuteman IIIs from Vandenberg AFB, California, between July 14 and September 14, 2005. Three tests flew a single unarmed reentry vehicle, while the fourth missile carried two vehicles. An August 25 test used a Minuteman III from the 564th Missile Squadron at Malmstrom AFB, Montana, with a single vehicle. The air force stated that the test aimed to "demonstrate the ability to integrate a safety enhanced reentry vehicle" for W87 warheads onto the Minuteman III weapons system. Military officials executed the September 14 launch through the 20th Air Force's airborne launch control system using a U.S. Navy E-6B Mercury (TACAMO) aircraft. The air force issued a Mission Need Statement in 2002 for a new ICBM to be introduced in 2018. The air force has earmarked more than $10 million for 2006-2007 for studies to define the required capabilities and set milestones for missile development. Some defense strategists have suggested equipping a portion of the ICBM force with conventional warheads. There are rumors that the forthcoming Quadrennial Defense Review may recommend converting 50 of the 500 Minuteman missiles to conventional missions. Submarines. The navy decommissioned the Trident I C4 missile, after 26 years of service, in late October 2005, when the Alabama off-loaded the last 24 operational C4 missiles. The entire force of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) is now comprised of Trident II D5 missiles. When missile conversion is completed in 2008, the United States will have 336 Trident II D5 SLBMs on 14 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), which is the force level decided on in the 1994 NPR; the missiles will be armed with approximately 2,000 warheads. The navy has extended the service life of the subs from 30 to 44 years. The oldest sub is scheduled to retire in 2029, when a new SSBN class will be introduced. The navy completed the first phase of downloading the warheads from all Trident II missiles in 2005 to keep pace with SORT goals. The navy has opted for a gradual decrease in the number of warheads on its SLBMs over several years, rather than a sudden drop just before the end of 2012, the treaty deadline. Under START, each Trident II D5 missile is counted as carrying eight warheads, though the actual number varies depending upon mission. We estimate that each missile now carries an average of six warheads. They will be further downloaded as 2012 approaches. During the past few years, the navy has significantly changed the homeporting of SSBNs to meet new planning requirements. It transferred two SSBNs from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean in 2002 and another in 2003. On August 17, 2005, the Louisiana left Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia, on patrol. Rather than roaming the Atlantic during its 58-day patrol, the sub sailed around Cape Horn and ended up at its new homeport, Naval Submarine Base Bangor, Washington. On September 27, 2005, the Maine left Kings Bay on a similar journey, bringing to nine the number of SSBNs in the Pacific. Five subs remain in the Atlantic. The primary goal of the shift is to increase coverage of targets in China, according to navy officials. (Pacific-based SSBNs also target Russia and North Korea.) The buildup of the more capable Trident II D5s in the Pacific additionally "enhances system accuracy, payload, and hard-target capability, thus improving [U.S.] available responses to existing and emerging Pacific theater threats," Rear Adm. Charles B. Young, director of the navy's Strategic Systems Program, said in an August 2002 speech at the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific. The four oldest Ohio-class SSBNs have been removed from the nuclear mission and are being converted into cruise missile submarines (SSGN) at a cost of $4.1 billion. Electric Boat Corporation, a division of General Dynamics, is the main contractor and built the original submarines. Work on the Ohio and Michigan is being done at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Washington, after which the subs will be homeported at Bangor. Work on the Florida and Georgia is being done at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Virginia, after which they will be homeported at Kings Bay. We estimate that the Defense Department transferred the nearly 1,000 W76 warheads from these four older SSBNs to inactive/responsive status and will eventually send them to the Pantex Plant in Texas for dismantlement. At least four important upgrades are under way involving the Trident II D5. The first is a life-extension program (LEP) for the W76 warhead that will significantly enhance the weapon's capability. Outfitting the W76/Mk-4 reentry vehicle with a new arming and fuzing subsystem (MC4700) will give the 100-kiloton W76 a ground-burst capability for the first time and will increase the types of targets that it can destroy. The modified W76 warhead, which may have its yield reduced by about 40 percent to 60 kilotons, according to a July report in Sante Fe's New Mexican newspaper, is designated the W76 Mod 1 (or W76-1), and the reentry vehicle is known as Mk-4A. The navy is working on a second warhead upgrade to equip the reentry vehicles with Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) receivers for increased accuracy. In 2004, Congress refused to fund the Enhanced Effectiveness (E2) Reentry Body program, which would have provided this capability, because of a concern that equipping SLBM reentry vehicles with GPS accuracy could lead to mini-nukes on the submarines. Using other funds, the navy supports programs to improve the missile's accuracy. One program aims to equip reentry vehicles with a three-axis flap system that steers the reentry vehicle during its descent toward its target, essentially creating a maneuverable reentry vehicle. In March 2005, the Tennessee launched a Trident II D5 missile equipped with an unarmed reentry vehicle fitted with the three-axis flap system and GPS. One navy admiral who participated in the test told us: "I had GPS signal all the way down and could steer it." The test was also significant because the D5's 2,200-kilometer (1,367-mile) trajectory was the shortest ever flown by a U.S. SLBM, according to the admiral, with the warhead impacting just 12-13 minutes after launch. The third modernization program involves upgrading the current Mk-6 guidance system and extending its service life. The Mk-6LE (life extension) is scheduled to be operational in 2013 and would last through 2042. The fourth upgrade involves refurbishing the solid propulsion motors of the Trident II D5. Defense awarded a $71.5 million contract to Alliant Techsystems for production of new solid propulsion systems for all three stages of the D5 through 2007. The navy continues to buy Trident II D5 missiles. It has bought 408 so far and requested an additional five missiles in 2005. Officials extended D5 production through 2013 and increased the total number to be procured from 453 to 561, at an additional cost of $12.2 billion. The total cost of the program is now $37 billion, or $66 million per missile. To make the D5 operational through 2042 (to the end of the extended service life of the Ohio-class SSBN), the navy will upgrade existing missiles to a new variant, the D5LE. In 2003, Congress budgeted $416 million to modernize the D5. At any given time, 336 Trident II D5s will arm the 14 U.S. SSBNs (including two sets for two SSBNs that will be in overhaul), 58 D5s will be allocated to Britain for their SSBNs, and the balance will be available for flight tests. The navy appears to have dropped plans to equip its new submarine-launched intermediate-range ballistic missile (SLIRBM) with dual nuclear-conventional capability in favor of developing only conventional warheads for the weapon. Defense awarded a $9.2 million, 16-month contract to Lockheed Martin in July 2005 to demonstrate and validate solid rocket motor technologies for a two-stage SLIRBM design. The program envisions fitting multiple SLIRBMs inside each missile tube on SSGNs, adding a second conventional strike weapon to the boats' Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missiles. The SLIRBM is intended to precisely deliver a conventional payload at ranges in excess of 1,770 kilometers (1,099 miles) within 10-15 minutes of launch. After a more than 11-year hiatus, the navy has resumed SLBM flight-testing in the Pacific. In November 2004, the Nevada launched two Trident II D5s down the Pacific Missile Range. In March 2005, the Tennessee test-fired a missile in the Atlantic, and in October the Royal Navy's Vanguard test-fired a D5 missile, also in the Atlantic. In anticipation of flight-testing in both oceans, the navy, with the help of the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, converted two 8-foot by 40-foot containers into vans for data processing and analysis during test-launches. Bombers and bomber weapons. The United States has two types of long-range bombers for nuclear missions: the B-2A Spirit and the B-52H Stratofortress. The B-52Hs are based at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, and at Minot AFB, North Dakota; the B-2As are based at Whiteman AFB, Missouri. The B-52s can deliver cruise missiles, gravity bombs, or a combination of both; B-2s carry only bombs. Both have conventional missions as well. Neither bomber is maintained on day-to-day alert as during the Cold War, yet the alert level has increased with the recent tasking of bomber wings in Global Strike missions. In October 2004, for example, the air force launched 13 B-52s near-simultaneously from Barksdale AFB in a minimum--interval takeoff, with each bomber taking off within a minute or less of one another. The commander of the 8th Air Force at Barksdale AFB told the Times of Shreveport in October 2005 that the 8th Air Force is now "essentially on alert . . . to plan and execute global strikes" on behalf of Strategic Command. A five-year modernization effort completed in 2003 enables the B-2 to carry a mix of B61 and B83 nuclear bombs as well as various conventional weapons. B-2s are already capable of making some targeting changes en route, but the air force is replacing the onboard UHF and VHF radios, and satellite communications systems, with a new system that will allow crews to receive beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) voice and data communications, and review full mission plans en route to their targets. An extremely high frequency (EHF) satellite communication will be added to ensure the bombers have secure BLOS communications in their nuclear mission. The air force is also equipping all B-2s with a new external coating known as alternate high-frequency material, which will increase the bomber's stealthiness and ease its maintenance. The program will be completed by 2011. The air force began installing the Avionics Midlife Improvement (AMI) on the B-52H in 2005, to improve the aircraft's navigation and nuclear weapons delivery. Installation on all bombers will be completed by September 2008. Technicians will also replace the bomber's existing satellite communication system with an EHF radio to improve connectivity in nuclear-strike scenarios. The weapons deployed on U.S. strategic bombers have a variety of capabilities. B61-7 bombs have multiple yield options, sometimes referred to as "dial-a-yield," ranging from 10 to 350 kilotons. The bomb, which is almost 12 feet long and weighs approximately 760 pounds, has five fuzing options: free-fall airburst, parachute-retarded airburst, free-fall contact burst, parachute--retarded contact burst, and parachute--retarded lay down delayed-surface burst (with 31-second and 81-second delays available). The B61-11 "bunker buster" is a B61-7 with a one-piece hardened--steel center case and a new nosepiece and rear subassembly, which provide for ground penetration and add approximately 450 pounds of weight. The 400-kiloton weapon is also equipped with a special ground-impact time-delay feature to allow it to penetrate 3-6 meters (10-20 feet) underground before detonation. The Pentagon and Los Alamos National Laboratory developed the Mod 11 to replace the 9-megaton B53 bomb, whose purpose was to hold selected deeply buried targets at risk. The B83 is a high-yield strategic bomb with variable yield options up to 1.2 megatons. It is designed for high-speed external carriage and low-altitude delivery against hard targets. The weapon is built for relatively hard impacts on irregular, reinforced concrete surfaces, such as ICBM silos. The bomb weighs 2,400 pounds and has four sections behind its hollow shock-absorbing nose. The first compartment houses the warhead; the mid-case contains the firing set and fuzing controls; the aft-case contains the arming system and thermal batteries; and the last compartment holds the parachute system, which contains a 46-foot Kevlar-nylon ribbon parachute that is held by 60 Kevlar suspension lines and deployed by three 4-foot diameter pilot chutes. The 180-pound parachute system can reduce the bomb's velocity from about 700 miles per hour to 44 miles per hour within a few seconds. The advanced cruise missile (ACM) and air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) carried on the B-52H are undergoing service life-extension programs to prolong their lifetimes through 2030. The ACM's forward-swept wings and tailplanes, flush air-intake, and flat, shielded jet exhaust make it difficult for radar to observe the missile. The ACM has a range of 3,000 kilometers (1,864 miles) and for guidance uses an inertial navigation system, together with a terrain contour matching (TERCOM) system to provide accuracies of 100-300 feet circular error probable. TERCOM uses a downward-pointing radar altimeter to determine the missile's altitude as it flies toward a target and compares the ground elevation profiles with maps stored in memory to determine if it is on course. The ALCM has the same navigation and guidance system but has a slightly shorter range of approximately 2,400 kilometers (1,491 miles). Both missiles are equipped with a W80-1 warhead, which has variable yield options up to 150 kilotons. The air force moved all remaining reserve ALCMs at Fairchild AFB, Washington, to Barksdale AFB in November 2005. The air force is studying options for a next-generation nuclear cruise missile. One possibility is a joint enhanced cruise missile with a nuclear payload and longer range to support Global Strike missions against "targets deep within future high-threat anti-access environments," according to air force documents. The new missile could be delivered by bombers or from various ground or sea platforms. Nuclear Surety Inspections. Air Combat Command's inspector general periodically conducts Nuclear Surety Inspections (NSI) to assess if rules, regulations, and procedures are being maintained to the highest standards. The inspections evaluate many areas, including weapon loading and mating procedures; storage, maintenance, and security practices; accident ("Broken Arrow") response; exercises to recapture and recover a nuclear weapon; processing and relaying emergency action messages; and permissive action link/use control operations that ensure that authorization orders are authentic. Inspectors conducted an NSI of the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot AFB from December 12 to 19, 2004 and rated the base satisfactory. An NSI conducted from July 9 to 16, 2005 of the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale AFB was rated unsatisfactory. Inspectors visited Whiteman AFB in December 2003 for an NSI, and a follow-up was expected in mid-2005. From February 18 to 24, 2004, inspectors conducted an NSI of the 896th Munitions Squadron (MUNS) at Nellis AFB, Nevada. The 896th MUNS receives, ships, stores, and maintains a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons. The Weapon Storage Area consists of 790 acres, crisscrossed by 36 miles of roadway, and houses 75 specialized storage igloos. The inspectors graded 18 areas, and the MUNS received 17 excellent or satisfactory ratings and one outstanding. Nonstrategic nuclear weapons. The United States retains approximately 500 nonstrategic operational nuclear weapons and keeps another 790 in reserve. These include the B61-3,-4, and-10 gravity bombs and the W80-0 warhead for the nuclear Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile (TLAM/N). The B61-10 is no longer in the active stockpile, according to Energy documents. The 2001 NPR did not address nonstrategic nuclear weapons. The United States deploys B61 nonstrategic nuclear bombs at eight bases in six European countries for delivery by various U.S. and NATO aircraft. Additional tactical bombs are in reserve status stored at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, and Nellis AFB. The air force deploys approximately 50 bombs with the 4th Fighter Wing at Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina. The 27th Fighter Wing at Cannon AFB, New Mexico, no longer has a nuclear mission, and the base is expected to be phased out under the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure process. U.S. delivery aircraft include the F-16C/D Fighting Falcon and F-15E Strike Eagle. NATO aircraft assigned nuclear missions include U.S.-supplied F-16s and German and Italian Tornado bombers. Under current air force planning, a portion of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) force will have nuclear capability starting in 2012. The JSF program completed an initial nuclear certification requirements plan in 2004, and more detailed procedures to make it nuclear capable began in 2005. Selected Los Angeles-class, improved Los Angeles-class, and some Virginia-class attack submarines can deploy with TLAM/Ns. The navy plans to refurbish the missiles, and Energy their W80-0 warheads, to extend their service life to around 2040. An estimated 320 TLAM/Ns are currently stored at the Strategic Weapons Facilities at Bangor, Washington, and King's Bay, Georgia, alongside strategic weapons for the SSBNs. While most U.S. nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) were credited with some nuclear capability during the Cold War, today most SSNs do not have nuclear missions. In the Pacific Fleet, for example, less than half of the attack submarines regularly undergo nuclear certification. But if the order were given, Tomahawks could be redeployed in 30 days. We estimate that no more than 12 out of around 50 SSNs have nuclear capability. The navy has test-launched unarmed Tomahawks 92 times since 1978. Two of these were conducted in 2005, one from the Greenville and another from the Minneapolis-St. Paul. Nuclear warheads. To ensure the reliability of nuclear weapons beyond their original design lives, most of the warheads in the "enduring" stockpile are scheduled to undergo life-extension programs over the next decade. The first of these programs began in 1999 and was for the W87; it was completed in 2001. The B61-7/-11, W76, W78, W80, B83, and W88 warheads will also undergo life-extension programs. Some life-extension programs are substantial enough to change a warhead's modification designation. Accordingly, the W76 will become the W76-1, and the W80-0 and W80-1 will become the W80-2 and W80-3, respectively. The first production units of the W80-2 and B61-7/-11 are scheduled for delivery later this year, the W76-1 in 2007-2008, and the W80-3 around 2008. The B61-7/-11 LEP involves refurbishing the secondary. Strong congressional opposition to the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) warhead program induced Energy to withdraw its 2006 funding request for the program, but hardened--case penetration tests applicable to RNEP will likely continue with Defense funding at Sandia National Laboratories. After spending almost $2 billion during more than a decade, Energy is still "reestablishing" small-scale plutonium pit production at Los Alamos. Lab scientists produced two certifiable W88 pits in 2003, four more in 2004, and six in 2005. Energy plans to test these pits in support of achieving W88 pit certification (for quantity production and stockpiling in the "war reserve") in 2007. Los Alamos aims to manufacture 10 W88 pits per year from 2008 to 2014. As part of its "pit campaign," Energy also hopes to "establish manufacturing process capability for all pit types" by 2009 and to "manufacture initial pit EDUs [engineering demonstration units] for Reliable Replacement [Warhead] pits" by 2012, according to its 2006 budget request. In total, Los Alamos could be making plutonium pits for as many as 30-40 new warheads per year after 2010, according to an October 2005 Albuquerque Journal interview with Linton Brooks, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Energy's plans for constructing a larger Modern Pit Facility at a new site are on hold. Nuclear Notebook is prepared by Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists. Direct inquiries to NRDC, 1200 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C., 20005; 202-289-6868. January/February 2006 pp. 68-71 (vol. 62, no. 1) © 2005 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists The U.S. arsenal Type/Designation No. Year deployed Warheads x yield (kilotons) Active/Spares ICBMs LGM-30G Minuteman III Mk-12 150 1970 1 W62 x 170 150 Mk-12 50 1970 3 W62 x 170 (MIRV) 150/30 Mk-12A 300 1979 2-3 W78 x 335 (MIRV) 750/35 Total 500 1,050/65 SLBMs UGM-133A Trident II D5* Mk-4 n/a 1992 6 W76 x 100 (MIRV) 1,632/80 Mk-5 n/a 1990 6 W88 x 455 (MIRV) 384/20 Total 336 2,016/100 Bombers B-52H Stratofortress 94/56** 1961 ALCM/W80-1 x 5-150 ACM/W80-1 x 5-150 1,000/30 400/20 B-2A Spirit 21/16 1994 B61-7, -11, B83-1 555 Total 115/72 1,955/50*** Nonstrategic forces Tomahawk SLCM 325 1984 1 W80-0 x 5-150 100 B61-3, -4 bombs n/a 1979 0.3-170 400 Total 325 500 Grand total ~5,521/215 ACM: advanced cruise missile; ALCM: air-launched cruise missile; ICBM: intercontinental ballistic missile; MIRV: multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle; SLCM: sea-launched cruise missile; SLBM: submarine-launched ballistic missile. * Conversion of the Henry Jackson and the Alabama to Trident II D5 SLBMs will be completed in 2007 and 2008, respectively, bringing to 14 the number of SSBNs capable of carrying D5s. ** The first figure is the aircraft inventory, including those used for training, testing, and backup. The second figure is the primary mission aircraft inventory, the number of operational aircraft assigned for nuclear and/or conventional missions. *** The large pool of bombs and cruise missiles allows for multiple loading possibilities, depending upon the mission. U.S. stockpile Type Active Inactive/ Responsive Total W62* 330 250 580 W78** 785 20 805 W76** 1,712 1,318 3,030 W88 404 0 404 W80-1** 1,450 361 1,811 B61-7 215 224 439 B61-11 20 21 41 B83-1/-0 320 306 626 W80-0 100 194 294 B61-3** 200 186 386 B61-4** 200 204 404 B61-10 0 206 206 W84* 0 383 383 W87 0 553 553 Total 5,736 4,226 9,962 *Warhead type to be fully dismantled. **Warhead type to be partially dismantled. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- california PG&E to Pay $96,000 Nuclear Plant Fine By The Associated Press Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:40 PM ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051222/ap_on_bi_ge/nuclear_fine_1 SAN FRANCISCO - Federal regulators on Wednesday proposed fining Pacific Gas and Electric Co. $96,000 for losing track of material removed from a nuclear reactor more than 30 years ago. The violations occurred at a PG&E nuclear power plant near Eureka, which the utility shut down in 1976. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fine is over three 18-inch segments of a fuel rod removed from the Humboldt Bay plant in 1968, as well as radioactive incore detectors that were cut in 1973. In a review last year, San Francisco-based PG&E realized it couldn't properly account for what happened to the material. Although the exact location of the material remains unknown, regulators don't believe the missing fuel or detectors pose a safety risk. In a statement, the NRC said it had concluded "the materials had most likely been shipped to a licensed low-level waste disposal site in the United States." PG&E said it won't protest the proposed fine, giving it 30 days to pay the penalty. PG&E's violations are considered the second most serious in the NRC's enforcement program. In calculating an appropriate fine, the NRC said it considered PG&E roles in identifying the violations and the improvements that the utility has made to avoid future problems. PG&E's corporate parent, PG&E Corp., earned $737 million on revenue of $8 billion during the first nine months of this year. On The Net: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov Pacific Gas and Electric: http://www.pge.com -------- colorado Radioactive Waste Permit Issued For Adams County (AP) Dec 21, 2005 http://cbs4denver.com/local/local_story_355184335.html DENVER State regulators issued a permit Wednesday for a radioactive waste dump in eastern Adams County about 40 miles east of Denver. The permit allows the Clean Harbors Deer Trail Facility to accept waste with limited concentrations of naturally occurring radioactive materials; soil and debris with naturally occurring radioactive materials from cleanup projects; and industrial waste that contains technologically enhanced, naturally occurring radioactive material. The permit, issued by the state Department of Public Health and Environment, does not allow the site to accept human-made or artificially altered radioactive material from research, medicine, weapons, nuclear power plants or other operations, the department said in a news release. The department also renewed Clean Harbors' hazardous waste permit for the site. Health department director Doug Benevento said the permits were approved after extensive reviews to ensure the safety of people and the environment. "With these approvals, Colorado water utilities and taxpayers will gain a safe and cost-effective option for disposal of very low levels of naturally occurring radioactive waste," he said. The operation is the only licensed hazardous waste disposal site in Colorado. -------- florida Nuclear plant touts its safety By Beth LaMontagne blamontagne@seacoastonline.com December 21, 2005 Seacoast Online http://www.seacoastonline.com/cgi-bin/printstory/printstory.cgi SEABROOK - Seabrook Station nuclear power plant is running safely, has improved security and continually updates their emergency plan, according to plant officials. The station held its annual media briefing Tuesday at its Science and Nature Center, answering questions on everything from what to do when the emergency alarms sound to whether a plane could breach the outer walls of the reactor dome. The event is a requirement of the Nuclear Regulation Commission in order to keep local news outlets updated on what to do in the event of an emergency. Jim Van Dongen of the New Hampshire Emergency Management Agency said the current emergency plan contains 50 volumes on CD-ROM, outlining the safety and evacuation plans for 23 surrounding towns and cities in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Each year, the plan is updated to take into account population change, new housing developments and changes to major roadways, Van Dongen said. The Seabrook Station also issues a calendar to residents in each of the 23 communities with information about the plant and where to direct questions, said Alan Griffith, the plant’s spokesman. People concerned about what to do if they hear an emergency alarm should remember to listen to local television and radio stations, which will be immediately briefed on any incident that warrants public action, said education coordinator David Barr. Incidents at the nuclear station are broken down into four categories. "Unusual event" is the least threatening and is often weather related. General emergency is the most serious and requires media and state agency notification and possible evacuation. Since the plant opened, there have been nine unusual events. The last was in November 2003 when the non-nuclear generator had a small hydrogen leak, said Griffith. He added the plant has never has an incident more serious than an unusual event. Since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the plant has been "enhancing and modifying" plant security, said Griffith. This summer, there were media reports of inadequate security fences and overworked security officers, but Griffith said these issues have been addressed. Concerning the safety of the dome which houses the nuclear reactor, Griffith said that due to the plant’s proximity to the former Pease Air Force Base, the dome was built to withstand the impact of an airplane. This page has been printed from the following URL: http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/12212005/news/79044.htm -------- illinois Exelon employee shot at nuclear plant The stray bullet may have come from security personnel training nearby. December 21, 2005 Rockville, IL, Register Star http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051221/NEWS0106/112210010/1004/NEWS BYRON — An Exelon employee at the Byron nuclear plant was recuperating Tuesday night at his home, a day after being shot on the grounds of the nuclear reactor plant by an apparent stray bullet. Officials are investigating the possibility that the bullet was accidentally fired by the plant’s security personnel training at a nearby outdoor firing range. Michael A. Davidson, 56, of Cherry Valley was leaving work Monday afternoon when a bullet struck him in his lower left leg. He was treated at OSF Saint Anthony Medical Center and released Tuesday. Exelon spokesman Bob Kartheiser said the plant immediately went into a heightened level of security after the 2:45 p.m. shooting. “There is a process in place that we follow,” he said without going into details, “and the key thing is to determine if you have any type of credible threat being made at the plant.” Ogle County authorities arrived shortly before 3 p.m. Deputies learned that firearms qualifications were being conducted at the station’s shooting range about the time the incident occurred. Sheriff Mel Messer said the plant does a good job with security, and it’s necessary for officers to undergo extensive training. “These are high-powered rifles,” Messer said. “Everything is frozen and hard, and a ricochet is quite possible. Right now, it’s strictly speculation. But I think it’s pretty valid that this is what happened.” Kartheiser said the power generating station has a private security force provided by Wackenhut Corp. The guards are required to undergo extensive training, even more so since Sept. 11, 2001. Wackenhut provides security at all Exelon plants. The range was built about four years ago to accommodate the guards who found it cumbersome and costly to train at commercial facilities, Kartheiser said. The range is about three-quarters of a mile away, to the west of the main plant buildings. “We don’t know if it is a bullet from the range,” Kartheiser said. “The bullet is still in his leg. The leg is at a point that doctors do not want to remove the bullet.” Once retrieved, the bullet will be turned over to the state police crime lab for ballistics testing to determine whether the bullet was fired from security personnel firearms. Messer said the tests could take 30 to 45 days. Davidson could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Contact: mwestpha@registerstartower.com; 815-987-1352 -------- michigan Controlled blasts assist with ongoing Big Rock Point nuclear plant demolition SPECIAL TO HARBOR LIGHT NEWSPAPER December 21, 2005 http://www.harborlightnews.com/news/2005/1221/Local_News/014.html Above: After the third blast: two holes have been created and the steel rebar that contributed to structural integrity is now visible. The plant’s drum was once located in this area. (Courtesy photo) Three individual and precisely controlled blasts were completed on Dec. 8, 9 and 11 at Consumer’s Energy’s Big Rock Point Restoration Project. The work assists in the demolition of the large concrete monolith located inside the plant’s former containment sphere. The blasts were used to “soften the concrete and steel rebar monolith that once housed Big Rock Point’s reactor vessel, steam drum, spent fuel pool and other equipment. The explosives were designed, placed and detonated in order to fracture– but not drop–the structure which stands 75-feet tall at its apex. The “softening” allows workers to more efficiently demolish the structure using standard demolition equipment–a 16,000 pound wrecking ball and ramming equipment. The explosives were employed in response to the difficulty encountered in earlier demolition projects of similar structures at Big RockPoint and other nuclear sites across the country. “Demolition of the turbine building earlier this year using the wrecking ball proved just how solidly the plant was constructed,” said Ray Flowers, Big Rock Point site general manager. “In addition to successfully performing similar work at other nuclear sites, they have also brought down such recognizable structures as the containment building at the Maine Yankee nuclear site, Seattle’s Kingdome, Pittsburgh’s Three Rivers Stadium and the J.L. Hudson Building in Detroit. For a job like this, it was important that we identify and hire the industry leader.” Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) was contracted by Consumers Energy to plan, engineer and execute the blasts. “CDI was hired because it is the recognized worldwide leader in using explosives to assist in the demolition of unwanted buildings,” said Kurt Haas, Big Rock Point site general manager. “In addition to successfully performing similar work at other nuclear sites, they have also brought down such recognizable structures as the containment building at the Maine Yankee nuclear site, Seattle’s Kingdome, Pittsburgh’s Three Rivers Stadium and the J.L. Hudson Building in Detroit. For a job like this, it was important that we identify and hire the industry leader.” Preparation for the blasts began several months ago as the plant’s trademark containment sphere was bing dismantled. CDI personnel developed the blast plan, which details the amount and placement of explosives in the concrete, along with safety procedures and contingency blast. Blast 1 occurred Dec. 8 and was located in the area where the reactor vessel was once located; blast 2 occurred Dec. 9 and was located in the former spent fuel pool area; blast 3 occurred Dec. 11 and occurred in the former steam drum area. Approximately 500 pounds of explosives were used in the three blasts. An extensive number of safety precautions were implemented for the work, including: -Establishment of a 800-foot blast zone in which all personnel were required to vacate; -A blast mate constructed of chain link fencing and fabric was laid over the individual blast zones to keep debris in place; -A detailed countdown procedure and contingency plans were established and followed; -Site security was increased and all nonessential personnel left the site during the blasts; and -Advance notification of appropriate authorities were made. “The months of planning paid off–the structure remains standing as planned after the blasts and the concrete and rebar has been softened,” said Haas. The structure is now being brought down using the wrecking ball and other equipment. The approximately 23 million pound of debris will be loaded into containers and shipped out of state for disposal. The concrete monolith is the last large remaining structure at Big Rock Point. The majority of the site is scheduled to be returned to a green field status, free for unrestricted use, by fall 2007. For more information about Controlled Demolition, Inc., visit www.controlleddemolition. com. Big Rock Point was the world’s first high powerdensity boiling water reactor and an important research site for the nuclear power industry. The plant was shut down on August 29, 1997, after 35 years of service, making it the nation’s longest running nuclear plant. Due to its many contributions to the nuclear and medical communities, Big Rock Point was named a Nuclear Historic Landmark by the American Nuclear Society. -------- new mexico University of California wins Los Alamos contract HEATHER CLARK Associated Press Wed, Dec. 21, 2005 http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/13458182.htm LOS ALAMOS, N.M. - Despite a string of security lapses and allegations of fraud and mismanagement, the University of California was awarded the government contract Wednesday to continue managing the Los Alamos laboratory that built the atom bomb. Because of the scandals at Los Alamos, the government contract to run the nation's pre-eminent nuclear lab had been put out to bid this year for the first time in the lab's 63-year history. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced that a partnership of UC and the engineering giant Bechtel Corp. had prevailed over a rival team made up of the University of Texas and the defense contractor Lockheed Martin. The contract is for up to $512 million over seven years, with a provision to extend it to 20 years. "This is a new contract with a new team, marking a new approach to the management of Los Alamos. It is not a continuation of the previous contract," Bodman said at a news conference in Washington. He said the goals under the new contract include seeking out the best practices in government, industry and academia to make the laboratory operate more efficiently. "It is a good decision for the American taxpayers. This new contract will put in place concrete measures of accountability, ensuring that the tax dollars spent at Los Alamos are well spent," Bodman said. The university has run the lab since it was created in the New Mexico desert in 1943 as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the A-bomb. To win the new contract, the university teamed up with Bechtel to add more managerial expertise. The Los Alamos National Laboratory, with about 8,000 University of California employees and 3,000 contract workers, is one of the nation's three chief installations responsible for maintaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal and manufacturing weapons components. The lab also conducts research on a host of topics of national interest, including miniaturized technology, genetics, computing, the environment and health. The new management team includes several New Mexico universities and will be directed by Michael Anastasio, head of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory since 2002. All current Los Alamos lab employees, except top managers, are guaranteed jobs, Bodman said. "All of us at the University of California look forward to being a part of the great science yet to come at Los Alamos," UC President Robert C. Dynes said. The lab has drawn criticism in recent years for security lapses, credit card abuses, theft of equipment, and mismanagement. In 1999, in a case that proved a major embarrassment for the government and the lab, Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee was jailed amid an investigation into possible Chinese espionage. The case proved to be weak, and Lee pleaded guilty to mishandling classified information and was released with an apology from a federal judge. Former lab investigator Glenn Walp, who was fired in 2002 after alleging mismanagement, fraud and cover-up at the lab, said he was disappointed that UC-Bechtel won. "It's a blue Christmas for America," he said. Walp said UC deserves praise for the work it has done in the past, "but in the last 10 years, they're just incapable of running the lab that's so important to American security." AP reporter Jennifer Talhelm in Washington contributed to this report. -------- north carolina Duke delays nuclear plant decision David Mildenberg Charlotte Business Journal December 21, 2005 http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2005/12/19/daily14.html?from_rss=1 Duke Power Co. says it won't pick a site for a potential new nuclear power plant by the end of the year, as previously indicated. But that decision is expected in January. "We're very pleased that we have multiple potential sites," Duke spokeswoman Rita Sipe says. "It's taking a little longer than we expected." The Charlotte-based company is considering sites on property it already owns, although most observers say it is unlikely Duke would expand at its three existing nuclear power sites. Two of those, the McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations, are adjacent to Lake Norman and Lake Wylie respectively, and within 20 miles of uptown Charlotte. Other sites believed to be under consideration include land near Gaffney, S.C., and near Duke's Belews Creek coal-fired power plant near Winston-Salem. The two reactors would require significant amounts of water and good access to roads, rail service and power lines. In October, Duke picked Westinghouse Electric Co. to provide the technology for the possible plant and said it has started preparing an application for a construction and operating license. That process would take up to 30 months. Duke Power, the electric utility of Charlotte-based Duke Energy Corp. (NYSE: DUK), emphasizes it is considering many different alternatives for future power generation and no firm commitment to nuclear has been made. Several other U.S. utilities are considering nuclear power expansion, including Progress Energy Corp. (NYSE: PGN) of Raleigh and Scana Corp. (NYSE: SCG) of Columbia, S.C. Some of the plans are sparked by the recent Energy Policy Act approved in Congress, which provides several billion dollars in incentives for nuclear plant development. Several local governments in the Carolinas are actively recruiting the potential Duke plant by offering financial incentives. The state governments are also involved in the process, though few details have emerged publicly. David Mildenberg is a staff writer for the Charlotte Business Journal, a sister publication. -------- MILITARY -------- russia / chechnya Poisoning hits schools in Chechnya Among the leading theories is a type of nerve gas poisoning Wednesday 21 December 2005, 19:10 Makka Time, 16:10 GMT AP http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/208C487A-028E-4C3E-9B0E-F92A282E7A2A.htm Authorities have closed schools in part of Russia's battered Chechnya region after a mysterious poisoning sickened at least 70 people, most of them schoolchildren, according to officials. Sergei Kozhemyaka, with the southern branch of the Emergency Situations Ministry, said the schools would remain closed until further notice. Medical workers from Moscow have been taking blood samples trying to establish the cause of the illness. Among the leading theories is poisoning from a type of nerve gas. Dozens of school-age children from four towns in Chechnya's northeastern Shelkovsky region have been hospitalised, most within the past few days, the Gazeta.ru website reported. The afflicted, who have also included teachers and school workers, have reported breathing trouble and headaches. Deputy Chechen Health Minister Zaur Muslyuev said 53 of those sickened were children. Umar Akhyadov, chief doctor of the Chechen Health Ministry's emergency medicine centre, was quoted by Interfax as saying that the number could rise. Separatists who have been fighting Russian forces in Chechnya for most of the past decade have committed a series of attacks in Chechnya and other parts of Russia, including the deadly seizure of hostages in a school in the town of Beslan in 2004. Chechen Prosecutor General Valery Kuznetsov was quoted by the ITAR-Tass news agency as saying earlier that "to speak about a terrorist act is premature" but "all possibilities are being considered." -------- spies New Documents Show FBI Spying on Domestic Activist Groups Wednesday, December 21st, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/21/1447236 Newly released documents show counterterrorism agents at the FBI have been monitoring domestic organizations active in causes as diverse as peace, the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief. The documents came as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. We are joined today by members of three groups under FBI surveillance: Greenpeace, PETA and the Catholic Worker. [includes rush transcript] Newly released documents show counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been monitoring domestic organizations active in causes as diverse as peace, the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief. This is the third major recent revelation about domestic spying in the last few days. Last week NBC News revealed the Pentagon has been monitoring peaceful anti-war protesters and the New York Times exposed how President Bush ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without court-approved warrants. The latest batch of files totals more than 2,300 pages and centers on references in internal files to a handful of groups including Greenpeace, Catholic Worker, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and PETA, the People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The documents indicate the FBI monitored protests organized by the groups and used confidential informants inside the organizations to gain intelligence. One document indicates that FBI agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers' "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Many of the investigative documents turned over by the bureau are heavily edited, making it difficult or impossible to determine the full context of the references and why the F.B.I. may have been discussing events like a PETA protest. * Matt Daloisio, of the New York Catholic Worker. * John Passacantando, Executive Director Greenpeace USA. * Jeff Kerr, General Counsel of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. - Read the FBI documents RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: We talk to the watched, Jeff Kerr, General Counsel and Director of Corporate Affairs of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; Matt Daloisio of the New York Catholic Worker; and John Passacantando of Greenpeace USA, he’s the Executive Director. Let’s begin with John Passacantando; what do you know about what they know about you? JOHN PASSACANTANDO: Well, good morning, Amy. We know that the F.B.I., since January 1, 2000, gathered approximately 2,400 pages of information on Greenpeace. This is everything from copies of web pages to reports by corporate-funded think tanks doing analysis of Greenpeace; it's clippings; it's write ups of protests, peaceful protests that we have engaged in; and that's about half of it. The other half of it has been redacted. It's blanked-out pages. So you can't tell if there's eavesdropping. You cannot tell if there's intercepted email traffic. You simply can’t tell; you get multiple boxes of photocopied paper, and only half of them actually have the print still on them. AMY GOODMAN: Jeff Kerr, you're with PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. We have been looking at documents that are almost fully redacted, except for the name of PETA. JEFF KERR: Good morning, Amy. Yes, you're right. What the documents show, as far as we can tell, is a gross abuse of power and a waste of resources, as the F.B.I. investigates and infiltrates an organization that it admits in these documents is a lawful charity engaged in First Amendment-protected free speech activity. It's outrageous, and this kind of secret spying has got to stop. AMY GOODMAN: What exactly do you understand the F.B.I. has been doing in your case? JEFF KERR: Well, to the extent we can glean it from the documents, we know they're surveilling speeches on college campuses. We know they have gone to some of our protests on public sidewalks, where people are laying naked in a cage to protest cruelty in the fur trade, and we know that they have harassed and questioned our employees on roadsides, and we know they have gone to their homes and businesses to interview them. There's really just such a wasteful type of threat that comes through this, and one indication in one of the documents, Amy, there's reference made where they accuse us of being actively involved in a campaign against a company that we had protested six years before that and hadn't done anything previously. You know, the American people know the difference between a terrorist and somebody in a chicken suit handing out a leaflet against KFC's practices. But the F.B.I. apparently doesn't seem to know that. AMY GOODMAN: Matt Daloisio, you're with the New York Catholic Worker. What have you read in the documents? MATT DALOISIO: From the documents I’ve seen, it looks like the F.B.I. was concerned with the Los Angeles Catholic Worker and their work around Vandenberg Air Force Base and National Missile Defense. Mostly, it seems just sad that the F.B.I. would use resources to investigate a group that's always open about what we do and take responsibility for what we do and is really based in a faith that believes in the God-given dignity of every human being. AMY GOODMAN: The documents refer to the Catholic Worker’s semi-communist ideology. MATT DALOISIO: Yes, I guess if we are against war and working with people who are poor, that makes us semi-communistic. AMY GOODMAN: You have just returned from a very unusual protest, perhaps the first of its kind, a group of people who went down to Cuba, walked -- why don't you describe what you did? MATT DALOISIO: It was a group of 25 people, mostly Catholic Workers, ranging in age from 24 to 79, who walked 107 kilometers from Santiago to Cuba to Guantanamo, to the military checkpoint outside Guantanamo, where we stayed for four days, fasting and praying and calling on the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon to let us in to visit the prisoners. George Bush had invited the international community down if they thought that torture was happening at the base, and we accepted his invitation. AMY GOODMAN: What happened when you got there? MATT DALOISIO: Our phone calls were transferred around, and we weren't allowed into the base, but we were able to maintain a presence there, 15 kilometers from the prison itself, closer than family members of these men have been in the last four years. AMY GOODMAN: Do you know if any of them were aware of your presence? MATT DALOISIO: We have word from lawyers who are representing people at Guantanamo that they are going to inform the prisioners that we have responded to especially those on hunger strike, who now are being force-fed. AMY GOODMAN: Isn't the area around Guantanamo, this unusual situation where the U.S. has a military base there, but, of course, it's surrounded by Cuba, that it’s the most heavily land-mined area around that base? MATT DALOISIO: Yes, it's a U.S. base on sovereign Cuban territory. There's a U.S. fence, and then a no man's land full of land mines, and then a Cuban fence. And we were about seven kilometers from the Cuban fence, in what is a Cuban military zone. AMY GOODMAN: What were the Cubans’ response to this walk? MATT DALOISIO: We were very open about what we wanted to do, and we were able to work with the Cubans so that we didn't put any Cubans at risk. We know we come from a country that just invaded another country based on lies, and we didn't want to cause any provocation or problems for Cuba. AMY GOODMAN: How did the people of Cuba respond? MATT DALOISIO: We were able to set up camp in people's backyards in Cuba, and the hospitality was amazing. Try to imagine 25 Cubans showing up at an American's front door, asking if they could pitch their tents. So we were very lucky with our interactions with the Cuban people. AMY GOODMAN: Jeff Kerr, what about the issue of informants in PETA? How exactly is this monitoring taking place? What’s your understanding? JEFF KERR: Well, there are sort of two responses to that. The first one, to kind of touch on what John said at the outset, and that is how silly it is that they would need to do that for organizations like those represented on this call, that are completely open about everything they do. For example, with PETA, we send out press releases about all of our activities, and you can go to our website at PETA.org to see everything that we do. The second point, though, Amy, and the things that's the most concerning is that people don't really know. The American people don't fully know how these infiltrations are being done, the Congress doesn't know, and that's part of the problem with this kind of secret domestic spying. The notion that anybody can infiltrate a completely open organization is silly and further indication of a waste of resources. AMY GOODMAN: We were just showing a document on our TV broadcast, and for radio listeners, we'll put it online at DemocracyNow.org, that says that PETA imports people from Asia or brings them in to commit criminal acts. JEFF KERR: I must have missed that job description, but, I mean, it's just beyond ludicrous that something like that would even make it into an F.B.I. file. You know, like I said, any thinking person knows the difference between somebody standing on a street corner and handing out a leaflet or engaging in protest and actively working for change in this society, whether it be for animal protection, the environment, for peace, whatever it may be, but, you know, there's this wastefulness of resources, and what can only be seen as targeting people, because of this acknowledgement of this lawful activity by the F.B.I., can only be seen as a targeting of people because of the company they keep and the points of view that they espouse, and that's just wrong. AMY GOODMAN: John Passacantando, head of Greenpeace, The New York Times says, “In the case of Greenpeace, which is known for highly publicized acts of civil disobedience, like the boarding of cargo ships to unfurl protest banners, the files indicate that the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between its members and militant groups like Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front. These networks, which have no declared leaders and are only loosely organized, have been described by the F.B.I. in congressional testimony as extremist special interest groups whose cells engage in violent or other illegal acts, making them a serious domestic terrorist threat.” Your response? JOHN PASSACANTANDO: Well, it's a classic smear campaign. This administration has used the power it was able to consolidate post-9/11 to turn around and not find the terrorists, not find the threats to the country, but to try to intimidate the peaceful groups that oppose this administration's policies, whether it be foreign wars or rolling back environmental laws. So, you have a group like Greenpeace, we have a perfect 35-year record of nonviolence, of peaceful activities, but we also have a record of opposing those in power who are destroying our environment. And so, what do we get? We get a massive F.B.I. file. We get all sorts of surveillance. We just finished a three-month audit. The IRS, they told us it was a politically referred audit. They came in, they were in our offices for three months. Now, we came out with a clean bill of health. They came out, raving about the way we keep our books. Nevertheless, what you end up reading in The New York Times is that the F.B.I. is investigating links. It’s a smear campaign. What we’ve got is a return to Hoover's F.B.I., Hoover's F.B.I. which was insinuating things about Martin Luther King. You have a return to Nixon's IRS, where they were literally doing IRS audits against the organizations and people on Richard Nixon's enemies list. That is what we have returned to today under George Bush and Dick Cheney. AMY GOODMAN: John Passacantando, I want to thank you for being with us, of Greenpeace USA; Matt Daloisio, a member of the New York Catholic Worker; and Jeff Kerr, General Counsel and Director of Corporate Affairs. PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. -------- war crimes Saddam: Americans tortured me Wednesday 21 December 2005, 20:14 Makka Time, 17:14 GMT Agencies http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4E9F538E-7C04-44A4-9D1B-D0C161533601.htm The trial of Saddam Hussein adjourned until Thursday, capping a session highlighted by the former leader's allegation that he was beaten by his American captors. "I have been hit by the Americans and tortured. Yes, I've been beaten on every place of my body and the signs are all over my body," the deposed Iraqi president said on Wednesday. The trial's chief prosecutor said that if American-led multinational forces had abused Saddam, he would be transferred into the custody of Iraqi troops. The prosecutor, Jaafar al-Mousawi, said he would investigate. Speaking in Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described Saddam's claim as "highly ironic" and said he knew of nothing to substantiate it. "Look, he's been given to grandstanding in this trial, but where the focus should be is on the testimony of those people who were victimised ... That's what people should be listening to." Just three of the four prosecution witnesses scheduled to give evidence on Wednesday had time to take the stand before the presiding judge called the adjournment at 8.40pm (1740 GMT). Saddam, 68, on trial for mass murder, has been detained by US forces since his capture two years ago. 'Brave men' "Our enemy is not the American people. Our enemy is the American government which is destroying Iraq," Saddam said. He also described fighters resisting the US forces' presence in the country as "brave men", adding that they were doing "good work". Nevertheless, in one of the more conciliatory statements he has made during the trial, he said those guilty of the alleged torture described by the witnesses should be punished, apparently distancing himself from the accusations. "When I hear that any Iraqi has been hurt it hurts me too," the Saddam said. "The wrongs that were done to those people were wrong and, according to law, those who did it should get what they deserve." He had defiantly boycotted the last hearing two weeks ago after denouncing the legality of the tribunal and telling the judge to "go to hell". Saddam's half-brother, Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, who on Wednesday was accused of supervising torture sessions after a 1982 assassination bid against the then Iraqi leader, told the court his hands were "as clean as those of Moses". "This hand has committed no crime," he said after a witness, who testified from behind curtains to preserve his anonymity, said he was tortured with electricity while Barzan looked on, eating grapes. Saddam and seven of his associates, including Barzan, who at the time was in charge of the secret police, are being tried over the killing of 148 Shia civilians from the village of Dujail, north of Baghdad. Abu Ghraib prison The witness said that during one torture session "Barzan was there eating grapes and I was screaming". He said he was arrested, along with his family, a day after the assassination bid on Saddam. The secret witness said he was tortured while being held for 17 days at the Dujail intelligence centre where he identified the bodies of two of his sons whom police alleged were involved in the assassination plot. The witness and his family were later transferred to Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad where they spent 14 months before being exiled to a desert area. During his detention in Abu Ghraib, prison guards repeatedly abused the prisoners, beating them, the witness said. 'Dripping in blood' Another witness, who testified earlier in full view of the cameras and witnesses, said "they would take one of us away and he would return in a sheet, dripping in blood". Ali Mohammed Hassan al-Haidari, who was 14 at the time, said he was locked up with hundreds of others in the local intelligence headquarters after the government's clampdown. Saddam and his co-defendants have all pleaded not guilty to charges including murder and torture but face the death penalty if convicted. Al-Haidari said he recognised Barzan, who at the time was in charge of the secret police and who, he said, was involved in interrogating detainees. Denial Barzan angrily denied being involved in torture and accused the witness of lying. "I will call my own witness whose shoe is more honourable than you and your tribe. You dog!," he shouted at the witness. Addressing the presiding judge, Barzan also accused witnesses of "singing the same song", repeating similar accusations using similar words. "It's your duty as president of this court to convince me I'm guilty," he said. Defence concerns All eight defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges which carry the death penalty. Earlier, the Qatari lawyer on Saddam's defence team once again complained about lack of security for the attorneys. "We cannot continue with this case if there is deficiency in security," Naji al-Nuaimi said. "We were threatened at the airport and later put up in a house with no door to the lavatory," he complained. Two defence lawyers were assassinated shortly after the start of the trial on 19 October. The trial is not expected to extend past Thursday when it is likely to be adjourned again until mid-January because of the announcement of Iraq's election results, holidays and the Haj, the annual pilgrimage to Makka. Agencies -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- courts / tribunals Judge's resignation adds to spying furor By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY Posted 12/21/2005 1:44 AM, Updated 12/22/2005 12:09 AM http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-21-judge-spying_x.htm WASHINGTON — A federal judge has resigned from a special panel that oversees the government's surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists, adding to a political firestorm over President Bush's secret domestic spying program that bypasses the panel. U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, resigned from the panel late Tuesday. Robertson was not available for comment Wednesday, and his letter of resignation was not made public. Some legal analysts said the timing of Robertson's decision, less than a week after disclosure of the president's surveillance program, suggests it was an act of protest. Bush issued an executive order after the 9/11 attacks that allows the National Security Agency (NSA) in some instances to intercept international phone calls and electronic communications of people in the USA without warrants from the FISA court. Three Democratic senators have called for the suspension of the program, aimed at people with possible terrorist links, until Congress can consider its legality. The senators are Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Carl Levin of Michigan, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island. Duke University professor Scott Silliman said Robertson's resignation "is not helpful to the administration. It adds voice to a growing clamor on Capitol Hill." Until the domestic spying program was revealed, the FISA court was believed to be the ultimate arbiter for government requests to conduct NSA surveillance in the USA of suspected terrorists and spies. The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Robertson told colleagues he was concerned that possibly illegal information obtained from the NSA operations could then have been used to obtain FISA warrants. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday that he didn't know why Robertson resigned. "The FISA court's an important one," McClellan said. "We use FISA in a number of instances. It's one important tool." -------- torture Bush to sign bill banning mistreatment 12/21/2005 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-21-congress-defense_x.htm WASHINGTON — President Bush is expected to sign a voluminous defense bill that requires the humane treatment of foreign terrorism suspects and rebukes some of his wartime policies. On a voice vote, the Senate late Wednesday approved the bill setting Pentagon policy, sending it to the president's desk for his signature. The House passed the legislation Monday. The Bush administration initially threatened to veto any bill limiting how the United States detains, interrogates or prosecutes terror suspects. But last week, Bush reluctantly endorsed the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign detainees amid pressure from the Republican-controlled Congress and U.S. allies. The chief sponsor, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had the votes in both the House and Senate to override a veto despite early lobbying against the ban by Vice President Dick Cheney. "It puts in law the policy of America on these issues," Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said. "It also provides what I regard as a fair set of standards for our men and women in uniform." Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., called the ban unnecessary because U.S. law already prohibits torture. "Frankly, I'm not sure whether the administration agreed to this because they felt they had no choice or because they were happy with it," Sessions said. The ban was part of a broader package of provisions that seek to standardize interrogation techniques and heal a U.S. image tarnished by the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal in Iraq and allegations of prisoner abuse at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In an attempt by Congress to increase its oversight during wartime, the measure includes language directing the president to submit quarterly reports to Congress on U.S. policy and military operations in Iraq. That provision also puts Congress on record saying that 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead to create conditions for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The detainee provisions also were included in a separate $453 billion defense spending bill. On Wednesday, the Senate passed that measure, which includes $50 billion more for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but only after stripping out a provision that would have allowed oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Because of the change, the House needs to sign off on the final version of the spending measure — expected Thursday — before it goes to the president for his signature. The detainee provisions prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in U.S. government custody anywhere in the world. They also require that service members follow procedures in the Army Field Manual during interrogations of prisoners. In addition, the measure narrows a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that gave Guantanamo detainees the right to fight the legality of their detentions in any federal court. Instead, the bill limits their ability to appeal their detention status and punishments to a federal appeals court in Washington. -------- POLITICS -------- us politics First Step Towards Impeachment? Conyers Introduces Bills to Censure Bush and Cheney Wednesday, December 21st, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/21/1447240 We speak with Congressman John Conyers (D - MI) introduced measures to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney for misleading lawmakers on the decision to go to war in Iraq. Conyers is also seeking the creation of a select committee to investigate the Administration's possible crimes and make recommendations regarding grounds for impeachment. [includes rush transcript] The "I" word has returned to Washington. Seven years to the week after the House of Representatives impeached President Clinton, discussion of the possible impeachment of President Bush has reached a new high. In recent days, Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressmen John Lewis and John Conyers, Nixon's former White House Counsel John Dean as well as numerous legal scholars have suggested Bush has committed impeachable offenses by illegally ordering the National Security Agency to eavesdrop inside the country without a court warrant. Even conservative legal scholars have admitted the severity of Bush's actions. Norm Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said "I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed." Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California said she had written to several constitutional scholars to ask whether Bush had committed an impeachable offense by ordering the warrant-less domestic spying. Boxer's request came after former White House John Dean said Bush had become "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." Earlier this week Democratic Congressman John Conyers introduced measures to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney - not for the domestic spying case but for misleading lawmakers on the decision to go to war in Iraq. Conyers is also seeking the creation of a select committee to investigate the Administration's possible crimes and make recommendations regarding grounds for impeachment. To back up his case Conyers has just released a reported titled "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverups in the Iraq War." To support Conyers" efforts activists have also launched a website this week titled censurebush.org. * Rep. John Conyers (D - MI), second longest serving member of the House of Representatives and the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. In the 1970s he played a prominent role in the recent impeachment process of Richard Nixon. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Congressmember Conyers. REP. JOHN CONYERS: Good morning, and it's always good to be with you, Amy. It’s a wonderful program that you have. Your earlier segment ties almost into this, with the groups being harassed, and tried to be connected to political -- to al-Qaeda when it's pretty clear that that's not the case. Now, what we're doing is trying to put this into a outline of moving forward, and so, on the closing hours of the session over the weekend, I introduced House Resolution 635, which creates a select committee to investigate the administration's intent to go to war before they received congressional authorization and manipulation of pre-war intelligence and encouraging and countenancing torture of detainees and retaliating against critics and to make recommendations regarding possible grounds for impeachment. Now this [inaudible] to the Ervin Select Committee during the Watergate days and allows us to create a committee that's, first of all, an even number of Republicans and Democrats with the vice chairman being a Democrat who has a co-equal subpoena power. The reason we're doing that is that there's a lot more information that we need to be considering how far forward we move. We do have, although we don't think there's any need to wait for what can be done, and that's immediate resolution censuring President George W. Bush for failing to respond to the continued request for information and the other allegations of misleading and countenancing torture. And then we have 637, which is for the Vice President, who has done a number of things, not only in connection with the President, but on his own, that we think merit both of these two people being censured in House Resolution 636 for Bush and 637 for Vice President Cheney. AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Conyers, I wanted to play for you a moment a clip of Illinois Republican Congressman, Henry Hyde, not today, but in 1998. He headed the House Judiciary Committee, which decided whether President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, in his efforts to keep it hidden, should be referred to the House of Representatives for impeachment proceedings. This is Congressman Hyde speaking on the floor of the House, December 18, 1998, referencing Clinton’s presidential oath of office. REP. HENRY HYDE: That oath constituted a compact between the President and the American people. That compact has been broken. The people's trust has been betrayed. The nation's chief executive has shown himself unwilling or incapable of enforcing its laws, for he has corrupted the rule of law. AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Henry Hyde in 1998. Compare what you see today with the current President in his second term, Congressmember Conyers. REP. JOHN CONYERS: Well, that was one of the sorriest episodes in the history of American impeachment, because they were referring to personal conduct. That president had not tried to start a war secretly, was not trying to undo conventions against torture, was not misstating or manipulating intelligence or information to justify a war. He wasn't taking retaliatory measures against critics of his administration, including people who were in the Central Intelligence Agency. So the high-flown statements had no bearing to the facts. As a matter of fact, what we're doing – AMY GOODMAN: We have ten seconds. REP. JOHN CONYERS: We're moving with a great caution toward what a number of people are realizing should be appropriately done. AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Conyers, I want to thank you very much for being with us. And we'll link your proposal for censure on our website at DemocracyNow.org, and people can email us at mail@democracynow.org with your response. ---- Senate strikes deal to extend Patriot Act By Richard Wolf and David Jackson, USA TODAY, December 21, 2005 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-21-patriot_x.htm WASHINGTON — Senators agreed Wednesday to a six-month extension of the USA Patriot Act, skirting a showdown over updating the anti-terrorism law set to expire Dec. 31. The House of Representatives, already recessed for the holidays, must also sign off on the deal. Members could return as early as today for a vote. "There are many good things in this Patriot Act ... but not enough," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Now we have six months to get it right." President Bush, who had earlier suggested he might veto a mere extension, said he would continue working with the Senate in the new year. "The act will expire next summer, but the terrorist threat to America will not expire on that schedule," Bush said in a statement. Congress first passed the Patriot Act after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, granting law enforcement additional powers to monitor terrorist threats. With the original law due to expire, the House last week passed a version of the Patriot Act that had been worked out by House and Senate negotiators. It would have made 14 of the law's 16 provisions permanent. In the Senate, however, most Democrats and four Republicans tied up the compromise bill with a filibuster, refusing to end debate. The critics had demanded changes that they say would increase safeguards against improper government searches and seizures. Earlier in the day, Bush urged the Senate to stop the delaying tactics. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, one of the Republicans who led the filibuster, said the White House had little choice but to go along with the extension: "This was not a time to allow expiration." Some Senate Republicans doubted they would be able to resolve the problems in six months. "We'll be right back where we are right now," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. The House bill would remove legal barriers to communication among FBI, CIA and domestic law enforcement agencies. It also would give new four-year expiration dates to "roving wiretaps" of multiple phones, and secret court orders for business, library and Internet records. ---- Senate says no to drilling in Arctic refuge By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY Posted 12/21/2005 12:50 PM Updated 12/22/2005 7:01 AM http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-21-congress_x.htm WASHINGTON — The Senate passed a $453 billion defense spending bill late Wednesday after refusing to include a provision that would open part of Alaska's pristine wilderness to oil drilling. The defense bill includes money for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as for Hurricane Katrina victims and avian flu protection. It passed 93-0. After entreaties from President Bush, the Senate also granted a six-month extension of the USA Patriot Act, the major anti-terrorism law passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Key provisions of the law were set to expire Dec. 31. During the extension, the administration will try to work out an agreement with critics, including four Republicans, who say parts of the Patriot Act threaten civil liberties. Early in the day, Republicans passed a $39.7 billion deficit-reduction bill that reduces the growth of entitlement programs for the first time since 1997. Vice President Cheney, on a trip to the Middle East and southern Asia, flew home early from Pakistan to break a tie so the bill could pass, 51-50. That bill was sent to the House of Representatives for technical changes before it heads to Bush for his signature. The House, which went home for the holidays on Monday, must come back and pass the Senate's changes to the defense bill and the Patriot Act extension. In a topsy-turvy day, the energy defeat plunged the Senate into backroom negotiations that stretched into the night on two bills considered crucial to the war on terrorism. The defense spending bill passed the House early Monday with the oil-drilling provision intact. But 60 votes were required in the Senate to break a filibuster led by Democrats, and Republicans mustered only 56 votes. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who has sought to permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for a quarter-century, had threatened to keep the Senate in session through the holidays. Stevens, a former chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, made an unusual personal appeal to his Senate colleagues. "Every one of you, have you ever ... (told) me you needed help for your state and I have turned you down?" he asked. "I have fought" to help, he added. The 19.6-million-acre wildlife refuge was created by President Eisenhower in 1960. It is home to caribou, polar bears and about 150 species of migratory birds. Its coastal plain holds 5 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil, enough to supply the nation for up to two years. Congress approved drilling in 1996, but President Clinton vetoed it. The House passed it twice in the last Congress and again this year, but it's been tied up in the Senate. Only about 1.5 million acres would be subject to exploration under the legislation, and only 2,000 acres of that could be drilled. Even so, environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and their allies in Congress have fought for years to block drilling in the refuge. "Destroying this wilderness will do very little to reduce energy costs, nor does it do very much for oil independence," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Stevens put the provision on a bill funding the Pentagon, including a pay raise for troops fighting overseas, so it would be harder for Democrats to oppose. "We all know what these 30-second television commercials ... do to people," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a target of attack ads during the 2004 presidential campaign. Both sides said they expect the issue to return in 2006. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said he will try to attach Arctic drilling to next year's budget. "The battle's going to go on," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., an opponent. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush will try again. "The president believes very strongly that we need to continue to act to address the root causes of high energy prices," he said. Republicans cheered the measure to help reduce the deficit. They noted that even with the savings, spending on entitlements will rise from $1.3 trillion today to $1.7 trillion in 2010. "For eight years, we have ignored this problem," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. By trimming nearly $40 billion, he said, lawmakers are "putting our toe in the water. Actually, we're going up to our ankles." Contributing: David Jackson and wire reports -------- ACTIVISTS Judge denies motion to dismiss, convicts uranium weapons protesters Wednesday 21 December @ 18:34:45 by John LaForge, Pulse of the Twin Cities (Minnesota) http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=2214 A group of 12 anti-war activists were found guilty of trespassing Dec. 12 by Hennepin County District Court Judge Lorie Gildea after a half-day trial. The group had been charged during a July 13 protest at the headquarters of Alliant Techsystems, Minnesota’s biggest weapons merchant and the object of relentless protest over its manufacture of rocket motors, machine guns, bullets and so-called depleted uranium munitions—the internationally- condemned toxic, radioactive shells used to smash hardened targets. The 12 radical pacifists, convicted of violating a new Edina City ordinance, were each ordered to pay a $142 fine or do 24 hours of community service. (On Dec. 15, Judge Gildea, 44, who’s been a District Judge only since September, was appointed to the Minnesota Supreme Court by Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Gildea’s husband Andrew is a Republican Party functionary.) The trespass convictions came in striking contrast to identical trials that took place this time last year. On Dec. 10 and Dec. 14, 2004, two separate Hennepin County juries found two groups of protesters not guilty of state trespass charges. During the separate four-day trials, the defendants successfully argued that Alliant’s uranium weapons are illegal to produce and that federal and international law made what otherwise appeared to be nonviolent trespass an excusable act of “crime prevention.” Likewise, a jury in October 2003 acquitted a group of 18 Alliant weapons protesters who argued that the company’s production of land mines was illegal. The three embarrassing defeats for Hennepin County prosecutors led the City of Edina to hurriedly enact a local trespass ordinance that, as a petty misdemeanor, does not allow for a jury trial. The new ordinance also redefines the “claim of right” section of the law—used successfully by anti-war defendants to explain the outlaw status of Alliant’s weapons—eliminating references to or respect for prevailing constitutional and international law. The hastily-enacted ordinance was the first issue taken up at trial Dec. 12. Judge Gildea appeared to consider a “motion to dismiss,” presented by attorney Kenneth Gleason and defendant Bob Burns. Gleason and Burns, who spoke on behalf of all the defendants, argued that the ordinance was incompatible with the state statute (unconstitutionally restricting a defendant’s “claim of right”), and that the City Council had violated the city code in the process of adopting the new rule. The judge denied the motion and proceeded with the bench trial (a trial without a jury). The defendants included Burns, Jane McDonald, Elizabeth McKenzie, Barbara Vaile, John Schmid Jr., Tom Bottolene, Elizabeth Pepperwolf, Sam Foster, David Harris, Bonnie Urfer, Kathleen Ruona and this reporter. According to its website, Alliant Techsystems is a $3 billion military contractor with 13,700 employees in 23 states. In April this year the company—the country’s No. 1 bullet maker—boasted that it had produced 1.2 billion bullets for the Army in a single year. U.S. wars on Afghanistan and Iraq account for a heavy increase in government orders. Alliant claims to have ceased its production of anti-personnel land mines and cluster bombs. AlliantACTION!, a local coalition of peace, environmental and human rights activists, has conducted a long-standing campaign of protest and resistance to the contractor’s war profiteering. Alliant Tech claims to have produced 16 million 30mm uranium shells for use by the Air Force and the Army. The Wall Street Journal reported Jan. 30, 2001, that the small-caliber shells bring $21.50 apiece. “Depleted” uranium (DU) weapons are armor-piercing shells made from waste uranium-238, which is left over in huge quantities from the manufacture of nuclear weapons and fuel for nuclear reactors. When the weapons smash armor plate, the uranium burns at high temperatures and turns to dust that can be inhaled or ingested. Internal DU contamination has been blamed for skyrocketing increases in birth abnormalities in Iraq’s civilian population, and among children of Gulf War veterans. DU poisoning is also alleged to play a major role in the devastating symptoms known collectively as Gulf War Syndrome that are plaguing hundreds of thousands of veterans. While anti-uranium weapons activists may be unable to explain their case to juries for now, civil society is moving ahead to abolish DU. On Nov. 17, the European Parliament for the third time called for a halt to the use of DU. The resolution says the EP “reiterates its call for a moratorium—with a view to the introduction of a total ban—on the use of so-called ‘depleted uranium munitions.’” The EP previously condemned DU in February of ’03 and January of ’01. In September, the prestigious Physicians for Social Responsibility, winners of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, issued a 21-page report on DU which declared that “the use of DU weapons that leaves a persistent noxious environmental and public health hazard is unconscionable.” The physicians further demanded that DU weapons “be withdrawn from military arsenals,” and that “the U.S. military support independent studies of the longer-term health effects of battlefield use of DU on combatants and on the Iraqi population exposed to DU.” The United Nations Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities has twice resolved that the use of DU is a violation of binding humanitarian law, and that “all states … need to curb the production and spread of … weapons containing depleted uranium.” Another group of 42 activists, who were cited for trespass on Oct. 24, are scheduled for arraignment in January, with a bench trial to follow. The October date was the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations Charter outlawing wars of aggression. || Campaign Against Depleted Uranium Military Toxics Project Nukewatch John LaForge is on the staff of Nukewatch, a peace and environmental action group based in Wisconsin.