NucNews February 20, 2006 Full text of articles can be found at http://nucnews.net by date -------- NUCLEAR -------- canada U.S., Canada to update defense treaty Mon, Feb. 20, 2006 Associated Press http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/13920078.htm HALIFAX, Nova Scotia - The defense treaty between the United States and Canada will be expanded to include maritime surveillance, Ottawa's newly appointed defense minister said Monday. Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor said the joint maritime surveillance and the existing agreement on continental air defense - the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD - would not compromise Canada's control over its military. He also emphasized the expanded treaty would not lead to automatic adoption of the Bush administration's plans to establish a ballistic missile defense shield. The expanded treaty is expected to be signed in May, when the current one expires. O'Connor, in his first public statement since Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper came to power last month, downplayed the significance of the updated treaty, dismissing the suggestion it could lead to U.S. warships patrolling Canadian waters. The agreement will mean "merely a transfer of information," he told reporters in the hangar deck of the Canadian frigate HMCS Halifax, after touring the navy dockyard. "It doesn't change our responsibility as a country," he said. "We have to look after our own sovereignty. We have to deal with any threats coming from the sea." Once ratified, the new treaty would allow intelligence on shipping data and threats to the sea lanes to be sent directly into NORAD headquarters, which is staffed by Canadian and U.S. military at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo. NORAD was founded in 1958, at the height of the Cold War, to counter the threat of Soviet nuclear bombers and missiles. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there has been increasing pressure to modernize the organization's role. Critics have said an expanded treaty could inadvertently sweep Canada into the U.S. government's contentious and largely unproven ballistic missile defense program. A year ago, the now-ousted Liberal government turned down a U.S. request for Canada to join the program, which would include bases across the continent where small missiles could be launched to shoot down ballistic missiles fired at North America by rogue nations. O'Connor restated the Conservative government's position that it would be willing to negotiate with the United States on defense program. -------- depleted uranium ATK bags $38 million tank ammo order Feb. 20, 2006 (UPI) http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060220-102319-5179r MINNEAPOLIS -- The Army has placed a $38 million order with Alliant Techsystems (ATK) for 120-mm ammunition for its main battle tank. The follow-on contract announced by ATK Monday extends the original contract for M829A3 tank rounds and brings the total value of the rounds ordered in fiscal year 2006 up to $77 million. Once the new pact is completed, ATK will have delivered 35,000 M829A3 rounds to the military. ATK says the price is worth it because it gives the U.S. M1A1 and A2 Abrams tanks unmatched punch "designed to ensure that U.S. armored forces maintain battlefield supremacy." Based on a depleted-uranium penetrator, the West Virginia-produced round is billed as the most advanced armor-piercing kinetic-energy ordnance available. "Its state-of-the-art composite sabot, propellant, and penetrator technologies give it outstanding accuracy and lethality," ATK said. The M829A3 specs show that the 22.3-kilogram round uses 8 kilograms of solid propellent to attain a muzzle velocity of 1,555 meters per second. While the velocity isn't as fast as other U.S. 120-mm rounds, the 10-kg projectile is heavier than the others. The projectile's use of depleted uranium shows continued confidence in the slightly radioactive but increasingly controversial depleted uranium. Critics see the radiation of depleted uranium as a potential health hazard to tank crews and to people exposed to the material after it has been fired. Armor experts, however, maintain that the extremely heavy composition of depleted uranium makes it not only a top-notch armor-piercer but a vital hardener of the Abrams' own armor. ---- Bombing of Baghdad 'linked to UK radiation rise' Feb 20 2006 By Drew Morris Liverpool Daily Post Correspondent http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16724330&method=full&siteid=50061&headline=bombing-of-baghdad--linked-to-uk-radiation-rise--name_page.html THE "shock and awe" bombing campaign in Iraq caused radiation levels in Britain to rocket, according to a controversial report by a Liverpool University academic. Chris Busby claims "uranium aerosols" from the Middle East were blown across Europe, contaminating populations thousands of miles away. Mr Busby, a fellow of the department of human anatomy and cell biology, compiled the report after uncovering the radiation figures through freedom of information laws. The results were detected from testing stations at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston, Berkshire, and four other stations in the area. Mr Busby's report found higher levels were recorded at the five sites nine days after the start of the Iraq conflict on March 19, 2003. It says that weather conditions at the time recorded a northbound airflow from Iraq which also resulted in substantial deposits of sand from the Sahara Desert being dumped on British soil. Mr Busby, who is a founding member of the Green Audit environmental group, says the findings are proof that uranium from munitions was carried to Britain by wind currents. He believes official claims that the uranium is not harmful are misleading. Mr Busby said: "The point is that it is radioactive. "If you contaminate enough people, even at a low risk then clearly it is going to have an effect on them. "It is contrary to human rights to contaminate whole populations with a substance that could potentially harm their health." Government experts have dismissed the report, saying the findings are a coincidence which probably came from a local source such as a power station. A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence said: "It is not sensible to suggest that depleted uranium from munitions in Iraq can be detected around Aldermaston or anywhere else in the UK. "There is simply no feasible transport mechanism, weather or otherwise, for this to happen." However, Mr Busby says his findings refute this claim. He said: "This report puts uranium weapons into the category of indiscriminate effect, the military maintains the weapons are only effective within 10 miles of their target. Clearly this is nonsense. "The whole point is that this is not a local phenomenon, it's a global phenomenon and the radiation will affect the whole of the British Isles." The "shock and awe" onslaught brought Baghdad to its knees in one of the most fearsome assaults witnessed by mankind. British and US planes dropped more than 1,500 bombs on the Iraqi capital in the first day of the campaign, overwhelming Saddam's forces with a display of devastating might. Hundreds of thousands of munitions coated with depleted uranium were fired. Depleted uranium is valued for its ability to punch through armoured vehicles. The vapour from the depleted uranium settles as a radioactive dust which some critics believe causes cancer. However, the Government says the danger is short-lived and the substance is relatively harmless. ---- ATK bags $38 million tank ammo order MINNEAPOLIS, Feb. 20, 2006 (UPI) http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060220-102319-5179r The Army has placed a $38 million order with Alliant Techsystems (ATK) for 120-mm ammunition for its main battle tank. The follow-on contract announced by ATK Monday extends the original contract for M829A3 tank rounds and brings the total value of the rounds ordered in fiscal year 2006 up to $77 million. Once the new pact is completed, ATK will have delivered 35,000 M829A3 rounds to the military. ATK says the price is worth it because it gives the U.S. M1A1 and A2 Abrams tanks unmatched punch "designed to ensure that U.S. armored forces maintain battlefield supremacy." Based on a depleted-uranium penetrator, the West Virginia-produced round is billed as the most advanced armor-piercing kinetic-energy ordnance available. "Its state-of-the-art composite sabot, propellant, and penetrator technologies give it outstanding accuracy and lethality," ATK said. The M829A3 specs show that the 22.3-kilogram round uses 8 kilograms of solid propellent to attain a muzzle velocity of 1,555 meters per second. While the velocity isn't as fast as other U.S. 120-mm rounds, the 10-kg projectile is heavier than the others. The projectile's use of depleted uranium shows continued confidence in the slightly radioactive but increasingly controversial depleted uranium. Critics see the radiation of depleted uranium as a potential health hazard to tank crews and to people exposed to the material after it has been fired. Armor experts, however, maintain that the extremely heavy composition of depleted uranium makes it not only a top-notch armor-piercer but a vital hardener of the Abrams' own armor. -------- india Toxic Warship Not Allowed to Disrupt India-France Summit By Frederick Noronha NEW DELHI, India, February 20, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2006/2006-02-20-04.asp French President Jacques Chirac began a state visit to India Sunday, and today signed bilateral agreements for civilian nuclear cooperation, space, energy and tourism, with military hardware deals expected in the future. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called it a "landmark" visit, and said trade between India and France is set to double over five years with "infrastructure, IT, pharmaceuticals, environment, advanced and new technologies, food processing, automobiles and aeronautics as priority sectors for forging business partnerships." But Chirac's visit was nearly overshadowed by controversy over the Clemenceau, an obsolete French aircraft carrier on its way to India for shipbreaking - until Wednesday. On February 15, President Chirac ordered the Clemenceau to return to French waters and remain on standby following a ruling by France's highest administrative court, the Conseil d'État. The court acted on a complaint from Greenpeace regarding discrepancies in the amount of asbestos and other toxics present in the ship, which Greenpeace argued would pose a health and environmental hazard in India. "This is a huge victory for the environment, and for the campaign headed up by us and other organizations," said Greenpeace France executive director Pascal Husting. Greenpeace demanded that France should deal with its own toxic waste instead of shipping it to India, where workers employed in a poorly managed shipbreaking industry would be exposed to toxic waste. Husting explained, "We said it was wrong for France to dump a 27,000-ton warship full of asbestos, PCBs, lead, mercury, and other toxic chemicals in India to be broken up by hand in a scrapyard where impoverished workers are injured and die every day. France insisted it was right and sent the ship to India anyway." Since the Clemenceau was decommmissioned in Toulon, France in 1997 it has been kicked around like a football no one wants. In 2001, attempts to scuttle the ship as an artificial reef in the Meditarranean failed when environmental authorities said the amount of asbestos onboard was unsuitable for a reef. In 2003, Turkey refused to accept the ship for shipbreaking, and in addition, a German ship broker was unsuccessful in his attempt to remove visible asbestos from ship in Italy when costs skyrocketed. Greece refused to allow the ship to enter for decontamination. Then in 2005 an attempt to partly remove visible asbestos in Toulon failed, and French anti-asbestos activists went to court to prevent the Clemenceau from being sent to India for shipbreaking French courts declared the fate of ship a "military matter," and the French Defence Ministry announced plans to send ship to India. The Clemenceau was purchased by Shri Ram Vessels situated in the Alang shipbreaking and recycling yard on the Gulf of Cambay in the state of Gujarat not far from the Indian border with Pakistan. On December 31, 2005 the Clemenceau left the French port of Toulon to be dismantled in Alang. Two Greenpeace activists boarded the ship during its transit through the Mediterranean towards India. One of them had spent 24 hours on the mast of the Clemenceau in December, trying to prevent it from leaving France. When the ship reached Egypt on January 12, Egyptian authorities denied access to the Suez Canal, asking for proof that the ship did not violate the Basel Convention on Hazardous Wastes. On January 23, after another Greenpeace boarding to protest the toxic transaction, the ship was allowed to pass. In India on January 6, the Supreme Court temporarily denied the ship access to Alang, citing the Basel Convention. The Indian Supreme Court was split on the issue and has decided to seek further advice. Under its monitoring committee on hazardous wastes, the Indian Supreme Court decided on February 13 to constitute a new panel to examine the issue. The court directed the Government of India to suggest by Friday the names of three or four retired Navy officers for appointment to the new panel. Meanwhile, the French Supreme Court recommended suspension of the ship's transfer to India as European law may have been violated. The Clemenceau is now on its way back to France. The Indian buyer of the controversial ship has challenged Greenpeace to "come out with facts" to support its claims that breaking of ships containing asbestos at Alang has caused the cancer asbestosis among workers. Owner of Shri Ram Vessels Mukesh Patel told the Press Trust of India news agency that the environmental group was spreading a "disinformation campaign" to stop the entry of the aircraft carrier. "I challenge them to prove by giving names and details of workers who have got asbestosis or cancer on account of working in Alang shipyards," he said. Business interests claim that over 40,000 people depend on Alang's Ship Recycling Yard for their livelihood, saying it has beached nearly 4,200 vessels and has produced three million metric tons of steel. But Greenpeace has a different view of the shipbreaking yard. "The case of the Clemenceau has become a symbol of the moral injustice of rich countries dumping their toxic waste on poorer countries. Having tried and failed to offload the ship to other countries to avoid responsibility for the toxic mess of its own making, France has finally been forced to clean up its own act," the group said in a statement. Greenpeace says that every year "a vast decrepit armada bearing a dangerous cargo of toxic substances, asbestos, PCBs and heavy metals, ends up in ship breaking yards in Bangladesh, India, China, and Pakistan. Shipbreaking in these areas, the group said, involves ships being "cut up in the crudest of fashions, taking a huge toll on human health and the local environment." In India, the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers' Association based in New Delhi took out large ads in the Indian mainstream media seeking to distance their products from the ship. The ad reads, "What has the French ship Clemenceau got to do with asbestos cement products? Nothing." It argues that the "recent asbestos scare" created in the public due to the ship is "in no way connected to the use of chrysotile fibre imported in the country." The Clemenceau possibly contains "high quantities of crocidolite (blue asbestos) and amosite (brown asbestos), both of which are linked to lung diseases such as mesothelioma and asbestosis," the ad admits, but says this bears "no relation" with the use of "chrysotile (white asbestos) in the manufacturing of asbestos cement products by the Indian industry." In a Joint Statement issued after their meeting today Prime Minister Singh and President Chirac said that as India "embarks on a period of rapid economic development, trade and investment relations with France are becoming more diverse." "The two governments will make all efforts to increase the volume of investment and joint ventures in each other’s countries and realize the great potential for enhanced business partnerships," the leaders stated. The two leaders expressed satisfaction at India joining as a full partner the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) nuclear fusion project. France and India have also signed an agreement on defense cooperation. "This is an important element of the Strategic Partnership between the two nations," the leaders said in their Joint Statement, "building upon and expanding co-operation in the defense and military fields, defense industry, production, procurement, research and development of defense material, joint exercises, professional exchanges and training." The final fate of the Clemenceau will indicate how India's shipbreaking industry handles obsolete French military vessels in the future. -------- iran Iranian Cleric Okays Use of Nuclear Weapons By Safa Haeri and Shahram Rafizadeh Posted Monday, February 20, 2006 http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2006/february-2006/iran_nuke_20206.shtml LONDON, 20 Feb. (IPS) As the Islamic Republic continue to insist that it has no nuclear-based military programmes and repeats that the use of such weapons are banned by Islam, an Iranian internet newspaper revealed Monday that some hard line clerics have refuted the claim, saying that nuclear arms can be used “as a mean of retaliation”. The revelation, by the Europe-based “Rooz” (Day) was made as Iran’s double headed negotiations with the Russians in Moscow and the Europeans in Brussels hit another dead-end, basically due to Tehran’s instance to continue its nuclear activities, mostly the controversial enriching uranium. when the whole world is equipped with nuclear weapons, one can use it to retaliate and there is no religious constraint. In Brussels, where Mr. Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister had met with European officials, Mr. Xavier Solana, the Spanish Foreign and Security Affairs minister said the Iranians “had nothing new to present”. In Moscow, Russian officials said the two delegations had agreed to continue negotiations concerning the Russian proposal to enrich uranium for Iran in Russia. Informed sources told Iran Press Service that part of the new diplomatic fiasco was due to “great confusion” that characterizes the situation in Iran’s higher decision-making echelon. “There is a terrible war going on there. (Javad) Va’idi, until now the second in command of the nuclear talks after Ali Larijani had been abruptly removed from the Moscow negotiations, replaced by Mr. Ali Hoseynitash, the Head of the Supreme Council for Nations Security’s Strategic Affairs while sharp differences on the running of the whole issue is opposing Mr. Larijani to the President, Mahmoud Ahmadi Nezhad, accused by the so-called pragmatists” to have placed Iran in a very serious situation”, the source said. The “pragmatists”, led by Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani also reproaches the fundamentalist President of having replaced the old, experienced negotiators with a bunch of people who, like Mr. Va’idi, not only do nothing about nuclear industry, but also lack of basic diplomatic skills. “Based on their interpretation of Islamic law, Iranian hardline religious leaders have licensed the use of nuclear weapon. For the very first time, Mohsen Gharavian, a student of Qom’s fundamentalist cleric (Ayatollah Mohammd Taqi) Mesbah Yazdi has spoken about the necessity of using nuclear weapons as a means to retaliate and announced that based on religious law, everything depends on our purpose”, Mr. Shahram Rafizadeh wrote in Rooz. “The ultra-hardline Gharavian claims that when the whole world is equipped with nuclear weapons, one can use it to retaliate and there is no religious constraint”, the journalist said, quoting Mr. Gharavian. “Known for his strong support for the conservative government, Gharavian has claimed that military use of nuclear weapons is also acceptable”, the paper added. So far, there had been no words from the officials on Mr. Ghjaravian’s assertions. Islam and our leader have banned the use of nuclear weapons, Iranian officials insists Clerics in the Iran had till today repeatedly stressed that using nuclear weapons was against Islamic laws. They have remained silent on what Gharavian claims. “His words are the first official comments coming from the supporters and circle of radical cleric Mesbah Yazdi. No other cleric has had the heart to claim that Islamic principles allow the use of nuclear weapons. Still, it seems that government radical circles have embarked on fresh efforts to prepare the grounds to turn Iran's controversial nuclear program issue into a religious issue”, Mr. Rafizadeh said. “Since six months ago when the new hardline government of Mahmoud Ahmadi Nezhad came to power, his radical and astonishingly strange proposals have made the world forget about (Ossama) Bin Laden. Efforts of former president (Mohammad) Khatami to build trust with the world and his strategy of easing tensions with the international community during his eight years in office have been destroyed by Mr. Ahmadi Nezhad's frightening comments whose photographs have now also replaced those of Bin Laden's in the western media”, “Rooz” added, referring to the new president’s “wiping Israeli off the world’s map” or his anti-Semitic out bursts such as questioning the authenticity of the Holocaust. ---- America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss We can stop a "preemptive" nuclear strike by Jorge Hirsch Antiwar.com February 20, 2006 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8577 Whether the U.S. will use nuclear weapons against Iran if a military confrontation erupts is in the hands of a single person, President Bush, as stated in NSC 30 from 1948: "the decision as to the employment of atomic weapons in the event of war is to be made by the Chief Executive when he considers such decision to be required." Bush will certainly not ask Congress nor the public permission once hostilities start. Whether or not tactical nuclear weapons should be deployed and used against Iran is a matter that needs to be faced by America right now! So are U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed in the Persian Gulf, on hair-trigger alert, and ready to be launched against Iran at a moment's notice? I posed the question in December, arguing that every other element needed for a nuclear strike on Iran was "deployed" and ready. On Feb. 3, 2006, an answer was kindly provided by the Chief of Naval Operations in the form of OPNAVINST 5721.1F [.pdf], which states: "Military members and civilian employees of the Department of the Navy shall not reveal, purport to reveal, or cause to be revealed any information, rumor, or speculation with respect to the presence or absence of nuclear weapons or components on board any specific ship, station or aircraft, either on their own initiative or in response, direct or indirect, to any inquiry." Oh well then, we don't know for sure, and there is no way to know. Really? We do know. Because it would be inconsistent with every fiber of the current administration, and with all the circumstances surrounding the Iran scenario, if tactical nuclear weapons were not deployed in the Persian Gulf, following NSPD 35, on high alert and ready to be used in a confrontation with Iran. So we may safely assume they are deployed and they will be used, and make our choices accordingly. Once it happens, it cannot be undone. The Impending Nuclear Attack All the elements have been put in place carefully and methodically for the U.S. to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran in a way that will seem "acceptable" at first sight, as discussed in previous columns: the new nuclear doctrine, the nuclear hitmen, the weapons, the justification, the legal framework, and the public mindset. The IAEA resolution of Feb. 4 [.pdf] has paved a smooth road to confrontation, paralleling the events after the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 of November 2002. The use of low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons will appear to be a military necessity, one that will save thousands of American and Israeli lives, deter an Iranian response, and achieve "rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms." The public mindset has been thoroughly prepared for war by a barrage of untrue propaganda against Iran, extending over many years and gradually escalating in volume and tone. Iran has been demonized as the pure incarnation of evil: the foremost sponsor of terrorism, pursuing nuclear weapons, intent on harming America, harboring al-Qaeda, hiding arsenals of chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery, oppressing its own people, intent on destroying Israel and the West. Max Boot just wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "In sum, a terrorist-sponsoring state led by an apocalyptic lunatic will soon have the ability to incinerate Tel Aviv or New York," which "leaves only one serious option – air strikes by Israel or the U.S." Niall Ferguson wrote a few days earlier in the same newspaper that a U.S. preemptive strike against Iran today would prevent an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel in 2007, ignoring among other things the reality that it is physically impossible for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon in a year. Nicholas Goldberg, who edits the Times' opinion page, studiously avoids publishing any alternative viewpoints. A similar approach is taken by the rest of the mainstream media in the U.S. and Western Europe. Is it surprising that a few days after these two opinion pieces were published the Los Angeles Times found that 57 percent of the U.S. public backs a military strike on Iran? Whether Iran has nuclear weapons today, 10 years from today, or never is not the issue anymore. The U.S. has declared that Iran will not be allowed to have a "nuclear weapons capability." How? Perhaps the CIA will supply Iran with misleading documents indicating that E=m2c rather than E=mc2? Unlikely. The nuclear weapons "capability" will be defined as broadly as needed, no matter what Iran agrees to, to justify the military option, which has already been endorsed by senators on both sides of the aisle. However, neither the media nor Congress are bringing up the inconvenient little fact that the military option will necessarily lead to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. And they are unwilling to weigh the fact that using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country like Iran will likely have disastrous consequences for the U.S. and the rest of the world. The Fallacy of Nuclear "Deterrence" We are told over and over that the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to "deter" adversaries, which surely provides some comfort to otherwise moral people who devote their efforts to building up the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. The argument made some sense before: an adversary like the Soviet Union could arguably be deterred by the U.S. nuclear arsenal from launching a nuclear attack against the U.S. or its allies, or even a massive conventional attack against Western Europe. However, the "deterrent" role of U.S. nuclear weapons has recently been extended to deter WMD (e.g., chemical weapons) attacks, and the administration argues that "low-yield" nuclear weapons make deterrence more "credible" [.pdf], and low-yield earth penetrating weapons (B61-11) are already in the U.S. nuclear stockpile [.pdf]. Where does this lead? As Keith Payne, a proponent of the current U.S. Nuclear Posture well puts it, "deterrence is inherently unreliable: prepare for its failure." This means that if an adversary undertakes an action that the U.S. nuclear threat was meant to deter, the U.S. will respond by making good on its threat and use its nuclear weapons. Couple this with the recently adopted preemptive National Security Strategy, and the fact that the U.S. accuses Iran of having chemical weapons and that it can "deploy chemical warheads on its long-range missiles," and you are led to the following scenario: If in response to an aerial attack on Iran's facilities, Iran fires or threatens to fire a single missile against Israel or against U.S. forces in Iraq, the U.S. will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons. Why is this a realistic expectation? Because no matter what the political cost, it would support the much broader role desired for the U.S. nuclear arsenal in the "second nuclear age," which currently has no credibility. According to the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, the U.S. nuclear arsenal is now also supposed to "dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends." Well, it has already failed in this regard. Iran is pursuing its nuclear program, undeterred by all overt and less overt U.S. threats. Once the U.S. makes good on its nuclear deterrence threat once and uses its nuclear weapons, the validity of the nuclear deterrence policy against any action opposed by the U.S. will be established for future contingencies. There is a good reason why U.S. documents emphasize that "there is no customary or conventional international law to prohibit nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict." Tactical Nuclear Weapons Deployment The Navy instruction OPNAVINST 5721.1F [.pdf] just released concerning "the release of information about nuclear weapons and nuclear capabilities of U.S. forces" is an update of the earlier 1993 version [.pdf] with some changes. One is this added paragraph: "The current NCND [neither confirming nor denying] policy mirrors the original policy taking into account employment and program policy changes. In general, it is U.S. policy not to deploy nuclear weapons aboard surface ships, naval aircraft, attack submarines, or guided missile submarines." Note the "in general" wording, which clearly allows for exceptions. That phrasing was conspicuously absent in the 1993 version, which instead stated "It is general US policy not to deploy nuclear weapons…." Note also that the new statement explicitly mentions that it is issued in view of "employment and program policy changes," which presumably refers to the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and the associated "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which envision the U.S. use of tactical nuclear weapons in vastly expanded circumstances. The policy's purported rationale is that "Uncertainty as to the location of nuclear weapons complicates an adversary's military planning and reduces his chances of successful attack thereby increasing the deterrent value of our forces and the security of the weapons." Perhaps. But it also serves the clear function of allowing preparations for a tactical nuclear strike against Iran without raising public alarm. The same considerations that were being made back in 1948 – "The novel nature of atomic war nevertheless made it advisable to refrain from openly declaring an American atomic strategy, because that would alarm the American public, triggering a moral debate…" – apply today. Americans would vehemently oppose the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to be used against Iran if such action was publicly disclosed. Blaming the Military The principal responsibility for what is about to happen will be assigned to the military. Linton Brooks, the National Nuclear Security Administration director, stated that "recently funded research into earth-penetrating bombs came at the request of military leaders who have seen potential uses for them against rogue states that hide sensitive sites deep underground." The weapons that will be used are B61-11 nuclear earth penetrators, in the U.S. nuclear stockpile since 2001 [.pdf]. The Pentagon draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" provides "guidance for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces" and states, "Geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions," then proceeds to list several conditions that will undoubtedly apply in a military confrontation with Iran: * "An adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations" * "Attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons" * "To counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces" * "For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms" * "To ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations" * "To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD." Bush and Rumsfeld often emphasize that their decisions on military operations in Iraq rely on recommendations of military commanders on the ground. As Bush recently put it, "The people don't want me making decisions based upon politics; they want me to make decisions based upon the recommendation from our generals on the ground. And that's exactly who I'll be listening to." When Rumsfeld was accused of overruling advice from Gen. Tommy Franks on preparations for the war on Iraq, the BBC reported that he "flatly denied overriding military commanders," instead stating, "You will find, if you ask anyone who has been involved in the process in the central command, that every single thing that they [military commanders] have requested has, in fact, happened." This shameful approach of shifting responsibility from the policymakers to the commanders on the ground will be an essential element in the nuking of Iran. The motivation is transparent: the administration's hope that the strong American inclination to "support the troops" will blunt criticism of the political decision to nuke Iran. The mere possibility that Iranian missiles targeting U.S. troops could carry chemical warheads, suggested by faulty or even true intelligence and already assumed by U.S. officials, could prompt a geographic commander to request authorization from the president to use low-yield nuclear weapons against Iran, particularly if such weapons are already deployed in the theater. Or such a request could be prompted by "intelligence" that chemical weapons hidden in underground facilities in Iran will be supplied to terrorists to be used against Americans, and can only be destroyed by nuclear bunker-busters. It is obviously unconscionable to demand that a military commander, whose prime concern is the safety of the troops under command, take into account the long-term consequences for America of crossing the nuclear threshold. How will President Bush respond to such a request? Will he not authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons after the military commander has stated that thousands of soldiers under his/her command could be at risk? We're talking about the president whose "top priority is the safety and security of the American people" and who has proclaimed that "[t]he greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." This is the same man who year after year has requested that Congress lift the ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons (he finally succeeded), who year after year asks Congress to fund new, more "usable" nuclear bunker-busters [.pdf], who has said that "[i]f America shows uncertainty and weakness in the decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch." A decision that will determine the future of humanity and its possible annihilation lies in the hands, mind and soul of a geographic combatant commander. Make No Mistake About It: Nuking Iran Is Wrong Attacking Iran with nuclear weapons, no matter how small, is evil for the following reasons: * It will not be the result of military necessity, but a premeditated act, the circumstances to make it possible having been methodically put in place by the United States over the course of many years. * Iran does not have ready-to-use chemical nor biological weapons, just like Iraq didn't in 2003, despite identical U.S. accusations, no matter what "intelligence" tells you. Iran is party to international treaties proscribing chemical and biological weapons and terrorism. * Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons; it is pursuing a civilian nuclear program. Even if it wanted to, it is many years away from the ability to make nuclear weapons. * Iran advocates a political solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; it does not threaten the use of force against Israel. The U.S. may not agree with Iran's advocated political solution (elimination of the state of Israel), but that does not give the U.S. the right to attack Iran, just as the Spanish claim over Gibraltar does not entitle Britain to attack Spain. * Iran has never attacked nor threatened to attack another state in modern times. * Iran has no more connection to al-Qaeda than do the U.S., Spain, or Germany, and a lot less than the state of Florida. * Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon state, does not have nuclear weapons, and does not threaten to use them, unlike the U.S. * Iran's missiles serve the purpose of deterring an Israeli attack (like the Israeli attack on Osirak), not an offensive purpose. * Iran's government was democratically elected and has popular support. Attacking Iran will not result in Iranians rebelling against their government, despite the LA Times' (here we go again, Nick) claim to the contrary. The U.S. has just declared that it will defend Israel militarily against Iran if needed. Presumably this includes a scenario where Israel would initiate hostilities by unprovoked bombing of Iranian facilities, as it did with Iraq's Osirak, and Iran would respond with missiles targeting Israel. The U.S. intervention is likely to be further bombing of Iran's facilities, including underground installations that can only be destroyed with low-yield nuclear bunker-busters. Such nuclear weapons may cause low casualties, perhaps only in the hundreds [.pdf], but the nuclear threshold will have been crossed. Iran's reaction to a U.S. attack with nuclear weapons, no matter how small, cannot be predicted with certainty. U.S. planners may hope that it will deter Iran from responding, thus saving lives. However, just as the U.S. forces in Iraq were not greeted with flowers, it is likely that such an attack would provoke a violent reaction from Iran and lead to the severe escalation of hostilities, which in turn would lead to the use of larger nuclear weapons by the U.S. and potential casualties in the hundreds of thousands. Witness the current uproar over cartoons and try to imagine the resulting upheaval in the Muslim world after the U.S. nukes Iran. The Military's Moral Dilemma Men and women in the military forces, including civilian employees, may be facing a difficult moral choice at this very moment and in the coming weeks, akin to the moral choices faced by Colin Powell and Dan Ellsberg. The paths these two men followed were radically different. Colin Powell was an American hero, widely respected and admired at the time he was appointed secretary of state in 2001. In February 2003, he chose to follow orders despite his own serious misgivings, and delivered the pivotal UN address that paved the way for the U.S. invasion of Iraq the following month. Today, most Americans believe the Iraq invasion was wrong, and Colin Powell is disgraced, his future destroyed, and his great past achievements forgotten. Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst, played a significant role in ending the Vietnam War by leaking the Pentagon Papers. He knew that he would face prosecution for breaking the law, but was convinced it was the correct moral choice. His courageous and principled action earned him respect and gratitude. The Navy has just reminded [.pdf] its members and civilian employees what the consequences are of violating provisions concerning the release of information about the nuclear capabilities of U.S. forces. Why right now, for the first time in 12 years? Because it is well aware of moral choices that its members may face, and it hopes to deter certain actions. But courageous men and women are not easily deterred. To disobey orders and laws and to leak information are difficult actions that entail risks. Still, many principled individuals have done it in the past and will continue to do it in the future ( see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].) Conscientious objection to the threat and use of nuclear weapons is a moral choice. Once the American public becomes fully aware that military action against Iran will include the planned use of nuclear weapons, public support for military action will quickly disappear. Anything could get the ball rolling. A great catastrophe will have been averted. Even U.S. military law recognizes that there is no requirement to obey orders that are unlawful. The use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country can be argued to be in violation of international law, the principle of just war, the principle of proportionality, common standards of morality ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), and customs that make up the law of armed conflict. Even if the nuclear weapons used are small, because they are likely to cause escalation of the conflict they violate the principle of proportionality and will cause unnecessary suffering. The Nuremberg Tribunal, which the United States helped to create, established that "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." To follow orders or to disobey orders, to keep information secret or to leak it, are choices for each individual to make – extremely difficult choices that have consequences. But not choosing is not an option. America's Collective Responsibility Blaming the administration or the military for crossing the nuclear threshold is easy, but responsibility will be shared by all Americans. All Americans knew, or should have known, that using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country like Iran was a possibility given the Bush administration's new policies. All Americans could have voiced their opposition to these policies and demand that they be reversed. The media will carry a heavy burden of responsibility. The mainstream media could have effectively raised public awareness of the possibility that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons against Iran. So far, they have chosen to almost completely hide the issue, which is being increasingly addressed in non-mainstream media. Members of Congress could have raised the question forcefully, calling for public hearings, demanding public discussion of the administration's plans, and passing new laws or resolutions. So far they have failed to do so and are derelict in their responsibility to their constituents. Letters to the president from some in Congress [1], [2] are a start, but are not likely to elicit a meaningful response or a change in plans and are a far cry from forceful action. Scientific organizations and organizations dealing with arms control and nuclear weapons could have warned of the dangers associated with the Iran situation. So far, they have not done so ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). Scientists and engineers responsible for the development of nuclear weapons could have voiced concern [.pdf] when the new U.S. nuclear weapons policies became known, policies that directly involve the fruits of their labor. Their voices have not been heard. Those who contribute their labor to the scientific and technical infrastructure that makes nuclear weapons and their means of delivery possible bear a particularly heavy burden of moral responsibility. Their voices have barely been heard. The Nuclear Abyss The United States is preparing to enter a new era: an era in which it will enforce nuclear nonproliferation by the threat and use of nuclear weapons. The use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran will usher in a new world order. The ultimate goal is that no nation other than the U.S. should have a nuclear weapons arsenal. A telltale sign that this is the plan is the recent change in the stated mission of Los Alamos National Laboratory, where nuclear weapons are developed. The mission of LANL used to be described officially as "Los Alamos National Laboratory's central mission is to reduce the global nuclear danger" [1] [.pdf], [2] [.pdf], [3] [.pdf]. That will sound ridiculous once the U.S. starts throwing mini-nukes around. In anticipation of it, the Los Alamos mission statement has been recently changed to "prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to protect our homeland from terrorist attack." That is the present and future role of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, to be achieved through threat (deterrence) and use of nuclear weapons. References to the old mission are nowhere to be found in the current Los Alamos documents, indicating that the change was deliberate and thorough. It is not impossible that the U.S. will succeed in its goal. But it is utterly improbable. This is a big world. Once the U.S. crosses the nuclear threshold against a non-nuclear country, many more countries will strive to acquire nuclear weapons, and many will succeed. The nuclear abyss may turn out to be a steep precipice or a gentle slope. Either way, it will be a one-way downhill slide toward a bottomless pit. We will have entered a path of no return, leading in a few months or a few decades to global nuclear war and unimaginable destruction. But there are still choices to be made. Up to the moment the first U.S. nuclear bomb explodes, the fall into the abyss can be averted by choices made by each and every one of us. We may never know which choices prevented it if it doesn't happen. But if we make the wrong choices, we will know what they were. And so will future generations, even in a world where wars are fought with sticks and stones. -------- iraq / inspections Saddam Tapes: What They Don't Prove Feb. 20, 2006 issue - Newsweek http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11299205/site/newsweek/ Government investigators are trying to determine how 12 hours of tape recordings of Saddam Hussein and his aides, acquired by U.S. personnel in Iraq, got into the hands of the organizers of a private "intelligence summit" to be held in D.C. next weekend. John Loftus, a former government prosecutor and self-described whistle-blower, claims the tapes "will be able to provide a few definitive answers to some very important—and controversial—weapons-of-mass-destruction questions." At one point Saddam muses how vulnerable D.C. would be to a "biological" attack, but adds that Iraq wouldn't do it. House Intelligence Committee chairman Pete Hoekstra is reviewing transcripts to determine if U.S. officials missed WMD evidence after the war. But intel agencies are skeptical. The tapes were taken without permission from an FBI-run translation center, officials say, and are years old. Two government officials, requesting anonymity because of the sensitive subject, say the tapes in no way prove that WMD stockpiles or programs existed at the time of the U.S. invasion or were moved to another country before U.S. troops arrived. —Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff -------- korea N. Korean envoy threatened Japan with missile launches over sanctions The Japan Times: Feb. 20, 2006 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060220a1.html North Korea's top envoy for normalization talks with Japan said in bilateral discussions earlier this month his country would use a "strong physical response" to economic sanctions by Tokyo, sources said Sunday. Song Il Ho gave the warning to his Japanese counterpart, Koichi Haraguchi, during informal contacts in the course of the Feb. 4-8 meetings in Beijing, the sources said. A Japanese delegation source described Song's remarks as an "outright threat that it would lift its freeze on launching ballistic missiles." North Korea has in the past issued statements saying it would consider the imposition of economic sanctions a declaration of war and would respond immediately, but Japan is reportedly concerned because the remarks this time came during high-level governmental talks. Tokyo plans to study North Korea's intentions carefully as the comments could be in violation of the 2002 Pyongyang Declaration, in which the North expressed its intention to "maintain the moratorium on missile launching in and after 2003." Calls are mounting in Japan to impose economic sanctions to pressure Pyongyang into meeting demands over the abductions of Japanese nationals by the North. During the Beijing talks, Japan demanded that North Korea return any abductees still in the country, provide concrete evidence about the fates of missing abductees and hand over the agents responsible for the abductions. Haraguchi also explained Japan's basic position on the abduction issue, saying the calls for economic sanctions will become stronger if there are no concrete developments, the sources said. Song made the "physical response" remarks after Haraguchi listed the three demands, the sources said. North Korean negotiators also suggested during bilateral security talks focusing on the country's nuclear and missile programs that it might lift the moratorium on missile launches, they said. North Korea has developed and test-fired Rodong ballistic missiles, which can reach most of Japan, and the even longer range Taepodong missile. The Beijing talks, held for the first time under a new three-track format, covered the abduction issue, the normalization of bilateral diplomatic relations, and Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs. ---- Koreas to hold high-level military talks Associated Press Mon, Feb. 20, 2006 http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/13920321.htm SEOUL, South Korea - The two Koreas will hold high-level military talks next week for the first time in nearly two years, South Korea's Defense Ministry said Tuesday. The general-level talks will be held on March 2-3 at the northern side of the truce village of Panmunjom on the inter-Korean border, the ministry said in a statement. At the upcoming talks, the two Koreas will discuss ways to prevent accidental clashes off the peninsula's western coast and designating joint fishing areas, the ministry said. South and North Korea fought deadly gun battles in 1999 and 2002 near their western maritime border, where fishing boats from the two rivals operate along the poorly marked sea frontier during the crab season. The high-level military talks have been on hold since June 2004 amid the North's criticism of joint military exercises between South Korea and the United States. During a meeting of lower-level military officials earlier this month, the two sides agreed to hold general-level military talks in late February or early March. The two Koreas remain technically at war since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty. But their relations have warmed significantly since an unprecedented summit of their leaders in 2000. -------- pakistan Pakistan tests nuclear-capable surface missile AP February 20, 2006 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18203946%255E2703,00.html ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has successfully tested a nuclear-capable, surface-to-surface missile. The ballistic missile was the Pakistan-developed, short-range Haft-II Abdali, a military statement said yesterday. "The Abdali SSM, which can reach targets up to 200km, can carry nuclear and other types of warheads," the statement said. "All planned technical parameters were validated." The missile is the latest in Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear-capable weapons. Neighbouring countries, including arch rival India, were informed ahead of the missile test yesterday, a senior Pakistan army official said. He would not specify where in Pakistan the missile was test-fired. Pakistan and India have an agreement under which they are required to inform each other of their planned ballistic missile tests. The test comes as President Pervez Musharraf is due to visit key ally China, which is Islamabad's biggest weapons supplier. Pakistan successfully test-fired its first nuclear-capable cruise missile in August last year, an achievement General Musharraf hailed as a move towards regional "military balance". In the past, Beijing has been accused by Western nations of providing Islamabad with advanced ballistic missiles. Pakistan, which has developed both medium- and long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, denies the charge and says its program is homegrown. -------- security How Secure Are Our Ports? Security Officials Request Better Surveillance Feb. 20, 2006 ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1642245 Of all the cargo shipped through the country's seaports, roughly 7 percent is checked by security. In fact, on two occasions, ABC News was able to ship depleted uranium through U.S. ports. "No question that the ports are one of the true vulnerabilities," said Jerry Hauer, former New York City chief of emergency management. "So little cargo is inspected that the likelihood of getting something through a port is very high." Homeland security officials say they have increased the number of targeted spot checks at the nation's ports and deployed more sensors to detect chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Yet some local officials believe the government is not doing nearly enough to upgrade port security. Baltimore's mayor wants more surveillance cameras and much wider use of technology to scan for weapons. "I think it's appalling that the wealthiest nation on the planet would invest so little in port security," said Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley Protection Begins Far From Ports Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. has spent $18 billion to improve aviation security. Over the same time frame, according to one congressional study, the U.S. spent roughly $560 million to help cities secure seaports. But some security analysts question whether throwing more money at the nation's ports will really make us safer. "The best investment we can make for preventing a mushroom cloud over an American city is to prevent the terrorist from getting their hands on the nuclear material first," said homeland security analyst Randall Larsen. Once a weapon reaches the ports, it may be too late. ABC News' Pierre Thomas and Martha Raddatz reported this story for "World News Tonight." -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- arizona STOP FORCED RELOCATION ON BIG MOUNTAIN, BLACK MESA, AZ. TARGETED NAVAJO COMMUNITIES SAY THAT NOW IS THE TIME TO TAKE ACTION! February 20, 2006 Democracy In Action http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/blackmesais/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2552 Please take a moment to read and click on the FAX button and send this letter today. We are experiencing technical difficulties so please try again later if you are having problems sending your letters. Please visit http://www.blackmesais.org and blackmesais@riseup.net to be on our mailing list. Dear Friends of the Indigenous Peoples of Big Mountain, Black Mesa, AZ. Something critical is about to happen concerning the traditional communities on Big Mountain and surrounding areas on Black Mesa. Today, more than 30 years after the passage of Public Law 93 - 531, the original Navajo-Hopi Relocation bill, a new bill is before Congress that sets a new timetable for the forced relocation of a number of Navajo families on Black Mesa. Senate bill S. 1003 is now on the Senate Calendar and may be passed at anytime without debate or serious consideration unless the public acts now. The last major relocation bill was approved by the Senate within a month after being placed on the Senate Calendar and stayed in the House of Representatives less than a week before becoming law. It's difficult to convey the serious nature of these new developments. The passage of this bill would effectively devastate these traditional communities of Navajo, or Dineh, stripping them of their identity and way of life which is tied into the land itself. Native people's lives and livelihoods are on the line!.... This bill will permanently displace the indigenous families of Big Mountain and surrounding communities on Black Mesa from their ancestral lands and will relieve the federal government of any further responsibility for the relocated people. S. 1003, sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), comes as Peabody Coal, the world's largest coal company, is planning to expand its strip mining of American Indian lands, drawing down a high-quality residential aquifer in the process. Only one thing stands in Peabody's way: indigenous people live on the land below which lies billions of tons of low-sulfur coal. As with their ancestors, the land is the basis for the Black Mesa people's traditions, spirituality, and livelihoods. There is still time to act! S 1003 may pass the Senate and the House of Representatives within the next few weeks. Senate Bill 1003 may become law anytime now once again starting the machine of forced relocation. But fortunately, a small window of opportunity exists to stop it. It must first pass the Senate so the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and your Senator must hear your voices today. The indigenous families from the Big Mountain and Black Mesa communities have not been represented in this process. It's up to us the public and the international community to demand that Congress educate themselves before they vote. After passing the earlier relocation act, PL 93-531, in 1974, several Senators expressed misgivings about the law, but it was too late. We cannot allow this to happen again. The people of Big Mountain are asking us to jump in and shake up the political landscape. Our outcry may be their only hope. We must tell those who would once again sell out the people and the land that there will be a political price to pay. It's easy to make decisions from afar if you never risk meeting the people who will be affected. Demand that Congress listen to the people. Maybe it is possible to reach their hearts. In an era of transnational corporate dominance, the methods of separating indigenous peoples from their land and natural resources have outstripped the ability of any agency or nongovernmental organization to monitor or regulate. The importance of building alliances cannot be stressed enough. The elders of Big Mountain such as Roberta Blackgoat have shown us the way to the survival of our planet and the danger to us all if sacred lands are destroyed, warning us of what is now happening long before global warming and gaia became common words. The people of Big Mountain can not win this fight alone and need the support of all people who love justice, human rights, and the earth. Please join us, and ask your friends and family to do the same. -------- illinois Nuclear Plant Declares, Lifts Emergency By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: February 20, 2006 Filed at 12:20 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Plant-Emergency.html?_r=1&oref=slogin http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-nuclear-plant-emergency,0,425835.story SENECA, Ill. (AP) -- Operators at a nuclear plant declared an emergency for several hours early Monday when instruments indicated a problem during a planned shutdown, but no damage was done, officials said. There were no injuries, no radiation released and no equipment damaged at the LaSalle Generating Station in LaSalle County, officials said. The plant, which is owned by Chicago-based Exelon Corp., is about 55 miles southwest of Chicago. The nature of the incident -- a control rod not going into the reactor -- automatically triggered the declaration of a ''site area emergency,'' but ''it never really progressed into being a danger,'' said Patti Thompson, spokeswoman for the Illinois Emergency Management Agency. A site area emergency is the second-highest of the four categories in the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission's emergency response system. Emergency operations centers were activated in LaSalle and Grundy counties, Thompson said. The plant was scheduled to shut down early Monday for a refueling outage, but it did not shut down properly, officials said. Company officials said instruments showed three of the 185 control rods failed to insert fully into the reactor core and operators declared a ''site area emergency'' at 12:28 a.m. Operators reset the control rod position indication system and then found one rod was out of position, company officials said. The investigation by Exelon Nuclear officials and NRC officials was continuing. -------- MILITARY -------- africa On the eve of elections, Uganda is a tale of two countries By Shashank Bengali Knight Ridder Newspapers Mon, Feb. 20, 2006 http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13919214.htm ATIAK, Uganda - As the midday sun bakes the dusty landscape, men in fraying shirts and women with infants on their backs sit under giant mango trees, cross-legged and fidgety, waiting for their names to be called. A short distance away, a team of aid workers unloads a truck piled high with sacks of beans, corn and porridge mix, stacking them in neat rows. During the afternoon, more than 300 tons of United Nations food aid will be handed out - the only guaranteed meals here for the next few weeks. This scene plays out each month in Atiak, one of the largest camps for displaced people in northern Uganda, where Africa's longest running civil war has driven nearly 2 million people from their homes and made them dependent on emergency food aid to survive. For 20 years, a cult-like rebel group known as the Lord's Resistance Army has terrorized northern Uganda, kidnapping at least 25,000 children, killing or mutilating thousands of villagers, torching homes and farms, and decimating the economy. Nine out of 10 northern Ugandans live in government camps, where market shelves are empty and diseases such as cholera run wild. But a half-day's drive to the south, past the rushing Nile River, Uganda is a different country: green and growing. Southern coffee plantations produce some of the world's most coveted beans while the capital, Kampala, boasts leafy parks, fine restaurants and Wi-Fi hotspots. The progress of the southern half of this teardrop-shaped country - slightly smaller than Oregon - has earned Uganda's president, Yoweri Museveni, praise from the United States and other Western nations. And it's a big reason why Museveni, who took office shortly before the brutal insurgency began, is expected to win re-election on Thursday. Nationally, Museveni is credited with reducing poverty, inflation and the rate of HIV infection, a scourge throughout Africa. But to many northerners, Museveni's presidency has brought only suffering and alienation. "We have always said there are two Ugandas," said Norbert Mao, who has represented Gulu, the north's largest town, in parliament for the past decade. "There is the Uganda for which Museveni receives praise, where the economy is growing, where investment is taking place and the infrastructure is improved," Mao said. "Then there is the other Uganda, where there are displaced people, where there is no peace, where AIDS is on the increase and where the conflict has devastated lives." The war is one of the world's strangest. The LRA leader, Joseph Kony, 41, is a self-styled prophet whose entire political agenda consists of overthrowing Museveni's government and replacing it with one based on the Ten Commandments. The rebels target children, conscripting boys as soldiers and girls as servants or sex slaves. In 2004, Jan Egeland, the U.N. emergency relief coordinator, called northern Uganda the world's most neglected humanitarian crisis. The LRA has planted deep fear in the countryside. Every evening, to avoid abduction, thousands of children walk from the camps to the nearest town to spend the night in shelters or on verandas, where it's safer. "We have seen terrible things," said Samuel Ojara, a 61-year-old retired schoolteacher whose four brothers were killed in LRA attacks and who himself was abducted one night in 1995. "It was midnight and my wife and I were sleeping," Ojara recalled, seated in the shade outside his mud hut in Atiak. "They opened my door by force and grabbed me. Thank God my wife had been injured by a snake that same day. Her legs were swollen. She couldn't walk, so they left her." He managed to escape the next night when his teenaged abductors, who had been walking through the bush for two days straight, passed out from exhaustion. The LRA once numbered about 4,000 soldiers. But now Uganda says it has routed out all but a few hundred, most of whom are hiding in the forests of eastern Congo. At a news conference Saturday, Museveni said LRA terrorism was "a closed chapter" in the country's history. "Kony is defeated," Museveni said. "He can never come back to Uganda." But Kony shows no signs of giving up, and his men still lurk in the north. The road through Atiak, 25 miles from the Sudanese border, isn't safe. In October and November - after the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Kony and four deputies - at least eight people were killed in LRA ambushes on both sides of the border. Those who do venture out are driven by hunger. The monthly U.N. World Food Program deliveries aren't enough to feed Atiak's 19,000 people. Many sell part of their rations, but there's little to buy. In northern Uganda's warped economy, a cheap plastic bowl can cost $3. As their rations run low, families walk to villages a few miles away to cultivate crops such as potatoes and cassava, a local staple. They often find some of their crops missing, eaten by rebels or Ugandan soldiers who patrol the countryside. "We have that fear that we may find rebels feeding on our plants," said Yolanda Lanyero, a 58-year-old grandmother, as she peeled a mountain of cassava from that morning's trip to the village. "You don't know what person you're going to meet in your garden." The people of this region - predominantly members of the Acholi ethnic group - were once successful farmers. But beginning under colonial rule, they became economically marginalized as their men were cherry-picked to be laborers on southern coffee and tea plantations. Acholis say Museveni, a southerner, has been in no hurry to end their pain. In the last presidential election, in 2001, Museveni won only 14 percent of the northern vote. Recent opinion polls don't give him much more than that for the upcoming election. Still, he has a comfortable lead over his nearest challenger, Kizza Besigye, and one of the only questions remaining Thursday is whether Museveni will capture a majority and escape a run-off election. The other question is whether the election will be fair. In 2001, the government engaged in widespread vote-rigging, although not enough to challenge the outcome. Last week, New York-based Human Rights Watch warned that Museveni's government was intimidating voters, attacking opposition politicians and stifling journalists in an effort to secure victory again. Observers are worried that Museveni, who got parliament to lift constitutional term limits so he could run in this election, will do anything to stay in power. In November, Besigye was thrown into jail on a mishmash of charges, and it wasn't clear until recently that he'd be free to run in the election. But Museveni is still revered in much of Uganda. He's brought stability to a country that has had its share of dictators - including Milton Obote, Museveni's predecessor, and the notorious Idi Amin, who murdered hundreds of thousands of people in the 1970s. Even his staunchest critics give Museveni credit. "Being president of Uganda is a bit like being a rodeo rider," Mao said. "If you can hang on to this wild horse for 20 years, surely you are a person who should be a case study." -------- latin america Colombian Air Force Bombs Rebels in Nature Reserve Story by Hugh Bronstein REUTERS COLOMBIA: February 20, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35186/newsDate/20-Feb-2006/story.htm BOGOTA - Colombian aircraft bombed leftist rebels in one of the country's biggest nature reserves after attacks on police guarding workers ripping out plants used to make cocaine, the air force said on Thursday. It said it attacked guerrilla camps in La Macarena national park in the southern province of Meta on Wednesday night - a move environmentalists said would be catastrophic for the local ecosystem. "The bombing was aimed at the narcoterrorists," Colombian air force chief Edgar Lesmez told reporters. "We are evaluating the results of the operation." Police estimate that coca fields planted in the park help the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a 41-year-old rebel army known by its Spanish initials FARC, produce 27 metric tons of cocaine every year. A FARC mortar attack on Wednesday brought to 12 the number of police killed in the first month of "Operation Green Colombia," which the government says is aimed at removing illicit crops from natural parks, starting with La Macarena, in an effort to restore their biodiversity. An increasing proportion of Colombia's coca fields are being planted in the parks as growers flee a US-funded crop-dusting campaign. The government decided not to dust in the parks after objections from environmentalists who said spraying herbicide would damage protected ecosystems. More than 900 shovel-wielding civilian workers, ringed by about 1,500 soldiers and police, are moving through La Macarena, pulling up coca bushes. Bombing within the park presents its own environmental problems, environmentalists said. "This is part of a chain of errors that has characterized Colombia's eradication program," Fabio Arjona, director of Colombia's chapter of environmental group Conservation International, told Reuters. "The fumigations have caused great environmental damage in other areas of the country and bombing La Macarena will be catastrophic for the local ecosystem, which includes endangered species," he said. Lesmez said the bombing did less damage to the environment than what the FARC's cocaine production operation was doing. "The state has come to stay in La Macarena," Defense Minister Camilo Ospina said in a statement vowing to do everything necessary to keep up the manual eradication project until no coca is left in the park. -------- us Emergency war supplemental hides millions 2/20/2006 (UPI) http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060220-015649-7679r WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 -- Buried in last week's $72.4 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill for the war on terror is nearly half a billion dollars worth of military construction. The bulk of the $485 million requested will go "to fund various military construction projects to support U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan," according to the supplemental. "The requested funds," the document goes on, "will provide force protection measures, enhanced airfield operations and safety, power distribution, water treatment and distribution infrastructure, operational facilities and improved logistics, and associated planning and design efforts." But the supplemental also includes $35 million new money for the expansion of the National Security Agency's top secret listening post at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, England, and authority to spend $700 million appropriated in previous years for construction or expansion of NSA facilities in Augusta, Ga., and Kunia, Hawaii. -------- POLITICS -------- investigations Bush's Bad Connection The White House is defiant in defense of warrantless wiretaps. That stance is beginning to bug Congress. By Michael Isikoff, Mark Hosenball and Evan Thomas Newsweek Feb. 20, 2006 issue http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11300384/site/newsweek/ The attorney general of the United States was playing rope-a-dope. Why, the senators wanted to know, did the White House circumvent a law passed by Congress, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires intelligence services to obtain search warrants before intercepting international communications inside the United States? Alberto Gonzales was evasive and bland. Speaking in legalisms, he offered few details about the National Security Agency's sweeping post-9/11 eavesdropping program. After a series of senatorial questions had gone essentially unanswered, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont interjected, "Of course, I'm sorry, Mr. Attorney General, I forgot: you can't answer any questions that might be relevant to this." Such sarcasm might be expected of a Democrat like Leahy. But Gonzales also came under tough questioning from four of the 10 Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee, including its chairman, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. At the hearing, Gonzales argued, as President George W. Bush has several times before, that Congress gave the executive branch the power to wiretap when it passed a resolution, right after 9/11, authorizing the "use of force" to battle terrorism. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a conservative Republican, called that argument "very dangerous in terms of its application to the future. When I voted for it, I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche." It is not yet clear how the public feels about warrantless wiretapping. As usual, the answer depends on the question. Asked if they approve of government eavesdropping on U.S. citizens, most people say no; asked if they approve of eavesdropping to catch terrorists, most people say yes. More-sophisticated polls show a roughly even split in opinion, so it's hard to know how the issue will cut in the 2006 elections. But there is no question that the solons of Capitol Hill—and, increasingly, those in the Republican Party—are growing restless and ready to challenge the authority of the Bush White House. In part, congressional egos and prerogatives are on the line. Members of both parties feel bullied by the sometimes high-handed treatment they get from the Bush administration, particularly from Vice President Dick Cheney, the outspoken avatar of executive power. Congress has always been the place to go to complain about executive-branch bungling and malfeasance. Last week was particularly rough for the Bush team on Capitol Hill: former FEMA director Michael Brown used a congressional hearing to lay the blame for the botched handling of Hurricane Katrina on the White House and the Homeland Security Department—both of which, Brown argued, had been promptly informed of the storm's terrible toll, an assertion that may shift more of the blame for the disaster-within-a-disaster away from the seemingly hapless "Brownie," as President Bush called his ousted FEMA director. This coming week is not going to be any better. The Senate intelligence committee is likely to vote to open an investigation into the NSA's wiretapping program, according to senior congressional aides who declined to be identified discussing sensitive matters. The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, will probably follow the White House line and try to keep a lid on the hearings. But three Republicans—Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Mike DeWine of Ohio—are expected to join with the Democrats on the committee to vote to demand more information about the secret eavesdropping program from the White House and intelligence agencies. The White House is likely to be defiant. Cheney's chief aide and counsel, David Addington, has advised his bosses that even if the intelligence committee votes to subpoena secret documents from the executive branch, the demand will not be upheld by the courts. Cheney's attitude seems to be: bring it on. Last week the veep told cheering activists at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference that the White House intends to trumpet NSA wiretapping as a winning issue in the fall campaign. "With an important election coming up," said Cheney, "people need to know just how we view the most critical questions of national security and how we propose to defend the nation." A senior White House official shrugged off the push-back from Republican lawmakers against warrantless eavesdropping. "The idea that there is growing concern in our party is unfounded," he said. This aide, who knows the thinking of the president and his top advisers but refuses to be identified talking about it, attributed individual motivations to the GOP dissidents. He said that some lawmakers, like Senator DeWine, are in close races back home and need political cover, while others, like Senator Hagel, are well-known mavericks who often criticize the White House. (Hagel is widely viewed as weighing his own 2008 presidential bid.) Even so, the White House was not wholly ignoring the noise on Capitol Hill. Rep. Heather Wilson, who chairs a subcommittee on House intelligence, caused a stir when she raised doubts about the NSA program. Wilson is in a tight re-election race, but, as an Air Force Academy grad and former National Security Council staffer, she is respected as a policy maven. Last week the White House agreed to brief the full House and Senate intelligence committees on the NSA programs. The sessions were apparently not very revealing. Even congressional leaders who had been briefed all along on the NSA program have complained to NEWSWEEK that they were largely kept in the dark about the real workings of the program. There has been some talk about getting a new law specifically to authorize the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee that a "bipartisan group of leaders" was consulted in 2004 about whether a new law was needed—and the "consensus" was that legislation couldn't be written without exposing secret taps. But contacted by NEWSWEEK, Rep. Peter Hoekstra said the issue never came up when he was briefed by Vice President Cheney after he became GOP chair of the House Intelligence Committee in August 2004. Three Democratic leaders briefed on the program that year—Rep. Jane Harman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller and former Senate minority leader Tom Daschle—recalled no discussion of a new law. "I'm confident it never occurred," said Daschle. On the other hand, Roberts did recall discussing new legislation. No transcript was made and members were not allowed to take notes or consult with aides afterward, making it all but impossible to establish exactly what was said. In an effort to shore up GOP ranks, Bush paid a personal visit to a House Republican leadership retreat on Maryland's Eastern Shore last week. He tried to explain to the group why he didn't brief more members on the NSA effort. "I didn't want the enemy to know the game plan," said Bush, mentioning the Hill's tendency to leak. "I'd make the same decision again, but I understand your concerns." Bush gave the crowd a pep talk: "Laura told me I should never say this again, but I want the terrorists hunted down, dead or alive." Strong applause greeted him. Even Representative Wilson thanked Bush for his decision to brief the full intelligence committees. "We all want to capture the terrorists," she said. It is hard to know if the administration is hiding more controversial weapons in the war on terror. Asked at the Senate Judiciary hearing if the president had ordered the opening of private mail, Gonzales refused to answer such "hypotheticals." There are hints that federal law enforcement has pushed the edge of the legal envelope. In recent court papers, Iyman Faris, a former Columbus, Ohio, truckdriver who pleaded guilty to a plot to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch, argued that he had been held without a warrant. Seeking to overturn his guilty plea, Faris has claimed that the FBI agents who took him into custody in March 2003 told him he didn't need a lawyer because he had "joined the U.S. team." After questioning him for several days at a Columbus-area hotel, Faris says, the FBI took him to its training academy at Quantico, Va., where he was held in a locked dormitory room and interrogated for eight hours a day. According to Faris's account, this treatment continued for a couple of weeks, during which he was never formally arrested or given a "Miranda" warning (though he was allowed to use his cell phone and meet once with his girlfriend). Faris is perhaps not the most sympathetic test case for civil liberties. He once met Osama bin Laden at a terrorist training camp and, according to the U.S. government, he was a member of a U.S.-based cell set up by Al Qaeda's operations director at the time, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. (The FBI and Justice Department refused to comment, but officials privately noted that Faris has changed his story several times.) But if it emerges that the United States has been secretly spying on more seemingly innocent Americans, then the Bush administration really will have a problem, and it won't just be among ruffled lawmakers on Capitol Hill. With Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey ---- White House Working to Avoid Wiretap Probe But Some Republicans Say Bush Must Be More Open About Eavesdropping Program By Charles Babington Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 20, 2006; A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/19/AR2006021901031_pf.html At two key moments in recent days, White House officials contacted congressional leaders just ahead of intelligence committee meetings that could have stirred demands for a deeper review of the administration's warrantless-surveillance program, according to House and Senate sources. In both cases, the administration was spared the outcome it most feared, and it won praise in some circles for showing more openness to congressional oversight. But the actions have angered some lawmakers who think the administration's purported concessions mean little. Some Republicans said that the White House came closer to suffering a big setback than is widely known, and that President Bush must be more forthcoming about the eavesdropping program to retain Congress's good will. The first White House scramble came on Feb. 8, before the House intelligence committee began a closed briefing on the program, which Bush began in late 2001 but which was disclosed only recently. The program allows the National Security Agency to monitor communications involving a person in the United States and one outside, provided one is a possible terrorism suspect. The administration says the program is exempt from the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for domestic surveillance warrants. Many lawmakers and legal scholars disagree. The House hearing came a day after a prominent Republican member called for an inquiry into the wiretapping program, and two days after Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales had angered some senators by defending it without providing details. On Feb. 8, House members were grumbling that the administration apparently planned to have Gonzales, joined by former NSA director Michael V. Hayden, provide the same limited briefing to the House intelligence committee. But the White House unexpectedly announced that Gonzales and Hayden would give the 21-member committee more insight into the program's "procedural aspects." The briefing placated many members. When committee leaders later said the panel will look further into the program, they made clear it will be a controlled process rather than the freewheeling investigation some Democrats want. The second White House flurry occurred last Thursday, as the Senate intelligence committee readied for a showdown over a motion by top Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.) to start a broad inquiry into the surveillance program. White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. -- who had visited the Capitol two days earlier with Vice President Cheney to lobby Republicans on the program -- spoke by phone with Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), according to Senate sources briefed on the call. Snowe earlier had expressed concerns about the program's legality and civil liberties safeguards, but Card was adamant about restricting congressional oversight and control, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing office policies. Snowe seemed taken aback by Card's intransigence, and the call amounted to "a net step backward" for the White House, said a source outside Snowe's office. Snowe contacted fellow committee Republican Chuck Hagel (Neb.), who also had voiced concerns about the program. They arranged a three-way phone conversation with Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.). Until then, Roberts apparently thought he had the votes to defeat Rockefeller's motion in the committee, which Republicans control nine to seven, the sources said. But Snowe and Hagel told the chairman that if he called up the motion, they would support it, assuring its passage, the sources said. When the closed meeting began, Roberts averted a vote on Rockefeller's motion by arranging for a party-line vote to adjourn until March 7. The move infuriated Rockefeller, who told reporters, "The White House has applied heavy pressure in recent weeks to prevent the committee from doing its job." Hagel and Snowe declined interview requests after the meeting, but sources close to them say they bridle at suggestions that they buckled under administration heat. The White House must engage "in good-faith negotiations" with Congress, Snowe said in a statement. Roberts, reacting to Hagel and Snowe's actions, told the New York Times on Friday that he now supports bringing the NSA program under FISA's jurisdiction in some manner, a stand that could put him at odds with the administration. The White House has praised a plan by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) to draft legislation that would exempt the NSA program from FISA, while providing for congressional oversight. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that Bush "is open to ideas from Congress regarding legislation, and we've committed to working with Congress on a bill." -------- propaganda wars An Ad for the Iraq War Newsweek Feb. 20, 2006 issue http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11299206/site/newsweek/ Progress for America spent more than $35 million to help re-elect George W. Bush in 2004 and nearly $10 million advocating the president's second-term agenda last year. Now the conservative 527 group is jumping into the debate over the war in Iraq. Starting this week, PFA will launch a reported $500,000 TV campaign in Minnesota aimed at boosting public opinion about the war on the eve of the 2006 elections. The 60-second spot features Iraq war veterans defending the U.S. presence in Iraq as crucial to winning the war on terror. "You'd never know it from the news reports, but our enemy in Iraq is Al Qaeda, the same terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11," one vet says in the ad, which includes images of the Twin Towers, a bombed Madrid train and other terrorist attacks. Another vet cites the "real progress" in Iraq, telling viewers, "The media only reports the bad news." While the ad's narrative matches White House talking points nearly verbatim, the group says it didn't coordinate its campaign with administration officials. Why Minnesota? PFA spokesman Stuart Roy tells NEWSWEEK the decision "had nothing to do with electoral politics," yet the state is home to a hotly contested U.S. Senate race in which the war is expected to be a pivotal issue. "There's a side to the Iraq story that we feel has been undertold and deserves a voice," Roy says. The campaign could expand to other states in coming weeks. —Holly Bailey -------- ENERGY Bush Would Export Nuclear Fuel, Power Plants to Developing Nations WASHINGTON, DC, February 20, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2006/2006-02-20-03.asp Nuclear power is the primary focus of his plan to wean the United States off fossil fuels and give developing countries the electricity they need, President George W. Bush said in his radio address to the nation on Saturday. The President's plan would divide nations into two classes - nuclear fuel supplier nations and user nations. In President Bush's view, nuclear power is "safe and clean" and it generates "large amounts of low-cost electricity without emitting air pollution or greenhouse gases." The President acknowledged two problems with the expansion of nuclear power. "We must dispose of nuclear waste safely," he said, "and we must keep nuclear technology and material out of the hands of terrorist networks and terrorist states." President Bush proposes to solve these problems with a new plan called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership announced with his Fiscal Year 2007 budget earlier this month. "Under this partnership," the President said Saturday, "America will work with nations that have advanced civilian nuclear energy programs, such as France, Japan, and Russia." "Together, we will develop and deploy innovative, advanced reactors and new methods to recycle spent nuclear fuel. This will allow us to produce more energy, while dramatically reducing the amount of nuclear waste and eliminating the nuclear byproducts that unstable regimes or terrorists could use to make weapons." The Bush administration's Fiscal Year 2007 budget includes $250 million to launch this plan as part of the administration's overall $632 million request for the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to spend on nuclear technology research, development, and infrastructure. The United States has not built a new nuclear power plant since the 1970s, said the President in his radio address, pointing out that France has built 58 nuclear power plants during that time period and now gets about 78 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Yet, while no new plants has been built during that time, the United States has had five new nuclear plants come on-line since 1990. The most recent is the Watts Bar 1 nuclear reactor located between Chattanooga and Knoxville and operated by the federal government's Tennessee Valley Authority, which came on-line February 7, 1996. Still, President Bush is determined to encourage the nuclear industry to build more power plants, saying, "Our goal is to start the construction of new nuclear power plants by the end of this decade." The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership includes five elements that are projected to meet the energy needs of the United States - building a new generation of nuclear power plants in the United States, developing and deploying new nuclear recycling technologies, managing and storing spent nuclear fuel in the United States, designing Advance Burner Reactors that would produce energy from recycled nuclear fuel, and enhancing resistance to nuclear proliferation. Two elements of the plan are aimed at giving nuclear power to developing nations. The United States and partners would establish a fuel services program for developing nations, and in addition, the nuclear fuel supplier nations would develop and construct what the President calls "small scale reactors" designed for the needs of developing countries. "As these technologies are developed," the President said Saturday, "we will work with our partners to help developing countries meet their growing energy needs by providing them with small scale reactors that will be secure and cost-effective. We will also ensure that these developing nations have a reliable nuclear fuel supply." "In exchange," he said, "these countries would agree to use nuclear power only for civilian purposes and forego uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities that can be used to develop nuclear weapons." Today, light water reactors dominate the commercial use of nuclear power, geared to large national markets with big electricity grids. Countries with smaller grids and less well-developed technical infrastructures that now burn fossil fuels could use a different, smaller, reactor design, the Bush administration believes. These smaller reactors could incorporate fuel designs that offer very long-life fuel loads that might last the entire life of the reactor so that refueling is not needed, the U.S. Energy Department explains on its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership website. The smaller reactors might have remote monitoring, physical protection against sabotage and other terrorist acts, standardized designs in the 50 to 350 MWe range, potential for district heating and potable water production, fully passive safety systems, simple operation that requires minimal in-country nuclear infrastructure, use of as much existing licensed or certified technology as possible, and use of advanced manufacturing techniques. Today, there are no fully developed or installed reactors that have all these features, the U.S. Energy Department acknowledges. Under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership plan an international fuel services consortium of “fuel supplier nations” would choose to operate both nuclear power plants and fuel production and handling facilities. They would provide "reliable" fuel services to “user nations” that choose only to operate nuclear power plants. Under a cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel leasing approach, fuel supplier nations would provide fresh fuel to conventional nuclear power plants located in user nations, typically by enriching uranium. These conventional nuclear power plants could be either existing or next generation power reactors or the new, small scale reactors envisioned under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Used fuel would be returned to a fuel supplier nation and recycled using a process that does not result in separated plutonium, the Energy Department says. The recycled fuel would then be used in advanced burner reactors in fuel supplier nations. The advanced burner reactors do not yet exist either. These fast reactors would consume transuranic elements - plutonium and other long-lived radioactive material with atomic numbers higher than uranium - while extracting their energy. Here, the word burn does not mean incinerate or combust, the Energy Department explains, it means to transmute or convert transuranics into shorter-lived isotopes. Fast reactors have been demonstrated, but their use as burners requires further testing and such a test reactor, about one-tenth the size of a current nuclear plant, might be operational around 2014, under the Bush plan. In the second phase, the Department of Energy would demonstrate a first-of-a-kind advanced burner reactor standard plant, operational by about 2023. This plant would have about the same capacity as current nuclear power plants. Under all strategies and scenarios for the future of nuclear power, the United States will need a permanent geologic repository to deal with radioactive wastes resulting from the operation of nuclear power plants, the Energy Department says. But if the transuranic elements in spent nuclear fuel are consumed, not disposed of as waste, there would be a smaller volume of waste to handle. Then, the Bush administration reasons, "the planned geologic repository site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has the technical capability to accommodate all the used U.S. commercial nuclear fuel that has been or will be generated by U.S. nuclear power plants over their lifetimes." If the Bush administration establishes nuclear fuel reprocessing the new policy would overturn a 30-year ban on the technology. Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1977 promised that the United States would not reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The challenge, says the Department of Energy (DOE), stems from the fact that certain technologies used to separate out plutonium from used fuel, could be used to produce material for a nuclear weapon. To develop more proliferation-resistant separation processes, the Bush administration says the U.S and its international partners would conduct an engineering scale demonstration of a process that would separate the usable components in spent commercial fuel from its waste components, without separating pure plutonium. The new technology known as UREX, for URanium EXtraction, was developed by the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. This chemical separation process produces a mix of plutonium and uranium, which can be recycled to fuel reactors. Once the technology is demonstrated, these nuclear fuel recycling plants would only be located in countries that are “fuel supplier nations,” thus reducing the proliferation risk, the Bush administration proposes. But the Union of Concerned Scientists says that the Department of Energy's own research contradicts the administration's premise that "proliferation-resistant" technology would make plutonium inaccessible and undesirable to terrorists and states pursuing nuclear weapons. Dr. Edwin Lyman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists points to the work of Dr. E.D. Collins from DOE's Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, and Dr. Bruce Goodwin of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. "It clearly demonstrates that the administration's new reprocessing program will pose a serious risk that terrorists could acquire the material needed to make a nuclear weapon from a U.S. facility," Lyman on February 9. "The safest thing to do with plutonium is to leave it in spent fuel since it is kept in large, heavy casks and is fatally radioactive," said Dr. Lyman. "Experts agree that no reprocessing technology developed or proposed to date is proliferation-proof." Currently, there are four operating nuclear reprocessing plants in the world - COGEMA's in La Hague, France; Mayak in Russia; Thorp at Sellafield in the UK, and Tokai, in Ibaraki, Japan. The United States built one at West Valley, New York, which operated from 1966 to 1972 but was shut down when it could not keep pace with stricter regulations. Concerned that the Bush plan for reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel would not be sufficient to prevent theft by terrorists, while the plutonium mix that results from these technologies could be used to make a nuclear weapon, 28 groups sent a letter late last month to all 535 Members of Congress urging opposition to the reprocessing proposal. In addition, nuclear fuel reprocessing would be "extremely expensive," said the groups, which include Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). They quote a 1996 report by the National Academy of Sciences, that estimates the costs of reprocessing and transmutation of irradiated fuel that has already been discharged by existing U.S. reactors as “easily could be more than $100 billion” in 1996 dollars. Most important, the groups warned Congress, "Reprocessing poses a serious risk to the global non-proliferation regime." "Such a proposal," they wrote, "would promote an ineffective 'Do as we say not as we do' approach, undermining U.S. credibility on non-proliferation." Mary Olson, of the NIRS Campaign to Stop Reprocessing, said, "The existing nuclear reactors around the globe are already sitting-duck terrorist targets. Separating plutonium from nuclear power waste fuel — as reprocessing does — simply sets up new and inviting opportunities for terrorists to seize fissile, bomb-capable materials." "Support for a reprocessing program makes a mockery of statements coming out of this administration that protecting the American people from terrorism is paramount," Olson said. "Instead, it will put more Americans in harm's way." In the United States, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 established the Nuclear Power 2010 program, a joint government-industry cost-shared plan to identify sites for new nuclear power plants, and streamlined regulations for siting, constructing and operating new nuclear plants. The Bush FY 2007 budget seeks $54 million for the Nuclear Power 2010 program. Under this program, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources February 9, a new nuclear power plant constructed by the private sector could be in operation by 2014. The technology focus of the Nuclear Power 2010 program is on advanced light water reactor designs. The new regulatory system would allow industry to apply for Early Site Permits that pre-qualify a site for potential nuclear power plants and then for combined Construction and Operation Licenses to build and operate new, advanced plants with fewer regulations than the previous generation of nuclear power plants had to meet. The first three Early Site Permits are planned to be issued in 2007, potentially leading to the first Construction and Operation License submittal from industry in 2007-2008 and the first power company decision to proceed with construction by 2010. The Energy Information Administration projects that over the next 25 years, demand for electricity in the United States will grow by over 40 percent. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is online at: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/ ---- President Promotes Nuclear Energy, Plan for Dealing with Radioactive Waste February 20, 2006 — By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=9908 WASHINGTON — President Bush on Saturday renewed his push for expansion of nuclear energy and sought support for plans to revive nuclear fuel reprocessing to deal with radioactive waste from commercial power plants. "As America and other nations build more nuclear power plants we must work together to address two challenges," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "We must dispose of nuclear waste safely, and we must keep nuclear technology and material out of the hands of terrorist networks and terrorist states." The administration has asked Congress for $250 million next fiscal year to accelerate a decade-long research program into reprocessing nuclear fuel, reducing the amount of reactor waste that eventually would have to be buried. The United States abandoned nuclear fuel reprocessing in the 1970s because of nuclear proliferation concerns. Conventional fuel reprocessing requires the separation of pure plutonium, which can be easily transported and could be used in a weapon if obtained by terrorists. Bush's plan envisions a new approach to reprocessing -- one not yet fully demonstrated outside the laboratory -- that would not result in the separation of pure plutonium and, therefore, its advocates maintain, poses less of a proliferation risk. Nuclear power must play a growing role in meeting future energy needs not only in the United States, but globally, the president said. He said he envisions a system where the United States and other countries such as Russia, Britain and France would provide reactors and lend nuclear fuel to developing nations. Used fuel would be returned and recycled. "This will allow us to produce more energy while dramatically reducing the amount of nuclear waste and eliminating the nuclear byproducts that unstable regimes and terrorists could use to make weapon," Bush said. The reprocessing initiatives has been met with skepticism by some members of Congress and nuclear nonproliferation advocacy groups. "We are taking enormous risks going down this path," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman earlier this week at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. While calling it "a well-intentioned program," Clinton questioned its cost and said its potential proliferation risks "seem to raise more dangers and questions than answers." The Energy Department acknowledges that the $250 million sought by the administration is only a small down payment for the program. The department envisions spending $1.8 billion over the following three years and about $13 billion over 10 years to develop a demonstration project for reprocessing, including a new-generation "fast" reactor needed to burn up more of the fuel. Clinton said some studies have put the cost of developing a nuclear reprocessing technology at $100 billion. The new nuclear strategy is but one energy initiative that Bush plans to highlight in the coming week as he visits Wisconsin, Michigan and Colorado to talk up programs and technologies aimed at developing alternative motor fuels and other renewable energy programs. "The best way to meet our energy needs is through advanced technology," he said as the administration searches for ways to defuse growing public concerns about high energy prices. -------- alternative energy US Corn for Ethanol to Exceed Exports Soon - USDA Story by Lisa Haarlander REUTERS USA: February 20, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35199/newsDate/20-Feb-2006/story.htm WASHINGTON - The United States, the longtime No 1 corn exporter in the world, will soon distill more corn to make the alterative fuel ethanol than it sells abroad, said the US Agriculture Department on Friday. Mounting demand for crop-based fuels such as ethanol could one day have a bigger impact on US corn prices than other exporters exiting the market, said USDA chief economist Keith Collins. Ethanol plants are popping up throughout the Midwest Corn Belt, and may soon start appearing in other parts of the United States. US President George W Bush recently pushed for more alternative fuel use to reduce dependence on oil from the Middle East. "I think ethanol, rather than China, could be the No 1 factor affecting corn prices in the future," Collins told some 1,500 agricultural analysts, experts and government officials at the USDA's annual Outlook Forum. China has exported corn in recent years, but in the mid-1990’s, it temporarily imported corn. The change in dynamics and increased corn business for the United States contributed to corn prices hitting $5 per bushel. China is expected to switch again to importing corn but the USDA does not believe the change will happen in 2006. US corn exports are projected to rise to 2.0 billion bushels in the 2006/07 marketing year, while ethanol production is forecast to consume 2.15 billion bushels, USDA said. Corn-based ethanol is now used in only 3 percent of US gasoline, but will consume 14 percent of the US corn crop this marketing year. USDA projected on Friday that ethanol will consume 20 percent of the crop in the next marketing year that starts Sept 1. In just the last month, various groups have announced plans to construct 21 ethanol plants in 12 states, said Bill Holbrook, a consultant who has conducted 50 feasibility studies for ethanol plants. If all the ethanol plants planned for Nebraska come on line, it could raise corn prices, which are roughly about $2 per bushel, by 5 cents locally, Holbrook said. Collins joked that in the past it was China that was seen as possibly having the greatest impact on US corn prices. The United States is the largest ethanol producer in the world, churning out 4.3 billion gallons in 2005. Production is expected to climb to 5.1 billion gallons this year and 6 billion gallons by 2007, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. -------- OTHER -------- environment New Jersey Metal Recycler Hit with $250,000 Fine TRENTON, New Jersey, February 20, 2006 http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2006/2006-02-20-09.asp#anchor7 A metals recycler that claimed to "set new standard for environmental service" with state-of-the-art green technologies to recycle, reuse and mine commodities from industrial hazardous wastes has been fined $250,000 by the state of New Jersey for hazardous waste and air pollution violations. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Acting Commissioner Lisa Jackson said Wednesday that the state has settled with Veridium Corp., a Paterson metal recycling facility, for a series of outstanding violations stemming from the company's repeated failure to properly store hazardous waste and adhere to air pollution regulations. "Time and again, this company jeopardized the public's health and safety and our environment by mishandling hazardous materials and neglecting its responsibility to safeguard air quality," Jackson said. "We have no tolerance for any actions that leave our already overburdened urban communities vulnerable to toxic mishaps." Veridium says on its website that the company's mission is "to minimize and eliminate the need for disposal and reduce the burden on natural resources by recycling, reusing and mining all reusable resources from industrial hazardous wastes in a safe, compliant and profitable manner." But from 1999 to 2005, DEP inspectors uncovered seven violations, including Veridium's improper storage of 29,000 pounds of cyanide, acids, bases and other hazardous wastes capable of sparking explosions. The agency says Veridium failed to familiarize police, fire and emergency-response teams with the facility's layout and the kinds of hazardous waste it regularly handled. The DEP also cited Veridium for operating a materials dryer without the proper permit, failing to properly mark containers as hazardous waste and date them, failing to keep hazardous waste containers closed and improperly storing 55 gallon drums of hazardous waste for more than 90 days, among other violations. DEP inspections also revealed the company failed to comply with its required air pollution permits and failed to properly notify the DEP when it released air contaminants during a fire. Under the settlement agreement, which covers all of Veridium's outstanding violations, the company will make payments on $250,000 through December 2010. The company ceased all operations at the Paterson site in January and vacated the premises. DEP inspectors will continue to monitor the site to determine if any further action is necessary. -------- health Vietnam Resumes Bird Hatching, Vaccination Drive Story by Ho Binh Minh REUTERS VIETNAM: February 20, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35203/newsDate/20-Feb-2006/story.htm HANOI - Vietnam has allowed chicken breeders to resume production and this week restarted vaccinating bird stocks nationwide after three months without bird flu outbreaks in people. The H5N1 avian influenza virus has killed 42 people in Vietnam, the highest number of cases in any of the seven nations where bird flu has infected people. The government enforced strict control measures last year to control the disease and officials say these steps have paid off. The Health Ministry said Vietnam has had no bird flu cases in humans in the past three months. The Agriculture Ministry signed early this week a directive to allow chicken breeders at large-scale farms to resume hatching, a practice banned by the government since late November 2005. Breeders are now required to vaccinate all of their day-old chickens before selling them to the market, Deputy Agriculture Minister Bui Ba Bong said in the directive. "The vaccination has started in Nam Dinh province and we plan to go on with other provinces," Bui Quang Anh, head of the Animal Health Department, told Reuters late on Friday. The department oversees the nationwide vaccination campaign. However, the hatching of ducks and geese, which can carry the H5N1 virus without showing symptoms, will remain banned until February 2007, Saturday's official Nhan Dan newspaper said citing the Agriculture Ministry. Anh said more than 242 million birds in Vietnam were vaccinated in the last five months of 2005 and this played a crucial role in ending bird flu outbreaks in poultry. Health experts said while poultry vaccinations last year appeared to have eliminated the source of human infections, consumers boycotting poultry before the Lunar New Year festival last month also helped stop the virus resurfacing. Prime Minister Phan Van Khai has called for better control of poultry consumption and further research to produce poultry vaccine at home to replace imported vaccines from China.