NucNews August 6, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR Helen Caldicott's new book: Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer Sunday, August 06, 2006 VHeadline (Venezuela) http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=65443 VHeadline.com commentarist Stephen Lendman writes: No one writes with more passion, commitment and knowledge about the immense dangers of nuclear technology in all its forms than Australian physician and nuclear expert Helen Caldicott. Since writing her first book (must reading for everyone), 'Nuclear Madness,' in 1978, Dr. Caldicott has worked tirelessly to expose the real threat this technology from hell poses to human survival. In her first book she wrote: "As a physician, I contend that nuclear technology threatens life on our planet with extinction. If present trends continue, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced." Dr. Caldicott has now written six important books on nuclear technology and its dangers. Her latestn just publishedn is 'Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer.' In it she's written a carefully documented account of the reasons why. Like her other books, this one, too, is must reading, and those doing it will never forget its vital message. The book is a basic text on all things wrong with commercial nuclear power and why, as Dr. Caldicott explains, this technology must be abandoned before it destroys us as it surely will if its use and proliferation aren't halted everywhere. This book is about commercial nuclear power in contrast to her last one, 'The New Nuclear Danger,' that was a powerful and convincing indictment of the military-industrial complex and its addiction to nuclear weapons of mass destruction and the Pentagon's intent to use them as needed preemptively. Dr. Caldicott makes her convincing case in 10 chapters, each one covering a separate crucial issue about commercial nuclear power. Eight of them explain in detail its dangers and problems, and the two final ones propose sensible and urgently needed solutions so far largely unaddressed. But she begins in her introduction with a clear statement that our government has now embarked on a disingenuous and sinister campaign to sell the acceptability of the use and expansion of commercial nuclear technology to the US public long turned off on it by the near disaster at the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania in March, 1979 and the catastrophic Chernobyl meltdown and explosion in the Ukraine in April, 1986. She begins her detailed account that, contrary to government and industry propaganda, nuclear power is neither efficient, reliable, cheap, clean or safe. It's a very sophisticated, expensive and dangerous way to boil water, turn it to steam, which then turns a turbine to generate electricity. Dr. Caldicott explains, contrary to government and industry propaganda, that the generation of nuclear power causes the discharge of significant emissions of greenhouse gases as well as hundreds of thousands of curies of deadly radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every year. It also requires huge and unjustifiable government subsidies including protection against catastrophic accidents to make it attractive to investors. In addition, and most disturbing, there's the real threat of an attack against any of our 103 nuclear power plants in blowback retaliatory response to hostile US acts against other nations in the past, the two current illegal aggressions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, our one-sided support for Israel's long-running conflict with and current aggression against the defenseless Palestinians and people of Lebanon, and our possible intent to spread the present Middle East conflict to Iran and Syria with the preemptive use of nuclear weapons. US nuclear power plants are notoriously inadequately protected and are thus vulnerable easy targets to strike if a committed antagonist wished to do so. If it happens, the result will be a catastrophic disaster irrevocably affecting the area struck and people now living there. Adding further to the danger, these plants are atom bomb factories. A 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor produces 500 pounds of plutonium annually, only 10 pounds of which is needed as fuel for a bomb powerful enough to devastate a large city and make it unlivable essentially forever. Dr. Caldicott explains all this and much more in her book, and her mission in writing it and her others, as well as her role as President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute is to counteract the false rhetoric of governments worldwide and the nuclear power industry touting the so-called benefits of nuclear technology. In her duel roles, she's become perhaps the world's leading advocate for the abolition of a technology too unsafe to be tolerated any longer. She spends all her time dedicated to writing and speaking out around the world telling the public the truths they never hear in the mainstream about this dangerous and unacceptable form of producing energy to get them to demand it be abandoned. Below is an account of the clear evidence Dr. Caldicott explains and documents, chapter by chapter. Chapter 1 -- The Energetic Costs of Nuclear Power -- It Takes Fossil Fuel Burning Power to Produce Nuclear Energy The American nuclear industry's task of selling its technology to the public is the responsibility of its trade association -- the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). They do it through a false and misleading campaign of deception to convince the public that nuclear energy is "cleaner and greener" than conventional sources of generating electricity. The truth, however, is quite different. Although a nuclear power plant releases no carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere causing global warming, it requires a vast infrastructure, called the nuclear fuel cycle, which uses huge and rapidly growing amounts of fossil fuels. Each stage of the cycle contributes to the problem starting with the largest and unavoidable energy cost to mine and mill uranium fuel which requires fossil fuel to do it. It continues with the problem of what to do with the mill tailings produced in the uranium extraction process that require great amounts of these greenhouse emitting fuels to remediate when this process is undertaken as it always should be. Other steps in the nuclear fuel cycle also require the use of fossil fuels including the conversion of uranium to hexafluoride gas prior to enrichment, the enrichment process, and the conversion of enriched uranium hexafluoride gas to fuel pellets. In addition, nuclear power plant construction, dismantling and cleanup at the end of their useful life require large amounts of energy. But the process and problems don't end there. The contaminated water that cools the reactor core must be dealt with, and the enormous problem of radioactive nuclear waste handling, transportation and disposal/storage remains unresolved. Chapter 2 -- The True Economic Costs of Nuclear Energy -- The Price in Dollars and Cents Nuclear industry and government propaganda notwithstanding, nuclear power is expensive, and when an inevitable catastrophic meltdown eventually occurs near or in a US city we'll know in grim detail just how much so. The industry falsely claims nuclear power costs 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour to produce compared to 2 cents for coal and 5.7 cents for natural gas. But a report by the New Economic Foundation titled "Mirage and Oasis - Energy Choices in An Age of Global Warming" calculated the true cost to be three times the industry figure if all costs, including capital ones, in the nuclear cycle are included. And even these costs exclude the additional ones of managing pollution, accidents that occur, insurance and security to protect against an attack or internal sabotage. The true costs and risks of nuclear power are so unattractive to investors that this industry couldn't exist without the many billions of dollars of government spending support it gets including most of the $111.5 billion on energy R & D spent from 1948-1998. But heavy government funding will now become even greater as a result of the 2005 Energy bill that's part of an attempt to jump-start this moribund industry. This outrageous bill offers a lavish array of "cradle to grave" subsidies that include tax credits and breaks, loan guarantees, R & D help and risk insurance. It also assures the government will cover the cost of the complex infrastructure needed to transport and store nuclear waste, provide military protection against potential blowback attacks and more. In addition, it reauthorizes the current Price-Anderson Act that will make taxpayers and not the industry pay 98% of the cost in case of a worse case nuclear meltdown that's sure to occur one day. It's part of the same scam that's in place for all other major US industries. It's called socialism for large corporations that write the legislation serving their interests guaranteeing them huge government subsidies and other benefits and capitalism for the rest of us who must pay for them through our taxes. One of the major and most egregious provisions of the 2005 Energy bill is the repeal of the important Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA) passed in 1935 as a cornerstone of New Deal financial reform that corrected the abuses of utility holding companies that scammed ratepayers. Now it's again open season for giant power monopolies and other dominant corporations to own nuclear power plants and exploit the public free from regulatory oversight or competition to restrain them. It's all part of a business-government scheme to develop a dangerous industry, largely free it from regulatory oversight, make it profitable for giant US corporations to own and dominate, and get the public to assume all the risks and foot the bill at inflated prices. Chapter 3 -- Nuclear Power, Radiation and Disease -- The Unaddressed Human Toll The overall cost of nuclear energy rarely, if ever, includes the very significant toll it takes on human health. Those paying the price include uranium miners, nuclear industry workers and potentially everyone living close to these operations. Also affected are residents in areas close to nuclear power plants that routinely or accidentally emit toxic radioactive releases that can cause illness, disease and death over time. Chicago is a prime example of what may go wrong. The city is surrounded by 11 nuclear power plants, many of them aging and all of them with histories of safety violations caused by aging and shoddy maintenance. Even if accident free, these facilities (and all others everywhere) discharge enough radiation daily in their normal operations to contaminate the food we eat (even organic food), water we drink and air we breathe into our lungs. But if a core meltdown ever occurs at any of these plants (a real possibility no one is prepared for) and Chicago is downwind of the fallout, the city and suburbs alone would become uninhabitable forever and would have to be evacuated quickly with all possessions left behind and lost (including people's homes) except for what could be carried in suitcases or family vehicles. Two other groups especially also have and continue to pay an overwhelming and largely hidden price from the toxic effects of radiation poisoning -- the people of Iraq and US military force invaders and occupiers who now serve there, have served or will in the future as well as those participating in the 1991 Gulf war. Most of them have potentially been exposed to the deadly effects of so-called depleted uranium (DU) poisoning because of the extensive use of DU munitions by the US military in both Iraq conflicts. These weapons were first developed for the Navy in 1968 and tested by Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war under US supervision. Except for that test, they were never before used by any country prior to the US Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Since then, the US has used them freely, routinely and with deadly consequences to those affected by their fallout. DU is part of the radioactive waste resulting from the enrichment process used to produce enriched uranium fuel for nuclear reactors. When the Pentagon discovered that solid "dense metal" (1.7 times the density of lead) DU projectiles in all forms (missiles, bombs, shells and bullets) greatly increased their ability to penetrate and destroy a target, they knew they had a new technology they could use advantageously in combat and now have done so for the last 15 years in four wars. Despite their effectiveness as a weapon, however, DU munitions have a serious and deadly side effect. In all their forms, they're radioactive and chemically toxic after striking, penetrating and incinerating inside a target after which they aerosolize in a fine spray which then contaminates the air, soil and water around and beyond the target area. The toxic residue is permanent and those ingesting this ceramic uranium oxide have a permanent dose that potentially can cause many diseases including cancer, leukemia, birth defects and ultimately death or at least a shorter, more painful life. No one has kept track of the precise toll DU poisoning has had on the Iraqis although it's known the cancer rate in the country is far higher now than before 1991. But much is known about how DU toxicity has affected the US military who served in the Gulf war. Thirty percent or more of them are now on some kind of disability or have died from a serious illness likely the result of their military service in the Gulf. We're also just beginning to learn that those serving in Iraq since March, 2003 are reporting disturbing symptoms. Over time, it's likely they'll multiply greatly, affect a greater number of our forces than those serving in the Gulf war because of longer and repeated deployments to the region and eventually cause an even greater number of serious illnesses and deaths because the DU weapons now used contain plutonium, neptunium and the highly radioactive uranium isotope U-236. A UK Atomic Energy Authority 1991 study found these latter two isotopes were 100,000 times more dangerous than the U-238 used earlier in DU munitions. By any interpretation of the appropriate Hague and Geneva Conventions banning the use of all chemical, biological or any other "poison or poisoned weapons" in war, the US use of DU munitions constitutes a war crime that has and will continue to take an immense and tragic toll on those individuals exposed to them. The danger to human health from the use of nuclear power in any form is unavoidable even under the best of circumstances outside of a war zone. But whenever serious accidents happen, as they have and will again, the consequences can be calamitous. The link between radiation exposure and disease is irrefutable dependent only on the amount of cumulative exposure over a long enough period of time. Dr. Caldicott explains that "If a regulatory gene is bio-chemically altered by radiation exposure, the cell will begin to incubate cancer, during a 'latent period of carcinogenesis,' lasting from two to sixty years." As little as a single gene mutation can eventually turn out to be fatal and too often is. No amount of radiation exposure is safe, and it's thought that 80% of known types of cancers are environmentally caused by such exposure combined with the potentially carcinogenic effects of about 80,000 different inadequately or untested chemicals in common use acting synergistically in our bodies to harm us. But just the combined effects of routine allowable radiation from nuclear power plants, uranium mining and milling operations, uranium enrichment, and fuel fabrication can be devastating to all those exposed to any of their effects. Add to that the insoluble problem of radioactive waste disposal/storage and the certainty of devastating nuclear accidents, it's no exaggeration to say the human species is playing an insane game of nuclear Russian roulette it can't win and that will eventually have a disastrous and possibly fatal ending if we can't stop it in time. Chapter 4 - Accidental and Terrorist-Induced Nuclear Meltdowns - A Devastating Nuclear Event is Certain Many experts agree it's only a matter of when and where, not if, a devastating meltdown will occur in one or more of the 438 nuclear power plants located in 33 countries worldwide. It may result from human error, a plant owner's unwise or unsafe attempt to minimize operating costs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) imprudent accession to industry pressure to allow 20 year operating extensions to plants designed to run only for 40 years, the effects of a tsunami or high enough magnitude earthquake in areas vulnerable to them or from a deliberate attack or internal sabotage. When this does happen, if it's near a large city and its full impact is felt and known, the world may never be the same again. But it will be too late for the residents in and around that city (which could be New York, Chicago or Paris) who'll lose all their possessions, be forced to evacuate their homes, and never again be able to return to them because of the permanent irremediable toxic radiation there. Dr. Caldicott explains that "Every US power plant is moving into the old-age cycle" because no new ones have been built here since the TMI accident in Pennsylvania in 1979. As a result, the number of near-misses and near-meltdowns has increased mostly resulting from human error, aging equipment and inadequate maintenance and regulatory oversight. With the dangers so high and inevitable and the supposed benefits totally without merit, why would the leaders and residents of any community ever be willing to allow the construction or operation of a nuclear power plant near enough to them to destroy their lives should a catastrophic nuclear event happen as it surely will potentially at any of the world's nuclear plants. Chapter 5 - Yucca Mountain and the Nuclear Waste Disaster - This Congressionally Chosen Area for Storage is Known to Be Unsafe For a geological nuclear waste storage site to be safe, it must be able to prevent any leakage and seepage into the environment for at least 500,000 years. The chosen Yucca site can't achieve this mandate for many reasons. It's close to groundwater that will be contaminated from leakage from corroded casks that will spread to spring water irrigation areas used for farming and by protected species. Yucca is also located in an active earthquake zone where in 1992 a major 7.4 Richter measured quake occurred followed two days later by an additional 5.2 quake that caused $1 million of damage to the Department of Energy (DOE) building located six miles from the Yucca site. Yucca Mountain was thought to be waterproof as its soil must be dry to prevent corrosion. But much more water inside was discovered there than originally estimated meaning this site is far too dangerous for a permanent home for nuclear waste storage. In addition, this site is located close to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada where new military jet aircraft are tested, war exercises are held and crashes happen that may have serious and unacceptable consequences. Finally, and crucially, is the issue of radioactive waste transport from around the nation to this one site on highways and by rail. It will take 30 years to move the 70,000 metric tonnes of civilian and military spent fuel Yucca is authorized to store from its temporary sites around the country to this one location. Currently there's no prohibition on the shipping of this waste through highly populated areas nor during periods of bad weather like severe snow storms making driving hazardous. But it's been predicted as many as 50 accidents a year may result, three of them involving serious releases of toxic radiation that will contaminate the surrounding environment. In addition, and compounding the problem, all 11 of the storage casks currently approved and used by DOE for radioactive waste transport have been found to be defective. But none of these concerns have diminished the Bush administration's determination to proceed with the Yucca storage plan. Clearly, it has no concern whatever for public safety. For those in the administration, only corporate profits matter along with their plan for world dominance to enhance them. Chapter 6 -- Generation IV Nuclear Reactors -- They Will Increase Operational Risks and Are Unacceptable The majority of the world's operating nuclear power reactors are so-called Generation II types. But there are serious and potentially fatal problems associated with them, and yet the industry wishes to move ahead to new designs that promise to be even more dangerous. Currently there are Generation III reactors operating in the US only slightly different from the Generation II ones. A 2005 Greenpeace study of nuclear reactor hazards showed most of these newer versions to be little different than their dangerous predecessors despite false industry claims about their added safety. Still about 20 different Generation III designs are now under development which the industry expects to be built and operational by 2010. The Generation III and a so-called III+ design represent "evolutionary changes" from their predecessors despite the dangers associated with them. Undeterred, a newer Generation IV "revolutionary" design is under development that relies on fuel and plant performance standards that have not been tested and may turn out to be unachievable. Despite the danger involved, and with the public footing the bill and risk, the industry has made the outrageous and unproved claims that these reactors are ideal fuel providers, safe, proliferation resistant, economically competitive and free from greenhouse gas emissions. Dr. Caldicott debunks all these notions and calls them as "baseless today as (the absurd) 'too cheap to meter' (claim) was fifty years ago." She goes on to explain that "People with an intimate understanding of the nuclear industry are severely opposed to a nuclear renaissance" because of the unacceptable risks and most all other falsely claimed benefits associated with it. Dr. Caldicott concludes that so-called Generation III and IV reactor designs "are controversial and contentious, and seem not be be based upon sound economic, environmental safety, or proliferation-resistant principles." Based on the industry/government's long-standing record of lies and deception in promoting the safety and benefits of nuclear power, one can hardly disagree with her. Chapter 7 - Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation - This is Madness and An Unacceptable Risk Experts who know, explain that the nuclear arms supermarket and the dissemination of nuclear technology is vast, growing and dangerous. It's likely only a matter of time before a rogue nation or element obtains and makes one or more crude highly-enriched uranium nuclear bombs and sets one of them off in a major city probably located in the US. New York and Washington, DC are clearly the most obvious likely targets, and if it happens, those cities will be have to be evacuated and will be uninhabitable forever if the bomb is large enough and strategically placed. The chance of that happening will increase if, as proposed, 2,000 nuclear power plants are built in countries wanting them in the decades ahead. Those plants in operation would produce an inventory of about 20,000 metric tonnes of plutonium, the most deadly of all toxic substances known (as little as one-millionth of a gram is a carcinogenic dose), dwarfing the current amount in the world today and increasing the potential danger from it enormously. Dr. Caldicott calls this "plutonium madness." Twelve years ago, the National Academy of Sciences called the US and Russian military-derived plutonium stockpiles alone "a clear and present danger to national and international security" because of the chance of any of it falling into rogue hands. If a vastly larger stockpile is produced in so many places, it would be much harder to secure or keep track of. It's generally accepted that it takes just five kilograms (11 pounds) of weapons grade plutonium or 8 kilograms (17.6 pounds) of reactor grade plutonium to make a nuclear bomb. With so much of this substance around, and much of it likely inadequately secured, the temptation to do it would be enormous. The danger is even greater because today 18 countries have uranium enrichment facilities enabling them, if they wish, to produce fuel for nuclear weapons. Nine of these countries are now known to possess nuclear weapons, and the IAEA estimates that within 10 years as many as 40 or more nations may be able to make them, and many likely will to have available at least in self-defense. In addition, 70 countries now have legally acceptable small nuclear reactors, mostly fueled by highly enriched uranium. These reactors also manufacture plutonium, and both fuels can be used to make nuclear bombs if elements in any of these countries have the know-how and wish to do so. Many of them will be forced to do it in response to threats posed by hostile neighbors and especially by the US that openly claims the right to use nuclear bombs preemptively in any future conflict for any reason it claims is justifiable and certainly will unless restrained. If this happens, it's only a matter of time until a nuclear bomb is set off on US soil with all the devastation that will follow from it. Chapter 8 -- Nuclear Power and "Rogue Nations" -- Those Having Nuclear Weapons or Threaten to Use Them Are the "Rogue" Ones to Fear Two nations clearly are at the head of the "rogue" nuclear pack -- the US and Russia that combined have 97% of the total known arsenal of about 30,000 nuclear bombs. Because these two nations maintain thousands of these weapons on "hair-trigger" alert, a nuclear exchange between them would cause a nuclear winter and likely end all life on all or most of the planet. It could happen despite the end of the cold war as relations between the two countries have become more frosty and Russia's early warning system is hopelessly outdated, flawed, inadequate and subject to false alerts with only moments to react before it's too late. In addition, other countries having nuclear weapons or sure to develop them in the future, will certainly respond with them (if able) if they're attacked with these weapons or possibly even by conventional ones. Responsible leaders of any nation are likely to develop and use whatever weapons they have in self-defense if forced to do so. It's a very real and dangerous possibility and reason enough to argue for the abolition of this technology from hell that may destroy all human life if left unchecked. The case of Iran stands out at this time as it's become a target of the Bush administration for regime change which the Iranian government knows and realizes it must act in its own self-defense to prevent. Iran is pursuing a nuclear option it claims is for commercial use only. The country is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and, as far as known, is in full compliance with it while India, Pakistan and Israel (all having known nuclear arsenals) are not, haven't signed it and don't comply with it. There is no way to know what Iran's intentions are, but it would be irresponsible for its leaders not to be undertaking all measures it can to prevent a hostile attack or deter one if it occurs. The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pointedly observed in September, 2005: "Every day they (the Americans) are threatening other nations with nuclear weapons." He added that Western countries were "relying on their power and wealth to try to impose a climate of intimidation and injustice over the world." It's logical and likely to assume most or all nations with concerns for their security will take whatever measures they can to protect themselves and retaliate if attacked. But it must also be pointed out that no nation ever has or is now or in the near future likely to threaten the US with a hostile attack -- not Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela or any other. It's quite clear to them all and to the West that if any did, the US would destroy them. Only one nation above all others is a threat to world security and peace, and that nation is the most "roguish" of all. It's the US, and all other countries know it. The US is now waging two illegal wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, unconditionally supports Israel's right to do the same against the defenseless Palestinians and Lebanese and is threatening additional conflicts against Iran, Syria, Venezuela (to remove a three-time democratically elected President loved by the great majority of his people), and possibly North Korea. In addition, the US claims the right and intent to preemptively use nuclear weapons if it wishes and went to great lengths to undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review conference at the UN in May, 2005. It happened under the aegis of the thuggish US Under Secretary for Disarmament at the time John Bolton (now UN ambassador) who deliberately sabotaged the meeting by refusing to participate in meaningful discussions. Other nations at the conference were outraged and disgusted with his actions and the nation he represents - to no avail, especially after Bolton assumed his UN role and prevented any disarmament discussions in that capacity. Even UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who nearly always is unreservedly submissive to US authority, uncharacteristically expressed his disgust calling the US action a "real disgrace" as it surely was. Nonetheless, because of the total US dominance over the UN and its actions, no progress on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation has been made nor is any likely to be at least as long as the Bush administration remains in office, and probably much longer. Can the world afford to take a chance and wait, hoping for the best that may never come without forceful action? Chapter 9 -- Renewable Energy: The Answer -- Alternatives Exist but Are So Far Unaddressed and Insufficiently Developed Dr. Caldicott makes an impassioned plea throughout her book and her others to free the planet from the scourge of the nuclear threat that may destroy us. In this chapter she states: "there is no need to build new nuclear power plants to provide for the projected energy needs of the future ... it would be possible, using other forms of electricity generation to close down most of the existing nuclear reactors with a decade. There is enough wind (power) between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi River alone to supply three times the amount of electricity that America needs." There are other alternatives as well to the use of nuclear power that hold some promise including the conversion of coal to a synthetic fuel. Dr. Caldicott, however, concentrates on renewables in this chapter. She mentions that today that about 2% of electricity in the US comes from this safe and clean source whereas nuclear power supplies 20%. However, if hydroelectric power is included in the mix, about 9% of our electricity came from renewables in 2004 and 18.6% of it worldwide. Clearly, the rest of the world is far ahead of us, and the main problem in this country is the power of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries that have a stranglehold on US policy making and the politicians who make it. Unless they decide it's profitable to move to renewables, it won't happen and we'll continue down the same destructive road to an inevitable bad ending. Those on opposite sides debate whether alternatives alone can solve this nation's electricity needs. However, the respected journal, The New Scientist, recently wrote that the combination of wind and tidal power, micro-hydro, and biomass make renewable power increasingly practical. It said wind power and biomass are now almost as cheap as coal, and wave power and solar photovotaics are becoming more competitive. A report from the New Economics Foundation supports these conclusions. It said renewables are easy to build, cheap to harvest, economical to use overall, safe, flexible and clean. Despite industry resistance and support for it by complicit governments, especially in the US, the mounting evidence of the destructiveness of carbon emissions and nuclear proliferation dictates the urgent need to implement safe alternative solutions to our energy needs and do it now. The threat of global warming is the most obvious one, and that issue has entered mainstream discussion to some degree. It's now clear the planet is becoming warmer, the number and intensity of destructive storms are increasing, and the phenomenon of catastrophic environmental events are becoming more common. Still, the US pretends it isn't so as evidenced by its refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, weak and ineffective as it is. It's now up to the public and individual states to act in lieu of the federal government and hope a future administration may be more responsible than this one - a faint hope given the power and influence of energy industry that so far refuses alternatives to its interests and has been able to get its way. But the public can't stop trying because the alternative is catastrophic and mustn't be allowed to happen if at all posssible. Chapter 10 -- What Individuals Can Do: Energy Conservation and Efficiency - If the Government Won't Do It, People on Their Own Can Western Europeans are able to maintain a high living standard similar to people in the US using half the amount of energy we do. If they can do it comfortably, so can we, but we need the urging and mandating of reduced energy standards by government at the state and local levels combining to pressure the federal government to do the same. Dr. Caldicott lists a menu of ways we can live responsibly using energy-efficient technologies that have been available for many years and are becoming more sophisticated and cost effective all the time. They range from what we can do in our homes, the type of cars we drive and way we use them to how new buildings are constructed and much more. The key is the urgency to act, and the goal is energy efficiency and safety and the benefits to be gained from them. Everyone needs to be involved and many cities, states and businesses already are if only for the cost savings achieved by acting responsibly. A 2004 study by Synapse Energy Economics titled "A Responsible Electricity Future," offered a pragmatic and workable plan. It concluded that energy efficiency can reduce US electricity demand by almost 28% by 2025; non-hydro renewable energy, including geothermal, landfill gas, biomass, solar thermal, solar power generation, and especially wind power can provide 15% of US electricity needs by 2025; combined heat and power generation will produce 10% of it; oil, coal, and gas-fired generators can be retired after fifty operating years; and no new nuclear plants need be built and all old ones can be closed after 45 years of operation. The net result of this plan is many billions of dollars saved, a reduction in global warming, and a cleaner and safer environment free from the destruction guaranteed by the continued use of fossil fuels and nuclear power. Can it be done, and is there still time to do it? Some experts claim no on both counts, and they may be right. But that's no excuse for giving up and allowing a fate too frightful and devastating to allow to happen without a concerted effort to prevent it. Hope sustains us and when combined with commitment and enough effort by those of us willing to expend it, anything is not only possible, it quite likely can be attained. We have no time to waste because we've already wasted so much of it. Everyone should read Helen Caldicott's important new book and her previous one The New Nuclear Danger. The two combined clearly explain how threatening the military and commercial use of nuclear technology is to human survival. It's no exaggeration to say either we must destroy it or it will destroy us. Albert Einstein, whose theories led to the development of atomic power, knew this well and believed the splitting of the atom changed everything and threatened us all. In 1946, he said, after he understood the horror of Hiroshima: "Our world faces a crisis as yet unperceived by those possessing the power to make great decisions for good and evil. The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." Einstein believed and was saying that unless nuclear technology is abolished, we face the real threat of our extinction. Helen Caldicott in her new book and her others is saying the same thing. Are we listening, do we understand, and will we act in time to save ourselves and our progeny? Stephen Lendman lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net * Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net -- also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com http://www.vheadline.com/lendman -------- africa Iran's plot to mine uranium in Africa Jon Swain, David Leppard and Brian Johnson-Thomas The UK Sunday Times August 06, 2006 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2300772,00.html IRAN is seeking to import large consignments of bomb-making uranium from the African mining area that produced the Hiroshima bomb, an investigation has revealed. A United Nations report, dated July 18, said there was “no doubt” that a huge shipment of smuggled uranium 238, uncovered by customs officials in Tanzania, was transported from the Lubumbashi mines in the Congo. Tanzanian customs officials told The Sunday Times it was destined for the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, and was stopped on October 22 last year during a routine check. The disclosure will heighten western fears about the extent of Iran’s presumed nuclear weapons programme and the strategic implications of Iran’s continuing support for Hezbollah during the war with Israel. It has also emerged that terror cells backed by Iran may be prepared to mount attacks against nuclear power plants in Britain. Intelligence circulating in Whitehall suggests that sleeper cells linked to Tehran have been conducting reconnaissance at some nuclear sites in preparation for a possible attack. The parliamentary intelligence and security committee has reported that Iran represented one of the three biggest security threats to Britain. The UN security council has given Iran until the end of this month to halt its uranium enrichment activities. The UN has threatened sanctions if Tehran fails to do so. A senior Tanzanian customs official said the illicit uranium shipment was found hidden in a consignment of coltan, a rare mineral used to make chips in mobile telephones. The shipment was destined for smelting in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, delivered via Bandar Abbas, Iran’s biggest port. “There were several containers due to be shipped and they were all routinely scanned with a Geiger counter,” the official said. “This one was very radioactive. When we opened the container it was full of drums of coltan. Each drum contains about 50kg of ore. When the first and second rows were removed,the ones after that were found to be drums of uranium.” In a nuclear reactor, uranium 238 can be used to breed plutonium used in nuclear weapons. The customs officer, who spoke to The Sunday Times on condition he was not named, added: “The container was put in a secure part of the port and it was later taken away, by the Americans, I think, or at least with their help. We have all been told not to talk to anyone about this.” The report by the UN investigation team was submitted to the chairman of the UN sanctions committee, Oswaldo de Rivero, at the end of July and will be considered soon by the security council. It states that Tanzania provided “limited data” on three other shipments of radioactive materials seized in Dar es Salaam over the past 10 years. The experts said: “In reference to the last shipment from October 2005, the Tanzanian government left no doubt that the uranium was transported from Lubumbashi by road through Zambia to the united republic of Tanzania.” Lubumbashi is the capital of mineral-rich Katanga province, home of the Shinkolobwe uranium mine that produced material for the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. The mine has officially been closed since 1961, before the country’s independence from Belgium, but the UN investigators have told the security council that they found evidence of illegal mining still going on at the site. In 1999 there were reports that the Congolese authorities had tried to re-open the mine with the help of North Korea. In recent years miners are said to have broken open the lids and extracted ore from the shafts, while police and local authorities turned a blind eye. In June a parliamentary committee warned that Britain could be attacked by Iranian terrorists if tensions increased. A source with access to current MI5 assessments said: “There is great concern about Iranian sleeper cells inside this country. The intelligence services are taking this threat very seriously.” ---- Seized uranium was headed for Iran Aug. 6, 2006 Washington Times http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20060806-112731-4290r.htm A huge shipment of smuggled bomb-making uranium, uncovered by customs officials in Tanzania, was headed for Iran, a United Nations report says. The uranium came from the same central African mining area in Congo that produced the Hiroshima bomb, the Sunday Times of London reports. The disclosure, coming on the same day Iran said it would defy a U.N. Security Council resolution and expand its uranium enrichment, has heightened Western fears that Iran will use enriched uranium to make atomic bombs. A senior Tanzanian customs official told the newspaper the illegal uranium shipment was found hidden in drums of coltan, a rare mineral used to make chips for cellphones. The shipment was destined for smelting in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, delivered through Bandar Abbas, Iran's biggest port, the United Nations report says. Security officials at a port discovered the uranium 238 during a routine Geiger counter inspection to measure radiation. In a nuclear reactor, uranium 238 can used to breed plutonium used in nuclear weapons. ---- NUCLEAR WAR-FEAR Iran's smuggling of uranium from African mine uncovered Shipment of bomb-making material from 'closed' Congo site intercepted August 6, 2006 WorldNetDaily.com http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51405 Tanzanian customs officials have uncovered an Iranian smuggling operation transporting large quantities of bomb-making uranium from the same mines in the Congo that provided the nuclear material for the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima sixty-one years ago today, reports the London Sunday Times. A United Nations report, outlining the interception last October, said there is "no doubt" the smuggled uranium-238 came from mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo's mineral-rich Katanga province. The Shinkolobwe uranium mine was officially closed and its main shafts covered with concrete in 1961, before the country became independent from Belgium, but U.N. investigators have reported evidence of ongoing mining operations. In the late 1990s, the government allowed small-scale mining for cobalt, leading to uncontrolled and dangerous mining activities that grew to 6,000 miners a day entering the former Shinkolobwe mine site. The U.S. demanded that the Congalese government regain control over the site because of fears that uranium could be bought and sold on the black market. Despite a ban on access to Shinkolobwe issued by President Joseph Kabila in January 2004, nine people were killed in a collapse at the site in July of that year. "The situation in Shinkolobwe could be described as anarchistic - there is no respect for mining safety regulations," Bernard Lamouille, an expert in small-scale mining who participated in the U.N. assessment, told the Environment News Service. According to reports in 1999, Congolese authorities sought assistance from North Korea to re-open the mine. The smuggled uranium discovered by Tanzanian customs agents was hidden in shipment of coltan, a rare mineral used to make chips in mobile telephones. According to the manifest, the coltan was to be smelted in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan after being shipped to Bandar Abbas, Iran's largest port. "There were several containers due to be shipped and they were all routinely scanned with a Geiger counter," one customs official said. "This one was very radioactive. When we opened the container it was full of drums of coltan. Each drum contains about 50 kilograms of ore. When the first and second rows were removed, the ones after that were found to be drums of uranium." Uranium-238, when used in a nuclear reactor, can be used to create plutonium for nuclear weapons. "The container was put in a secure part of the port and it was later taken away, by the Americans, I think, or at least with their help," he said. "We have all been told not to talk to anyone about this." According to the U.N. report, which has been submitted to the sanctions committee, Tanzania provided "limited data" on three other shipments of radioactive materials seized over the past ten years. "In reference to the last shipment from October 2005," the report reads, "the Tanzanian government left no doubt that the uranium was transported from [Katanga province] by road through Zambia to the United Republic of Tanzania." ---- Seized uranium was headed for Iran Aug. 6, 2006 United Press International http://www.dailyindia.com/show/49005.php/UPI-NewsTrack-TopNews DODOMA, Tanzania (UPI) -- A huge shipment of smuggled bomb-making uranium, uncovered by customs officials in Tanzania, was headed for Iran, a United Nations report says. The uranium came from the same central African mining area in Congo that produced the Hiroshima bomb, the Sunday Times of London reports. The disclosure, coming on the same day Iran said it would defy a U.N. Security Council resolution and expand its uranium enrichment, has heightened Western fears that Iran will use enriched uranium to make atomic bombs. A senior Tanzanian customs official told the newspaper the illegal uranium shipment was found hidden in drums of coltan, a rare mineral used to make chips for cellphones. The shipment was destined for smelting in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, delivered through Bandar Abbas, Iran's biggest port, the United Nations report says. Security officials at a port discovered the uranium 238 during a routine Geiger counter inspection to measure radiation. In a nuclear reactor, uranium 238 can used to breed plutonium used in nuclear weapons. ---- Iran denies reported bid to import uranium from DR Congo by Staff Writers Tehran, Aug 6, 2006 (AFP) http://www.spacewar.com/reports/a060806125757.xptmmvg7.html Tehran on Sunday rejected a British newspaper report that Iran had tried to import uranium for its nuclear program from the Democratic Republic of Congo, calling it part of the West's "psychological war." The report "is utterly untrue, because we do not need to import uranium while we have uranium mines and a plant to reprocess it," Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani told reporters. "This is part of a psychological war which the Americans resort to once in a while to feed the public mind," Larijani added. Citing a senior Tanzanian customs officer, the British daily Sunday Times reported that a huge shipment of uranium 238, or U-238, bound for Iran's southern port of Bandar Abbas was intercepted on October 22, 2005 by customs officials in Tanzania during a routine check. The British publication also cited a United Nations report, due to be considered by the Security Council, which said there was "no doubt" that a large shipment of U-238 discovered in Tanzania was transported from the Lubumbashi mines in the DR Congo. The unnamed customs official said the uranium shipment was found hidden in a consignment of coltan, a rare mineral, which was destined for smelting in Kazakhstan after being transported through the Iranian port. U-238 is the stable heavyweight isotope which comprises more than 99 percent of raw uranium ore, but it is the lighter weight fissile isotope U-235, less than one percent of raw ore, which is the focus of enrichment processing because it can produce energy by splitting into smaller fragments. Larijani on Sunday also said his country would not suspend uranium enrichment, in a clear rejection of a UN resolution calling for a freeze of the sensitive nuclear work. Iran insists it wants to enrich uranium only to make reactor fuel for power stations but the West suspect Tehran wants the capacity to make weapons-grade uranium. A recent UN resolution called on Iran to halt uranium enrichment and other sensitive nuclear fuel work by August 31 or face the prospect of sanctions. -------- britain Reactor’s radioactive dirty laundry 06 August 2006 UK Sunday Herald By Rob Edwards http://www.sundayherald.com/57100 THE nuclear industry’s attempt to clean up its image in support of Tony Blair’s promised programme of new reactors has been marred by some dirty washing. The Sunday Herald can reveal that the laundry at Hunterston nuclear power station in North Ayrshire has sprung a leak. Radioactive water escaped from a tank, causing it to be shut down. The revelation is described as “very worrying” by anti-nuclear campaigners, who are calling for an independent investigation. But British Energy, the company that runs Hunterston, dismisses the leak as a “relatively minor occurrence”. Overalls worn by workers in contaminated areas have to be washed in Hunterston’s laundry to remove traces of radioactivity. Dirty water from the wash is pumped into two tanks, where it is stored before being disposed of. But on the night of 18-19 July one of the tanks started leaking. As a result, British Energy has stopped using it while it carries out repairs. According to the company, waste water leaked only into a contained area around the tank and the levels of radioactivity in the water were “negligible”. But this was little comfort to Rita Holmes, who represents Fairlie Community Council on the Hunterston Site Stakeholder Group. “It makes it sound like Hunterston is falling to bits,” she said. “British Energy can’t even seem to do its dirty laundry without making a radioactive mess. The incident casts doubt on the competence of the nuclear industry and should be immediately investigated by the safety regulators.” According to British Energy, however, the incident did not breach any regulations so did not have to be formally notified to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. “The leak was identified quickly and immediate action taken,” stressed the company’s spokeswoman, Sue Fletcher. “At no time did water leak outside the building.” She said: “Laundry water is currently being stored in and discharged from the second tank only until repairs are completed. We are one tank down, but the procedure for discharges remains the same, and we continue to be well within consented discharge limits.” ---- Nuclear power links to 'sham' energy review Firm that handled submissions 'misrepresented' benefits of atomic power Juliette Jowit, environment editor Sunday August 6, 2006 The UK Observer http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1838079,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=15 Key consultants working on the government's controversial energy review, which recommended a new generation of nuclear power stations, have strong links to the nuclear industry, The Observer can reveal. Experts on both sides of the debate criticised the use of AEA Technology, formed by the privatisation of the Atomic Energy Authority, to handle hundreds of submissions to the review's public consultation earlier this year. The company has sold most of its nuclear businesses, but still has a nuclear waste unit, and senior executives and staff have links to the old authority and other parts of the nuclear industry. Critics claim objections to nuclear energy were ignored or misrepresented in AEA Technology's report. However, The Observer can reveal that the report found nuclear power got by far the lowest support of 15 energy options. The revelations will add to widespread criticism that the review, published last month, was a 'sham', designed to push through nuclear energy because it was favoured by the Prime Minister. Dai Davies, the independent MP whose question in the House of Commons forced ministers to reveal the identity of the consultants, said he was not anti-nuclear but was worried the company's industry links would undermine public confidence in the review. 'I wondered why it [nuclear] was being pushed and pushed and pushed,' said Davies, who stood as an independent after quitting Labour because he felt it had changed too much. 'Vested interests is the worry... Unless we are open and honest and debate openly, that suspicion is going to be with us for a long, long time.' David Moorhouse, chief executive of Lloyd's Register, the risk management group which has analysed risks in the energy industry, said he also does not oppose nuclear, but was worried about using a company 'whose livelihoods depended on nuclear up until their sale into the private industry'. He said: 'While AEA may have given this its absolute best and neutral approach, it doesn't smell like that to the average man.' Other experts who made submissions said they felt their evidence was underplayed and misrepresented; that there were concerns that ministers allowed only 12 weeks for the consultation; and that it was done before other important studies on nuclear waste and safety regulation were published. There was praise, however, for AEA's publication of a summary table of the most-supported low-carbon technologies, which showed that nuclear power was the only one of the 15 to get more opposition than support. The widest support was for wind power, solar and bio-fuels. Of the 18 responses included in the summary which commented on nuclear, 10 were opposed to the nuclear option and eight were in favour. The 10 opposing submissions were all from individuals, the eight favourable responses were all from organisation. 'There's a great gulf between what's in the review and what's in the submissions,' said Bob Everett, lecturer in renewable energy at the Open University. 'When I think of all the people who sent in submissions, I think they'll be very, very angry, but not surprised.' AEA Technology defended its professionalism, saying it wins work around the world because it has wide expertise beyond the nuclear industry and by 'being respected for the quality and independence of our work'. The company's clients include the European Commission, the World Bank and the UN. 'AEA Environment is a large independent environmental and energy consultancy,' it said. 'As well as covering the full breadth of environmental issues, we are acknowledged to be experts in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean coal technology. We are also acknowledged to have experience and skills in independently assessing the results of consultations on these and other environmental issues.' The DTI said AEA Technology was chosen to help with the review because of its 'experience of this kind of work and in a broad range of sustainable energy issues'. A spokesman also defended the resulting review. 'We considered evidence received on energy policy in the round - both demand and supply - and the outcomes are a balanced package of measures on energy efficiency, on renewables, on cleaning up fossil fuels and on nuclear energy,' he added. Last month Stephen Hale, the former special advisor to the previous Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, wrote in The Observer that the energy review was a 'sham' and the Prime Minister 'refused to consider the alternatives'. Since the review, nuclear power has suffered a number of set-backs. The Finnish government announced that construction of the first of a new generation of nuclear power stations in Europe, seen as an important forerunner for the UK, would be delayed by a year. During the recent heatwave nuclear reactors in mainland Europe have had to be shut down, and others allowed to release harmful hot water into rivers. The US-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service opposition group also reported uranium prices have risen 600 per cent in five years, threatening nuclear's traditional operating cost advantage. Special report The nuclear industry http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/nuclear/0,,181325,00.html Useful links British Energy http://www.british-energy.com/ Department of Trade and Industry http://www.dti.gov.uk/ British Nuclear Fuels Ltd http://www.bnfl.com/ Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament http://www.cnduk.org/ Greenpeace http://www.greenpeace.org/homepage/ Come Clean WMD awareness programme http://www.comeclean.org.uk/ UK atomic energy authority http://www.ukaea.org.uk/ National Radiological Protection Board http://www.nrpb.org.uk/ Friends of the Earth http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/dump_nuclear/index.html World Nuclear Association http://www.uilondon.org/ World Nuclear Transport Institute http://www.wnti.co.uk/ -------- iran Iran plans to expand nuclear activities Updated 8/6/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-06-iran-nuclear_x.htm TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Sunday that Iran will expand uranium enrichment, in defiance of a U.N. Security Council resolution giving the Islamic Republic until Aug. 31 to halt the activity or face the threat of political and economic sanctions. Ali Larijani called the U.N. Security Council resolution issued last week illegal and said Iran won't respect the deadline. "We reject this resolution," he told reporters. "We will expand nuclear activities where required. It includes all nuclear technology including the string of centrifuges," Larijani said, referring to the centrifuges Iran uses to enrich uranium. He said Iran had not violated any of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, and that the U.N. had no right to require it suspend enrichment. "We won't accept suspension," he said. Larijani said the Security Council resolution contradicted a package of Western incentives offered in June to persuade Tehran to suspend its enrichment activities. He reiterated that Iran would formally respond to the incentives package on Aug. 22. Iran has said it will never give up its right to produce nuclear fuel, but has indicated it may suspend large-scale activities to ease tensions with the West. Larijani said the world should blame the United States and its allies for acting against their proposed package and seeking to deny Iran its rights under the NPT. The United States has accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran maintains its program is peaceful and intended to generate electricity. In February, Iran for the first time produced a batch of low-enriched uranium, using a cascade of 164 centrifuges. The process of uranium enrichment can be used to generate electricity or to create an atomic weapon, depending on the level of enrichment. Iran said it plans to install 3,000 centrifuges at its enrichment plant in Natanz, central Iran, by the end of the year. Industrial production of enriched uranium in Natanz would require 54,000 centrifuges. Hard-liners within Iran's ruling Islamic establishment have called on the government to withdraw from the NPT in response to the U.N. resolution, but the government has not heeded the call. ---- Iran insists it will not freeze nuclear work by Hiedeh Farmani Tehran, Aug 6, 2006 (AFP) http://www.spacewar.com/reports/a060806113456.7qwh2gfj.html Iran insisted Sunday it will not freeze uranium enrichment, in defiance of a UN resolution and warned it could even expand its nuclear programme which the West fears is a cover for efforts to build the bomb. "Our activities respect the Non-Proliferation Treaty... so we will not accept the suspension (of uranium enrichment)," nuclear chief Ali Larijani told a news conference, in the first formal reaction to the July 31 resolution. "They should know that such resolutions will not affect our determination. We will pursue the nuclear rights of Iranians which are enshrined in the NPT." The UN Security Council resolution requires Iran to halt uranium enrichment and other sensitive nuclear fuel work by August 31 or face the prospect of sanctions. "This resolution has no legal credibility and it negates the purpose of the (International Atomic Energy) Agency," Larijani said. The resolution was pushed through after Iran ignored a previous non-binding deadline and failed to respond to an international offer of a package of incentives in exchange for a moratorium on nuclear fuel work. Iran, OPEC's second largest oil exporter, insists it wants to enrich uranium only to make reactor fuel for power stations, but there is widespread suspicion the country wants the capacity to make weapons-grade uranium. And Larijani warned world powers against imposing sanctions, suggesting that Iran could use oil as a weapon. "It will have a huge international impact. They will lose more than us. They should not do something that will leave them shivering in winter". Larijani also said that Iran could expand its nuclear activities by increasing the cascade of centrifuges used for uranium enrichment. In April, Iran said it had successfully enriched uranium to 3.5 percent using 164 centrifuges. It also plans to install 3,000 centrifuges at its enrichment plant in Natanz, central Iran, by the end of the Iranian year in March 2007. To reach weapons-grade material, the enrichment level has to reach more than 90 percent. Larijani however said that Iran was still studying the package of incentives offered by Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States on June 6, saying it "had the potential to resolve the nuclear issues". The package, handed to Tehran on June 6, offers trade, technology, diplomatic and other incentives as well as multilateral talks -- also involving the United States -- if Iran agrees to freeze enrichment. Larijani said Iran would respond to the offer by August 22, but that the UN resolution had "badly affected the opportunity (represented by the offer) and our attitude". "The question is not what Iran's response will be, but to create an atmosphere to pursue the process (of negotiations)." "The proposal has positive points as well as ambiguities. Negotiations must be constructive and away from pressure, to enable the ambiguities to be removed," he added. "Even if they (the UN Security Council members) have any reasons to (demand) suspension of enrichment they should address them in negotiations. But they cannot prescribe it before talks," he said. The Security Council has charged IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei with reporting back on Iranian compliance. If it does not comply, the council would consider adopting "appropriate measures" under Article 41 of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which relates to economic sanctions. ---- Iran Vows More Atom Work By REUTERS August 6, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-nuclear-iran.html?pagewanted=print TEHRAN - Iran vowed on Sunday to expand its atomic fuel work and warned that any U.N. sanctions aimed at halting its uranium enrichment would incur a painful riposte, possibly including a cut in oil exports. Chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Iran would expand the number of atomic centrifuges it was running. Centrifuges enrich uranium by spinning it at supersonic speeds. ``We will expand nuclear technology at whatever stage it may be necessary and all of Iran's nuclear technology including the (centrifuge) cascades will be expanded,'' he told a news conference. Such remarks flatly reject a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding Tehran halt its nuclear work by August 31 or face the threat of sanctions. The West fears Iran will use enriched uranium to make atomic bombs. Iranian officials, who argue they need enriched uranium only to run power stations, say the resolution was illegal and that Tehran has every right to produce fuel from the uranium ore that it mines in its central deserts. Iran said in April it had produced enriched uranium from a cascade of 164 centrifuges. It has told the International Atomic Energy Agencyit will start installing 3,000 centrifuges later this year, enough to produce material for a nuclear warhead in one year. IRAN WILL HIT BACK AGAINST SANCTIONS Larijani said the expansion of atomic work would be conducted under the supervision of the IAEA but even that could be in question if Iran felt unfairly treated. ``We do not want to end the supervision of the agency, but you should not do anything to force Iran to do so,'' he said. He warned the U.N. Security Council not to impose sanctions on the world's fourth biggest exporter of crude oil. ``If they do, we will react in a way that would be painful for them. They should not think that they can hurt us and we would stand still without a reaction,'' he said. ``We do not want to use the oil weapon, it is they who would impose it upon us. Iran should be allowed to defend its rights in proportion to their stance,'' he added. Although Iran has intermittently threatened to use its massive oil exports as a weapon in international diplomacy, Tehran receives 80 percent of its export earnings from energy and would find such a cut hard to maintain. ``Do not force us to do something that will make people shiver in the cold. We do not want that,'' said Larijani, stressing Iran's reluctance to cut energy supplies. Iranian officials often say that sanctions would hurt the West more than Tehran by lifting already high oil prices to levels that would be unmanageable for industrialised economies. However, analysts and diplomats point out Iran's economy would be highly vulnerable to sanctions on gasoline imports, European financing and industrial components. ---- Iran Vows to Expand Uranium Enrichment By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS August 6, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-Nuclear.html?pagewanted=print TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran vowed Sunday to expand its uranium enrichment, defying a U.N. Security Council deadline for it to suspend its nuclear activities by the end of the month or face the threat of political and economic sanctions. Top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani's statement was Tehran's first warning since the resolution passed that it could step up its atomic program. It suggested Iran is feeling emboldened in its main confrontation with the West, over its nuclear program, as Europe and the United States scramble to deal with the escalating violence between Israel and Lebanon-based Hezbollah militants. ''We will expand nuclear activities where required. It includes all nuclear technology including the string of centrifuges,'' Larijani said, referring to the equipment Iran uses to enrich uranium, which can be used as fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile material for an atomic warhead. Iran also gave its Hezbollah allies a green light to keep fighting in Lebanon, saying that the United States -- which put forward a cease-fire plan with France Saturday -- can't be a mediator in the crisis because of its support for Israel. The U.S. has ''no right to enter the crisis as a mediator'' in the Mideast fighting, hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a telephone conversation with his top ally, Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to a report on Ahmadinejad's official Web site. ''They (the U.S.) think that through the U.N and the Security Council they can achieve the goals which they could not achieve militarily,'' he said. The outbreak of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah -- triggered by a July 12 militant raid into Israel that ended with the capture of two Israeli soldiers -- has moved the focus of the Security Council's attention from its efforts to halt Iran's uranium enrichment program. Many in the U.S., Europe, the Arab world and Israel accuse Iran of fueling the warfare in Lebanon through Hezbollah in a bid to show its regional strength. Iran denies that it is arming the guerrillas and says it wants a cease-fire -- but on terms fair to Lebanon. Meanwhile, the United States and many in Europe also accuse Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, though Iran denies the claim, saying it aims only to generate electricity. Larijani denounced the July 31 U.N. nuclear vote as ''illegal'' and said, ''We reject this resolution.'' Larijani said Iran intends to meet Tehran's previously announced goal of responding by Aug. 22 to a package of incentives put forward in June by the U.S. and Western nations to entice Iran into suspending enrichment. The United Nations said the sanctions threat in the deadline would be revoked if Iran accepts the package -- but the resolution reflected Western impatience over the months Tehran has taken to respond to the offer. Larijani said the deadline threat was ''contrary'' to the incentives package and blamed the West for damaging efforts for a diplomatic solution. ''We were expected to hold talks ... to remove ambiguities ... but they issued a resolution (at the U.N. Security Council) and killed it (talks). They should explain why they damaged the path of dialogue,'' he said. Larijani insisted the U.N. had no right to require Iran suspend enrichment, saying his country has not violated any of its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty. He said any expansion of enrichment would remain under the supervision of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. The U.S. and France agreed last week on a draft U.N. resolution calling for a cease-fire, but Hezbollah has effectively rejected it, saying it doesn't address Lebanese demands and would leave Israeli troops in Lebanon for the time being. Saeed Laylaz, an Iranian political analyst, said the Mideast fighting has prompted Iran to toughen its line on the nuclear issue and ''conclude that the West is intent on confronting Iran. It shows how the situation has exacerbated in the Mideast.'' A cease-fire on the terms laid out in the draft resolution could be a setback for Hezbollah, which has won support across the region by the tougher than expected fight it has put up against the Israeli military. Iran's comments Sunday signaled that it wouldn't back down easily on either front, Lebanon or the nuclear issue. Iran's state-run radio said in a commentary that Iran was serious in its defiance of the U.N. resolution demanding a suspension of enrichment. ''Iran stands ready to pay the necessary price in defending the rights of the Iranian nation,'' it said. -------- israel U.S. & Israel Selecting Targets for Cruise Missile First-Strike Attack Date: Sun Aug 6, 2006 8:41 am From: "Global Network" U.S. & Israel Selecting Targets for Cruise Missile First-Strike Attack Multiple military sources have told the Global Network that Pentagon personnel responsible for selecting targets for cruise missile first strike attacks have been sent to Israel. This indicates that U.S. and Israeli military strategists are now likely meeting to plan a join attack on Syria and/or Iran. The Persian Gulf war and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq both began with cruise missile attacks by the U.S. from Naval ships. It would be wise to recognize that Bush has decided to expand the current war and chaos into the entire Middle East region. The implications for the U.S. will be enormous. Israel's recent bombing of Lebanon near the Syrian border indicate to me that they are trying to draw a response from Syria. So far Syria has not responded. Look for more such efforts by Israel and the U.S. to provoke Syria. I would highly recommend local peace groups call on their members of Congress and ask them to speak out against a further widening of this already insane war. More and larger public protests should be organized immediately. Bruce K. Gagnon Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 729-0517 http://www.space4peace.org globalnet@mindspring.com http://space4peace.blogspot.com (our blog) -------- japan Memories still strong for Japanese A-bomb survivors August 6, 2006 The Yomiuri Shimbun http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060806/NEWS/608060339/1002/NEWS01 HIROSHIMA, Japan — Survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, have mixed feelings about the recent interest in the battleship Yamato, another symbol of World War II, which was built in a dockyard in Kure, Hiroshima Prefecture. The number of visitors to the Yamato Museum in Kure exceeded 2 million in July, reflecting the box-office success of the war movie "Yamato," which earned 5 billion yen in theaters. But for Yasuo Yasugi, a 78-year-old former crew member of the giant battleship, the museum is not the place where his strongest wartime memory rests. Yasugi was walking along a riverbank in Hiroshima the day after the bomb explosion when someone suddenly grabbed his right leg. "Give me water, please," a boy said in a faint voice. Yamato had 3,332 crewmembers on board when it sank in April 1945. Only 276 survived. Yasugi is one of five people, out of less than 30 crewmembers alive today, who suffered a double tragedy in being exposed to radiation in Hiroshima. He was involved in a training mission on the outskirts of Kure when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and was ordered to join reconstruction efforts at Hiroshima Station the next day. There were numerous casualties in the city, but Yasugi and other men were ordered not to engage in rescue efforts. They were told to give priority to re-building the station, which was a strategic point for the military supply line. Yasugi, who now lives in Fukuyama, Hiroshima Prefecture, regrets following the order and not helping the boy. He has never returned to that riverbank. He also kept the story to himself for 60 years until his memoir, "Battleship Yamato, a Will of the Last Crew," was published last year. "I want the younger generations to think deeply about what human life means," he said, explaining what motivated him to write the book. Sunao Tsuboi, another survivor of the atomic bomb attack and chairman of the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organization, paid a visit to the Yamato Museum in April. The 81-year-old Tsuboi saw the real Yamato being built in a naval dockyard in Kure before the war while on his way to school. He was struck by a sense of nostalgia in seeing a one-tenth-scale model of Yamato in the museum. "I used to be a pro-military boy who believed Japan would never lose as long as we had the Yamato," he said. But Tsuboi was not satisfied with the exhibition at the museum because it showed only one piece related to the atomic bomb — a picture of a mushroom cloud taken in Kure. "The reality behind the atomic bomb explosion can get obscured by all the craze about Yamato," he said.Tsuboi felt the bomb explosion 61 years ago, just over a kilometer away from ground zero. He still has a scar on his forehead from the burn he suffered from the ensuing heat wave. Sunday, the 61st anniversary of the horrific event, will be just another day for Tsuboi to continue his life's work of telling children what people experienced in Hiroshima on that day. ---- A-bomb survivors leery of battleship hype The Yomiuri Shimbun Aug. 6, 2006 http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20060806TDY03001.htm Survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, have mixed feelings about the recent interest in the battleship Yamato, another symbol of World War II, which was built in a dockyard in Kure, Hiroshima Prefecture. The number of visitors to the Yamato Museum in Kure exceeded 2 million in July, reflecting the box-office success of the war movie "Yamato," which earned 5 billion yen in theaters. But for Yasuo Yasugi, a 78-year-old former crew member of the giant battleship, the museum is not the place where his strongest wartime memory rests. Yasugi was walking along a riverbank in Hiroshima the day after the bomb explosion when someone suddenly grabbed his right leg. "Give me water, please," a boy said in a faint voice. Yamato had 3,332 crew members on board when it sank in April 1945. Only 276 survived. Yasugi is one of five people, out of less than 30 crew members alive today, who suffered a double tragedy in being exposed to radiation in Hiroshima. He was involved in a training mission on the outskirts of Kure when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and was ordered to join reconstruction efforts at Hiroshima Station the next day. There were numerous casualties in the city, but Yasugi and other men were ordered not to engage in rescue efforts. They were told to give priority to building the station, which was a strategic point for the military supply line. Yasugi, who now lives in Fukuyama, Hiroshima Prefecture, regrets following the order and not helping the boy. He has never returned to that riverbank. He also kept the story to himself for 60 years until his memoir, "Battleship Yamato, a Will of the Last Crew," was published last year. "I want the younger generations to think deeply about what human life means," he said, explaining what motivated him to write the book. Sunao Tsuboi, another survivor of the atomic bomb attack and chairman of the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organization, paid a visit to the Yamato Museum in April. The 81-year-old Tsuboi saw the real Yamato being built in a naval dockyard in Kure before the war while on his way to school. He was struck by a sense of nostalgia in seeing a one-tenth-scale model of Yamato in the museum. "I used to be a pro-military boy who believed Japan would never lose as long as we had the Yamato," he said. But Tsuboi was not satisfied with the exhibition at the museum because it showed only one piece related to the atomic bomb--a picture of a mushroom cloud taken in Kure. "The reality behind the atomic bomb explosion can get obscured by all the craze about Yamato," he said. Tsuboi felt the bomb explosion 61 years ago, just over a kilometer away from ground zero. He still has a scar on his forehead from the burn he suffered from the ensuing heat wave. Today, the 61st anniversary of the horrific event, will be just another day for Tsuboi to continue his life's work of telling children what people experienced in Hiroshima on that day. ---- Peace declaration skirts new nuclear threat The Yomiuri Shimbun Aug. 6, 2006 http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/20060806TDY04006.htm Why could the tragic atomic bombings of Japan in 1945 not have been avoided? Today marks the 61st anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and Wednesday will mark the same for Nagasaki. Is it not time to begin calmly discussing responsibility for the atomic bombings without being swayed by the ideological or political confrontation between conservative and progressive forces? The rules of engagement agreed on by warring parties in World War II prohibited the use of weapons that inflict unnecessary suffering and attacks on defenseless cities. Some observers suggest the atomic bombings could violate this agreement. Just 10 years have passed since the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an advisory opinion that, in general, the use of nuclear weapons violates international law. Even in the cities obliterated by the atomic bombs in 1945, movements have sprouted that question why the bombs were dropped and where responsibility for their development and the decision to drop them rests. In July, a mock international trial organized in Hiroshima by citizens, mainly atomic bomb victims and lawyers, found 15 Americans treated as defendants, including former U.S. President Harry Truman, who made the final decision to use the atomic bombs, guilty of committing crimes against humanity through their roles in the process that eventually led to the bombs being dropped. Differing perceptions In the United States, the commonly accepted view is that the atomic bombings helped hasten the end of the war, thereby reducing the number of war casualties that could have been expected had the fighting dragged on. Although a wide perception gap over the atomic bombings remains between Japan and the United States, discussing the matter is imperative. The mock trial likely was held in a mood of anti-U.S. sentiment typical of many conventional antinuclear movements. Calm, rational discussion was at a premium in the trial. Some observers suggest the atomic bombings could have been avoided if the war had ended earlier. Chances for the guns to fall silent sooner they did presented themselves many times, such as the time of Germany's surrender, the end of fighting on Okinawa, and the announcement of the Potsdam Declaration in which the Allied Powers presented Japan with conditions for its surrender. Discussion on responsibility for the destruction wrought by the atomic bombs also must home in on the actions of Japan's leaders and why they dilly-dallied when it come to ending the war. A missed chance Days commemorating the atomic bombings will come about one month after North Korea test-fired seven missiles, which could be used to carry nuclear warheads, in defiance of warnings from the international community. Hiroshima and Nagasaki officials have a prime opportunity to issue a message conveying the atomic bomb victims' anger over Pyongyang's brazen act. However, Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba will not touch upon such a message in the Peace Declaration he will make Sunday. Instead, the pillar of his declaration will be an action program that urges 1,403 cities in the world belonging to the "Mayors for Peace," an organization headed by Akiba, to press nuclear powers to confirm whether their cities are targets of the weapons and, if they are, to exclude them from the target list. But would any nation realistically disclose top military secrets, such as which cities are in its nuclear sights? If Akiba's declaration throws up only starry-eyed slogans far removed from the current international situation, he will be turning a blind eye to the gravest nuclear attack threat facing Japan. ---- Pilgrims in Hiroshima pray for peace on 61st anniversary Thousands call on world leaders to abandon nukes By ISSEI KATO Reuters News Service Aug. 6, 2006 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4097362.html HIROSHIMA, JAPAN - Tens of thousands of people from around the world gathered in Hiroshima today to pray for peace and urge the world to abandon nuclear weapons on the 61st anniversary of the first atomic bombing. In an annual ritual to mourn the more than 240,000 people who ultimately died from the blast, a crowd including survivors, children and dignitaries gathered at the Peace Memorial Park, near ground zero where the bomb was dropped. "Radiation, heat, blast and their synergetic effects created a hell on Earth," said Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba. Lamenting a global trend toward nuclear proliferation, Akiba called for a campaign to free the world of atomic weapons. "Sixty-one years later, the number of nations enamored of evil and enslaved by nuclear weapons is increasing," Akiba told the crowd gathered under a blazing summer sun. "The human family stands at a crossroads. Will all nations be enslaved? Or will all nations be liberated?" The Peace Bell tolled at 8:15 a.m. — the moment the Enola Gay B-29 warplane dropped the bomb on Aug. 6, 1945 — as the crowd stood and bowed their heads for a moment of silence. The United States dropped a second atomic bomb on the southern city of Nagasaki on Aug. 9. Six days later, Japan surrendered. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi vowed to abide by Japan's pacifist constitution and nonnuclear policy. "Japan, the only country that has suffered atomic bombings in the human history, has the responsibility to keep telling the international community about its experience," Koizumi said. "With the resolve not to let the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki repeat itself anywhere, Japan has delivered on its pledge not to wage war in the past 61 years." Under Koizumi, Japan has enacted legislation allowing its troops to play a greater security role abroad and sent soldiers to Iraq on a reconstruction and humanitarian mission, the military's largest and riskiest operation since 1945. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed fear that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of "nonstate actors." "More than six decades after the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the unspeakable horror of nuclear weapons remain etched in our collective consciousness," Annan said in a message read on his behalf during the 45-minute ceremony. "The worrying possibility of dangerous nuclear material falling into the hands of nonstate actors should energize efforts to strengthen the nonproliferation regime." Photos: Tens of thousands call for peace at A-bomb anniversary http://english.people.com.cn/200608/06/eng20060806_290347.html ---- A voice for healing A woman who survived Hiroshima as a child and built a new life in the U.S. heads back to her homeland, bearing a musical message of peace, love and hope for the future Sunday, August 06, 2006 KATY MULDOON The Oregonian http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/living/1154742939314890.xml&coll=7 A bright day had faded to dark in Ashland, and although Hideko Tamura Snider was tired, she sat tall in a church's front pew, clasping her hands as tightly as a mother might hold a child's. She wasn't praying. She was listening. At the altar, her 33-year-old daughter, Miko Rose, rehearsed a solo, filling the First Congregational Church with her sweet, resonant voice. The notes she sang were familiar: the tune to "Danny Boy." But Miko had crafted new lyrics, so the song would honor Hideko's mother, lost long ago to war. With just a month left before she, her mother and others in the Rogue Valley Peace Choir planned to leave for performances in Japan, Miko needed to perfect her "Prayer for Hiroshima." It was Hideko's idea: Her choir should take its message of peace and harmony to Japan, particularly during a year when bloodshed dominates the world's headlines. She was glad when Miko agreed to join the program, singing "Prayer for Hiroshima" today near the spot where their family's history, and the world's, changed 61 years ago. On that Aug. 6, Hideko (pronounced HEE-decko) was 11 years old, relaxing on a sunny morning at her grandfather's home a mile from ground zero, when the atomic bomb fell. Silver-haired now and wearing the graceful creases of 72 years around her eyes, she evokes the quiet wisdom of a woman who has worked a lifetime to heal herself and others. Still, the memories bring tears. Hideko expects them to brim in her brown eyes today, when Miko sings her solo during a ceremony in Hiroshima's Peace Memorial Park. If spirits and souls rest there, Hideko said, "they will be calmed by her singing -- because one grain of wheat survived." World War II raged. To safeguard children from bombings, Japanese authorities ordered them to evacuate the cities. Hideko was 11 years old with short black bangs and a mischievous smile. Her parents prepared her belongings and packed her a lunch bursting with hard-to-find treats: eggs, fishcakes, sweet beans and shiitake mushrooms. And before dawn on April 10, 1945, they watched their daughter and a swarm of her schoolmates board a train that chugged away from Hiroshima's station. Some children wept for hours as they traveled toward a mountain village, where they would live together in a temple and attend the village school. As she remembers it, life in exile was a miserable mix of substandard schooling, forced labor, hunger, head lice and homesickness. Toothaches plagued Hideko, and her stomach churned with anxiety. She begged to come home, and, eventually, her parents relented. On the afternoon of Aug. 4, 1945, Hideko's mother, Kimiko Tamura, traveled from Hiroshima to collect her daughter. Her mother suggested they stay an extra day in the village and rest before the return trip. But persuasive Hideko insisted they get home as quickly as possible. They left at dawn the next day, Aug. 5. After traveling by horse cart and truck, they arrived that afternoon back at her grandfather's tranquil, walled estate a mile from Hiroshima's center. Hideko couldn't have been happier. She woke the next morning on her own futon in her own room. On her breakfast tray was rice porridge and a soft pickled plum. The sky was bright and the day stretched ahead, full of promise. Her mother was taller than most Japanese women and preferred Western styles to kimonos. With her large, expressive eyes and long lashes, Kimiko Tamura turned heads, her daughter remembers. That morning, she had to work on the mandatory community task of demolishing vacant buildings to reduce the fire danger from bombings. Hiroshima's homes and industrial buildings were constructed largely of wood, so fire was a constant concern. In her autobiography, "One Sunny Day: A Child's Memories of Hiroshima" (Open Court, 244 pages, $17.95), Hideko recalls walking her mother to the backdoor. In her gentle, soft-spoken manner, she told Hideko, "See you in just a short time." Hideko returned to bed. A breeze blew through the bedroom window, and she picked up a book, the story of a samurai duel. About 7:15 a.m., the air-raid siren blared. She'd heard it before and had practiced running to a shelter. She turned on the radio to get details. Three enemy planes -- not many by war standards -- were headed toward Hiroshima. One hour later, a B-29 called the Enola Gay dropped the atomic bomb -- dubbed "Little Boy" -- on Hiroshima. "On that day . . . the sun and the earth melted together," Hideko wrote many years later in the book she penned so that her daughter and son would know the story. She remembers the blinding flash and the thermal wind's swift, swishing sound, like a rushing waterfall. Then boom! A thunderous explosion shook the ground, her home -- everything -- so violently that, 61 years later, she hasn't forgotten the terror she felt. Hideko braced her little-girl body between a heavy beam and a cupboard, but she couldn't stay upright. As thick, black air swirled, the room's contents crashed around and on top of her. Finally, the shaking stopped and the wind calmed. The sooty air began to clear. The beam Hideko grabbed had protected her. She dug out of the debris and got a glimpse outside the house. In her grandfather's garden, the sun shone on mossy rocks, as if nothing had happened. Glass had sliced open Hideko's right foot, and bruises marred her skin. But compared with what she was about to see, she was in good shape. Inside the garden gate, she found her uncle. Shards of glass protruded from his body, and a nail was imbedded in his throat. He was alive but kept saying that the end had come. Hideko remembered her mother's warning: If she ever survived a bombing, she should run because fire surely would follow. Sure enough, she saw a fireball rising from a nearby factory. She begged her dazed aunts and uncles to leave with her. None did. Outside her home's walls, Hideko found flattened buildings, ongoing explosions and billows of smoke. Bloodied neighbors wandered the streets in shock. Many were so hideously burned that blistered skin hung from their limbs like strips of fabric. Hideko moved, as her mother had taught, toward the Ota River, where she could wash her bleeding foot and, if need be, escape fire. Where, she wondered, were her parents? Her mother had been in the city center and her father, a draftee in the Imperial Japanese Army, worked as a transportation officer at Hiroshima's harbor. In the days that followed, she accepted rides, meals and beds from strangers. A farmer who helped her also tracked down her father, told him that Hideko was OK and relayed the message back that she was to reunite with uncles, aunts and her grandmother, who had taken refuge in a guest room, 50 miles outside Hiroshima. She did, but soon returned to the city with relatives to search for her mother and a cousin. At rescue stations they encountered the burned, the barely living and, mostly, the dead. Hideko remembers the charred skin and the stench. She recalls someone begging for water, and how helpless she felt with none to give. She found neither her mother nor her cousin, who was her best friend. But others had seen them. Both, she learned, were dead. In the weeks that followed, Hideko recalls, many who didn't appear injured grew ill with rashes, vomiting and bleeding gums. The radiation poisoning killed some swiftly. Estimates vary dramatically, but of the roughly 255,000 people living in the southern Japan city, it's thought that 66,000 to 110,000 died the day the bomb fell. Most were civilians. By December, casualties from the bomb and its effects rose to as many as 140,000, according to the A-Bomb WWW Museum, an online project of Hiroshima City University and others. In the years that followed, bomb-related deaths climbed to perhaps 200,000 as radiation poisoning and cancer claimed survivors. Many children born after the bombing suffered physical and mental defects. The psychological toll on survivors is immeasurable. And many who lived through the blast became outcasts: Men declined to marry survivors because of the risk they might not bear healthy children. Some employers wouldn't hire survivors, fearing health problems would hamper their attendance and productivity. To this day, people worldwide debate whether the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and on Nagasaki three days later were necessary to swiftly end the war. But this was the U.S. view: Roughly 200,000 American lives already had been lost fighting the Japanese; 72,000 Americans died in the Battle of Okinawa, and many more would have died, it was expected, if the United States invaded Japan. By the end of August, the radiation poisoning that had sickened others struck Hideko. She felt exhausted, and her legs grew as scaly as a lizard's. Hideko remembers counting the lesions that appeared on her thighs, shins and calves, losing track at 75. Boils turned to scabs, and her fever rose until she was delirious. The army had detained her father to help dismantle the military and to clear corpses and debris from the city. But Hideko was so sick that the family sent for him. One passage in her book describes what happened next: Her father's sister had just arrived from an island with what she called a special cure -- a live snapping turtle. Her father was to behead it and collect the blood for Hideko to drink. Reluctantly, she swallowed the vile fluid. The next morning her fever fell. She recovered. Hideko and her father lived in the countryside with relatives for the next three years. Finally, they returned to Hiroshima, where her father sent Hideko to a Methodist mission high school that employed American teachers. He figured it would be important for her to learn English in order to thrive in the postwar world. School, especially learning English, was difficult, but Hideko's home life felt harder still. Her father remarried, and her relationship with his new bride was, at best, uneasy. In the throes of adolescence, living every day with the emotional scars the bomb had carved, Hideko sank into deep depression. She remembers plotting suicide, and got as far as the tracks, where she intended to throw herself in front of a train. But an old man had just beaten her to that fate. His shoes, she remembers, sat next to the tracks, unharmed. She returned home. Back at school, Hideko met a visiting African American minister who preached about rising above oppression and the value in helping others do the same. His message gripped her, and he gave Hideko an idea: She could get the college education she wanted, in social work and theology, in the United States. At the minister's suggestion, she applied to Bennett College, a traditionally black, women's school in Greensboro, N.C. The minister's church in Harlem collected money to pay for her boat passage, and on Sept. 4, 1952, 18-year-old Hideko left Hiroshima. For Hideko, schooling worked like therapy. In "Casework 101," she learned about such basic human requirements as the need to feel safe. She studied the dynamics of relationships. She listened to lectures on separation, abandonment, survivor guilt and the damage that confronting death can cause to body and psyche. She began to understand that just because she routinely had visions of her late mother, and of her own death, didn't mean she was crazy. "It was almost," she said recently, "like being released from a prison of self-blame. . . . I was hungry for healing." By studying what others who suffered and grieved had required to heal, Hideko began to close the wounds she'd carried since the day the bomb fell on Hiroshima. Eventually, she earned graduate degrees from McCormick Theological Seminary and from the University of Chicago, which has required its social-work students to read her autobiography, its foreword written by author Studs Terkel. After 10 years studying in the United States, Hideko returned to Hiroshima. But opportunities seemed few, and the grief she associated with her hometown overwhelmed her. To heal and to live, Hideko decided she had to leave. She would make her life in America and would spend her career as a clinical social worker and psychotherapist in the Chicago area. She went on to help others learn how to cope after organ transplants or radiation treatments, or to heal from neuroses, addictions or the kind of bitterness that can last a lifetime. Three years ago, Hideko retired to a subdivision at the edge of Medford. She immediately got busy and accepted a position as a multicultural commissioner for the city of Medford. For fun, she joined a group of Asian women who gather monthly. At one meeting, she asked, "Don't you folks like to sing?" Someone mentioned a group that had just formed, the Rogue Valley Peace Choir. Hideko lit up. "What?" she remembers asking. "I love to sing. And peace songs? That would be absolutely perfect." In one of the early rehearsals she attended, as she and the others sang an African freedom song, Hideko was surprised to find tears streaming down her cheeks. She remembers thinking, "Oh my God! There's energy singing for peace. . . . I must take this sound to Japan. "I want the Japanese people to hear the folks who dropped the bomb -- the folks who we fought as enemies -- singing these songs. Even though the United States is projected as a warring nation, I want them to know this side of the American people." The three-year-old Peace Choir hadn't performed outside of Oregon, and its members' singing skills ranged from amateur to professional. But the choir board and its director, Dave Marston, thought a journey to Japan was a fine idea -- as long as Hideko carried the lion's share of the planning and others volunteered to help. Choir members organized fundraising auctions and concerts, while Hideko, who stands 4 feet 11 and is as slim as a feather, worked her connections in Japan. She spent more than a month there last autumn negotiating performance details, travel and housing arrangements. When she returned to Oregon, she gave hourlong Japanese language lessons before choir practice each Thursday. And members exchanged books and movies about Japanese culture and history. Of the Rogue Valley Peace Choir's approximately 130 members, 38 departed July 28 for performances in Kyoto, Kobe and, finally, today in Hiroshima. There, they'll deliver 1,000 origami cranes -- symbols of peace folded by children and adults across the Northwest. In English and in Japanese, they'll sing such songs as "Never Again the A-Bomb" and "Cranes Over Hiroshima." The Peace Choir's men will team with a Japanese men's choir for "Tenting Tonight," an American Civil War tune, in which soldiers sang about being weary of war and yearning for peace. And Hideko's daughter, Miko, a student of osteopathy who was classically trained in voice since she was young, will, to the tune of "Danny Boy," sing her "Prayer for Hiroshima" -- part requiem for all those lost, part love song to the grandmother she never had the chance to know: "For to the wind, I've sang out for your calling "Hoping through song, your soul would hear my prayer "So on the banks, I sing granddaughter's calling "Dear Obachan, I pray you rest in peace ". . . Hiroshima, we pray you rest in peace." Katy Muldoon: 503-221-8526; katymuldoon@news.oregonian.com ---- Tadatoshi Akiba Mayor The City of Hiroshima Tehran Times Political Desk August 6, 2006 http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=8/7/2006&Cat=2&Num=015 http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/declaration/Engl ish/2006/index.html HIROSHIMA – On the 61st anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, solemn ceremonies were held yesterday in Hiroshima and other cities in memory of the victims of that tragedy and to encourage people to work for world peace. Every year, the mayor of Hiroshima delivers an address at the ceremony. Following is the text of Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba’s Hiroshima Peace Declaration 2006: Radiation, heat, blast and their synergetic effects created a hell on Earth. Sixty-one years later, the number of nations enamored of evil and enslaved by nuclear weapons is increasing. The human family stands at a crossroads. Will all nations be enslaved? Or will all nations be liberated? This choice poses another question. Is it acceptable for cities, and especially the innocent children who live in them, to be targeted by nuclear weapons? The answer is crystal clear, and the past sixty-one years have shown us the path to liberation. From a hell in which no one could have blamed them for choosing death, the hibakusha set forth toward life and the future. Living with injuries and illnesses eating away at body and mind, they have spoken persistently about their experiences. Refusing to bow before discrimination, slander, and scorn, they have warned continuously that "no one else should ever suffer as we did." Their voices, picked up by people of conscience the world over, are becoming a powerful mass chorus. The keynote is, "The only role for nuclear weapons is to be abolished." And yet, the world's political leaders continue to ignore these voices. The International Court of Justice advisory opinion handed down ten years ago, born of the creative action of global civil society, should have been a highly effective tool for enlightening and guiding them toward the truth. The Court found that "… the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law," and went on to declare, "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control." If the nuclear-weapon states had taken the lead and sought in good faith to fulfill this obligation, nuclear weapons would have been abolished already. Unfortunately, during the past ten years, most nations and most people have failed to confront this obligation head-on. Regretting that we have not done more, the City of Hiroshima, along with Mayors for Peace, whose member cities have increased to 1,403, is launching Phase II of our 2020 Vision Campaign. This phase includes the Good Faith Challenge, a campaign to promote the good-faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament called for in the ICJ advisory opinion, and a Cities Are Not Targets project demanding that nuclear-weapon states stop targeting cities for nuclear attack. Nuclear weapons are illegal, immoral weapons designed to obliterate cities. Our goals are to reveal the delusions behind "nuclear deterrence theory" and the "nuclear umbrella," which hold cities hostage, and to protect, from a legal and moral standpoint, our citizens' right to life. Taking the lead in this effort is the US Conference of Mayors, representing 1,139 American cities. At its national meeting this past June, the USCM adopted a resolution demanding that all nuclear-weapon states, including the United States, immediately cease all targeting of cities with nuclear weapons. Cities and citizens of the world have a duty to release the lost sheep from the spell and liberate the world from nuclear weapons. The time has come for all of us to awaken and arise with a will that can penetrate rock and a passion that burns like fire. I call on the Japanese government to advocate for the hibakusha and all citizens by conducting a global campaign that will forcefully insist that the nuclear-weapon states "negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament." To that end, I demand that the government respect the Peace Constitution of which we should be proud. I further request more generous, people-oriented assistance appropriate to the actual situations of the aging hibakusha, including those living overseas and those exposed in "black rain areas." To console the many victims whose names remain unknown, this year for the first time we added the words, "Many Unknown" to the ledger of victims' names placed in the cenotaph. We humbly pray for the peaceful repose of the souls of all atomic bomb victims and a future of peace and harmony for the human family. ---- World Conference 2006 against A and H Bombs (in Hiroshima, 2-4 August): Declaration of the International Meeting From: Sukla Sen Date: Sun Aug 6, 2006 4:10 am Never again Hiroshima! Never again Nagasaki! For over 60 years since the atomic bombings, the voices of the Hibakusha have moved the hearts and minds of people around the world to speak out against nuclear weapons and for peace. The mounting people's opinion built by grassroots movements has many times prevented the use of nuclear weapons. Along with the efforts made by both local and national governments, this movement has developed into a global force demanding the elimination of nuclear weapons. Let us keep building this momentum to win a world free of nuclear weapons. Even now, close to 27,000 nuclear warheads are deployed or stockpiled in the world. These weapons, whether of the declared nuclear weapons states or of the non-declared, pose a grave threat to the very survival of humankind. Their total abolition remains an urgent task and is the prerequisite for passing on a safe and peaceful world to future generations. Accounting for one half of the world military expenditure with military bases all over the world, the U.S. launched a war of preemptive attack on Iraq. It now declares a long war on the ground of preventing terrorism and proliferation. Making the use of nuclear weapons a declared key policy to this strategy, the U.S. is promoting the development of new nuclear weapons along with the Missile Defense program. At the NPT Review Conference and at the World Summit of the U.N. last year, the U.S. refused even to discuss nuclear disarmament, thus blocking the move to abolish nuclear weapons. We must overcome this backsliding and move forward to prevent the use of nuclear weapons and open a sure path to the abolition of nuclear weapons. No doubt we must oppose every act of proliferation, i.e., new states acquiring nuclear weapons. But it is clearly hypocritical and dangerous for nuclear weapons states to resort to force and even to nuclear threats to prevent proliferation or terrorism, while trying to justify their own nuclear arsenals and condoning the proliferation to certain countries. Abolition of nuclear weapons is the only fundamental solution to the danger of nuclear proliferation. We demand a convention totally banning nuclear weapons, with negotiations to achieve this beginning immediately. It is also urgent to defend and consolidate the order of peace based on the U.N. Charter while preventing preemptive attacks by countries whose underlying strategy includes the option of using nuclear arms. It is also urgent to oppose the reorganization and reinforcement of foreign military bases. In cooperation with many local authorities and national governments, we call on the United Nations and other international bodies to take swift and effective steps toward eliminating nuclear weapons. In its first resolution, the United Nations pledged to eliminate nuclear arms from national arsenals. In May 2000, the Nuclear Five made the unequivocal commitment to complete elimination of their nuclear arsenals. Established to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, the U.N. should fulfill its mission to swiftly bring relevant resolutions and agreements into realization. We call on all national governments to adopt a resolution for an international convention totally banning nuclear weapons at the U.N. General Assembly. We welcome all initiatives that lead to the abolition of nuclear weapons, including the convening of the 4th U.N. Special Session on Disarmament and a U.N. decade for complete nuclear disarmament. For this, let us develop the signature campaign in support of the Swift Abolition of Nuclear Weapons and many other forms of action that will link the grassroots movements with the U.N. Let us press our own respective governments to work to reach this goal. The world can no longer be dominated by massive military force. People are joining in a wide range of actions in opposition to outrages of the superpower. Voices of people calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons are gathering force worldwide. Having reached a dead end in the occupation of Iraq, criticism against the U.S. war policy is increasing within the U.S. Facing the deteriorating situation in the Middle East/West Asia, demands for a peaceful resolution of conflicts are growing, including an end to the occupation of Iraq, a negotiated settlement of nuclear issued with Iran, and an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon. The deepening economic crises caused by neo-liberalist policies are eliciting protests against the economic domination of the world by major powers. A nuclear weapon-free, peaceful and just world is a common desire of the overwhelming majority of the world's people. In solidarity with all movements, including those opposing war and military bases, providing relief for nuclear test victims, victims of Agent Orange and other war damages; working to ban DU weapons; and demanding economic justice, redirection of military spending to meet social needs, social equality, women's rights, and environmental protection, we must increase public support for the movement calling for a total ban and elimination of nuclear weapons. With the Hibakusha, the Japanese peace movement has spread the demand for the elimination of nuclear weapons among the people and tirelessly organized various actions. More and more young people are getting involved and willing to take on these actions. Movements defending Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution that renounces war and the possession of military force are rapidly gathering support in Japan and overseas. We extend our firm solidarity with the Japanese movement in their effort to keep their country from going to war overseas with the U.S. forces, and to get Japan out from under the nuclear umbrella. The Hibakusha have dedicated their lives which have been filled with pains and hardships to warning humankind of the danger of nuclear disaster, to stand with the will to save humanity from its crisis through the lessons learned from our experiences, while at the same time saving ourselves (Message to the World, proclaimed at the founding of Nihon Hidankyo, the Japan Confederation of A-and H-Bomb Sufferers' Organizations). Activities by young people determined to carry forward Hibakusha desires and commitment are our common hope for the future. Hand in hand with the Hibakusha, and with the younger generations, let us move toward a coordinated global movement for a nuclear weapon-free, peaceful and just world. No More Hiroshimas! No More Nagasakis! No More Hibakusha! ---- Club can't shake its fatal attraction The Japan Times Sunday, Aug. 6, 2006 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20060806a1.html As the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki this week mark the 61st anniversary of the first atomic bombings in human history, the world faces the likelihood of the further spread of nuclear weapons. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and of Nagasaki, three days later, caused the immediate deaths of about 140,000 and 74,000 people, respectively. These events were not just tragic episodes in the closing days of World War II; the killing and injuring of hundreds of thousands of people also heralded the advent of an age in which the annihilation of countries and civilizations by nuclear weapons has become a possible reality. A report by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, an independent panel of international experts funded by the Swedish government and headed by former United Nations chief weapons inspector Mr. Hans Blix, offers a bleak picture. Humankind has accumulated some 27,000 nuclear weapons, with more than 12,000 of them deployed. These figures are "extraordinary and alarmingly high" in themselves, yet the "existing nuclear powers" -- the U.S., Russia, China, France and Britain -- continue modernizing their nuclear arsenals. Under the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), to which nearly 190 states are parties, these five states are supposed to take initiatives toward cutting their nuclear arsenals and to refrain from developing new nuclear weapons. But the world still waits to see such moves. India, Pakistan and Israel, which have remained outside the NPT regime, are considered "gray" states in possession of nuclear arsenals. In addition, suspicion is mounting that North Korea and Iran are pushing programs to produce nuclear weapons. The 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, aimed at prohibiting all nuclear-test explosions, has not yet entered into force due to inaction or refusal by several states. For the treaty to go into effect, ratification by 44 named states is necessary. India, Pakistan and North Korea have not signed the treaty, while eight other states, including the U.S., China, Iran and Israel, have signed but not ratified the treaty. Last September a clue to breaking the impasse over North Korea's nuclear development appeared to emerge when North Korea and five other nations issued a joint statement in Beijing: The North pledged to abandon its nuclear programs and return at an early date to the NPT and to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards while the U.S. asserted that it had no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and no intention of attacking or invading North Korea with either nuclear or conventional weapons. Yet North Korea has refused to resume the six-nation talks since November, citing the U.S.-imposed financial sanctions against it. To make matters worse, North Korea test-fired seven ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan on July 5. The United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution condemning the North's missile tests and urging it to return to the six-nation talks without preconditions. The missile launches prompted several Japanese politicians to talk about whether Japan should consider arming itself with the capability to carry out a preemptive attack on an enemy missile base. Some foreign media took these thoughtless and shortsighted remarks as an indication of Japan's desire to possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the international community's suspicion of Iran's nuclear-related activities is so strong that the Security Council adopted a resolution calling on Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing by Aug. 31 or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions. Both North Korea and Iran have rejected the resolutions directed at them, but they should act quickly to clear away the clouds of suspicions about their activities. In March the U.S. and India signed an agreement in which the U.S. will provide civilian nuclear-energy technologies and fuel to India. Although India has agreed to declare 14 of its 22 reactors as commercial facilities and to open them up to international inspectors, the deal is likely to undermine the basic NPT tenet, which entitles all member states, other than the five recognized nuclear-weapons states, to the use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes if they give up the right to possess nuclear weapons. Other countries might cite the U.S.-India deal as an excuse for pursuing the development of nuclear weapons as well as commercial nuclear-power generation. As momentum appears to favor further growth of the nuclear-weapons club, members have a heavy responsibility to spearhead efforts to halt it, especially by reducing their own arsenals. Japan must renew its resolve to play a unique and leading role in pushing for a nuclear-weapons-free world. ---- Japan Marks 61st Hiroshima Anniversary By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS August 6, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Japan-Hiroshima-Anniversary.html?pagewanted=print http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-06-hiroshima-anniversary_x.htm HIROSHIMA, Japan (AP) -- The mayor of Hiroshima on Sunday called for the elimination of all nuclear weapons as he marked the 61st anniversary of the world's first atomic bomb attack, which killed more than 140,000 people in the Japanese city. Expressing concerns over the global proliferation of nuclear weapons, Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba urged the government of Japan -- the only nation to suffer atomic bomb attacks -- to take a leading role in the effort to eliminate nuclear arsenals. ''Sixty-one years have passed since radiation, heat rays and an atomic blast created hell on earth,'' Akiba said in a speech at Hiroshima Peace Park, near the bomb's epicenter. ''But the number of nations enamored of evil and enslaved by nuclear arms has increased. The only role nuclear weapons have is to be demolished.'' A bell rang at 8:15 a.m., marking the time when the American B-29 bomber Enola Gay dropped its deadly payload on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. It was the first atomic bomb ever used in war. About 45,000 survivors, residents, visitors and officials from around the world prayed for the bombing victims by observing a minute of silence in Hiroshima, 430 miles southwest of Tokyo. Hundreds of doves were released afterward. An estimated 140,000 people were killed instantly or died within a few months after the bombing. Three days later, another U.S. warplane dropped a plutonium bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing about 80,000 people. This year's anniversary comes amid concerns over North Korea's recent missile tests, Iran's suspect nuclear program and intensified fighting in the Middle East. Akiba urged Japan, a participant in the stalled six-nation talks on North Korea, to ''forcefully insist that nuclear arms-possessing nations fulfill their obligation to sincerely carry out negotiations aimed at nuclear disarmament.'' He also urged the government to observe Japan's pacifist constitution, which bars the use of force in international disputes and prohibits Tokyo from keeping a military for warfare. It was drafted by U.S. occupation forces after World War II and has not been changed since 1947. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's ruling party is proposing constitutional changes to make it easier for the Japanese military to fight if it comes under attack and to participate in international peacekeeping. ''We will observe the pacifist clause of the constitution, maintain the principle of nuclear nonproliferation and lead international efforts to achieve lasting global peace,'' Koizumi said Sunday in a memorial speech. Ceremonies will also be held on Wednesday's anniversary of the Nagasaki attack. Japan surrendered on Aug. 15, 1945, bringing World War II to an end. ---- Hiroshima Commemorates 61st Anniversary of US Atomic Attack Sunday, August 6, 2006 by the Agence France Presse http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0806-02.htm Photo: Paper lanterns are adrift on a river in front of the gutted A-bomb dome (rear) in Hiroshima, August 6, 2006 to comfort the souls of victims of the 1945 atomic bombing on the city of Hiroshima. REUTERS/Toshiyuki Aizawa http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/images/0806-01.jpg The Japanese city of Hiroshima marked the 61st anniversary of the world's first atomic attack on Sunday as its mayor renewed calls for a nuclear-free world and further support for aging survivors. Some 45,000 people recited silent prayers at 8:15 am (2315 GMT), the exact moment in 1945 when a single US bomb killed more than 140,000 people and fatally injured tens of thousands of others with radiation or horrific burns. Government officials and foreign guests from a record 35 countries laid wreaths before a memorial to the dead against the backdrop of the famous A-bomb dome, a former exhibition hall burned to a skeleton by the bomb's heat. "Sixty-one years later, the number of nations enamored of evil and enslaved by nuclear weapons is increasing," Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba said in a speech. Akiba said his city and atomic bomb survivors have long sought the abolition of nuclear weapons. "Yet, the world's political leaders continue to ignore these voices," he said. "I call on the Japanese government to ... forcefully insist that the nuclear-weapon states negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament," Akiba said. The 61st anniversary of the world's first nuclear attacks comes amid growing tension in the region with North Korea posing a missile threat and sticking to its nuclear ambitions. News reports said last week Pyongyang had been building new underground missile bases along its east coast, targeting Japan and US military facilities in Japan. The communist nation set off new alarm bells in the region with its July 5 test-firing of seven ballistic missiles which splashed in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). In 1998, it test-launched a missile over Japan. In his speech, Akiba also called for additional measures to support aging survivors of the atomic bomb. "I further request more generous, people-oriented assistance appropriate to the actual situation of the aging hibakusha," he said using the Japanese word for victims of nuclear bombings. On Friday, survivors of the Hiroshima atomic bombing won a victory with a court ruling that the Japanese government was too inflexible in determining who was eligible for benefits. The Hiroshima District Court said that 41 plaintiffs, aged from 62 to 94, deserved to be recognized as survivors, which would pave the way for them to receive Japan's generous benefits for their illnesses. -------- security State simulates terror attack A drill next week will tests responses to a nuclear detonation By Gregg K. Kakesako gkakesako@starbulletin.com Sunday, August 6, 2006 Honolulu Star Bulletin http://starbulletin.com/2006/08/06/news/story09.html For 34 straight hours beginning Aug. 15, state Civil Defense planners will be manning the command center inside Diamond Head Crater in an exercise to cope with the effects of the detonation of a low-yield nuclear bomb planted by terrorists. It's one of 15 scenarios -- wiping out 30 percent of the communications in the downtown area and killing 10,000 people -- involving improvised nuclear devices that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency wants states to prepare for, according to Edward Teixeira, state vice civil defense director. "The state civil defense's job will be to tie into the various, state, city and non-governmental agencies and to coordinate their efforts," Teixeira added. The mock half-kiloton nuclear explosion would take place at the entrance of Honolulu Harbor and would result in immediate casualties of nearly 400 people within 2,000 feet of ground zero, Teixeira said. But because it will take place near government centers of the state Capitol and City Hall, "the electromagnetic pulse could knock down 30 percent of our communications ability," he added. "That means not all of our emergency radios and other communications will be operable and we will have to finds ways to communicate using couriers and other means. It will be a test of the continuity of government services. How will government maintain its services?" Teixeira said the drill is relevant because such communication loss could occur during any natural disaster like a hurricane and "it is something the state must constantly be ready to remedy." "We have to constantly enhance our capabilities," Teixeira added. "Hopefully, we will never see anything like that that, but we have to be prepared." Coordinating the combined state-county-federal operation will be Maj. Gen. Vern Miyagi, who is the mobilization assistant to Adm. William Fallon, head of Pacific Forces in the Pacific. More than 700 state, city and military planners will participate in the mock exercise, dubbed "Exercise A Kele," running Aug. 15-17. Because the state did not want to interfere with the operations of Honolulu Harbor, Bellows Air Force Station will be the stand-in for the harbor. "There's a lot of room there and we will be able to simulate search and rescue, decontamination and other operations there," Teixeira said. The Coast Guard will run its operations from the Clean Island Council on Sand Island The Queen's Medical Center also will be utilized. Teixeira, a retired Army colonel who used to work with Pershing nuclear rockets, said the scenario envisions 10,000 casualties during the first 48 hours not only from the immediate blast but also from the nuclear fallout. Teixeira said the nuclear explosion projected in this month's exercise is 100 times greater than the April 19, 1995, terrorist attack where Timothy McVeigh packed 2 1/2 tons of ammonium nitrate, common farm fertilizer, mixed with fuel oil, into a rental truck and parked it next to the federal building in Oklahoma City. The blast tore down half of the building, killing 169 people. "No question all of urban Honolulu and maybe even as far as Ewa Beach will feel such a blast," Teixeira said. "But in the early moments no one will know whether it was natural or manmade or that it's even nuclear." The blast zone would encompass Sand Island and the Coast Guard Station and the state park located there, he said. "The prevailing trades would then take plume out over the ocean moving parallel down the coast to Ewa." Teixeira said the state's nuclear war plans during the Cold War called for the evacuation of Oahu, turning island streets into one-way traffic patterns with people moving to the Windward side. That same plan also called for sending 100,000 people to the Neighbor Islands by military airlift. He noted that the Department of Homeland Security has devised several scenarios for states to use involving the detonation of 10- and 20-kiloton improvised nuclear devices. In 1945 the U.S. dropped a 15-kiloton bomb on Hiroshima and a larger 22-ton kiloton bomb on Nagasaki. The first A-bomb, "Little Boy," blasted Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and "Fat Boy" was dropped on Nagasaki three days later. However, for this month's mock exercise, Teixeira said the state chose to test a half-kiloton nuclear device because "it is a more plausible weapon a terrorist group might use." "An improvised nuclear device of that size may be a more real threat," Teixeira said, "and a terrorist group planting it at a harbor is a real possibility." Teixeira said in Hawaiian "a" can mean "hot and fiery," while "kele" can be translated to mean "impurity." There is no Hawaiian word for radiation. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- pennsylvania ‘Dry-cask’ nuclear storage worries some By PAUL RUPPEL and SARAH LARSON Bucks County Courier Times August 6, 2006 http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-08062006-694048.html The Limerick nuclear power station will begin storing used nuclear fuel outside its plant by 2008 and likely will keep it there for years, until a controversial national disposal site is developed. The move worries some, who feel it increases the chance of an accidental radiation leak or a terrorist strike against the plant. And if something were to go terribly wrong at Limerick, the plant’s immediate neighbors wouldn’t be the only the ones affected. Still, the nuclear industry, federal regulators and even the leading nuclear watchdog group say storing used nuclear fuel outside the plant presents no more of a risk than the plants themselves and their existing water pool storage. “Whether in the pool or in dry casks, they’re all safely and securely managed,” said Melanie Lyons, spokeswoman for the proindustry group, the Nuclear Energy Institute. Called a “dry-cask” storage system, the reinforced containers proposed by Exelon Corp., parent company of PECO Energy, are in use at dozens of other nuclear plants across the country. “Dry-cask storage is a widely used, safe technology that will allow Limerick station to continue its clean, safe and reliable operations well into the future,” plant vice president Ron DeGregorio said in a written statement. When used fuel needs to be removed from a nuclear reactor, the rods are moved to a deep pit filled with water, typically in a separate building near the reactor. The rods are stored in the pool, where the water helps dissipate the heat they give off and shield workers and the public from radiation. For years, that’s where Limerick’s rods have stayed. But it and other plants nationwide are running out of room. Limerick is just the latest nuclear power plant to need to expand its storage options. It will be the 34th plant in the nation — and Exelon’s fourth — to store the highly radioactive waste in outdoor containers. “Every gram that Limerick has ever generated is still at Limerick,” said David Lochbaum, director of the nuclear safety project for the Union of Concerned Scientists, the industry’s leading watchdog group. “That’s the way it is across the country, because we don’t reprocess fuel any more and there’s no place for it to go, so the default is to store it in the pools, then find another place for it.” That other place is dry-cask storage. After spending at least five years in the water pool, the rods are placed inside massive containers of steel and concrete. The casks are generally stored outside the plant, either upright on concrete pads or horizontally in concrete bunkers. Exelon has said Limerick’s containers will be located inside the plant’s security barriers and protected by its “paramilitary guard force.” The main concerns about dry-cask storage are accidental radiation leaks and vulnerability to a terrorist attack. But those same concerns apply to storage in water pools, Lochbaum said. In fact, the Union of Concerned Scientists favors dry-cask storage over water storage, he said. The reactor core at Limerick holds about 100 tons of nuclear material, said Lochbaum, who was a consultant at the plant for a short time. The spent fuel pools typically hold 800 to 1,000 tons of material. The dry casks, conversely, hold only about 20 tons each. “If something were to go wrong, the radioactive cloud from a dry cask is from 20 tons of material,” he said. “If something were to go wrong with the pool or the reactor, more people would be in harm’s way, because there’s more material.” Limerick’s Board of Supervisors approved construction plans for the new storage facility last month, but the Montgomery County community actually had little say in the matter. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is in charge of overseeing nuclear reactor plants across the country. At several forums before the vote, commission representatives answered questions about dry-cask storage, allaying the fears of some residents about its safety. One local activist group, however, is calling for a full public hearing and more safety measures. “We’re dealing with high-level radioactive waste, probably the most dangerous substance on Earth,” said Lewis Cuthbert of the Pottstownbased Alliance for a Clean Environment. “This is not a shortterm issue. It’s a long-term issue.” The nuclear material must be isolated from the environment completely for more than 10,000 years, Lochbaum said. That means the department must find a place it judges safe from groundwater shifts, earthquake activity, and more. The original plan was to study 10 sites around the country to find the one best suited for a national disposal center, Lochbaum said. But the process was taking too long, so in 1987, Congress directed the Department of Energy to focus on just one of those sites: Yucca Mountain, Nev. Though still embroiled in controversy and questions, the department agreed last month that Yucca Mountain would open for business on March 31, 2017. Meanwhile, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission forecasts that nearly every operating nuclear reactor in the country will be out of pool storage space by 2014, necessitating the use of alternative storage across the board. Exelon spokeswoman Beth Rapczynski said Limerick’s pool would reach full capacity by 2009 without dry-cask storage. That is why the industry remains focused on creating a national underground storage system, said Lyons, of the Nuclear Energy Institute. “We need Yucca Mountain to move forward,” she said. “As safe as the pools and dry casks are, they were not designed for long-term storage.” Paul Ruppel can be reached at (215) 957-8168 or pruppel@phillyBurbs.com. Sarah Larson can be reached at 215-957-8167 or slarson@phillyBurbs.com. -------- MILITARY Barbarians With Wings Air power was supposed to make warfare civilized. It hasn't worked out that way. By Tom Engelhardt August 6, 2006 Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-engelhardt6aug06,1,3217435.story?coll=la-news-comment&ctrack=1&cset=true Barbarism seems an obvious enough category. Barbarians kidnap people in Iraq and cut off their heads. Isn't that the very definition of barbaric? Or they strap on grenades or plastic explosives, with nails added in to create instant shrapnel that will rend human flesh. Then they approach a target — in Jerusalem, or near a mosque in Iraq or Pakistan, or perhaps on the streets of Kabul, or on a train in London or Mumbai — and they blow themselves up. Or perhaps they audaciously hijack jets and fly them into skyscrapers. What could be more barbaric than that? That's them. But what about us? We, like most people, don't consider ourselves barbarians. Nevertheless, we have only managed to remain so sanguine by removing the most essential aspect of the American way of war from the category of the barbaric. I'm talking about air power and about the belief — so long-lasting, so deep-seated — that bombing others, including civilian populations, is a "strategic" (rather than a barbaric) thing to do; that air power can, in relatively swift measure, break the "will" of the enemy and thereby end war faster. It can't, of course, but repeated failures have never shaken the hold that the idea has on the war-making imagination, and the result has been horrific. When it comes to brutality, ancient times have gotten a bad rap. It may be that the human capacity for brutality, for barbarism, hasn't changed much since the 8th century, but the Industrial Revolution — and in particular the rise of the airplane — opened up new landscapes to brutality. The view from behind the gun sight, then the bombsight and finally the missile sight slowly widened until all of humanity was taken in, until the military and civilians on the ground became so many indistinguishable ants. As far as anyone knows, the first bomb was dropped by hand over Libya, which was at the center of a territorial dispute between Italy and Turkey. According to Sven Lindqvist's "A History of Bombing," one Lt. Giulio Cavotti "leaned out of his delicate monoplane and dropped the bomb — a Danish Haasen hand grenade — on the North African oasis Tagiura, near Tripoli." That was 1911, and the damage was minimal. Only 34 years later, vast armadas of B-17s and B-29s were taking off, up to 1,000 planes at a time, to bomb Germany and Japan. In the case of Tokyo — then constructed almost totally out of flammable materials — a single raid carrying incendiary bombs and napalm that began just after midnight on March 10, 1945, killed at least 90,000 people, possibly many more, from such a height that the dead could not be seen (though the stench of burning flesh carried to the planes). What descended from the skies, as James Carroll puts it in his book, "House of War," was "1,665 tons of pure fire … the most efficient and deliberate act of arson in history." It was the bonfire of bonfires, and not a single American plane was shot down. On Aug. 6, 1945, all the power of that vast air armada was reduced to a single plane, the Enola Gay, and a single bomb, "Little Boy," dropped near a single bridge, doing to Hiroshima what it had taken 300 B-29s and many hours to do to Tokyo. In those two cities — as well as Dresden and other enemy cities — the dead (estimated at 900,000 in Japan and 600,000 in Germany) were preponderantly civilian, and far too distant to be seen by plane crews. When military air power was in its infancy and silent films still ruled the movie theaters, the first air-war films presented pilots as knights of the heavens, engaging in chivalric one-on-one combat in the skies. After all, in the wake of the meat grinder of trench warfare in World War I — in which young men had died by the hundreds of thousands from machine guns, poison gas, all the lovely inventions of industrial civilization — air power seemed a welcome relief. The image of knights jousting in the skies slowly disappeared from the culture. It could perhaps last be found in the film "Top Gun" (and in the old Peanuts comics in which Snoopy forever fights the Red Baron). In the real world, that courtly image was shattered much more quickly. When civilians were first purposely targeted and bombed, the act was widely condemned as inhuman by a startled world. People were horrified when, during the Spanish Civil War in 1937, Hitler's Condor Legion and planes from fascist Italy bombed the Basque town of Guernica, engulfing most of its buildings in a firestorm that killed hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians. Later that year, as the Japanese began their campaign to conquer China, they bombed a number of cities. A single shot of a Chinese baby wailing amid the ruins, published in Life magazine, was enough to horrify Americans. World War II began with the German bombing of Warsaw. On Sept. 9, 1939, according to Carroll, President Franklin D. Roosevelt "beseeched the war leaders on both sides to 'under no circumstances undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations of unfortified cities.' " Then came the terror-bombing of Rotterdam and Hitler's Blitz against Britain in which tens of thousands of civilians died, each event another unimaginable act by the planet's reigning barbarians. British civilians, of course, still retain a deserved reputation for the stiff-upper-lip-style bravery with which they comported themselves in the face of the merciless German air offensive. No wills were broken there, nor would they be in Russia, where, in 1942, about 40,000 were killed in German air attacks on Stalingrad alone. All of this, of course, came before it was clear that the United States could design and churn out planes in greater numbers and with more firepower than any country on the planet. It was before the U.S. and Britain decided to fight fire with fire by blitz- and terror-bombing Germany and Japan. (The U.S. moved more slowly and awkwardly than the British from failed "precision bombing" campaigns against targets such as military factories or oil-storage depots to "area bombing" that was simply meant to annihilate civilians and destroy cities. But move American strategists did.) It came before Dresden and Hiroshima; before Pyongyang, along with much of the Korean peninsula, was reduced to rubble from the air in the Korean War; before the Plaine des Jarres in Laos was bombed back to the Stone Age in the late 1960s, before B-52s were sent against Hanoi and Haiphong in Christmas 1972 to wring concessions out of the North Vietnamese at the peace table in Paris; before President George H.W. Bush ended the Persian Gulf War with what U.S. forces boasted was a "turkey shoot" on what came to be known as the "highway of death" as Saddam Hussein's military fled Kuwait City; before we bombed Afghanistan in 2001; and before we shock-and-awed Baghdad in 2003. No wills were broken, but a new language to describe air war did develop. "Smart bombs" and "precision-guided weapons" came online. Air attacks were termed "surgical," and civilian casualties were dismissed as "collateral damage." All of this helped remove the sting of barbarity from air power (unless, of course, you happened to be one of those "collateral" people under a "surgical" strike). This effort to dehumanize the victims was made easier by the fact that the dangers facing the bomber pilots themselves were generally minimal. War from the air was becoming a one-way street of destruction. At an extreme, with the arrival of fleets of Hellfire-missile-armed unmanned Predator drones over Iraq, the knight of the air suddenly found himself 7,000 miles away at Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas, delivering "precision" strikes by video screen. This kind of war has the allure, from a military point of view, of ever fewer casualties on one end in return for ever more on the other, as well as a sense that the world can truly be "remade" from on high, by remote control and at a great remove — a powerful, even a transporting fantasy for strategists. Now, with the fervent backing of the Bush administration, another country is being "remade" from the air — Lebanon. With the help of American precision-guided and bunker-busting bombs, the Israelis have been launching airstrike after airstrike. They have hit an international airport, Lebanon's largest milk factories, aid convoys, Red Cross ambulances, a U.N. observer post, bridges, a lighthouse, even families fleeing at the urging of the attackers. And yet, of course, the "will" of the enemy is not broken. The Israelis are rediscovering — though by now, you'd think that military planners with half a brain wouldn't have to destroy a country to do so — that it is impossible to "surgically" separate a movement and its supporters from the air. When you try, you invariably do the opposite, fusing them ever more closely. Someday, someone will take up the grim study of the cleansing language of air power. Every air war has its own vocabulary meant to take the sting out of its essential barbarism. In the case of the Israeli war in Lebanon, the term — old in the military world but never before so widely adopted — is "degrading," not as at Abu Ghraib, but as in "to impair in physical structure or function." It sounds like erosion, almost a natural process, and is being used to cover a range of sins. Try Googling it. It turns out to be almost everywhere, used much as it was in this CBS News report: "Around the world, the U.S. opposition to a cease-fire is viewed as the U.S. giving Israel a 'green-light' to degrade the military capability of Hezbollah." Does the air war in Lebanon seem to be heavily targeted against civilians? That's not surprising; war from the air has always been essentially directed against civilians. As in World War II, air power — no matter its stated targets — almost invariably turns out to be worst for noncombatants and, in the end, to be aimed at society itself. In that sense, its damage is anything but "collateral," never truly "surgical" and never in its overall effect "precise." TOM ENGELHARDT runs Tomdispatch.com, where a longer version of this essay appeared. His latest book, "Mission Unaccomplished," a collection of his Tomdispatch interviews, is being published in October by Nation Books. -------- britain British troops in Afghanistan 'on the brink of exhaustion' By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent (Filed: 06/08/2006) UK Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=W4TGMHATDPM0TQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/06/nafg06.xml British troops fighting Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan are on the "brink of exhaustion", The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. Commanders fear that the number of "high tempo" operations being launched against the Taliban is "unsustainable" unless the 3,600-strong task force is reinforced with an extra 1,000-strong infantry battle group. Since May, British troops in Helmand province have fought 25 major battles in which they killed an estimated 700 Taliban. Commanders say the mission has so far been "fantastically successful", but they believe that the relentless number of back-to-back operations being fought in harsh terrain in temperatures of up to 50C is beginning to take its toll. "The men are knackered - they are on the brink of exhaustion," said one senior officer. "They are under considerable duress and have suffered great hardship." On Tuesday, three British soldiers were killed in an ambush, bringing the total number of deaths during the mission to nine. Several soldiers have also been wounded. Most of the fighting is being conducted by about 700 troops drawn mainly from the 3rd battalion The Parachute Regiment, the Gurkhas, the Territorial Army and the Royal Irish Regiment. They are supported by a squadron of light tanks from the Household Cavalry and a battery of six 105mm light guns from 7 (Para) Royal Horse Artillery. Troops occupying three isolated outposts in Sangin, Nawzad and Musa Qala in the north of the province are being attacked every day by Taliban fighters. Commanders believe that if they slow the momentum of attacks, the Taliban will gain time to regroup and reorganise before winter. The Sunday Telegraph has also learnt that an interim study of the mission, by Brigadier Mungo Melvin of the Directorate of Operational Capability, has found "shortcomings" in the assessment of the enemy threat. Patrick Mercer, the Conservative spokesman for homeland security, said the Government had a responsibility to reinforce the task force. He said: "Why the Prime Minister is not giving the commanders in Afghanistan the troops they require is completely incomprehensible." -------- business The Hypocrisy of Corporate Wars By Siv O'Neall Aug 6, 2006, AxisofLogic.com http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_22697.shtml http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25533&l=i&size=1&hd=0 Behind the wars is cold profit Wars have always been fought for the benefit of the ruling elite of a nation. Wars of conquest over the past centuries, or even millennia, have been fought not to add to the comfort of the people who were represented in the invading armies or their families at home, but for the increased feeling of power of the emperors, kings or presidents. In the mindless slaughter that was involved in the wars of yesteryear, in the greed-driven and power-hungry politics that brought on the wars, and in the profit that emanated from these wars, there was no concern for the soldiers who died the most cruel and senseless deaths on the battlefields or for the people they were supposedly fighting to protect. Few things have changed. The main principles and considerations are still true in today’s high-tech wars, even though the stage that is set for this planned kind of murder has so thoroughly changed that there seems to be little resemblance between wars of the past and modern wars. Clearly, the horrible killing in the trench wars of World War I, for instance, was closer at hand, more visible to the countries involved. But the high-tech wars in Asia of the present time, are so much more destructive, on such a heightened scale, that it is difficult to realize today’s wars are immensely more devastating. All this is, of course, partially hidden from the American public because of the biased coverage and the crude propaganda that is pouring out of the White House and the corporate-friendly mass media. Wars today lay waste not just to the lives of the soldiers who are fighting, but to hundreds of thousands (if not millions -- think Vietnam) of innocent civilians, and to the environment all around the war zone. Also, there are the most cruel after-effects that continue to take thousands of lives in the generations who grow up in the war zones. Delayed explosions of cluster bombs and land mines and the potentially deadly effects of depleted uranium, together with the lasting effects of the devastation of the environment, are among the principal causes of the extended killing power of the present-day wars. Depleted uranium is most likely the principal agent responsible for the infamous Gulf War syndrome, which numerous U.S. military men and women have been and are still suffering and dying from after the first Gulf War. Wars are fought by the big corporations The huge difference between yesterday’s cruel wars of conquest and today’s cataclysmic wars is not only the high-tech approach to the devastation wrought in the present wars. Above all, they are not primarily wars of conquest, they are corporate wars of domination of geopolitically dominant areas, such as in the present war for profit which is dishonestly presented to the world as a total and ever-lasting war on terror, the intended total domination of the strategically essential Middle East region. But what we must not fail to see is the senseless greed involved in the present-day wars, not just as far as oil is concerned and the domination of oil producing regions, but the obscene profits made by arms manufacturers and by the oil industry. Is the carefully built construct of a big lie intended to convince the American people and the world of the necessity of this totally uncalled-for war? And after all the hype and spin, is the very idea of a war on terror now starting to fall apart? The credibility of U.S. and Israeli warmongers is shredding in front of our eyes, facing the heightened insurgency the war has brought about in the Arab countries and the lack of support in the world at large. Also facing the outrageous cost of this war for profit of the very few and the dear consequences for the people at home. The so-called ‘War on terror’ The cunningly named ‘War on terror’ is, after all, just another war to benefit the big corporations, their lobbies, and the men in the administration who are tied to them or otherwise draw profit from their roles as war criminals. The ludicrous pretext of fighting communism and defending the nation against a threat from a foreign country, in the case of the totally uncalled for U.S. invasion of Grenada by Ronald Reagan and his warmongers in 1983, was not any more spurious than the present so-called war on terror. The open claim by the government that we are in for eternal war is eminent proof of the hidden intent of the bunch of madmen who are presently running the country. We are not in the war to win it. We are in it to make it go on for ever. Nothing less. It must be obvious to any thinking person that terror is not a notion that anyone can fight with arms and counter terror. Terror, if that is what the insurgency has to be called, is not tied to a nation or even to a religion. It feeds on feelings of humiliation and a deeply felt need to get revenge on the oppressors. In the present-day case, the insurgency groups were initially formed to fight against the oppressive ‘godless regimes’ of the countries of origins of the resistance groups. In a secondary way, Al Qaeda was intent on getting revenge on the big Satan, the imperial power of the United States. The reason was certainly not to punish Americans for their freedom, however, as it has been claimed by the administration. Rather, the insurgents were intent on stating their opposition to the U.S. taking over the world through its omnipresent military bases and its repeated shows of behaving as if the U.S. had a right to rule the world. This was made amply clear in the recurrent wars undertaken by the United States or by Israel, the U.S. protectorate. A total lack of consideration of U.S. governments for the lives of the peoples in the dominated countries has been the guiding rule for U.S wars since the end of World War II.[1] They alternately side with ruthless dictators (or simply install them if it serves the U.S. interests), or they pretend to fight for democracy if that seems to be more convenient in order to run the propaganda machine for a profitable war. The hubris of the PNAC people The currently widening Middle East conflict was carefully planned decades ago by the people behind the Project for the New American Century. This group, which included now well-known and infamous names, was founded in the 1960s and ‘70s by a small group of pro-Israel, anti-communist intellectuals. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, John Bolton, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Douglas Feith were among the principal planners of U.S. total domination of world resources. The insane hubris of these distorted minds makes them see the United States as being fully entitled to rule the Earth. The domination of the Middle East oil market was extremely carefully planned. And, more precisely, the invasion of Iraq was set to be the auspicious opening of such an undertaking. Wolfowitz, Libby, Perle and Feith are known to be the major authors of the Iraq war. The 9/11 disaster played so well into their hands that it is hard to believe the administration did not at the very least knowingly let it happen. Particularly since, in their own plans, it said that, absent a new Pearl Harbor, they would be hard put to initiate a war to achieve domination of the greater Middle East. The invasion of Iraq, however, was clearly on their long-term agenda. Convenience and profit But beyond the push for war is not power hunger and greed alone. There is also convenience. Most of the wars since World War II have occurred when the administration was in great danger of losing the support of the public. The most efficient remedy has always been to get the nation into a war and declare the man in the White House a "War President" and the country as being in great danger of attack. Sowing fear has always been the most efficient means of rallying a nation behind a war president. The Nation being in great danger has always been the theatrical routine that was acted out to vouch for the necessity of starting a new war. Even when tiny Grenada suffered a coup d’état in 1983, the military regime that took power was supposed to present a danger to the United States. Americans were made to believe it and Ronald Reagan became a hero to a majority of the American people. But above and beyond all these pretenses has always been the greed of the arms industry and other big corporations that profit handily from the war. What we are up to today is not just the necessity of a change of government. We desperately need to beat the current corporate establishment that rules the planet. And that is the awesome task we have to face and the hard fight we have to win before we can hope for a real change in the destinies of the people of the United States and of the world. Since the rest of the world follows more or less obediently in the footsteps of the empire, from fear of being left out of the profit of plunder, we have to see with open eyes that this is a world-wide struggle. The American people may be getting their eyes opened to the hubris, the recklessness and the incompetence of the present administration, but can they also be made to see that the country and their lives are ruled by the corporate world, the business and advertising giants? And that we have to slay the dragon. [1] The highly partial role of the United States as well as of the rest of the world in the rise to power of Adolf Hitler is an important side issue in the history of modern wars. Siv O’Neall is an Axis of Logic columnist, based in France. She can be reached at siv@axisoflogic.com -------- iraq Life in Hell: A Baghdad Diary By APARISIM GHOSH Sunday, Aug. 6, 2006 Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1223363,00.html A knot begins to form in my stomach exactly at 8 a.m., when I step into the small Fokker F-28 jet that will take me and 50 other passengers from Amman, Jordan, to Baghdad. I know what lies ahead: an hour's uneventful flying over unchanging desert, followed by the world's scariest landing--a steep, corkscrewing plunge into what used to be Saddam Hussein International Airport. Then an eight-mile drive into the city along what's known as the Highway of Death. I've made this trip more than 20 times since Royal Jordanian's civilian flights started three years ago, and you'd expect it would get easier. But the knot takes hold in my stomach every time. I scan the cabin for familiar faces. The 50-odd passengers include the usual suspects--Western "security consultants" in faux fatigues, Iraqi officials in dark suits. And some surprises, like the three women in white Indian saris with blue borders. The nuns from the Missionaries of Charity, Mother Teresa's order, are a comforting sight. One of them, Sister Benedetta, kindly gives me a laminated picture of the soon-to-be saint and a genuine relic--a microchip-size piece of Teresa's sari. A lapsed Hindu, I'm nonetheless grateful for any and all gifts that purport to holiness; somewhere in my bags are a tiny sandalwood Ganesha, pages of the New Testament and a string of Islamic prayer beads. In Iraq, you want to have God--anybody's God--within easy reach. Sister Benedetta smiles politely when I joke that many of our fellow passengers will be calling to their maker when the plane begins its hellish descent. To avoid being shot down by Iraqi insurgents, the pilot must stay at 30,000 ft. until the plane is directly over Baghdad airport, then bank into a spiraling dive, straightening up just yards from the runway. If you're looking out the window, it can feel as if the plane is in a free fall from which it can't possibly pull out. I've learned from experience to ask for an aisle seat. The only thing worse than the view from the window is being seated next to someone who hasn't taken the flight before. During one especially difficult landing in 2004, a retired American cop wouldn't stop screaming "Oh, God! Oh, God!" I finally had to slap him on the face--on instructions from the flight attendant. Another time the man in the window seat was a muscular, heavily tattooed Polynesian ex-commando who spent an hour telling me of his life as a mercenary in a succession of South Pacific island nations--stories that often ended with his punching, stabbing or shooting somebody. When the Fokker began its steep descent, he began whimpering to Jesus and grabbing my forearm so tight, I felt my palm go cold from lack of circulation. On this occasion, to my relief, the guy next to me is a fellow journalist and veteran of the nightmare landings. Even so, as we begin the descent, I move my hand away from the armrest. Looking over my shoulder, I see a familiar expression on the faces of my co-passengers: a mixture of fear and resignation. Sister Benedetta is staring up at the ceiling, her lips moving in prayer. I reach into my shirt pocket and surreptitiously rub my fingers over that laminated picture. When the Fokker's wheels hit the tarmac, 50 people sigh in unison, 50 stomachs unclench. But the relief is temporary; most of us still have to negotiate the Highway of Death. There have been hundreds of insurgent and terrorist attacks along its length since the U.S. military established its largest Iraqi base, Camp Victory, next to the airport three years ago. Many of the attacks are directed at U.S. patrols, but they have also killed scores of Iraqi noncombatants. Last summer two of my Iraqi colleagues were badly wounded when a roadside bomb went off next to their car on the Highway of Death; twice I've been caught in cross fire between insurgents and U.S. soldiers. Recently the highway has become less deadly--perhaps the only place in Baghdad that can make such a claim. The once daily attacks along the road have given way to occasional strikes, like the twin suicide bombings in May that killed 14 Iraqis near Checkpoint 1, where arriving travelers meet transport waiting to take them into the city. U.S. officials claim the decline in attacks as a victory for military strategy, attributing it to the greatly increased visibility of Iraqi soldiers along the road. My contacts in the insurgency offer an alternative, equally plausible explanation: there are fewer U.S. patrols and convoys on the road than before, fewer targets to attack. Although a ride on the Highway of Death once exaggerated the dangers lurking in Baghdad, it now does the opposite, lulling newcomers into a false sense of security. Even as the airport route has got somewhat safer, huge portions of the Iraqi capital have become far more dangerous. I pass one of those on the drive into the city: Amariyah, the mainly Sunni suburb adjacent to Camp Victory and home to Mahmud, one of my Iraqi colleagues. (The names of most of TIME's Iraqi employees have been changed in this article for their protection; working for a foreign company makes them targets for insurgents, and many lie, even to their closest neighbors, about what they do for a living.) A couple of years ago, it was easy to visit with Mahmud's family in their sand-colored two-story home; last year it became too perilous for foreigners after insurgent groups began operating in the area. Now, even Iraqis feel unsafe in Amariyah. Mahmud began to move out his extended family earlier this year when the neighborhood was taken over by a jihadi gang that imposed an extreme interpretation of Islamic law. Women were forbidden to drive, men were ordered not to wear shorts, and shops selling Western goods were firebombed. As we drive past, I can hear a gun battle somewhere--the deep rumble of U.S. military M-16s and the higher-pitch clatter of AK-47s. The gunfire is a momentary distraction for Wisam, my driver, who is telling me about yesterday's atrocity--66 people killed when a suicide bomber detonated himself in a crowded market in the Shi'ite neighborhood of Sadr City. Last year that giant slum was the safest district in Baghdad. Now I mentally add it to the list of neighborhoods I can enter only at great risk. Like many Iraqis, Wisam likes to drive pedal to the metal, and while it's a good idea to get away from Amariyah as fast as possible, I am acutely conscious that I'm not wearing my seat belt. Iraqis never wear one, and for me to buckle up would be like sticking a FOREIGNER ON BOARD sign on the windshield, a bad idea in a city where kidnapping gangs are known to cruise for lucrative targets. As an Indian, I can often pass for a local if I keep my mouth shut--my Arabic is rudimentary--but in public places I have to be careful to avoid other obvious signs of foreignness: seat belts, chewing gum, headphones. To bring me up to date with the news, Wisam rattles off a long list of recent atrocities: a high-profile kidnapping here, a massacre there, a car bombing someplace else. Long before we reach the city, I've heard so many ghastly things that the harrowing flight is already a fading memory. Sensing my sinking spirits, Wisam apologizes for the overdose of grim tidings. "You know how it is in Iraq," he says with a grin. "All news is bad news." Then he tells me about the 10 bodies that were discovered in his neighborhood in the past few days, all of them his fellow Shi'ites. The bodies were decapitated, the heads never found. He tells me how, since a suicide bombing in a nearby neighborhood, his wife has been suffering anxiety attacks when she goes shopping. I feel ashamed that a mere hour's worth of Baghdad's reality has brought me down; Wisam and his family live it all the time. For Iraqis, reality is not just a suicide bomber in a crowded marketplace or militias running amuck in the streets. It is an accumulation of daily dangers and dilemmas--and the growing certainty that things are about to get worse. American officials and Iraqi politicians who live and work in the fortified bubble of the Green Zone are still reluctant to use the words civil war. At the start of this year, they were dismissing an all-out battle between sects as impossible. In March they were saying it was improbable. Now they cautiously suggest it is not inevitable. And that's the optimistic perspective. A more despairing assessment was on display last week in departing British Ambassador William Patey's final diplomatic memo to London. "The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy," Patey wrote in his message, which was leaked to the British media. For ordinary Iraqis who live on the other side of the Green Zone's tall walls, the time to debate if and when civil war will start is past: it is already under way. It's a view that I share. After three years of dwindling optimism over Iraq's future, I now feel a mounting pessimism. In the Red Zone (the name given to the rest of Baghdad by Green Zoners too nervous to venture outside the walls), the sporadic spurts of violence between Shi'ites and Sunnis have given way to a steady stream of blood. Partisans on both sides are arming themselves for battle, and ordinary folks are looking for ways to defend themselves. Owing to soaring demand, the price of a Chinese-made AK-47 has quadrupled, to $200, since the start of the year; the Russian-made version has doubled, to $600. The U.N. reports that nearly 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, more than in any comparable period since the fall of Saddam. These days, almost all the killing is Iraqi on Iraqi. Many people are abandoning neighborhoods that were harmoniously mixed for centuries, instead seeking the safety of all-Shi'ite or Sunni-only districts. The government says more than 180,000 people have become refugees in their own country; tens of thousands of others are fleeing Iraq altogether. The political leadership, from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on down, lacks both the stature and the will to bridge the chasm between the two communities. Caught in the middle, the U.S. military is unable to halt the bloodshed. Wisam is right: Iraq's news these days is all bad. As a result, Iraqis have little time for other people's tragedies. The news from Lebanon has dominated Arab channels like al-Jazeera in recent weeks, but it hasn't resonated much with Iraqis. Politicians, especially Shi'ite leaders with ties to Iran, have issued predictable broadsides against Israel; some, like the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have blamed the U.S. too. He orchestrated a large pro-Hizballah demonstration in his Sadr City stronghold last week--a protest against the bombing in Lebanon but also a piece of political theater designed to showcase the strength of his support (and a response to a muscle-flexing rally organized earlier by a rival Shi'ite leader). For the most part, ordinary Iraqis, although sympathetic to their coreligionists in Lebanon, have shown little interest in a conflict that seems both far away and from another era--a leftover war from the 20th century. Not only are the protagonists familiar, but so too are their tactics and weapons: Israeli artillery, Hizballah rockets. Those looking for parallels in Iraq will find few. The war in Iraq is about 21st century issues, like terrorism and extremist Islam. The very survival of a nation hangs in the balance. It is a murky battlefield, where combatants are hard to identify and alliances shift constantly, so nothing and nobody are predictable. Even the weapons are postmodern: improvised explosive devices, car bombs, suicide bombers. And the Iraq war is far deadlier; on almost any given day, casualty figures in Baghdad alone dwarf those in Lebanon and Israel combined. At the house TIME uses as its base in Baghdad, our staff of 25 Iraqis snort disdainfully as news broadcasters announce the daily death toll in the Levant. "They count their dead in dozens. We count ours in hundreds," says Ali al-Shaheen, our bureau manager. Only when Israeli bombs killed 28 people in the Lebanese village of Qana did it register on al-Shaheen's radar. Watching the images of the carnage, he declares, "Now they know how Iraqis live." Every so often, something happens that causes the Iraqi government and the Bush Administration to announce that a turning point has arrived for the beleaguered country. In the month that I was away from Baghdad, there were two such events: the killing of terrorist Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi and the appointment, after weeks of political haggling, of new ministers of Defense and the Interior. The ministers, a Sunni and Shi'ite, respectively, had been touted as independent and nonsectarian--new brooms to brush away the rampant corruption in the two crucial security ministries. Interior, in particular, would be cleansed of the Shi'ite militias that had infiltrated all levels of the police and other security forces and turned them into instruments of Shi'ite vengeance against their former Sunni oppressors. The ministers were the last bricks on the façade that is the all-party national-unity government of Prime Minister al-Maliki. Earlier in the year I had watched from close quarters as U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad worked tirelessly to make that government possible, pleading, cajoling until all the political factions--Shi'ite, Sunni, Kurdish and secular--agreed to get in the big tent together. Relieved, the Bush Administration announced that the participation of all groups, especially the recalcitrant Sunnis, would allow al-Maliki's government to succeed where the U.S. military had failed, in bringing to heel both the Sunni insurgency and the rising might of the Shi'ite militias. Never mind that the Prime Minister was himself a Shi'ite partisan until his nomination--whereupon he sought to reinvent himself as a nonsectarian leader--and that his party had stronger ties to Tehran than to Washington. An ornery figure, al-Maliki is a backroom politician plainly ill at ease in public; few Iraqis had even heard of him, and few are convinced that his rancorous all-party government can last the year, much less its full four-year term. Already, U.S. officials are finding it hard to keep up the optimistic spin. Shi'ite and Sunni politicians may now sit together, but their mutual hostility is undiminished, undermining the government--and al-Maliki can only look on helplessly. A political lightweight and compromise candidate, the Prime Minister doesn't have the clout to bash heads, much less deliver on his promises to pursue insurgents with "no mercy" and crush the militias "with an iron fist." As the politicians continue to bicker, the big tent is looking shaky; there were calls last week for several ministers--including the Interior chief--to be replaced. The failure of new political nostrums is driving Iraqi and U.S. officials to retry military remedies that have been thoroughly discredited: massive security rings around Baghdad, high-visibility troop presence in the streets and sweeping house-to-house searches. If Iraq has taught us anything in the past three years--and Lebanon in the past three weeks--it is that conventional military tactics don't work in an asymmetrical conflict. Sheer numbers and firepower count for very little. Despite an ongoing 50,000-man, joint U.S.-Iraqi military operation dubbed Operation Forward Together to flush Baghdad clean of nationalist insurgents, jihadist terrorists and sectarian militias, the capital is as dangerous as ever. If anything, the Shi'ite militias are getting more brazen; a few days after my return, they entered the largely Sunni neighborhood of al-Jihad and slaughtered at least 50 people, including several women and children. Eight days later, Sunni fighters attacked a market in Mahmoudiya, just south of the capital, and mowed down more than 50 Shi'ites. Increasingly, attacks are taking place in broad daylight, leaving Iraqis to wonder how their security forces can overlook large numbers of armed men moving through the streets. The failure of Forward Together is a blow to the Bush Administration's hopes of quickly scaling down the U.S. military presence. With some 7,200 American and coalition soldiers joining 42,500 Iraqis, the operation was meant to showcase the growing ability of Iraqi security forces to protect their citizens. The experiment was effectively declared a failure two weeks ago when Bush and al-Maliki announced in Washington that more U.S. troops would be sent to protect Baghdad. But will that work? Probably not. When the full might of the U.S. military has been brought to bear in an Iraqi city--think Fallujah, Tall 'Afar, Samarra, al-Qaim--the enemy has simply melted away, taking its terrorist tactics to places that are inadequately defended. And when U.S. forces have eventually stood down, leaving the policing to Iraqis, the enemy has returned to the very places that had supposedly been cleaned up--at the cost of American blood. There is no reason to believe that a re-tinkered Operation Forward Together will be any more successful, especially since insurgents, terrorists and militias have had ample warning that more Americans are coming, giving them time to pack their rocket-propelled grenades and leave. Nor has there been much progress on other security matters. The government's claims that several Sunni insurgent groups have responded to offers of amnesty have yet to be proved; some Sunni leaders say those who have opened negotiations are fringe figures with little sway over the insurgency. As for the jihadis, they seem unhindered by Forward Together. The Sadr City market explosion proved that the lull following al-Zarqawi's death was temporary. Suicide bombings have again become a daily headline. Many fit into a deadly new pattern: as crowds are drawn to the scene of the first explosion, a second device is detonated, doubling the toll. There was even a double bombing 100 yards from the main entrance of the Green Zone, the highly fortified enclave that houses the seat of the Iraqi government and the headquarters of the U.S. military. The twin blasts--one a car bomb, the other a suicide bomber--killed 16 people near some small shops where journalists emerging from the Green Zone on hot afternoons stop to buy cold sodas. Although the Green Zone is one of the most protected places in Iraq, the entrance known as Checkpoint 3 is one of the most dangerous. Last summer I and several other TIME staff members were fortunate to be just out of harm's way when a suicide bomber struck a kebab stand near the shops. The blast took the bomber's head clear off his body and sent it rolling down the road to Wisam's feet. He kicked it away dismissively. Powerless to stop the killing, al-Maliki's government has also failed to improve the lot of the living. Crime continues to soar, especially the booming business of kidnapping for ransom. U.S. officials say as many as 40 Iraqis are kidnapped every day. Ransom demands range from thousands of dollars to millions; many victims are never heard from again. Services are a cruel joke. As summer temperatures climb to 120?, there has been no perceptible improvement in electricity or the water supply. And at a time when people desperately need their gasoline-powered generators to operate ceiling fans and air conditioners, fuel has become scarce. The wait in a gas-station line can last all day. Last month the black-market rate for a liter of gas briefly reached $1--exactly 100 times the official price just before the war. My Iraqi colleagues are amused when I read them stories about Americans complaining of high gas prices. High fuel prices have yielded one bonus: with more and more people keeping their cars at home, the roads are relatively free of traffic snarl-ups. It's typical of Baghdad that when something seems to get better--whether traffic or the ride from the airport--it's usually because something else has got much worse. Amid this unremitting misery, Iraqis struggle for some semblance of normality. In Baghdad, the 9 p.m. curfew means that the traditional family outings of summer--an evening picnic on the banks of the Tigris, dinner at a kebab restaurant or a late-night drive to an ice cream parlor--are all out of the question. Visiting with friends and family is impossible unless you're prepared to go early and stay overnight. It's an especially frustrating time for children; although it's the summer break, parents are reluctant to let kids out of the house. Danger hides everywhere. Last week several teenagers were among 11 people killed and 14 hurt when two bombs went off at a soccer field in the Shi'ite district of Amil. Al-Shaheen, our bureau manager, has three children going stir-crazy at home. "They feel imprisoned," he says. "For entertainment, they get on my wife's nerves during the day and on mine at night." The only available escapism is via TV. The one post-Saddam freedom Iraqis can unreservedly enjoy is access to satellite television--Lebanese music videos, Egyptian soaps, the Oprah Winfrey Show (with Arabic subtitles), sports. The soccer World Cup was a welcome distraction. Since Iraq didn't qualify, people invested their emotions in foreign teams, like Brazil and Italy. When the Italians won the tournament, it was our driver Wisam--not our Milanese photographer, Franco Pagetti--who had to be restrained from shooting an AK-47 into the air, the traditional Arab celebration. But even the enjoyment of a faraway sporting event can be poisoned by sectarian suspicions: a Sunni neighbor asked me, with a knowing smirk, whether our Shi'ite staff members had supported the Iranian team. When I said no, he was surprised. Many Sunnis believe that Shi'ite sympathies--and not just in sporting matters--lie with Iraq's ancient enemy to the east. "In Najaf and Basra, the Shi'ites were praying for Iran to win," he said disdainfully. "What do you expect from these people?" When I asked him if he had supported the two teams from Sunni-majority countries in the tournament, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia, he changed the subject. Fear of kidnapping is pervasive. To hide their wealth, many Iraqis choose to live well below their means. While on R. and R. in London, I met Hassan, a Baghdad businessman (he asked that his full name be concealed for his protection) who said he had "made millions" since the fall of Saddam, importing consumer electronics like refrigerators, washing machines and air conditioners. But his modest single-story home in the middle-class Yarmuk neighborhood still looks as it did when he inherited it from his father, an army captain. "I won't even put on a fresh coat of paint because that would arouse suspicions," he said. He drives around Baghdad in a beat-up Japanese car "even though I can afford a top-of-the-line Mercedes." Only when he's abroad does he live large, booking suites in the best hotels, buying expensive suits that he leaves with business associates and renting--yes--a top-of-the-line Mercedes. "If I live like this in Baghdad, there will be a competition among the kidnappers to take me." Hassan's business interests keep him coming back. Yet for many Baghdad residents, the only hope for a decent life is to escape altogether. Since the school year ended in June, thousands of families have been heading to safer parts of the country, like the Kurdish north, where an economic boom carries the promise of jobs. Those who can afford it are going abroad, mainly to Syria and Jordan. "The middle class is evaporating," says Iyad Allawi, who served as Iraq's interim Prime Minister in 2004 and part of '05. "Every Middle Eastern country I go to, they tell me immigration from Iraq is rising fast." Mahmud, my Iraqi colleague who fled Amariyah, has sent his wife and four kids to Amman. Whether they will return when schools reopen will depend on the security situation. Mahmud is not optimistic. "I should have made them pack winter clothes," he says. Sunnis like Mahmud now feel vulnerable in Baghdad, which for centuries was the citadel from which they lorded it over Iraq's Shi'ite majority. For the first three years after Saddam's fall, much of the violence in and around the capital was committed against Shi'ites by Sunni insurgents and jihadis. But since the beginning of this year, Shi'ite death squads--widely believed to emanate from militias like the Mahdi Army and the Iran-trained Badr Organization--have become the main practitioners of terrorist violence. Each side has its signature style of murder. When Iraqis hear news of car bombings or suicide bombers, they don't need to be told that Sunni jihadis were involved; when bodies bearing signs of gruesome torture (like the use of electric drills) turn up in a garbage dump or in the sewers, it's assumed Shi'ite militias were responsible. What makes the militias especially dangerous is the impunity with which they act. Since many policemen and soldiers are their former comrades-in-arms, militiamen are often allowed to roam unchecked. They are routinely accused of conducting "joint operations"--a euphemism for murderous rampages that police watch or even join. Sometimes police are accused of moonlighting as militiamen, using official vehicles and weapons. A three-car convoy belonging to Sunni M.P. Tayseer al-Mashhadani was stopped last month by 30 gunmen in a Shi'ite suburb. Al-Mashhadani and seven bodyguards were bundled into unmarked cars and driven away. An eighth bodyguard escaped and reported that the abductors had police-issue weapons. Al-Mashhadani hasn't been released. An even more audacious snatch came soon after: men in uniforms grabbed the chief of Iraq's Olympic Committee and 30 other sports officials. (Ten have been released, but the chief remains in captivity.) Men in uniform snatched 26 men last week from two offices less than a mile from TIME's house. The government's standard response to each new outrage is to deny that police were involved and instead finger "criminal gangs" wearing knockoff uniforms and using stolen weapons and vehicles. Occasionally, blame is directed at the militias but never by name. After all, the political groups that control the militias are key components of the Shi'ite coalition that has the most seats in parliament and that includes al-Maliki's party. The only militia to feel the Prime Minister's "iron fist" was the toothless Mujahedin-e-Khalq, a small, unarmed band of Iranian rebels dedicated to toppling the regime in Tehran; it had been confined to a single base outside Baghdad and was monitored by the U.S. Nobody had accused the Mujahedin-e-Khalq of any atrocities on Iraqi soil, and al-Maliki's decision to evict the group smacked of tokenism. Sunni politicians seized on the eviction as proof that al-Maliki was doing Tehran's bidding. For Sunnis in Baghdad, the sight of policemen is cause for concern rather than reassurance. Traffic checkpoints are especially perilous. Recently three TIME staff members--brothers, all Sunni--were detained at a police checkpoint for five hours. They began to worry when a Shi'ite friend who had been riding with them was allowed to leave. When the men showed their media badges, issued by the U.S. military, the cops accused them of being American spies. "We'll send you to the Interior Ministry," a cop said, obviously enjoying their discomfort as he bundled them into the back of a pickup truck. "You may be released or jailed, or maybe somebody will use an electric drill on you." In the end, the TIME men were able to talk their way out of captivity after the owner of a shop near the checkpoint vouched for them. "The police realized that if we disappeared, the shopkeeper might be able to identify them as the ones who captured us," says one of the brothers. A few days later, one of the brothers had another close shave when he stopped in a busy neighborhood to buy black-market gas. A car bomb went off 50 yards away, destroying his car. Luckily, he had stepped out of the vehicle to negotiate with the seller; he got away with minor shrapnel wounds. One tiny shard ripped into his shirt pocket in a direct line to his heart. The shrapnel arrowed through a thick wad of Iraqi currency and some loose paper and was finally stopped by his plastic ID card. "At last, I can say money saved my life," he jokes. Almost every Sunni family I meet seems to have a horror story that starts with a policeman at a checkpoint asking for identification. It's profiling, Iraqi style. The harassment ranges from getting insulting, sniggering comments ("Nice car. Where did you steal it?") to being handcuffed, blindfolded and hauled off to prison or, worse, a torture chamber. The most vulnerable are those who have obviously Sunni names, such as Omar. I have interviewed more than a dozen Omars, including two of Mahmud's nephews, who have endured varying degrees of persecution from police or militias. As a precaution, many Sunnis are buying fake ID cards with safe Shi'ite names. Feeling the heat from the militias and security forces, Baghdad's Sunnis know their best hope for protection lies in the Americans, the very occupying forces they have despised for toppling them from power. My meeting with a high-level commander of a Sunni insurgent group takes an unexpected turn when he angrily demands, "Where are the Americans? Why aren't they protecting our people?" For two years, the man has boasted to me about his fighters' operations against U.S. soldiers. Now he wants them as a shield from the marauding militias. It's clear from his indignation that the irony escapes him. The Bush Administration seems to be finally coming out of its state of denial about the danger of sectarianism. For months, officials and military brass have doggedly maintained that the Shi'ite-on-Sunni sectarian killings were one-offs, unlikely to spread across the community. That posture began to change when Shi'ite mobs went on a murderous spree in Baghdad's Sunni neighborhoods after the Feb. 22 bombing of the Shi'ite shrine in Samarra. By the time U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made his latest visit to Baghdad last month, the assessment was more realistic. General George Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, told Rumsfeld that Shi'ite death squads were catalyzing a surge in sectarian violence. And General John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, told a Senate committee in Washington last week that if the sectarian violence continued to spiral, Iraq "could move toward civil war." But recognizing the problem isn't the same as having a solution. The current military strategy isn't succeeding, as evidenced by the continuing tit-for-tat sectarian killings. U.S. and Iraqi forces last month stormed some buildings in the Mahdi Army's stronghold of Sadr City, killing several fighters and arresting a top commander. But the anticipated knockout punch was never delivered. Al-Maliki, says a senior Iraqi government official, "doesn't want a war against Muqtada al-Sadr because it would open him up to charges of killing his fellow Shi'ites--like what Allawi faced." After Allawi gave the green light for U.S. forces to attack the Mahdi Army in 2004, he became a political pariah to Shi'ites. And al-Maliki is loath to antagonize al-Sadr after working hard to win his endorsement of the national-unity government. For Sunnis, the failure to smash the Mahdi Army is not so much an indictment of al-Maliki as proof of a U.S. double standard. Salam al-Zaubai, a Sunni and one of al-Maliki's two Deputy Prime Ministers, complains that U.S. forces treat the militias with kid gloves. "When they attacked the Sunni resistance, they flattened entire cities, like Fallujah," he says. "But when it comes to Sadr City, their approach is different. Why?" For their part, residents of Sadr City ask why the U.S. is attacking the militias--seen as Robin Hood figures--when they should be looking for the Sunni terrorists who bombed the market. Amid all the cursing and complaining, there's an unexpected benefit for the U.S. military: the proliferating investigations into the killing of civilians by American troops are being forgotten. In our previous meeting two months ago, the insurgent leader had been cursing the Marines accused in the massacre of innocent civilians in Haditha. Since then, the accumulation of atrocities by Iraq's militias has altered his perspective. "Haditha was nothing compared to what the militias are doing," he says. It's hard not to sympathize with Al-Maliki. The Prime Minister has the near impossible task of repairing the damage wrought by three years' worth of poorly considered policies and half-measures, most of them instituted by U.S. officials and generals who have long since gone home. "I'm tempted to get him a coffee mug with the slogan WORLD'S WORST JOB," a Western diplomat told me in May, when al-Maliki was sworn in. "They've just handed him a toothbrush and told him to clean up the mountain of a mess left by [former U.S. administrator] Paul Bremer, Allawi and [former Prime Minister Ibrahim] al-Jaafari." Al-Maliki is getting very little help from other Iraqi leaders. The national-unity government is anything but unified. Shi'ite and Sunni ministers routinely contradict one another. It's hard to get consensus even among his fellow Shi'ites. His offer of amnesty for Sunni insurgents was compromised when a powerful Shi'ite leader publicly disagreed about who should be pardoned. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim said insurgents who had killed U.S. service personnel should be pardoned, directly contradicting al-Maliki's promise that those with American blood on their hands would not qualify for amnesty. Al-Maliki's plan was also criticized by al-Sadr. It's probably no coincidence that al-Hakim and al-Sadr control the two largest armed Shi'ite militias, the Badr Organization and Mahdi Army, respectively. While al-Maliki at least tries to present himself as a unifying figure, railing against Sunni insurgents and Shi'ite militias, many of his partners in the government are blatantly sectarian. Political leaders express outrage over the atrocities committed against their own sect but won't acknowledge that the other side, too, is bleeding. They often dismiss those wounds as self-inflicted. After the bombing of the Samarra shrine, many Sunni leaders told me the blast was the work of Shi'ite agents provocateurs working in concert with Iranian intelligence operatives. Likewise, Mahdi Army commanders routinely accuse Sunni insurgents of committing atrocities against their own kind and then blaming the Shi'ites. A typical encounter was my interview with Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, the seniormost Sunni in the Iraqi government. We met in his chintz-laden Green Zone office on the day of the al-Jihad murders. Many of the victims had been dragged out of their homes and shot dead in the street. As usual, the finger of blame pointed to the Mahdi Army. After al-Hashimi had fulminated about the slaughter of his fellow Sunnis, I asked whether the murdering militiamen might have been seeking revenge for the previous week's bombing of the market in Sadr City. Al-Hashimi's response was to claim that militiamen had planted the bomb, deliberately killing their fellow Shi'ites in order to justify revenge killings of Sunnis. "They were able to attack Sunni mosques within an hour of the market bomb," he said. "This has to have been premeditated." Such bizarre logic quickly becomes received wisdom in a society in which even the highest officials in the land propagate outlandish conspiracy theories. The speaker of Iraq's parliament, Mahmud al-Mashhadani, a Sunni, announced at a press conference in Bahrain that "an entire Israeli brigade has entered Iraq ... trying to infiltrate various parties." That phantom force, he continued, is "camped at Babylon, whose destruction signifies the survival of the state of Israel in their holy books." The few secular politicians with any name recognition, like Allawi, have become marginalized, their voices drowned by the sectarian din. In two general elections, Allawi has failed to get more than 14% of the vote, and the flight of middle-class Iraqis is eroding his natural constituency. He bemoans the growing power of sectarian forces but can only watch in despair. In private conversations even politicians with no pretensions of secularism occasionally wish for a unifying leader. Some months ago, Sunni leader Saleh al-Mutlak and I chatted about the kind of leadership it would take to pull Iraq back from the brink. We agreed that there were no giants on the political landscape, and he shook his head dolefully. "Not only that," he said, sighing, "but the political system we have created makes it impossible for such a figure to emerge." Politicians, he said, have discovered that the easiest way to win votes is to appeal to sectarian chauvinism; they have little incentive to take the higher, more difficult road. Al-Mutlak returned to that theme in a recent interview with a local paper, saying the country needed "an Iraqi Mandela." Alas, statesmen can't be wished into existence. In 31/2 years of covering Iraq, I have not come across a single leader who has seemed able to rise above petty political or sectarian interests. Never mind a Mandela; there's not even an Iraqi Hamid Karzai. The beleaguered Afghan President has more credibility with his people than any Iraqi politician can honestly claim. In the absence of statesmen, I fear the sectarian furies that have been unleashed in Iraq will hack away at the last vestiges of sense and decency and drag the country into a final fight to the death. Green Zoners are still hoping against hope it doesn't come to that. Pairing familiar words in odd new ways, Ambassador Khalilzad recently told a Washington audience that Americans need to be "tactically patient" and "strategically optimistic" about Iraq's future. On his first official visit to Britain and the U.S. two weeks ago, al-Maliki also told the Blair and Bush administrations what they wanted to hear: that a civil war could be averted. But at least the Prime Minister has stopped trying to spin his own people. A few days before he left for Britain and the U.S., a desperate al-Maliki gave a televised speech to his parliament, pleading with his fellow politicians to set aside their differences. Looking like a man at his wit's end, he warned that national reconciliation was one "last chance" to avert a civil war: "If it fails, I don't know what the destiny of Iraq will be." For a second, I thought I recognized the expression on his face. It's the one I had seen on the faces of my fellow passengers on the flight into Baghdad--that mixture of fear and resignation, just before the descent into hell. To submit questions to Aparisim Ghosh about life in Baghdad, visit time.com With reporting by Charles Crain/Baghdad, Mark Thompson/Washington, DOUGLAS WALLER/WASHINGTON -------- israel / palestine Israel's actions are same as U.S. during wartime August 6, 2006 Salem Statesman Journal http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060806/OPINION/608060321/1050 Many are angry at Israel. Hezbollah's capture of two soldiers unleashed a brutal Israeli backlash of American-made high-tech weaponry, including cluster munitions. Almost all of the hundreds of fatalities have been Lebanese civilians -- many women and children. The Israelis claim that the Rome conference gave them "permission from the world ... to continue the operation." In actuality, the conference could not agree to call for a cease-fire. The U.S. State Department quickly (and hypocritically) labeled the Israeli statement as "outrageous". Why the anger and outrage? Israel is, after all, just following the example of its chief supplier of weapons and foreign aid, the United States. The U.S. claimed to have a United Nations mandate to invade Iraq. In actuality, there was such bitter disagreement within the Security Council that no agreement was reached. The U.S. uses highly questionable force in Iraq, including cluster munitions, depleted uranium munitions, napalm-like incendiaries and white phosphorus shells. Mr. Bush claims that "national security" gives him the authority to order -- among other things -- warrantless wiretaps, presidentially-ordered imprisonment, and invasion of any nation he perceives to be "a threat." If it's OK for us to do it, it must be OK for everyone else, eh? -- Michael Heggen, Salem -------- mideast Lebanon rejects draft U.N. resolution Sun Aug 6, 2006 8:51 AM ET By Lin Noueihed (Reuters) http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=TopNews&storyID=2006-08-06T125107Z_01_L06739867_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-LEBANON-BERRI.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C1-TopStories-TopNews-2 BEIRUT - Lebanon rejects a draft U.N. Security Council resolution to end 26 days of fighting because it would allow Israeli forces to remain on Lebanese soil, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said on Sunday. Slamming the French-U.S. draft as biased, Berri said it ignored a seven-point plan presented by Lebanon that calls for an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the return of all displaced civilians among other things. "Lebanon, and all of Lebanon, rejects any resolution that is outside these seven points," said Berri, who has been negotiating on behalf of Hizbollah guerrillas. "Their resolution will either drop Lebanon into internal strife or will be impossible to implement," he told a news conference. The draft resolution, which the Security Council is expected to vote on either Monday or Tuesday, calls for a "full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations". A senior Israeli government official said the Jewish state views the draft favorably, because it allows Israel to respond to Hizbollah attacks once a truce takes effect and did not order Israel to withdraw its 10,000 soldiers from southern Lebanon. Israel wants its troops to remain until an international force mandated by the United Nations can take over. Berri said that there could be no peace while Israeli soldiers remained on Lebanese soil. "What was agreed is not in Lebanon's interests but against them. This will open the door to never-ending war," he said. "There will be operations against this army that is not on its own soil, that is occupying here. The result is the Israelis will bomb again so we will reach neither a next stage nor the deployment of the (Lebanese) army nor UNIFIL nor international forces." Berri also said the wording of the resolution was loaded against Lebanon. He complained that an international force that would be established by a second U.N. resolution, following an initial resolution establishing a truce, would come under Chapter Seven of the U.N. charter, which authorizes the use of force, but would not necessarily be answerable to the world body. France is seen as the potential leader of such a force. Berri said the resolution would put Lebanon back in the same position it was in before May 2000, when Israeli troops occupied a broad swathe of southern Lebanon for 22 years. Israel withdrew from the area amid constant attack by Hizbollah guerrillas. Hizbollah leaders have sworn to fight as long as Israeli soldiers remain on Lebanese soil. Israeli troops are trying to drive Hizbollah back from the border area, from where the group has fired barrages of rockets into the Jewish state. -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars News Media's Love-Hate for Nuclear Weapons by Norman Solomon (Sunday August 06 2006) Media Monitors Network http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/33757 "...experts say that the Israeli government now has about 200 nuclear weapons. Israel’s military actions in recent weeks underscore its willingness to use high-tech weaponry for reckless offensives that kill many civilians." Since the Soviet Union collapsed a decade and a half ago, nuclear weaponry has been mostly relegated to back pages and mental back burners in the United States. A big media uproar about nuclear weapons is apt to happen only when the man in the Oval Office has chosen to make an issue of them. Sometimes a “nuclear threat” has been imaginary. During the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration went into rhetorical overdrive -- fabricating evidence and warning that an ostensible smoking gun could turn into a mushroom cloud. The White House publicly obsessed about an Iraqi nuclear-weapons program that didn’t exist. In sharp contrast, North Korea really seems to have a nuclear warhead or two. And because the Pyongyang regime is apparently nuclear-armed, Bush isn’t likely to order an attack on that country, as he did against Iraq and as he has been not-too-subtly threatening to do against Iran. By all credible accounts, Tehran is at least several years -- and probably more like a full decade -- away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. But America’s top officials and leading pundits have been sounding urgent alarms. Judging from the frequent denunciations of some countries for alleged plans to build a nuclear arsenal, you might think that the U.S. media are down on nuclear weapons. Not so. Red-white-and-blue nuclear weaponry has been depicted by U.S. news media as a reassuring guarantor of national security -- or at worst an unfortunate necessity -- since the nuclear age went public 61 years ago with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. That first atomic bombing of Japan came three days before an initial presidential lie about U.S. nuclear weapons policies. The lie was huge, but very few journalists in the United States have ever done so much as murmur a complaint about it. On Aug. 9, 1945, President Harry Truman told the public this whopper: “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians.” Actually, the U.S. government went out of its way to select Japanese cities of sufficient size to showcase the extent of the A-bomb’s deadly power -- in Hiroshima on Aug. 6 and in Nagasaki on Aug. 9. As a result of those two bombings, hundreds of thousands of civilians died, immediately or eventually. If Truman’s conscience had been clear, it’s doubtful he would have felt compelled to engage in such a basic distortion at the dawn of the nuclear era. The scientific know-how of the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb was headquartered at the secret Los Alamos laboratory in northern New Mexico beginning in the spring of 1943. Today, that one laboratory has a $2 billion annual budget, with most of the money devoted to the lab’s key role in helping to maintain the “reliability and safety” of the U.S. government’s nuclear arsenal -- which currently includes about 10,000 thermonuclear weapons. But you’d have to search far and wide to find mainstream American news coverage that raises fundamental questions about that arsenal as any kind of “nuclear threat.” Meanwhile, experts say that the Israeli government now has about 200 nuclear weapons. Israel’s military actions in recent weeks underscore its willingness to use high-tech weaponry for reckless offensives that kill many civilians. But in U.S. news media, the implicit message is that American nuclear bombs are A-OK, and the fact that Washington’s ally Israel maintains a large nuclear arsenal is supposed to be no cause for major concern. Until the moment when events prove otherwise, the policy of deploying an array of nuclear weapons with the rationale of “deterrence” can convince the faithful that the nuclear priesthood in Washington is worthy of our trust. But, going deeper than nationalistic blind faith, some important questions should be considered. Last week, the Latin American writer Eduardo Galeano asked two of them: “Who calibrates the universal dangerometer? Was Iran the country that dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?” -------- us politics The Dunces of Doomsday 10 Blunders That Gave Rise to Radical Islam, Terrorist Regimes, And the Threat of an American Hiroshima By Paul L. Williams August 6, 2006 WorldNetDaily http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1838 The war on terror has become a household subject since the attacks on September 11, 2001. In reality, the jihad against America did not happen overnight. It has been coming for quite some time. "The Dunces of Doomsday" documents 10 blunders that resulted in an invigorated radical Islam, terrorism worldwide, and the coming "American Hiroshima." The blunders documented include: # The Peanut Farmer and the Ayatollah — How the worst president in America's history permitted and invigorated the rise of radical Islam # The Great Offense Against Islam — How the invasion of Iraq under President George H. W. Bush and the installation of U.S. military bases between Islam's holy cities of Mecca and Medina sparked the holy war and the plan for the American Hiroshima # The Poppy Fields Remain in Bloom — How the war on terror could have been averted by fire-bombing the poppy fields of Afghanistan # The Clinton Follies: From the Mullahs to Monica — How the Clinton administration, which largely ignored international problems, failed to address the growing threat of Al-Qaeda after the attack on the U.S. embassies, the counterresistance in Somalia, and the attacks on the USS The Sullivans and the USS Cole # W Uses the Wrong Word — How President George W. Bush's message that Islam means peace obscured the reality that Islam means submission to Allah. "The Dunces of Doomsday" chronicles the mistakes that have been made and provides a guide for preventing radical Islam and terrorism's dream of carrying out the "American Hiroshima." Author Paul L. Williams, Ph.D., is a journalist and the author of "The Al Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime, and the Coming Apocalypse"; "The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia"; and "Osama’s Revenge: The Next 9/11 — What the Media and the Government Haven’t Told You." He has served as a consultant for the FBI, as editor and publisher of the Metro in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and as an adjunct professor of humanities at the University of Scranton. -------- ACTIVISTS Local demonstration is part of international anti-nuke event Members of Peace Action Staten Island demonstrate in front of Rep. Vito Fossella's campaign headquarters Sunday, August 06, 2006 By CAROLYN RUSHEFSKY ADVANCE STAFF WRITER http://www.silive.com/news/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/1154870523168270.xml&coll=1 Peace Action Staten Island and People Against Oppression and War took part yesterday in the "Shadow Project," an international event aimed at eliminating the use of nuclear weapons and promoting peace among nations. As traffic whizzed by along Hylan Boulevard, John Bostrom, a founding member of Peace Action Staten Island, held up a billboard about the war in Iran, stating: "2,586+ dead. How many more?" The worldwide event marks the 61st anniversary of the United States dropping two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, said Mike May, a Peace Action board member. The national group, which has over 28 state affiliates and 100 local chapters, pressures Congress and the president through citizens' lobbying, write-in campaigns, Internet actions, and direct action. The Island group gathered at noon yesterday at Rep. Vito Fossella's campaign headquarters on Hylan Boulevard, Grant City. Fossella's office was chosen for the demonstration because of the congressman's staunch support of U.S. nuclear weapons, said Sally Jones, a founding member of the Island group with her husband, David. Asked what the United States should do when other countries have nuclear weapons, David Jones replied, "We believe in doing away with nuclear weapons and we should lead by example." The couple wrote to Fossella last year to protest his support of nuclear weapons, particularly the Nuclear Earth Penetrator designed to rout the U.S. enemy in Afghanistan caves, but Fossella responded that troops need to have the "tools necessary to preserve our way of life," Ms. Jones said, quoting a letter sent by Fossella to the couple. Matt Mika, campaign manager for Fossella, said, "With rogue nations like North Korea and Iran developing nuclear weapons, I don't see how giving our enemies a military advantage, or denying our troops every resource to get the job done, is in the national security interest of the United States." In Manhattan yesterday, the New York City War Resistors League (WRL) sponsored a Hiroshima/Nagasaki exhibit at Tompkins Square Park, commemorating the 61st anniversary of dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At 7:15 p.m., participants, who were asked to wear white, the color of mourning in Asian cultures, held a ceremony to remember the bombing of Hiroshima. The bomb fell on that city at 7:15 p.m., Aug. 5, 1945, New York time, or 8:15 a.m., Aug. 6, Hiroshima time. Carolyn Rushefsky is a reporter for the Advance. She may be reached at rushefsky@ siadvance. com. ---- On the anniversary of Hiroshima ONE LOCAL MAN RECALLS THE FORCE OF THE A-BOMB By Paul Brooks pbrooks@th-record.com NY Times Herald-Record, August 06, 2006 http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/08/06/news-pbatom-08-06.html Highland - It was May 1, 1952. Bob Hansut squirmed at the bottom of his foxhole, his face in the dry Nevada dirt, his eyes clenched shut, his Marine helmut strapped on tight, and he waited. "Bomb away," came a voice over the loudspeaker at Camp Desert Rock, sometimes called Camp Atom Rock. Seconds passed. At 8:31 a.m., 1,040 feet above the parched ground, the air ignited into a nuclear fireball. In microseconds, it was 10,000 times hotter than the surface of the sun and millions of times brighter. "It lit up the bottom of that foxhole," Hansut recalled. Others said the light was so brilliant, it illuminated the bones in their hands. Hansut stood up and looked toward ground zero, 1½ miles away. He could see the blast's shock waves ripple toward him. As he had been briefed, he braced himself against the far side of his foxhole. At 19 kilotons, the bomb was bigger than the "Little Boy" bomb whose blast leveled 90 percent of the Japanese city of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, 61 years ago today. Near the epicenter of the blast circle, the heat incinerated that city's residents. As Hansut found in Nevada, even a mile and a half away, the heat was intense. "It was like looking into a furnace," he said. And he forgot about the second shock wave, caused by the air rushing back toward the center of the blast. He had been warned to prepare for it. Instead, he said, "I got knocked ass over teacup." The blast, code-named DOG, was the fourth in Operation Tumbler-Snapper, a series of nuclear tests the government conducted in 1952. It was the only one of the tests in which Marines took part, according to Department of Defense records. About 2,000 Marines either observed the effects of the bomb or took part in a tactical maneuver shortly after the explosion. Hansut said he was one of about 500 people who climbed on the bus and drove to ground zero to witness the bomb's effects. "I got to within 600 yards," Hansut said. Defense Department records said the Marines were stopped from going closer because of the intensity of the radiation. The scene was one of severe devastation. Mannequins dressed in full uniform had been placed behind buildings. Their legs had been burned off where the building had not shaded them from the blast. Sherman tanks weighing 30 or 40 tons had been pushed around like toys. Wooden structures had ended up charred hulks. Some concrete buildings had collapsed. It is a sight few have seen and many fear. Terrorism and the potential spread of nuclear weapons to countries like Iran and North Korea have the world on edge. Hundreds of thousands died in the blasts and aftermath of bombings of Hiroshima and, three days later, Nagasaki. But it was justified, Hansut said. He has no doubt that America would have lost many, many lives in a Japanese invasion. At 76, the retired Central Hudson engineer and grandfather said he does not regret seeing the atom bomb in action. "I am glad I got to see both sides of the story. But I don't recommend doing this to anybody," he said. "Let's sit down and have a beer or something. Let's talk it out." ---- Australian protesters rally for peace and nuclear disarmament August 06, 2006 01:37pm The Australian http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20036120-1702,00.html A RALLY in Sydney has called for peace in the Middle East and the end of nuclear weapons as protesters gathered to mark the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. Around 500 people heard speakers including Islamic spokesman Keysar Trad and nuclear waste campaigner Eve Vincent at the rally in Hyde Park. Mr Trad, spokesman for Islamic Friendship Association of Australia called for an end to violence in the Middle East. "We are one human race, we are saying what Israel is doing in Lebanon and Gaza is savage ... and has no place in any civilised society," he told the gathering. Waving a Lebanese flag, a tearful Alya Issaoui from Hurstville, said all her friends had come along to show their support. "We are Australians but Lebanon is like our mother country and we want to show we care," the 17-year-old said. Former Australian diplomat, Professor Richard Broinowski, used the anniversary of Hiroshima to call for nuclear weapons to be condemned by all countries, especially Australia. "We in Australia should take the opportunity of having almost half the uranium reserves in the world to insist on a new substitute for the degraded nuclear non-proliferation treaty," he said. The crowd gathered to remember the horror of the dropping of an atomic bomb on the Japanese city, Hiroshima, in 1945. The noisy crowd made its way back to Hyde Park shouting "down, down Israel". Superintendent Paul Carey warned that the march could disrupt traffic in Sydney's CBD. "We're appealing to participants in the march to obey directions from police to ensure there is no disruption to the city," he said in a statement. Supt Carey said New South Wales Police would work with organisers to ensure the protest remains peaceful. "Anti-social or criminal behaviour will not be tolerated, and there will be a speedy response by police against anyone who disobeys the law, or places the welfare of others in danger," he said. Dennis Doherty, of the Hiroshima Day Committee, said nuclear weapons were becoming more sophisticated. "In the 61 years since the dropping of the bomb there has not been a substantial move by nuclear weapons states to drop their reliance on nuclear weapons," he said before the march. "Nuclear weapons have proliferated and there are no moves to diminish these weapons." Similar events are planned for capital cities across the country. ---- Hibakusha view Enola Gay, urge Bush to visit The Japan Times Sunday, Aug. 6, 2006 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060806a7.html WASHINGTON (Kyodo) Three survivors of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki visited the museum displaying the Enola Gay B-29 bomber on Friday and urged U.S. President George W. Bush to visit the two cities. Their visit came two days before the 61st anniversary of the use of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. It was dropped by the Enola Gay. The second bomb hit Nagasaki three days later. The three survivors told a news conference of their experiences and called for the abolition of nuclear weapons. They spoke in front of the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, an annex of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington. The center is in Virginia on the outskirts of the U.S capital. The three are Yoshio Sato, 75, of Yokohama, Shotaro Kodama, 76, of Tokyo, and Kazuhiro Yoshimura, 65, of Saitama. Sato and Kodama were in Hiroshima and Yoshimura in Nagasaki at the time of the attacks. "So that was the plane," Sato said after seeing the Enola Gay. He lost his mother soon after the bomb exploded about a kilometer from his home. Sato said nuclear weapons should be abolished. "To tell the truth, I don't want to see it . . . because I had that terrible experience," said Kodama, who was working at a factory about 2 km from ground zero. "I plead for nuclear abolition and no production," said Yoshimura, who was 4 years old when the bomb hit. "I want the leader of the United States to see Hiroshima and Nagasaki and apologize to the victims." Appearing with them was an American man who lost family members due to radioactive fallout when they lived in Utah near the nuclear test site in Nevada. Criticizing the Bush administration for its plan to conduct a massive nonnuclear test at the same site, he said nuclear arms are weapons of "genocide." The three survivors were invited by a U.S. group of peace activists. They are also scheduled to speak of their experiences in the U.S. capital and New Jersey. ---- Survivor of both A-bombs takes message to U.N. By SEANA K. MAGEE The Japan Times Sunday, Aug. 6, 2006 http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/9-0&fp=44d60a84f5855ed8&ei=vInWRLr-Ic3caNzL3ckN&url=http%3A//search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060806a8.html&cid=0 NEW YORK (Kyodo) As long as there is breath in his frail body, 90-year-old Tsutomu Yamaguchi vows to keep pressing for peace. And now the survivor of both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings has taken his message to the United Nations for the first time. Arriving by wheelchair but then descending the stairs on foot with a cane to an auditorium at the U.N. headquarters, the lithe, energetic man wowed the audience with his emotional tale of survival. "What I mean to say here is that as a double atomic bomb survivor I experienced the bomb twice, and I sincerely hope that there will not be a third," he told the gathering Thursday at the Dag Hammarskjold auditorium to watch a screening of "Niijuuhibaku" ("Twice Bombed, Twice Survived"), a 50-minute documentary in which he is featured along with other double atomic bomb survivors. Yamaguchi was clearly emotional as he delivered his message of peace. "My message is that the use of atomic weapons should be abandoned completely and my wish is that each and every one of you here will think about this and agree with my message to support world peace," he said. As a 29-year-old employee of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries working in Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, he had just stepped off a tram when he was suddenly knocked unconscious by what he described as a tremendous "ball of fire." Just 3 km from the epicenter, he came to with burns that seared his body and saw his singed hair fall out. After the initial shock, his thoughts quickly turned to his young wife and 5-month-old child he left behind in his native Kyushu. As he made his way through Hiroshima he encountered horrific scenes of frantic survivors, whose flesh seemed to melt off their arms and hung like "giant gloves." Still haunted by what he described in his poetry as the "human raft," he cried uncontrollably during a segment of his interview in the film while remembering the swollen corpses that he stepped on to cross a river and escape the city. After a long journey the determined husband and father finally made his way to Nagasaki, where his family lived. When his surprised mother returned home after an air raid she thought a ghost was sitting at her table because Yamaguchi was covered in gauze from head to toe except for openings over his eyes and mouth. When Yamaguchi went to his supervisor's office later to describe his ordeal and how Hiroshima had been flattened, he witnessed the bright flash after the second bomb was detonated. As he took cover under a desk he first thought that "the mushroom cloud had chased him to Nagasaki." After seeing the film and listening to the elderly survivor's powerful words, Randy Rydell, a senior political officer at the U.N. department of disarmament, said he believes the film gives viewers "lessons not just about the horrors of the past, but also a vision for a better world in the future." As someone whose professional life is dedicated to helping rid the world of nuclear weapons, he was especially inspired by Yamaguchi's message. Rydell said he wishes Yamaguchi could speak with leaders in countries such as North Korea, which is suspected of having built a nuclear arsenal and test-fired seven missiles on a single day. Toshiko Matsukawa, an Osaka native who has spent more than 25 years in the United States, said after watching the presentation that she believes more people could benefit from exposure to Yamaguchi's story of survival. Although too young to have lived through World War II, Matsukawa said she remembers growing up watching many antiwar films and believes Americans should learn more about the negative impact of the atomic bombings and the great human toll it took. Yamaguchi still suffers physically from the aftereffects of the two atomic bombs and points to his "badge of courage" (burns on his arms), but he is confident he is carrying out a mission that destiny has carved out for him. "God planted the path for me so it was my destiny that I experienced this twice and I am still alive to convey the message to the younger generation," he said. Matthew Lee, a reporter for Inner City Press, said he was impressed with the simplicity of Yamaguchi's message and the positive path he has chosen in life. "His message is a simple yet necessary one and he is the perfect person to deliver the message." ---- Australia: Artwork unveiling marks Hiroshima bombing anniversary Sunday, August 6, 2006 Australian Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1707441.htm A unique art installation has been unveiled today in Melbourne's Federation Square to mark the 61st anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima in Japan. The artwork features 1,001 paper cranes, which fill a full wall of the Atrium at the Square. The cranes symbolise a public call for peace. Meantime, peace rallies were around the country to mark the anniversary of the bombing. Lebanese community members dominated today's rallies in Sydney and Melbourne, accusing Israel of terrorism, and urging its withdrawal from Lebanon. Three hundred people in Melbourne, and about 3,000 in Sydney, took part in the marches. The Sydney rally heard from Dr Sue Wareham, from the Medical Practitioners Against War group. "We see the Lebanese infrastructure used as a bargaining chip to be bombed until there is nothing left to bomb," she said. "We see rocket attacks on Israeli Towns, equally terrifying for the citizens and equally damaging to the cause of peace, and we witness a terrible, terrible silence from the Australian Government." Most speakers condemned the use of any weapons to solve conflicts, although Keyser Trad from the Islamic Friendship Association struck a discordant note with some marchers in Sydney. "Every nation on earth, no matter how weak, no matter how strong, has a right to defend itself and this is what Lebanon is doing, it is standing up even though it has been betrayed by so many world leaders," he said. "It's standing up, it's saying 'We don't care if you betray us, we are going to die a proud death'. "Or we will have victory and show the world that might is not right." Mining But not all the focus was on the Lebanese situation. Hillel Freedman from Nuclear Free Australia says Australians want to send a clear message to the Federal Government about its part in the nuclear issue. "We're calling for an end to all Australian uranium mining and export, not just an end to the nuclear power debate," he said. "We've got to close down the nuclear industry in this country." ---- Israel protesters take over rally By Katherine Field August 06, 2006 AAP http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,20036586-5005361,00.html A PEACE rally in Sydney was taken over today by anti-Israeli protesters calling for an end to violence against Lebanon. About 500 protesters attended the rally to mark the anniversary of the dropping of an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945. But as the death toll rises from escalating violence between Israel and Hezbollah – which has devastated the south of Lebanon – hundreds used the day to condemn Israel. Surrounded by almost 100 police officers, the protesters waved flags and anti-war banners, as they made their way from Hyde Park, through CBD streets, chanting "down, down, Israel". Addressing the crowd, Islamic Friendship Association of Australia spokesman Keysar Trad called on the Australian Government to stand up for an immediate ceasefire. "We are one human race. We are saying what Israel is doing in Lebanon and Gaza is savage ... and has no place in any civilised society," he told the gathering. A tearful Alya Issaoui, from Hurstville in Sydney's south, said all her Lebanese-Australian friends had come along to show their opposition to Israel. "We are Australians but Lebanon is like our mother country and we want to show we care," the 17-year-old said. Draped in a Lebanese flag, 16-year-old Bill Mansour, also from Hurstville, defended Hezbollah. "We're here to protest, to get Israel out of our country," he said. "The world, USA, George Bush, John Howard, they're calling our Hezbollah terrorists. They're not terrorists; they're freedom fighters; they're just defending our country." Roten Mor, an Israeli citizen who spent a month in prison for refusing to continue service in the Israeli army, urged the crowd not to give up protesting. "There are people back home, Israelis and Palestinians as well as others who are demonstrating every day ... They're trying to do it together in the hardest of conditions," he said. "Some of them are being shot at by the Israeli army, but they continue to do it somehow," he said. With the rally also calling for an end to nuclear weapons, former diplomat Professor Richard Broinowski told the crowd that the Australian Government must take a tougher stance on the issue. "We in Australia should take the opportunity of having almost half the uranium reserves in the world to insist on a new substitute for the degraded nuclear non-proliferation treaty," he said. The event was part of several around the nation, with another Sydney rally against Israel to be held on Saturday. ---- Stop Israeli bombing, urges rally August 6, 2006 Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/scrap-nuclear-weapons-urges-rally/2006/08/06/1154802740556.html A peace rally in Sydney was hijacked today by anti-Israeli protesters calling for an end to violence against Lebanon. About 500 protesters attended the rally to mark the anniversary of the dropping of an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945. But as the death toll rises from escalating violence between Israel and Hezbollah - which has devastated the south of Lebanon - hundreds used the day to condemn Israel. Surrounded by almost 100 police officers, the protesters waved flags and anti-war banners, as they made their way from Hyde Park, through CBD streets, chanting "down, down, Israel". Addressing the crowd, Islamic Friendship Association of Australia spokesman Keysar Trad called on the Australian Government to stand up for an immediate ceasefire. "We are one human race. We are saying what Israel is doing in Lebanon and Gaza is savage ... and has no place in any civilised society," he told the gathering. A tearful Alya Issaoui, from Hurstville in Sydney's south, said all her Lebanese-Australian friends had come along to to show their opposition to Israel. "We are Australians but Lebanon is like our mother country and we want to show we care," the 17-year-old said. Draped in a Lebanese flag, 16-year-old Bill Mansour, also from Hurstville, defended Hezbollah. "We're here to protest, to get Israel out of our country," he said. "The world, USA, George Bush, John Howard, they're calling our Hezbollah terrorists. They're not terrorists; they're freedom fighters; they're just defending our country." Roten Mor, an Israeli citizen who spent a month in prison for refusing to continue service in the Israeli army, urged the crowd not to give up protesting. "There are people back home, Israelis and Palestinians as well as others who are demonstrating every day ... They're trying to do it together in the hardest of conditions," he said. "Some of them are being shot at by the Israeli army, but they continue to do it somehow," he said. With the rally also calling for an end to nuclear weapons, former diplomat Professor Richard Broinowski told the crowd that the Australian Government must take a tougher stance on the issue. "We in Australia should take the opportunity of having almost half the uranium reserves in the world to insist on a new substitute for the degraded nuclear non-proliferation treaty," he said. The event was part of several around the nation, with another Sydney rally against Israel to be held on Saturday. ---- CT Protesters Want End To Battering Of Lebanon August 6, 2006 By LYNNE TUOHY, Hartford Courant Staff Writer http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-rally0806.artaug06,0,6489262.story?coll=hc-headlines-local NEW HAVEN -- Dr. Antoine "Tony" Sreih told more than 150 protesters of the Israeli attacks in Lebanon and Palestine Saturday that each day he goes to work he thinks that this will be the day he learns whether his mother and sister in Beirut are safe. "I watch the news every day and it just kills me," Sreih said from the top of the federal courthouse steps across from the New Haven Green. "I get angry and frustrated and mad. But I refuse to fall into that trap of hatred in this vicious cycle of war. "I refuse to become like them," Sreih said, of the Israelis. Sreih, who has been unable to contact his mother and sister, gave the most emotional speech amid a series of speakers that culminated in the protesters marching peacefully through the streets of downtown New Haven, chanting, "Stop the killing; stop the bombs. Israel out of Lebanon" and "Drop Bush, not bombs." The protest resembled a sidewalk convention of social justice and political action organizations, some soliciting support for an overnight vigil in New Haven beginning today, the 61st anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, and others for a massive march on Washington Aug. 12 to protest U.S. occupation of Iraq and U.S. support of the Israeli bombings. Sreih, of the Yale University School of Medicine, told the crowd how he had planned a recent trip to his native country with two friends to show off its shimmering seacoast, green hills, economic development and smiling people. Those are the snapshots he wished he could have shared Saturday. "Little did I know that Lebanon would turn into a dark and burned land," he said. "Instead, I will show you demolished buildings, an oil-slicked seacoast. I will show you dead children and sad mothers and fathers and people standing in line for food. This is my country now. This is my Lebanon." The protest was staged in the midst of worsening violence in the Middle East. The 25-day conflict has claimed more than 750 lives, with the most by far being Lebanese civilians. "This is not just a protest. This is the beginning of a movement," said Khalil Iskarous, an Egyptian-born U.S. citizen who has lived in the United States for 24 of his 39 years. "I'm an American citizen and I am supporting the bombings with my taxpayer money," Iskarous said. "I am not Lebanese. I have nothing to do with Hezbollah. I am speaking of what I don't want done with my money." Jamilah Rasheed of New Haven stood with her two grandsons, holding a hand-made sign reading, "You can bomb the world into pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace." She said the message is from lyrics to a song she heard. "I thought it was a good mantra," she said. "I just feel the aggression going on in Lebanon and Iraq is an affront to all humanity," Rasheed said. "We need to become more vocal and take a stand." Some of the banners and speakers called for a boycott of Israeli-made goods; others for an end to the "collective punishment" of civilians prohibited by the treaty signed at the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The Senate has unanimously passed a resolution condemning Hezbollah and supporting Israel's "exercise of its right to self-defense." Robert Fishman, executive director of the Jewish Federation Association of Connecticut, said in a telephone interview after the protest that he has no problem defending the Israeli attacks. "Hezbollah kidnapped and killed Israeli soldiers and crossed an international border," Fishman said. "Israel has to defend itself and make sure its population is safe and secure. Hezbollah and Iran want the end of the state of Israel. Israel has no argument with Lebanon or the people of Lebanon. Unfortunately, Hezbollah is a state within a state, and the Lebanese government has allowed that to happen." Nativo Lopez, national director of the immigration rights group Hermandad Mexicana, said bombings and occupations in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon "rain down more oppression on immigrants in the United States." He cited the interrogations and detentions of Muslims and Arab immigrants after 9/11 and what he called the continued attack on civil liberties under the U.S.A. Patriot Act. "The so-called war on terrorism is fundamentally a war on the American people, to undermine our civil liberties," Lopez said. "Immigrants are the first to be targeted. "Israel's response to the kidnapping of two individual soldiers and the killing of seven is absolutely disproportionate to any acts committed by Hezbollah," Lopez said. Contact Lynne Tuohy at ltuohy@courant.com. ---- Peace rally draws 15,000 in Montreal Aug. 6, 2006 CANADIAN PRESS http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154863210741&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467 MONTREAL — A demonstration billed as a protest for peace assumed a distinctly anti-Israeli flavour Sunday as protesters denounced the Jewish state for killing hundreds of Lebanese. Children carrying two large Lebanese flags and adults who trailed behind accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of being an accomplice to Israeli murder. “Israel terrorist, Harper accomplice,” members of the crowd shouted in unison as marchers left a downtown park on their journey through city streets. Police said more than 15,000 people participated in the rally, making it one of the largest that took place around the world over the weekend. Demonstrations also took place in Belgium, Britain, South Africa, Iraq and Egypt. A coalition of 60 political, social and union groups invited Montrealers to join the protest in a massive demonstration for peace and justice in Lebanon. They called for an immediate ceasefire that would end hostilities. That was on the mind of Eric Morin, a 37-year-old father of two. “I’m here as a citizen who doesn’t want to see a baby die for ideological reasons,” he said as thousands of participants shielded themselves from the summer heat before the march began. “They should all get together and try to find a way to live in peace.” Morin said he fears the fighting could escalate into a Third World War. Among the many participants were members of the city’s Lebanese community, which numbers about 200,000. Many held placards denouncing Harper’s handling of the crisis, particularly his open support of Israel. “Yo Stevie, they’re only dead Arabs,” read one sign hoisted by Asem Samhat, whose home village on the Lebanese border has been turned into rubble by Israeli attacks. “Our country has the right to live,” the 35-year-old construction worker said, denying Canada’s assertion that Hezbollah is a terrorist group. A 41-year-old architect who moved to Canada five years ago from Beirut said he’s disappointed that Canada hasn’t taken a more independent position from that of the United States. “I’m asking Canada to be faithful to its tradition of humanism and independence,” said Victor, who declined to give his surname. While many participants claimed they weren’t singling out either side in the bloody conflict, some carried placards that linked Israel to Nazi atrocities during the Second World War. “Israel learned from Hitler and the student has surpassed the master,” read one sign. A representative of the Quebec Israel Committee said he understands the desire for peace. But Marc Gold said there is no hope for peace as long as Hezbollah continues to fire rockets at Israel. “We all want a peace but a peace that means something not just a pause to give time for Hezbollah to regroup,” he said in an interview. Gold criticized rhetoric that singled out Israeli’s aggression. “Demonstrations like this that can find nothing to say except to criticize Israel and do not focus on the causes of this conflict are unbalanced and frankly unprincipled.” Political representatives from the Bloc Quebecois, Parti Quebecois and federal Liberals denounced Ottawa’s handling of the crisis. “We want to make sure that Canada comes back as a mediator,” said former Liberal immigration minister Denis Coderre. “We cannot govern a country and manage a crisis by dogma.” Both sovereigntist leaders said their sole motive was to promote peace, not electoral gain. “I’m here walking for peace,” said Boisclair. “I was here against the war in Iraq and I’m here simply to walk in favour of peace.” Duceppe declined to say whether he is prepared to vote against the Conservative government in a non-confidence motion over its handling of the crisis. “Quebecers are not supporting what they’re doing,” he said of the Conservatives, whose public support has slipped in several recent polls. “But I’m not here to discuss strategy.” Some of the loudest ovations were received by some ultra-religious Jews who denounced Israel’s actions and its right to exist. “We are totally in opposition in every step of the way to what the state of Israel is doing,” said Rabbi Israel David Weiss, a New Yorker with Jews United Against Zionism. “The actual existence of the state of Israel is forbidden by the torah (Jewish bible).” Weiss marched near the front row of the demonstration, locking arms with Sayed Nabil Abbas, a representative of the Islamic Shiite Supreme Council in Canada. “We don’t have any problems against the Jews, our problem is with the Zionists,” said Abbas. The demonstration came as Hezbollah and Israel continue to trade violent strikes that have killed about 700 people in nearly a month of fighting. ---- The Bombing of Nagasaki August 9, 1945: The Untold Story, presented by Dr. Gary G. Kohls 2006-08-06 UN Observer http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=2518&blz=1 61 years ago, on August 9th, 1945, the second of the only two atomic bombs (a plutonium bomb) ever used as instruments of aggressive war (against essentially defenseless civilian populations) was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, by an all-Christian bomb crew. The well-trained American soldiers were only “doing their job,” and they did it efficiently. It had been only 3 days since the first bomb, a uranium bomb, had decimated Hiroshima on August 6, with chaos and confusion in Tokyo, where the fascist military government and the Emperor had been searching for months for a way to an honorable end of the war which had exhausted the Japanese to virtually moribund status. (The only obstacle to surrender had been the Truman administration’s insistence on unconditional surrender, which meant that the Emperor Hirohito, whom the Japanese regarded as a deity, would be removed from his figurehead position in Japan – an intolerable demand for the Japanese.) The Russian army was advancing across Manchuria with the stated aim of entering the war against Japan on August 8, so there was an extra incentive to end the war quickly: the US military command did not want to divide any spoils or share power after Japan sued for peace. The US bomber command had spared Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Kokura from the conventional bombing that had burned to the ground 60+ other major Japanese cities during the first half of 1945. One of the reasons for targeting relatively undamaged cities with these new weapons of mass destruction was scientific: to see what would happen to intact buildings – and their living inhabitants – when atomic weapons were exploded overhead. Early in the morning of August 9, 1945, a B-29 Superfortress called Bock’s Car, took off from Tinian Island, with the prayers and blessings of its Lutheran and Catholic chaplains, and headed for Kokura, the primary target. (Its bomb was code-named “Fat Man,” after Winston Churchill.) The only field test of a nuclear weapon, blasphemously named “Trinity,” had occurred just three weeks earlier, on July 16, 1945 at Alamogordo, New Mexico. The molten lavarock that resulted, still found at the site today, is called trinitite. With instructions to drop the bomb only on visual sighting, Bock’s Car arrived at Kokura, which was clouded over. So after circling three times, looking for a break in the clouds, and using up a tremendous amount of valuable fuel in the process, it headed for its secondary target, Nagasaki. Nagasaki is famous in the history of Japanese Christianity. Not only was it the site of the largest Christian church in the Orient, St. Mary’s Cathedral, but it also had the largest concentration of baptized Christians in all of Japan. It was the city where the legendary Jesuit missionary, Francis Xavier, established a mission church in 1549, a Christian community which survived and prospered for several generations. However, soon after Xavier’s planting of Christianity in Japan, Portuguese and Spanish commercial interests began to be accurately perceived by the Japanese rulers as exploitive, and therefore the religion of the Europeans (Christianity) and their new Japanese converts became the target of brutal persecutions. Within 60 years of the start of Xavier’s mission church, it was a capital crime to be a Christian. The Japanese Christians who refused to recant of their beliefs suffered ostracism, torture and even crucifixions similar to the Roman persecutions in the first three centuries of Christianity. After the reign of terror was over, it appeared to all observers that Japanese Christianity had been stamped out. However, 250 years later, in the 1850s, after the coercive gunboat diplomacy of Commodore Perry forced open an offshore island for American trade purposes, it was discovered that there were thousands of baptized Christians in Nagasaki, living their faith in a catacomb existence, completely unknown to the government - which immediately started another purge. But because of international pressure, the persecutions were soon stopped, and Nagasaki Christianity came up from the underground. And by 1917, with no help from the government, the Japanese Christian community built the massive St. Mary’s Cathedral, in the Urakami River district of Nagasaki. Now it turned out, in the mystery of good and evil, that St. Mary’s Cathedral was one of the landmarks that the Bock’s Car bombardier had been briefed on, and looking through his bomb site over Nagasaki that day, he identified the cathedral and ordered the drop. At 11:02 am, Nagasaki Christianity was boiled, evaporated and carbonized in a scorching, radioactive fireball. The persecuted, vibrant, faithful, surviving center of Japanese Christianity had become ground zero. And what the Japanese Imperial government could not do in over 200 years of persecution, American Christians did in 9 seconds. The entire worshipping community of Nagasaki was wiped out. The above true (and unwelcome) story should stimulate discussion among those who claim to be disciples of Jesus. The Catholic chaplain for the 509th Composite Group (the 1500 man Army Air Force group, whose only job was to successfully deliver the atomic bombs to their targets) was Father George Zabelka. Several decades after the war ended, he saw his grave theological error in religiously legitimating the mass slaughter that is modern land and air war. He finally recognized that the enemies of his nation were not the enemies of God, but rather children of God whom God loved, and whom the followers of Jesus are to also love. Father Zabelka’s conversion to Christian nonviolence led him to devote the remaining decades of his life speaking out against violence in all its forms, especially the violence of militarism. The Lutheran chaplain, William Downey, in his counseling of soldiers who had become troubled by their participation in making murder for the state, later denounced all killing, whether by a single bullet or by a weapon of mass destruction. In Daniel Hallock's important book, Hell, Healing and Resistance, he talks about a 1997 Buddhist retreat led by Thich Nhat Hanh that attempted to deal with the hellish post-war existence of combat-traumatized Vietnam War veterans. Hallock said, “Clearly, Buddhism offers something that cannot be found in institutional Christianity. But then why should veterans embrace a religion that has blessed the wars that ruined their souls? It is no wonder they turn to a gentle Buddhist monk to hear what are, in large part, the truths of Christ.” As a lifelong Christian, that comment stung, but it was the sting of a sad and sobering truth. And as a physician who deals with psychologically traumatized patients every day, I know that it is violence, in all its myriad of forms, that bruises the human psyche and soul, and that that trauma is deadly and contagious, and it spreads through the families and on through the 3rd and 4th generations – until somebody stops continuing the domestic violence that military violence breeds. One of the most difficult “mental illnesses” to treat is combat-induced posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In its most virulent form PTSD is virtually incurable. It is also a fact that whereas most Vietnam War recruits came from churches where they actively practiced their faith, if they came home with PTSD, the percentage returning to the faith community approached zero. This is a serious spiritual problem for any church that (either by the active support of its nation’s “glorious” wars or by its silence on such issues) fails to teach its young people about what the earliest form of Christianity taught about violence: that it was forbidden to those who wished to follow Jesus. If a Christian community fails to thoroughly inform its confirmands about the gruesome realities of the war zone before they are forced to register for potential conscription into the military, it invites the condemnation that Jesus warned about in Matthew 18:5-6: “And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believes in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” The purpose of this essay is to stimulate open and honest discussion (at least among the followers of Jesus) about the ethics of killing by and for ones government, not from the perspective of national security ethics, not from the perspective of the military, not from the perspective of (the pre-Christian) eye-for-an-eye retaliation that Jesus rejected, but from the perspective of the Sermon on the Mount, the core ethical teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5, 6 and 7. Out of that discussion (if any are willing to engage in it) should come answers to those horrible realities that seem to immobilize decent Bible-believing Christians everywhere: Why are some of us Christians so willing to commit (or support and/or pay for others to commit) homicidal violence against other fellow children of a loving, merciful, forgiving God, the God whom Jesus clearly calls us to imitate? And what can we Christians do, starting now, to prevent the next war and the next epidemic of combat-induced posttraumatic stress disorder? What can we do to prevent the next round of these atrocities, all of which have been perpetrated by professed Christians: the My Lai Massacre, Auschwitz and the other Nazi death camps, Dresden, El Mozote, Rwanda, Jonestown, the black church bombings, the execution of innocent death row inmates, the sanctions against Iraq (that killed 500,000 children during the 1990s), the military annihilation of Fallujah and much of the rest of Iraq and Afghanistan, the torturing of innocents at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay plus the many other international war crimes (albeit un-indicted to date) perpetrated by the current “Christian” administration of the United States. And what is to be done to prevent the next Nagasaki? A large portion of the responsibility for the prevention of military atrocities like Nagasaki lies within the organized Christian churches and whether or not they soon start teaching and living what the radical nonviolent Jesus taught and lived. The next Nagasaki can be prevented if the churches finally heed Jesus’ call to nonviolence and refuse their government’s call for the bodies and souls of their sons and daughters. Gary G. Kohls, MD, Duluth, MN for Every Church A Peace Church http://www.ecapc.org Please also see: Anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1330 Hiroshima Day: Create Hope, Not Fear http://www.august6.org/node/50 The Hiroshima Myth http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html Hiroshima marks 61st anniversary of atomic bombing with call for nuclear disarmament http://www.crisscross.com/jp/news/380803 Remembering Nagasaki http://www.exploratorium.edu/nagasaki HIROSHIMA City http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/e/index-E.html The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, August 6 and 9, 1945 http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hiroshima1.html International Atomic Energy Agency http://www.iaea.org Hiroshima Day Sermon for the Feast of the Transfiguration http://www.fatherjohndear.org/sermons_homilies/hiroshimadaysermon.htm Divine Mushroom Cloud: A Call to Worship, by Karen Horst Cobb http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=2318&blz=1 U.S. DEFIES U.N. DECISION - PLANS MASSIVE MILITARY DETONATION ON WESTERN SHOSHONE LAND http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=2247&blz=1 IPPNW Opposes the Joint US/UK Subcritical Nuclear Testing in Nevada http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=2167&blz=1 Hiroshima Mayor Lashes out at U.S. on 59th Anniversary of Atomic Bombing, notes Shinya Ajima http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=1852&blz=1 Edward Teller, 'Father of the Hydrogen Bomb', has Died at the Age of 95, by Christiane N. Martens http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=1034&blz=1 Letter Of Protest From The Mayor Of Hiroshima To President Bush http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=873&blz=1 Working to Abolish Nuclear Weapons http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=216&blz=1 ---- Hiroshima and Empire 08/06/06 Cape Cod Today http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/Democracy/2006/08/06/hiroshima_and_empire "'As the bomb fell over Hiroshima and exploded, we saw an entire city disappear. I wrote in my log the words: 'My God, what have we done?'" Capt Robert Lewis, co-pilot of the Enola Gay Today, August 6, is the 61st anniversary of the United States' bombing of Hiroshima, destroying the city, killing at least 140,000 of its people, and damaging countless others, including future generations. Last month Dennis Kucinich, (D, Cleveland), introduced HR 950, stating "That the House of Representatives calls upon the President to initiate multilateral negotiations for the aboliton of nuclear weapons." Kucinich pointed out that there are currently 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and the only way to prevent nuclear destruction is to get rid of them. Jonathan Schell, author of The Fate of the Earth, the 1982 best seller that inspired the Nuclear Freeze movement, has a cover story in the August 14/21 of The Nation, titled "Too Late for Empire." Schell includes the following quote, referring to World War II: "At war's end we were physically the strongest nation on earth and, at least potentially the most powerful intellectually and morally. Ours could have been the honor of being a beacon in the desert of destruction, a shining living proof that civilization was not ready to destroy itself. Unfortunately, we have failed misarably and tragically to arise to the opportunity." A disillusioned U.S. citizen today? No, the speaker was Senator Joseph McCarthy, in Wheeling, West Virginia, announcing in February 1950 his list of Communists in the State Department. In a later speech he referred to "men high in this Government [who] are concerting to deliver us to disaster." Discredited though McCarthy has been, perhaps he simply had a vision of the future and fingered the wrong men at the wrong time. Photo above: Ground Zero in Hiroshima remains today as a silent testimony to the bomb's destructive power. EDITOR's NOTE: The Yarmouth Friends (Quaker) Meeting has traditionally observed August 6th, Hiroshima Day, as a day to remember the tragic human cost of war and to re-commit ourselves to the cause of peace. They are holding a Landlelight Vigil this evening at 8pm, see the story here. ---- Remember the bombing of Hiroshima at Lake Ella August 6, 2006 Tallahassee Democract http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060806/BREAKINGNEWS/608060320 From the serious to the silly, there's plenty to do in Tallahassee today. Gather near the gazebo at Lake Ella at 7:30 p.m. today for reflection, a memorial vigil, music and speeches to remember the World War II bombing of Hiroshima. The Japanese city was largely destroyed on Aug. 6, 1945, by an atomic bomb, the first used in warfare. The Rev. Brant Copeland, pastor of First Presbyterian Church, will be present. A bring-your-own picnic and children's activities will follow. Call Kathy Chuboda at 383-1147 or e-mail her at kmchudoba@yahoo.com. Beat the heat at one of the fresh flicks opening this week. NASCAR fans will get a giggle from the racetrack spoof "Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby," starring Will Ferrell and John C. O'Reilly. It's rated PG-13 and is playing at Governor's Square and the Tallahassee Mall. The whole family will dig "Barnyard," an animated comedy featuring voice-overs by Wanda Sykes, Kevin James, Danny Glover and Courteney Cox Arquette. It's rated PG and opens Friday at Governor's Square and The Tallahassee Mall. If you like being scared witless, check out the subterranean terror-fest "Descent." It's rated R and is playing at Governor's Square and the Tallahassee Mall. Are mind games more your style? The psychological thriller "The Night Listener," starring Robin Williams and Toni Collette, will satisfy the craving. It's rated R and is playing at Governor's Square and the Tallahassee Mall. Compare your own mid-life angst to that of a 30-something guy played by Edward Burns who's about to tie the knot in "The Groomsmen." It's rated R and is playing at the Miracle 5. Some of the area's finest songwriters and performers gather for the Famous First Sunday of the Month Acoustic Jam hosted by Wayne Deweil and Reed Mahoney at 6 p.m. today at the Salty Dawg Pub & Deli, 3813 N. Monroe St. No admission fee. Call 562-6500. TheAudience plays new-rock covers and originals at 11 p.m. today at Bullwinkle's, 620 W. Tennessee. There's no cover charge. Call 224-0652. Groove to the smooth jazz of the Don Juan duo from 6 to 9 p.m. today at Harbor House Restaurant in Panacea. It won't cost you a penny - unless, of course, you want to sample some of the restaurant's fine food and drink. Call 984-2758. Do a little shopping in downtown Havana and then cool off at the Mockingbird Cafe, where Bill McGuire plays eclectic acoustic folk from 1 to 3 p.m. today. It's free. Call 539-2212. Check the Democrat's Web site 'round 5 p.m. each day for a taste of what's going on that evening. Look for Headsup - our look-ahead at the upcoming weekend's entertainment - in Wednesday's paper. Tune in to hear senior writer Mark Hinson talk about the local entertainment scene on Thursday (8:30 a.m.) and Friday (between 6 and 7 a.m.) on Magic 107-FM. And pick up Friday's Limelight for the lowdown on the week's entertainment. ---- Germans mark 61st anniversary of Hiroshima bombing India News Sunday, August 6th, 2006 http://indiaenews.com/2006-08/17581-germans-61st-anniversary-hiroshima-bombing.htm Berlin, Aug 6 (DPA) Hundreds of people in four German cities Sunday marked the 61st anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. One of the survivors of the blast took part in ceremonies held in Berlin, while in Hanover, a sister city of Hiroshima, a Japanese-made ‘peace’ bell sounded in remembrance of the victims. Nearly 400 people gathered in the financial metropolis of Frankfurt and another 100 turned up in the northern port of Hamburg. Participants at the gatherings criticised the current nuclear-arms race. Around 140,000 people died when the bomb was dropped and in the following months up to the end of 1945. Thousands more die each year from the belated affects of radiation. Three days after Hiroshima, the US dropped another bomb on the city of Nagasaki, ultimately leading to Japan’s World War II capitulation. About 45,000 people commemorated the victims in Hiroshima Sunday. ---- Hiroshima Horror Touches Bulgaria 6 August 2006, Sunday Novinite http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=67661 Bulgaria's people were touched Sunday by the memory of the world's first atomic bombing, which took place 61 years ago. Joining a global event, Bulgaria remembered victims of A-bombs and even displayed a stone from Hiroshima in a Sofia museum. In Hiroshima, Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba called for the elimination of all nuclear weapons, as all over Japan people were commemorating victims of the 1945 attack. An estimated 140,000 people were killed instantly or died within a few months after the Hiroshima bombing. Three days later, another U.S. warplane dropped a plutonium bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing about 80,000 people. "The only role nuclear weapons have is to be demolished," Akiba underlined.