NucNews August 27, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- depleted uranium New materials have remarkable properties and can be tailored to suit applications August 27, 2006 Engineer Live http://www.engineerlive.com/features/16261/new-materials-have-remarkable-properties-and-can-be-tailored-to-suit-applications.thtml A class of materials with an amorphous structure instead of the normal crystalline structure has properties that far exceed the norm. This is opening up a whole new range of opportunities for product designers, reports Jon Severn. Imagine a class of material with twice the strength of stainless steel, an elastic limit more than double that of most metallic alloys, yet it can be processed in ways similar to thermoplastic polymers. Furthermore, the same class of material can be used to hard-coat metallic components to give exceptional wear resistance and corrosion resistance. If required, the properties can be tailored to enhance fatigue resistance, yield strength, density, elastic modulus, impact resistance, thermal or electrical conductivity, coefficient of thermal expansion or acoustic and damping characteristics. This versatile class of materials is not based on an exotic element or complex alloy; rather it is what is known as glassy metals. These have been discussed as a theoretical possibility for decades, but only more recently has it been possible to produce them in commercial quantities. Numerous patents have also been granted, so the sources of supply are also limited for the time being. Metals have an amorphous structure while they are in the liquid state, but they normally form crystals as they cool and solidify, often undergoing phase changes as well. Within the crystals there are atomic vacancies that enable dislocations to occur if the material is subjected to a load - which results in the strength of the bulk material always being much lower than the theoretical maximum that the inter-atomic bonds should allow. In addition, grain boundaries between the crystals promote corrosion and other chemical reactions such as oxidation and sulfidation. Amorphous metals, on the other hand, do not form a crystalline structure; instead they maintain a random, amorphous structure (akin to that in glass) without the vacancies that would cause weaknesses in crystalline metals, and without the grain boundaries that promote chemical reactions. Glassy metals therefore offer a high yield strength (approaching the theoretical limit), high hardness and wear resistance, a superior strength-to-weight ratio, an increased elastic limit, resistance to corrosion, and exceptional damping and acoustic properties. If you are sceptical about how much of an impact the molecular structure can really have on the bulk properties of a material, think about the alternative forms that carbon can adopt - graphite, diamond and carbon nanotubes – and the corresponding material properties. Yield strength doubled Liquidmetal Technologies of the USA, which is at the forefront in this field, says that it has produced zirconium-base and titanium-base Liquidmetal alloys (the VIT-001 series) with a yield strength of over 250 ksi (1723 MPa), which is more than twice the strength of conventional titanium alloys. The same alloys are also claimed to have an exceptionally high elastic limit of 2 per cent, which is more than double that of aluminium alloys, titanium alloys and cast stainless steel. Note that the material properties are achieved with the material ‘as cast’, with no need for work hardening, heat treatment or other processing . Compared with conventional metals, the amorphous alloys have a relatively low melting point that is advantageous for two reasons: first, it means that intricate parts can be formed without costly post-finishing processes; and second, various other materials can be added to create composites with tailored material properties. Because of the astonishing properties of glassy metals, it is not surprising that the applications are extremely diverse. One of the first was in golf clubs, and another is in tennis racquets. Head has used Liquidmetal within its racquets to deliver a claimed 29 per cent increase in power and a substantial expansion of the ‘sweet spot’. Further applications are either in production or being investigated in the fields of baseball and softball, skiing and snowboarding, cycling, knives, guns, scuba equipment, fishing tackle and boating. While the sport and leisure industries are in pursuit of performance improvements, designers of consumer electronics continually seek to create products that are smaller and lighter. Glassy metals are therefore attractive because of their high strength (typically 2.5 times greater than titanium alloy) and hardness (1.5 times harder than stainless steel). Consequently lightweight casings can be manufactured with thin walls and high strength to protect the internal components. Resistance to scratching and corrosion are also benefits in this market. Vertu, which supplies hand-crafted mobile telephones for the luxury market, last year launched the Ascent Motorsport Limited Edition with a Liquidmetal casing. While the price tag on this product (EUR4595) inevitably restricts its market appeal, lower-priced electronic products are also taking advantage of Liquidmetal alloys. For example, the Sandisk 2GB Cruzer Titanium USB Flash drive (around EUR90) benefits from a 'crush-resistant' Liquidmetal casing, and the same company's flagship MP3 players, the Sansa e200 series, feature a scratch-resistant Liquidmetal back. Many mobile telephones today incorporate hinges, but conventional metals, such as zinc, magnesium, stainless steel and titanium, have inherent design and performance limitations, especially with respect to longevity and shock resistance. Liquidmetal Technologies, however, says that its alloys' superior yield strength and elasticity resist deformation and provide exceptional durability. In addition, structural parts made from Liquidmetal alloys can be net-shape formed to thinner profiles while maintaining superior strength, resulting in more space to accommodate consumer demands for new technology. Medical applications Away from electronics, manufacturers of medical devices are finding applications for biocompatible glassy metals. Particular advantages here include superior wear resistance, exceptional component strength, improved manufacturability and control of surface texture during the casting process. Some of the products already utilising glassy metals include reconstructive devices, fracture fixations and spinal implants. In addition, glassy metals can be used for surgical instruments, as they can be ground to a sharper edge than steel, they are less expensive than diamond, and sharp edges do not degrade with use in the same way as steel. Not surprisingly, the defence industry is also taking a keen interest in the possibilities presented by glassy metals. Liquidmetal Technologies has been awarded a series of multi-year, multi-million-dollar contracts by the USA Department of Defense, and the company's technologies are currently being developed for use within a kinetic energy penetrator (KEP) rod. The KEP is a key component for an armour-piercing ammunition system that currently utilises depleted uranium (DU) because of its density and self-sharpening characteristic. Ballistic tests have shown that the Liquidmetal tungsten composite KEP exhibits self-sharpening similar to the DU KEP. As a result, the Department of Defense is working closely with Liquidmetal Technologies to develop a new class of effective and environmentally benign KEP rods. So far we have discussed the use of glassy metals for the production of net-shape components, but Liquidmetal Technologies has also developed processes for applying glassy metals as coatings. Typically the coatings bond extremely well to the substrate, withstand repeated thermal cycling, maintain high hardness at elevated temperatures, exhibit excellent thermal conductivity and are highly resistant to corrosion. Liquidmetal-Armacor Coatings are alloy steels that are applied by twin-wire arc spraying or a thermal spray technique known as high-velocity-oxygen-fuel (HVOF). Depending on the grade specified, the coatings are suitable for use within the oil, power, pulp and paper, and glass industries. In addition, applications have been found in diesel engines, fans, non-slip flooring, process equipment, metalworking tooling, mining machinery, agricultural equipment and steel mill rolls. Compared with electroplated chromium, the coatings offer improved resistance to corrosion, wear and impact damage. Because of the nature of glassy metals and the ways in which they are processed, deciding whether or not to utilise them in new designs or product upgrades is far more than a question of comparing the cost-per-kilogram with that of conventional materials. Designing with glassy metals opens up a wide range of possibilities for enhancing product performance, but the advice of the material supplier should be sought in order to maximise the benefits. Nevertheless, the opportunities are truly exciting. -------- india PM wins over scientists to N-deal Sunday, August 27,2006 South Asian Media Net http://www.southasianmedia.net/index_story.cfm?id=320452&category=Frontend&Country=india NEW DELHI/MUMBAI: PM Manmohan Singh overcame an important hurdle to the US-India nuclear deal on Saturday when he succeeded in enlisting the support of eminent atomic scientists even as he agreed to their suggestion to involve them in the process of negotiating safeguards and India-specific IAEA protocols. The PM reiterated his promise to abide by the Joint Statement of July 18, 2005, in two important meetings with current and past members of the nuclear establishment on Saturday. He met Atomic Energy Commission members led by its chairman and secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, Anil Kakodkar, and had a 90-minute exchange of views scientists previously associated with the nuclear programme. The meeting with the former nuclear bosses, which included members of what has come to be referred as 'G-8', a grouping of scientists who recently expressed apprehensions that the US deal would compromise India's nuclear "autonomy", was of critical importance. The PM managed to recruit their support by appealing for their help to dismantle 'nuclear apartheid' — an emotive issue with the community which crafted country's nuclear programme in the face of a US-led hardline regime of technology denials. That he had succeeded was evident from the green signal to the deal articulated by former AEC chairman M R Srinivasan, who told TOI, "It was a good meeting and the PM appreciated our concerns which we had expressed in our appeal. We left with a sense of satisfaction." P K Iyengar, another former AEC chief, said the discussions touched on nuclear energy as well. Now National Security Advisor M K Narayanan and AEC chief Anil Kakodkar will liaise with the G-8. By bringing the nuclear scientists in the decision-making loop, the PM may have gone a long way in addressing the concern of past and serving members of India's atomic establishment that the additional protocol at the IAEA was "extremely intrusive." -------- iran Iran, defying United Nations, opens plant for producing heavy water Updated 8/27/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-26-iran_x.htm KHONDAB, Iran — Iran inaugurated a heavy-water plant Saturday, expanding its nuclear program only days before a U.N. deadline that threatens sanctions unless Tehran curbs activities the West fears are meant to make atomic weapons. The move was the latest defiance by Iran to concerns expressed by the U.N. Security Council. Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shrugged off the possibility of sanctions, insisting his country would not slow its nuclear ambitions. "We tell the Western countries not to cause trouble for themselves because Iranian people are determined to make progress and acquire technology," Ahmadinejad said after opening the plant. He stressed his government's contention that the nuclear program is peaceful — intended only to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that would generate electricity. The U.S. and its allies accuse Tehran of seeking to develop atomic arms. "There is no discussion of nuclear weapons. We are not a threat to anybody, even the Zionist regime (Israel), which is a definite enemy to the people of the region," said Ahmadinejad, who has drawn strong international criticism for saying Israel should be wiped off the map. The Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend another part of its nuclear program — the enrichment of uranium, which can produce both reactor fuel and material usable in nuclear warheads. Iran said earlier in the week it is open to negotiations but it refused any immediate suspension, calling the deadline illegal. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is to report to the council on Iran's program by mid-September. If IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei's report finds enrichment is continuing, the United States and some in Europe are likely to push for sanctions. Tehran appears to be counting on sanctions being blocked by its allies in Russia and China, major trade partners that as permanent members of the council hold veto power over its actions. Russian Vice Premier Sergei Ivanov said Friday that it was too early to consider imposing sanctions and that his country would press for a diplomatic solution to the standoff. The ceremony at the Khondab heavy-water plant, which has been operating since 2004, was largely a symbolic gesture underlining Iran's determination to ignore international pressure. The plant's top official, Manouchehr Madadi, said the facility can produce up to 16 tons of heavy water a year — double the amount it previously made. The U.N. deadline does not demand a halt to operations at the plant or a nearby reactor that Iran is building to use the heavy water, focusing on what is seen as the more urgent concern of uranium enrichment. Still, the West repeatedly has called on Iran to stop work at the heavy-water facility, fearing it could be used as a second track toward building warhead. Heavy water contains a heavier hydrogen particle that allows a nuclear reactor to run on the natural uranium mined by Iran, without undergoing the enrichment process. But the spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor can be reprocessed to extract plutonium for use in a bomb. The 40-megawatt reactor, due to be finished in 2009, could produce enough plutonium for a nuclear weapon each year, experts have said. Reactors fueled by low-enriched uranium use regular — or light — water in the chain reaction that produces energy. But the process that produces such fuel can also enrich uranium to a higher level of purity that can be used to build a weapon. The inauguration of the heavy-water plant drew a quick response in Israel. Legislator Ephraim Sneh of the Labor Party, a partner in Israel's governing coalition, warned that the plant marks "another leap in Iran's advance toward a nuclear bomb." He said Iran can't be trusted and Israel must "prepare itself militarily." Both the water plant and reactor are ringed with anti-aircraft guns to guard against airstrikes, sitting at the foot of mountains outside Khondab, 200 miles southwest of Tehran. Parts of the unfinished reactor complex are believed to be underground for further protection. On Tuesday, Iran responded to package of incentives from the Security Council's five permanent members and Germany aimed at enticing it to halt enrichment. Tehran said it was willing to talk but would not agree to the West's demand that it first suspend enrichment. Ahmadinejad said Saturday that Iran would pursue its right to develop nuclear technology even if sanctions are imposed. "They may impose some restrictions on us under pressure," he said. "But ... will they be able to prevent a nation's access to progress and technology? "They have to accept the reality of a powerful, peace loving and developed Iran. This is in the interest of all governments and all nations whether they like it or not." ---- Iran Determined To Produce Nuclear Fuel by Staff Writers Tehran (AFP) Aug 27, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Determined_To_Produce_Nuclear_Fuel_999.html Iran is determined to produce its own nuclear fuel despite the demand by the UN Security Council to halt enrichment of uranium, the country's top nuclear negotiator Ari Larijani said on national radio Sunday. "Production of nuclear fuel is one of Iran's strategic objectives," Larijani said during a meeting with editors of leading Iranian newspapers. "Any action to limit or deprive Iran could not force Iran to give up this goal," he added. Enrichment of uranium is necessary to produce nuclear fuel, but the process can also be used to produce the explosive core of an atomic weapon. Western countries, led by the United States believe, Iran is seeking to build an atomic bomb, but the Islamic republic insists it only wants civil nuclear power and has the right to master the required technology. The UN Security Council has set a deadline of August 31 for Iran to halt sensitive nuclear activities or face possible economic sanctions. Tehran however is refusing to suspend enrichment work. "While cooperating with international instutions, we consider the suspension of enrichment as our red line" Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Reza Bagheri, was quoted as saying Sunday by the Iranian news agency IRNA in Damascus where he is having talks with Syrian officials. "We insist on our right because we want to utilise nuclear technology for peaceful ends," he added. Last week Iran formally responded to an offer backed by the five UN Security Council permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany, saying it was interested in serious talks but refusing to halt enrichment. The package offers Tehran incentives in return for a freeze of sensitive nuclear work. However, the West's reactions to Tehran's reply did not bring much hope for a smooth settlement of the nuclear standoff. Washington has called on the United Nations to move swiftly to impose sanctions against Iran after the August 31 deadline. Iran resumed enrichment work in January and has succeeded in enriching uranium to the 4.8 percent level needed for fuel. -------- korea North Korea Warns Of Counter-Measures Against US Financial Sanctions by Staff Writers Seoul (AFP) Aug 27, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/North_Korea_Warns_Of_Counter_Measures_Against_US_Financial_Sanctions_999.html North Korea has warned it will take "all necessary counter-measures" against US financial sanctions amid reports the communist state may be preparing for a nuclear test. A North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said, in a first response late Saturday to intensifying US hunts for Pyongyang-owned bank accounts overseas, that Washington was ratcheting up the pressure in vain. "It is the height of folly for the US to think that it can solve any issue by means of sanctions and pressure," the spokesman said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA). It said the US Treasury Department was tracing North Korea-opened bank accounts in "at least 10 countries" in Vietnam and other Southeast Asian states as well as Mongolia and Russia. "Now that the Bush administration is escalating its pressure upon the DPRK through the tightened financial sanctions in a bid to keep itself politically alive, the DPRK is left with no other option but to take all necessary counter-measures to protect its ideology, system, sovereignty and dignity." The spokesman, however, did not elaborate on what counter-measures could be taken, according to the KCNA report monitored here. The warning came as a pro-Pyongyang newspaper said North Korea -- which declared it had nuclear weapons in February 2005 -- could carry out a nuclear test unless the US stops attempts to "stifle and destroy" the communist state. "We can't say for sure that the DPRK (North Korea) will not conduct nuclear testing to bolster its self-defence capability," the Choson Sinbo said in an editorial Saturday. South Korea has stepped up the monitoring of North Korean nuclear activities. Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-Ung told parliament Friday that Seoul suspects North Korea possesses one or two nuclear weapons and Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon has warned Pyongyang of grave consequences and a severe international response if it carries out a nuclear test. The United States and South Korea -- both parties to stalled nuclear disarmament talks with North Korea, along with China, Japan and Russia -- have warned Pyongyang against any such tests. Diplomatic efforts to jumpstart the six-party talks have intensified since North Korea test-fired seven ballistic missiles last month, drawing international condemnation and a sharp rebuke from the UN Security Council. But North Korea's isolation has deepened since the tests, with its traditional allies of China and Russia even approving the UN Security Council resolution imposing weapons-related sanctions on Pyongyang. North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il openly criticized China and Russia as unreliable at an emergency ambassadorial meeting held in Pyongyang soon after the UN move, Japan's Kyodo news agency reported from New York Saturday, citing unnamed sources. North Korea left the talks in November 2005 and said it would not return until US financial sanctions were dropped -- a stance reiterated on Saturday. Koh Yu-Hwan, a North Korea expert and professor at Seoul's Dongkuk University, said the Saturday statement should be noted for the unveiling of Pyongyang's desire to return to the six-way talks. "The statement shows North Korea wants to keep six-way talks alive. Pyongyang does not want to break the dialogue framework which it should return to someday," Koh said. The United States has moved to freeze North Korean funds it claims are the profits of drug trafficking, money laundering and other illegal activities. Last month, Stuart Levey, the US Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, visited Vietnam, South Korea, Japan and Singapore to discuss the issue. But the North Korean spokesman added: "The DPRK is neither a 'law-breaking state' nor a 'state counterfeiting notes' as claimed by the US. On the contrary, it has fallen victim to the issue of counterfeit notes and their circulation due to the US." -------- missile defense Rumsfeld cautious on U.S.missile shield Updated 8/27/2006 By Robert Burns, Associated Press http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-27-rumsfeld_x.htm FORT GREELY, Alaska — After his first look inside the nerve center of the U.S. missile defense system, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday sounded a note of caution about expectations that interceptors poised in underground silos here would work in the event of a missile attack by North Korea. Rumsfeld climbed down a steel ladder into one of 10 silos that house single 54-foot-long missile interceptors. If ordered by President Bush, or a successor, one or more of the rockets would blast into the sky and race at more than 18,000 mph to launch a small "kill vehicle" at an enemy warhead as it soared through space. An 11th interceptor is to be installed at Greely on Monday, officials said. Asked at a news conference later whether he believed the missile shield was ready for use against a North Korean missile like the one test-fired unsuccessfully on July 4, Rumsfeld said he would not be fully persuaded until the multibillion dollar defense system has undergone more complete and realistic testing. He alluded to his own skeptical nature. "I want to see it happen," he said, "A full end-to-end" demonstration is needed "where we actually put all the pieces" of the highly complex and far-flung missile defense system together and see whether it would succeed in destroying a warhead in flight. "That just hasn't happened," he said, adding that some elements of the missile defense system are yet to come on line, including some of the radars and other sensors used to track the target missile. He declined to say when he thought the missile defense system would reach the point of full reliability, but stressed that his advisers, including Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, the Pentagon's missile defense chief, have told him they believe it will work as designed in the event of an actual missile attack. "I have a lot of confidence in these folks, and I have a lot of confidence in the work that's been done," Rumsfeld said. Later, in nearby Fairbanks, Rumsfeld met with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Ivanov. They discussed the situation in the Middle East and in Afghanistan as well as Russian concern about an announced U.S. plan to remove nuclear warheads from some Trident long-range missiles aboard submarines and replace them with conventional warheads for potential use on short notice against terrorist targets. "I would like to stress this point: These are preliminary (U.S.) plans and for sure these plans raise Russian concern," Ivanov said during a joint news conference with Rumsfeld at a lodge on the banks of the Chena River. "There can be different solutions" to the problem, such as using cruise missiles in that role, he added. Brig. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, program director for the ground-based interceptor system, told Rumsfeld that on Thursday an interceptor based at a second launch site, at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., is scheduled to be tested against a target missile launched into the Pacific from Alaska's Kodiak Island. That will be the first full-up test of the latest version of the interceptor and its "kill vehicle," a device attached to the nose of the interceptor. Once it separates from the interceptor's three-stage booster, the "kill vehicle" is designed to use its own propulsion system and optical sensors to lock onto its target and, by ramming into it at high speed, obliterate the warhead and any payload it might carry. Thursday's test also will be the first use of an early-warning radar at Beale Air Force Base, Calif., to provide the data required to put the interceptor on a proper path toward its target. The interceptor will be controlled from a command center near Colorado Springs Fort Greely has a similar command center. Obering said the main objective of Thursday's test will be to see if the optical sensors on the "kill vehicle" aboard the interceptor work as designed. Whether it actually intercepts the target is secondary, he said. A further test, now scheduled for December, will try for an intercept, Obering said. At a news conference, Rumsfeld said that North Korea's leaders showed, by their test-launch of multiple missiles on July 4, a determination to "continue to improve their capability and to threaten and attempt to blackmail other people." He said they also are a threat to spread missile technology to terrorists. "I think the real threat that North Korea poses in the immediate future is more one of proliferation than a danger to South Korea," he said. Asked to elaborate on that point, Rumsfeld said U.S. intelligence about the intentions of North Korean leaders is not very good, but he said it is clear that the overall condition of the North Korean military has deteriorated. He mentioned that North Korean air force pilots are able to fly fewer than 50 hours a year — less than one-quarter the training done by U.S. pilots. "I don't see them, frankly, as an immediate military threat to South Korea," he said. -------- russia Rumsfeld, Russian Counterpart Discuss North Korea, ABMs by Jerome Bernard Fairbanks AL (AFP) Aug 27, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Rumsfeld_Russian_Counterpart_Discuss_North_Korea_ABMs_999.html US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met his Russian counterpart Sergei Ivanov in Alaska Sunday to discuss the North Korean threat after visiting a military base where anti-ballistic missiles are positioned. The two top defense officials also discussed Iran, Afghanistan and bilateral military relations, Ivanov said at a joint press conference with Rumsfeld. Both Washington and Moscow are concerned about Pyongyang, which on July 5 test-fired six short and mid-range missiles and one long-range missile, the Taepodong-2. All missiles fell harmlessly in the Sea of Japan. After the meeting, held at the Pike's Waterfront Lodge hotel, Rumsfeld said that US officials are looking into taking "a relatively small number" of ballistic missiles and replacing their nuclear warheads with ones armed with conventional explosives. "We would be happy to see the Russian government decide to do the same thing," he said. He said that move "would be a good thing" so that within the next five to 10 years "both of our governments had that additional weapon available in case it that may be needed in unusual circumstance. "It would be vastly preferable to use a conventional weapon than it would be a nuclear weapon," Rumsfeld said. Ivanov rejected the idea. "These plans raise Russian concerns," he said. "I cannot announce right now that Russia will join such an initiative." "As far as I understand the idea ... (is) to maximumly extend the possibility and potential of the preemptive strikes. There can be different solutions," he said. Before the meeting Rumsfeld visited Fort Greely, some 150 kilometers (90 miles) from Fairbanks, where US 10 anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs) are positioned in underground silos. The missiles are a key part of the US missile defense system, designed to shoot down enemy missiles fired at US soil. The system consists of a network of early-warning satellites, targeting and tracking radars, a command center based in the western US state of Colorado, and missile interceptors deployed in Alaska and at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. After the visit Rumsfeld fingered North Korea as a dangerous weapons proliferator. "I think the real threat that North Korea poses in the immediate future is more proliferation than a danger to South Korea," he said. The North Koreans "have been among the leading ballistic missile developers in the world and the leading ballistic missile proliferators in the world, working with Iran and with various other countries," Rumsfeld added. Commenting on North Korea's July 5 tests, Rumsfeld said he believed it was probably important for Pyongyang "to test these things so they can sell them." Alaska has been chosen as an ABM deployment site because of its geographical location that allows the United States to protect itself against attacks coming from both the East and the West. While the ability of the controversial anti-missile shield to function in real-life conditions is being questioned, US President George W. Bush has insisted it had a reasonable chance of shooting down a missile. Only five out of 10 tests of missile interceptors have been successful. The last successful one dates back to 2002, but it was followed by two failures. The US goal is to have 40 interceptors deployed in Alaska in the next years. In the future, Washington envisions deploying interceptor missiles in Europe. However, the US Congress has not yet appropriated funds for that. ---- Rumsfeld urges Russia on U.S. nuke plan By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer Sun Aug 27, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060828/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_russia_2 FAIRBANKS, Alaska - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made his strongest public case Sunday for a plan, opposed by some in Congress and by Russia, to convert some Navy long-range missiles from a nuclear to a conventional role for potential use against terrorist targets anywhere in the world. Opponents of the plan argue that it could create a situation in which a conventionally armed U.S. Trident missile, launched from a submarine, would be mistaken for a nuclear launch, thus risking the possibility of a retaliatory nuclear strike. Rumsfeld said he thought little of that argument. He said the Pentagon would be "fully transparent" with Moscow about any such conversion of strategic missiles, so that there was no room for miscalculation. "There are only a few countries that would have the ability to do anything about it — regardless of which type of weapon it was," he said, alluding to the small number of countries, such as Russia, China and possibly North Korea, which possess nuclear missiles capable of reaching U.S. territory. Besides, he added, "everyone in the world would know" that the U.S. missile was not nuclear "after it hit within 30 minutes" of launch. "Or 10 minutes," interjected Sergei Ivanov, the Russian defense minister who discussed the subject at a joint news conference with Rumsfeld. The two held talks at a Fairbanks lodge, had lunch together and then attended a ceremony dedicating a memorial to U.S.-Soviet military cooperation during World War II. By noting that a long-range missile might hit its target in as little as 10 minutes from launch, Ivanov appeared to be emphasizing the short time frame in which a decision on retaliating would have to be made. At an otherwise harmonious news conference, Rumsfeld explained the Bush administration's rationale for the plan to put conventional warheads on some Trident missiles aboard submarines, and he said Moscow should embrace the idea for its own good. "It would be a good thing if, five, 10 or 15 years from now both of our countries had that additional weapon available in case it might be needed in an unusual circumstance," Rumsfeld said in response to a question from a Russian reporter who asked him to comment on reports about the conversion plan. "We would be happy to see the Russian government decide to do the same thing," he said. Later he said, "I hope my friend Sergei takes that home and discusses it and calls me up on the phone and says he thinks that's a terrific idea." Ivanov, however, made clear that his government opposes the plan. "I would like to stress this point: these are preliminary plans, and for sure these U.S. plans raise Russian concerns," Ivanov said. The Russian defense chief said he understands that Rumsfeld sees this prospective weapon as a way of maximizing U.S. options for "preventive strikes," meaning attacks against terrorist targets that are launched not in response to a terrorist act but in order to destroy a terrorist weapon before it can be used. "There are different solutions" to that problem, Ivanov said. He mentioned the use of cruise missiles, which traditionally carry conventional warheads and would not be mistaken for a possible nuclear strike. Ivanov said his government was willing to discuss the matter with U.S. officials. The two defense chiefs also discussed Russia's objections to economic sanctions imposed earlier this month by the State Department on two Russian arms companies for their dealings with Iran. The companies — Rosoboronexport and Sukhoi — were among seven companies Washington said violated a U.S. law known as the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000. The law is aimed at preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction to Tehran. Rumsfeld said Moscow and Washington disagree over the facts in the case and that he agreed to have the matter reconsidered. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Precision technology helps combat troops pinpoint enemy Posted 8/27/2006 By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-08-27-rover-tech_x.htm WASHINGTON — U.S. troops and pilots in Iraq and Afghanistan share live video feeds from the battlefield to call in precise airstrikes, technology that barely existed a few years ago but now directs nine of 10 bombs and missiles dropped. It's possible, military officers say, for troops to call in strikes less than the length of a football field from their positions compared with 2,000 yards two years ago. That's needed more than ever as troops fight insurgents in tightly packed urban areas. The technology also can limit injuries to civilians and damage to sensitive sites such as mosques. This helps the military avoid angering the people it's trying to win over. Forward air controllers — troops who call in airstrikes — can direct a pilot to a target in less than a minute. It used to take them 45 minutes to verbally direct a pilot to an enemy position, said Air Force Lt. Col. Greg Harbin, a forward air controller and former pilot who's used the Remote Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) in combat. "It's the most fundamental revolution in warfare since radio," Harbin said. "The pilot and controller see the same thing. A picture's worth a thousand words. In this case, it might be a million." Precise images captured by sensors aboard a fighter jet or an unmanned plane such as the Predator are instantly relayed to troops on the ground who receive them with an antenna and laptop that can be carried in a backpack. Troops can highlight a target on the laptop screen, allowing either the aircraft's crew or the unmanned plane to lock in on the target and hit it with either a bomb or a missile. The system's use has proliferated. At the start of the Iraq war, there were only enough of the early versions of the system to be used by special operations forces. Now, virtually every jet in the sky over Iraq has the ability to share its video, and troops in all services have about 800 receivers, Harbin said. Australian, British and Canadian forces are buying the units, which cost about $32,000 apiece if bought 100 at a time. "Historically, close air support has been the art of talking the pilot on to the target," said John Pike, a military analyst with GlobalSecurity. "That isn't easy." ROVER also allows the use of smaller bombs. Pike said the Air Force's new GBU-39, a 250-pound precision bomb, can be used to destroy a building rather than a neighborhood. The bomb can hit within 6 feet of its intended target. "Fragments from a 2,000-pound bomb will go many football fields," Pike said. "That's one of the reasons why they're hot on this 250-pound bomb. The safe distance is a lot less." Coalition aircraft have been dropping bombs daily in Afghanistan over the past week, according to figures from U.S. Central Command. Warplanes patrol Iraq daily. Those planes also perform surveillance and reconnaissance for troops on the ground with ROVER technology, Harbin said. Though ROVER offers advantages, it isn't perfect, Harbin said. Bad weather is a limiting factor. "This isn't a cure-all," he said. "It's a step in the right direction." Here's how the new targeting technology has been used: • April 2005: Sniper and mortar fire had pinned down Harbin and 25 Marines in the restive Anbar province in western Iraq. Harbin had been wounded by a rocket-propelled grenade when he called in an airstrike within 100 yards of his men. An unmanned Predator, piloted by an Air Force officer in Las Vegas, unleashed a Hellfire missile that killed the snipers but left the building they were in standing. • March 2003: Kyle Stanbro, an Air Force special operations combat controller (now retired), used the technology to call in airstrikes that destroyed 35 Iraqi tanks in the early days of the war. Stanbro and his team, traveling in four unarmored vehicles, were able to stay out of the tanks' range and call in airstrikes for more than six hours. • September 2005: ROVER technology was used to locate 182 survivors of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and direct helicopters and boats to rescue them. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Travis Crosby, who used the system to help direct Iraqi police to stop suicide bombers last year, said the Air Force is prepared to use ROVER again this year if a major hurricane hits the USA. ---- UN will not stop Syria sending weapons to Lebanon By Harry De Quetteville and Michael Hirst (Filed: 27/08/2006) UK Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UIZRWQBAYNCABQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/27/wleb27.xml The United Nations peacekeeping force to be deployed in Lebanon is facing further criticism after the admission that its forces will not even be allowed to intercept shipments of arms to Hezbollah from Syria. Speaking in Brussels before heading to the region, Kofi Annan, pictured below, the UN Secretary-General, confirmed that the 15,000-strong force will not meet Israeli demands to police the routes used by the militia to smuggle missiles from Syria. "Troops are not going in there to disarm - let's be clear," he said. Instead, the Unifil force will only carry out interception missions if asked by the Lebanese government - which has made no such request. Syria, meanwhile, accused by Israel of re-arming Hezbollah during the recent conflict, has said the deployment of any UN forces near its border would be considered a "hostile act". Mr Annan's disclosure of more limits on the UN force's remit will act as a further blow to its credibility as a peacekeeping force. It is already devoid of any mandate to disarm Hezbollah of its existing weapons, and now appears powerless to stop the militia re-arming. Critics point out that new stocks of weapons and missiles could end up being used against the Unifil troops themselves, should their mission go awry and end up in clashes with Hezbollah fighters. The Israeli government, which has argued that the force lacks a sufficiently robust mandate, said it doubted that Unifil would be able to make any worthwhile contribution if it was not able to prevent Hezbollah re-arming. "Our expectation is that the international force will help the Lebanese army implement UN resolution 1701, which insists on an international arms embargo," Mark Regev, an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, said. "If the international force doesn't meet those expectations then this window for changing the current reality will close". Mr Annan is due to arrive in Beirut tomorrow to discuss the Unifil deployment, as well as measures to secure the border with Syria, with Faoud Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister. On Friday, European nations pledged up to 7,000 troops to form the core of the force: 3,000 from Italy; 2,000 from France; 1,200 from Spain; 1,000 from Poland; 400 from Belgium and 200 from Finland. Muslim nations including Malaysia, Indonesia, and Burma have also given "firm commitments", said Mr Annan. The bolstered force will back up 15,000 soldiers from the Lebanese army, who are supposed to be gradually establishing their remit over Hezbollah-held territory in southern Lebanon while Israel pulls out the remnants of its invasion force. However, there remain serious doubts as to whether the force will be any more effective in curbing Hezbollah's activities than the existing UN troop presence, whose role was merely to observe. While Mr Annan described them the "backbone" of a strengthened UN peacekeeping force, their only clear mandate is to be able to shoot in self-defence. Further doubts were sown last week by remarks from Philippe Douste-Blazy, the French foreign minister, who said the force would mark out "exclusion zones", in which armed militias would be disarmed, as "the best way to remove Hezbollah's weapons". Removing Hezbollah's secret weapons stashes is instead a task left to the Lebanese army, but few believe they have the political will to do so. General Jean Salvan, a French former commander of peacekeeping troops in Lebanon, is among those questioning the mission's potential effectiveness. "Hostilities were called off two weeks ago already," he said. "So Hezbollah has had plenty of time either to hide its equipment very well or to bring it back to secure zones." He added that there was no guarantee that troops would not be attacked. "A lot of that depends on Syria, it depends on Iran, it depends on Israel and it depends on Hezbollah." Questions also remain about whether a Lebanese mission could antagonize Islamic communities in contributor European nations - especially France - if clashes with Hezbollah take place. The French have emphasised the importance of including Muslim countries in the force. -------- israel / palestine IDF replaced officer during fighting after he expressed doubts over operation By Nir Hasson, Haaretz Correspondent 27/08/2006 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/755247.html The commander of an armored battalion of reservists was relieved from command during the fighting in Lebanon at his own request. Senior IDF officers are set to discuss whether he should remain in his post. The incident occured in a battalion of a reserves division on the eastern front in Lebanon. In the course of an operation that commenced on August 9, a brigade-sized force, comprised mostly of reservists, began a nighttime offensive in the area of Marjayoun and al-Khiam. Several hours later, the battalion in question returned to the Israeli border. This all occured according to plan, a senior IDF source says. During the operation, tanks in a different battalion were hit by anti-tank missiles and others were stuck in mud as a result of breakdowns. In the morning hours, the battalion that had returned was ordered back into Lebanon to assist with the rescue of the marooned tanks. The battalion commander expressed his dissatisfaction with the order because an operation in daylight would expose his tanks to Hezbollah missiles. The commander spoke with the Brigade and Division commanders and said he had doubts about continuing to command over the battalion. At the IDF they are keen to stress that the officer did not refuse to obey the command, but rather "admitted" his capabilities. "He explained that he was finding it difficult to continue commanding his battalion, but he did not intend to go home. He will not receive a medal but he should also not be court martialed," a senior IDF source said. To solve the problem, the previous battalion commander, who had retired a few months before the war, was called to take up the command of the battalion and joined the crew. For now, the battalion commander continues to function in his post, but in the coming days senior officers will meet to discuss the issue. The division commander says that the responsibility for what happened was his. "The mobilization of the reservists and their fighting are a source of pride. All the successes and mistakes stem from the way in which I commanded the forces and I am personally responsible for this. The men are the source of our strength. Even when weaknesses emerge because of the difficult fighting conditions, I support them in full." -------- landmines Cluster bombs leave ‘toys’ that kill children Hala Jaber, Yuhmur, South Lebanon August 27, 2006 UK Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2330633,00.html AFTER 34 days of war that confined them to one shelter after another, three children almost lost their lives last week when they returned to their devastated village and went outside to play, oblivious to the cluster bombs around them. Marwa al-Miri, 10, and her cousins Sikna, 12, and Hassan, 10, skipped between the ruined houses of Aita al-Shaab in a game of treasure hunt, then heard a macabre rumour and decided to investigate. “We were going to see my grandfather’s house. We were told there was Israeli blood in there from the fighting and we wanted to see it,” Sikna explained. Suddenly a strange object caught Sikna’s eye. It was small, round and metallic, with a tip that looked like a cigarette end. She picked it up to show her cousins. Marwa and Hassan remembered warnings not to touch strange objects. “It’s one of those bombs,” one of the children cried. Sikna panicked and dropped the cluster bomb, which exploded instantly. “Hassan was flung about two to three metres and I flew to the other side,” she said, speaking slowly in her hospital bed. “I was on the ground with blood coming out of my stomach and I started to cry and scream. My stomach was making a funny noise as if it was whistling.” Doctors discovered later that shards of metal had penetrated her liver. While Marwa received relatively minor injuries, Hassan was wounded in the abdomen. “My intestine came out and I held it and began to run, shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ (God is greatest),” said Hassan. “I collapsed, my uncle picked me up and they took us to hospital.” Like Sikna, he spent two days in intensive care. Both children are struggling to comprehend what happened. “They left us toys that will kill us,” said Hassan blankly. The war in Lebanon may be over but villages across the south are reverberating every day to the sound of explosions. South Lebanon is littered with thousands of unexploded cluster bombs. They are smaller and deadlier than hand grenades, and they lie where they fall in homes, gardens and trees, threatening communities for months or even years to come. Cluster munitions from artillery strikes spray small bombs over a wide area and 25% fail to explode on impact. The United Nations has confirmed 285 Israeli cluster bomb strikes in south Lebanon. The small bombs have killed eight people, including two children, in the 13 days since the ceasefire. According to Sean Sutton of the British-based Mines Advisory Group (MAG), half of nearly 40 villages inspected in the Nabatiyeh region are strewn with them. In Yuhmur, a village five miles from the Israeli border, the situation is desperate, Sutton said. “The whole village is highly contaminated, including all the houses and gardens.” Only 30% of the inhabitants have returned; the rest are waiting to hear that their homes have been cleared. Magnus Rundstrom, MAG’s team leader in Yuhmur, was directing four de-miners slowly and meticulously through each house. Banana plantations and olive groves must wait until later, although the delay means no harvest this summer. “In one house alone we found three empty containers that had already unleashed their bombs in the vicinity,” Rundstrom said. In the garden of another, 24 were detected and blown up. Four clearance teams from MAG have made safe more than 1,000 small bombs in the last week, and many more lie ahead. Teams from the Lebanese army and Hezbollah are also in action. A Hezbollah fighter who had cleared 65 cluster bombs from the same village died last Tuesday when one blew up as he packed them into a box. In the nearby town of Tibnin, three Lebanese army soldiers were killed the following day after clearing 210 bombs from around a hospital. Tekimiti Gilbert, operations chief of the UN Mine Action Co-ordination Centre in Lebanon, said he had “no doubt” that Israel’s use of cluster bombs had violated international law prohibiting their use in civilian areas. Israel denies using them illegally, saying it had to defend itself against Hezbollah fighters in Lebanese towns and villages firing rockets that killed Israeli civilians. The US State Department opened an investigation last week into whether Israel’s use of American-made cluster bombs violated an agreement that they would not be used in civilian areas. -------- mideast Hezbollah says won't resist UN troops by Jocelyne Zablit Sun Aug 27, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060827/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictlebanon_060827190418 BEIRUT - Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that UN troops set to deploy in southern Lebanon would not encounter any resistance from his fighters and expressed regret for the month-long war between Israel and his militia. Nasrallah, who spoke in an interview aired on Lebanese television, however warned that the 15,000-strong international force which is to begin deploying in coming days along the border with Israel should not seek to disarm Hezbollah. "We have no problem with UNIFIL (UN Interim Force in Lebanon) as long as its mission is not aimed at disarming Hezbollah," Nasrallah said in his second interview since the UN-brokered August 14 ceasefire. The leader of the Shiite militia group added, though, that if the Lebanese army in the country's south encountered armed militants, it had the right to seize the weapons. "If the Lebanese army encounters any armed person, it has the right to confiscate their weapons," he said, hinting that his militia could eventually lay down its arms. "When the (Lebanese) army begins protecting its people, this will no longer be our responsibility," he added. Nasrallah said his Shiite militia group was not preparing for a "second round" with Israeli troops and regretted the capture of two Israeli soldiers that sparked the 34-day war. "Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it," he said. The two Israeli soldiers were seized during a July 12 Hezbollah cross border raid that killed eight others. Nasrallah spoke with the Lebanese private television station NTV on the eve of a visit to Beirut by UN chief Kofi Annan, who was to discuss with Lebanese leaders the deployment of around 15,000 UN troops in southern Lebanon and related security matters. Nasrallah said he would welcome a meeting with Annan and that contacts had been made toward that end, but he added that nothing had been finalized for security reasons. He also said negotiations on a prisoner swap with Israel had begun recently with Lebanon's parliament speaker Nabih Berri acting as an intermediary for Hezbollah. "Negotiations on a prisoner exchange began recently," he said, adding that Italy and the United Nations had shown interest in taking part in the talks. Nasrallah also challenged those demanding the withdrawal of his militia from south Lebanon, saying that his fighters lived in the villages targetted by Israel. "How do you expect me to go and tell these (men) to leave their homes" and get out of the region, he said. He added that the 4,000 rockets that rained down on Israel during the war were but a fraction of Hezbollah's arsenal. "They represent less than 50 percent of our military capacity," he said. Much of southern Lebanon lies in ruins after Israel's offensive against Hezbollah fighters that left at least 1,287 Lebanese, nearly all civilians, dead and 4,054 wounded. Some 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers, were also killed during the conflict. -------- us Families of unit kept in Iraq question Rumsfeld August 27, 2006 (AP) BY ROBERT BURNS http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-rummy27.html FAIRBANKS, Alaska -- In a lively but polite give-and-take, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld fielded questions Saturday from wives and other family members of Alaska-based soldiers whose combat tours in Iraq were abruptly extended just as they prepared to return home this month. ''It is something we don't want to do,'' Rumsfeld told several hundred family members at Fort Wainwright, home of the 172nd Stryker Brigade. The unit's deployment to Iraq was extended by up to four months to bolster U.S. firepower in the Baghdad area. ''But in this case we had to.'' Reporters were not permitted to cover the meeting, which lasted about an hour. But a wife who videotaped the event showed it to reporters. During his flight to Fairbanks, Rumsfeld said he saw no reason for the soldiers or their families to be angry at him. ''These people are all volunteers," he said. "They all signed up. They all are there doing what they're doing because they want to do it.'' A newly formed Alaska chapter of the Military Families Speak Out group said it would make a public call for the Bush administration to bring home the 172nd and all other U.S. troops. It quoted Jennifer Davis of Anchorage, whose husband is a member of the 172nd. ''I am totally frustrated, disappointed and heartbroken,'' she said. ''Just when I thought we were going to be able to resume a 'normal' life and when I thought the nightmare was over, the nightmare was extended.'' -------- ACTIVISTS You wouldn’t catch me dead in Iraq Scores of American troops are deserting — even from the front line in Iraq. But where have they gone? And why isn’t the US Army after them? Peter Laufer tracked down four of the deserters Sunday UK Times August 27, 2006 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-2318643,00.html They are the US troops in Iraq to whom the American administration prefers not to draw attention. They are the deserters – those who have gone Awol from their units and not returned, risking imprisonment and opprobrium. When First Lieutenant Ehren Watada of the US Army, who faced a court martial in August, refused to go to Iraq on moral grounds, the newspapers in his home state of Hawaii were full of letters accusing him of “treason”. He said he had concluded that the war is both morally wrong and a horrible breach of American law. His participation, he stated, would make him party to “war crimes”. Watada is just one conscientious objector to a war that has polarised America, arguably more so than even the Vietnam war. It is impossible to put a precise figure on the number of American troops who have left the army as a result of the US involvement in Iraq. The Pentagon says that a total of 40,000 troops have deserted their posts (not simply those serving in Iraq) since the year 2000. This includes many who went Awol for family reasons. The Pentagon’s spokesmen say that the overall number of deserters has actually gone down since operations began in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is no doubt that a steady trickle of deserters who object to the Iraq war have made it over the border and are now living in Canada. There they seek asylum, often with the help of Canadian anti-war groups. One Toronto lawyer, Jeffry House, has represented at least 20 deserters from Iraq in the Canadian courts; he is himself a conscientious objector, having refused to fight in the Vietnam war – along with 50,000 others, at the peak of the conflict. He estimates that 200 troops have already gone underground in Canada since the war in Iraq began. These conscientious objectors are a brave group – their decisions will result in long-term life changes. To be labelled a deserter is no small burden. If convicted of desertion, they run the risk of a prison sentence – with hard labour. To choose exile can mean lifelong separation from family and friends, as even the most trivial encounter with the police in America – say, over a traffic offence – could lead to jail. Many of the deserters are not pacifists, against war per se, but they view the Iraq war as wrong. First Lt Watada, for instance, said he would face prison rather than serve in Iraq, though he was prepared to pack his bags for Afghanistan to fight in a war that he considered just. They don’t want to face the military courts, which is why they have decided to flee to Canada. A generation ago, Canada welcomed Vietnam-war draft dodgers and deserters. Today, the political climate is different and the score or so of US deserters who are now north of the border are applying for refugee status. So far, the Canadian government is saying no, so cases rejected for refugee status are going to appeal in the federal courts. But there is no guarantee that these exiles will ultimately find safe haven in Canada. If the federal courts rule against the soldiers and they then exhaust all further judicial possibilities, they may be deported back to the United States – and that may not be what the Americans want. Their presence in the US will in itself represent yet another public-relations headache for the Bush administration. DARRELL ANDERSON First Armored Division, 2-3 Field Artillery, at Giessen, Germany. Age: 24 Darrell Anderson joined the US Army just before the Iraq war started. “I needed health care, money to go to college, and I needed to take care of my daughter. The military was the only way I could do it,” he tells me. As we chat, basking in the sun on a peaceful Toronto street, he fiddles with his pocket watch, which has a Canadian flag on its face. He’s wearing a peace-symbol necklace. After fighting for seven months in Iraq, he came home bloodied from combat, with a Purple Heart that proved his sacrifice – and seriously opened his eyes. “When I joined, I wanted to fight,” he says. “I wanted to see combat. I wanted to be a hero. I wanted to save people. I wanted to protect my country.” But soon after he arrived in Iraq, he tells me, he realised that the Iraqis did not want him there, and he heard harsh tales that surprised and distressed him. “Soldiers were describing to me how they had beaten prisoners to death,” he says. “There were three guys and one said, ‘I kicked him from this side of the head while the other guy kicked him in the head and the other guy punched him, and he just died.’ People I knew. They were boasting about it, about how they had beaten people to death.” He says it again: “Boasting about how they had beaten people to death. They are trained killers now. Their friends had died in Iraq. So they weren’t the people they were before they went there.” Anderson says that even the small talk was difficult to tolerate. “I hate Iraqis,” he quotes his peers as saying. “I hate these damn Muslims.” At first he was puzzled by such talk. “After a while I started to understand. I started to feel the hatred myself. My friends were dying. What am I here for? We went to fight for our country; now we’re just fighting to stay alive.” In addition to taking shrapnel from a roadside bomb – the injury that earned him the Purple Heart – Anderson says he often found himself in firefights. But it was work at a checkpoint that made him seriously question his role. He was guarding the “backside” of a street checkpoint in Baghdad, he says. If a car passed a certain point without stopping, the guards were supposed to open fire. “A car comes through and it stops in front of my position. Sparks are coming from the car from bad brakes. All the soldiers are yelling. It’s in my vicinity, so it’s my responsibility. I didn’t fire. A superior goes, ‘Why didn’t you fire? You were supposed to fire.’ I said, ‘It was a family!’ At this time it had stopped. You could see the children in the back seat. I said, ‘I did the right thing.’ He’s like, ‘No, you didn’t. It’s procedure to fire. If you don’t do it next time, you’re punished.’” Anderson shakes his head at the memory. “I’m already not agreeing with this war. I’m not going to kill innocent people. I can’t kill kids. That’s not the way I was raised.” He says he started to look around at the ruined cityscape and the injured Iraqis, and slowly began to understand the Iraqi response. “If someone did this to my street, I would pick up a weapon and fight. I can’t kill these people. They’re not terrorists. They’re 14-year-old boys, they’re old men. We’re occupying the streets. We raid houses. We grab people. We send them off to Abu Ghraib, where they’re tortured. These are innocent people. We stop cars. We hinder everyday life. If I did this in the States, I’d be thrown in prison.” Birds are singing sweetly as he speaks, a stark contrast to his descriptions of atrocities in Iraq. “I didn’t shoot anybody when I was in Baghdad. We went down to Najaf with howitzers. We shot rounds in Najaf and we killed hundreds of people. I did kill hundreds of people, but not directly, hand-to-hand.” Anderson went home for Christmas, convinced he would be sent back to the war. He knew he would not be able to live with himself if he returned to Iraq, armed with his first-hand knowledge of what was occurring there day after day. He decided he could no longer participate, and his parents – already opposed to the war –supported his decision. Canada seemed like the best option. After Christmas 2004, he drove from Kentucky to Toronto. But he says he has had second thoughts about his exile. Not that he is worried much about deportation: he has recently married a Canadian woman and that will probably guarantee him permanent residency. But he plans to return to the US this autumn, and expects to be arrested when he presents himself to authorities at the border. “The war’s still going on,” he told me. “If I go back, maybe I can still make a difference. My fight is with the American government.” It’s not only anti-war work that’s motivating him to go home; he’s thinking about his future. “Dealing with all the nightmares and the post-traumatic stress, I need support from my family.” Anderson expects to be convicted of desertion, and he says he will use his trial and prison time to continue to protest against the war. He imagines that just the sight of him in a dress uniform covered with the medals he was awarded fighting in Iraq will make a powerful statement. “I can’t work every day and act like everything is okay,” he says about his life in Toronto. “This war is beating me down. I haven’t had a dream that wasn’t a nightmare since I came to Canada. It eats away at me to try and act like everything’s okay when it’s not.” Not that he feels his time in Canada was a waste. “There was no way I could have gone to prison at the time: I would have killed myself. I was way too messed up in the head to even think of sitting in a prison cell. I owe a lot to Canada. It has saved my life. When I came back and was talking about the war, Americans called me a traitor. Canadians helped me when I was at my lowest point.” JOSHUA KEY 43rd Company of Combat Engineers, at Fort Carson, Colorado. Age: 28 We was going along the Euphrates river,” says Joshua Key, detailing a recurring nightmare that features a scene he stumbled into shortly after the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. “It’s a road right in the city of Ramadi. We turned a sharp right and all I seen was decapitated bodies. The heads laying over here and the bodies over there and US troops in between them. I’m thinking, ‘Oh my God, what in the hell happened here? What’s caused this? Why in the hell did this happen?’ We get out and somebody was screaming, ‘We f***ing lost it here!’ I’m thinking, ‘Oh yes, somebody definitely lost it here.’” Key says he was ordered to look for evidence of a firefight, for something to explain what had happened to the beheaded Iraqis. “I look around just for a few seconds and I don’t see anything.” Then he witnessed the sight that still triggers the nightmares. “I see two soldiers kicking the heads around like soccer balls. I just shut my mouth, walked back, got inside the tank, shut the door, and thought, ‘I can’t be no part of this. This is crazy. I came here to fight and be prepared for war, but this is outrageous.’” He’s convinced that there was no firefight. “A lot of my friends stayed on the ground, looking to see if there was any shells. There was never no shells.” He still cannot get the scene out of his mind: “You just see heads everywhere. You wake up, you’ll just be sitting there, like you’re in a foxhole. I can still see Iraq just as clearly as it was the day I was there. You’ll just be on the side of a little river running through the city, trash piled up, filled with dead. I don’t sleep that much, you might say.” His wife, Brandi, nods in agreement, and says that he cries in his sleep. We’re sitting on the back porch of the Toronto house where Key and his wife and their four small children have been living in exile since Key deserted to Canada. They’ve settled in a rent-free basement apartment, courtesy of a landlord sympathetic to their plight. Joshua smokes one cigarette after another and drinks coffee while we talk. There’s a scraggly beard on his still-boyish face; his eyes look weary. Key rejects the American government line that the Iraqis fighting the occupation are terrorists. “I’m thinking, ‘What the hell?’ I mean, that’s not a terrorist. That’s the man’s home. That’s his son, that’s the father, that’s the mother, that’s the sister. Houses are destroyed. Husbands are detained, and wives don’t even know where they’re at. I mean, them are pissed-off people, and they have a reason to be. I would never wish this upon myself or my family, so why would I wish it upon them?” On security duty in the Iraqi streets, Key found himself talking to the locals. He was surprised by how many spoke English, and he was frustrated by the military regulations that forbade him to accept dinner invitations in their homes. “I’m not your perfect killing machine,” he admits. “That’s where I broke the rules. I broke the rules by having a conscience.” And the more time he spent in Iraq, the more his conscience developed. “I was trained to be a total killer. I was trained in booby traps, explosives, landmines.” He pauses. “Hell, if you want to get technical about it, I was made to be an American terrorist. I was trained in everything that a terrorist is trained to do.” In case I might have missed his point, he says it again. “I mean terrorist.” Deserting seemed the only viable alternative, Key says. He did it, he insists, because he was lied to “by my president”. Iraq – it was obvious to him – was no threat to the US Key feels that some of his unit were trigger-happy. He recalls another incident that haunts him. He was in an armoured personnel carrier when an Iraqi man in a truck cut them off, making a wrong turn. One of his squad started firing at the truck. “The first shot, the truck sort of started slowing down,” Key recounts. “And then he shot the next shot, and when he shot that next shot, it, you know, exploded.” Key watched the truck turn to debris. “It was very strange. He was just going along and because he tried to cut in front of us… No kind of combat reasons or anything of such…” Key seems still in shock at the utter senselessness of it all. “Why did it happen and what was the cause for it? When I asked that question, I was told, basically, ‘You didn’t see anything, you know?’ Nobody asked no questions.” Assigned to raid houses, Key was soon appalled by the job. “I mean, yeah, they’re screaming and hollering out their lungs. It’s traumatic on both parts because you’ve got somebody yelling at you, which might be a woman. You’re yelling back at her, telling her to get on the ground or get out of the house. She don’t know what you’re saying and vice versa. It got to me. We’re the ones sending their husbands or their children off, and when you do that, it gets even more traumatic because then they’re distraught. Of course, you can’t comfort them because you don’t know what to say.” While the residents are restrained, the search progresses. “Oh, you completely destroy the home – completely destroy it,” he says. “If there’s like cabinets or something that’s locked, you kick them in. The soldiers take what they want. Completely ransack it.” He estimates that he participated in about 100 raids. “I never found anything in a home. You might find one AK-47, but that’s for personal use. But I never once found the big caches of weapons they supposed were there. I never once found members of the Ba’ath party, terrorists, insurgents. We never found any of that.” A soldier’s life was never Joshua Key’s dream. He was living in Guthrie, Oklahoma, just looking for a decent job. “We had two kids at the time and my third boy was on the way,” he says. “There’s no work there. There wasn’t going to be a future. Of course you can get a job working at McDonald’s, but that wasn’t going to pay the bills.” The local army-recruiting station beckoned. Shortly after he finished basic training, he was en route to the war zone. After eight months of fighting, he received two weeks’ leave back in the US. At the end of that, he was due for another Iraq tour. He didn’t report for duty. Key and his wife packed up, took their children and ran, with the intention of getting as far from his base in familiar Colorado as possible. The family ran out of money in Philadelphia, and Key found work as a welder. They lived an underground lifestyle for over a year, frequently checking out of one hotel and into another, worried that if they stayed too long at one place they would attract attention. “I was paranoid,” Key says, and he contemplated deserting to Canada. The research was easy. He went online and searched for “deserter needs help to go Awol”. Up popped details about others who had escaped across the border. He and Brandi decided to opt for a new life as Canadians. George W Bush should be the one to go to prison, says Key. “On the day he goes to prison, I’ll go sit in prison with him. Let’s go. I’ll face it for that music. But that ain’t never going to happen,” he laughs. RYAN JOHNSON 211th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Barstow, California. Age: 22 Twenty-two-year-old Ryan Johnson meets me at his Catholic hostel in Toronto wearing a black T-shirt, blue jeans and black running shoes. When Ryan went Awol in January 2005, he simply went home to Visalia, California. “It was very stressful,” he says. “I lived only four hours away from my home base. I figured they could come get me at any time. But they never came by. They never came looking for me. They sent some letters – that’s all they did.” The military doesn’t devote significant manpower to chasing Awol soldiers and deserters, other than issuing a federal arrest warrant. Those who get caught are usually arrested for something unrelated, their Awol status revealed when local police enter their names into the National Crime Information Center database – a routine post-arrest procedure throughout the United States. Johnson moved to Canada because he was afraid that if he applied for a job, a background check would cause him to be arrested and give him a criminal record that would make it even more difficult for him to find work in the future. Voluntarily turning himself in to the US Army would not have improved his options, either. “I had two choices: go to Iraq and have my life messed up, or go to jail and have my life messed up. So I came here to try this out.” Back at his base in the southern California desert, Johnson had listened hard to the stories told by soldiers returning from the war. “I didn’t want to be a part of that,” he says. I remind him that, unlike in the Vietnam era, there was no draft when he became eligible to join the army. He went down to the Visalia recruiting office and signed up. Did he really not know then that the army was in the business of killing people? “That’s true, yeah, they are,” he acknowledges. “But what I didn’t understand is how traumatising it was to actually kill somebody or watch one of your friends get killed. I’ve never seen anyone die. “When I joined,” he says, “I joined because I was poor.” He says that jobs were hard to come by in Visalia and he lacked the funds for college. The sign in the strip mall outside the recruiting office beckoned, despite the fact that war was already burning up the Iraqi desert and sending GIs home dead. “I talked to the recruiters,” says Johnson. “I said, ‘What are the chances of me going to Iraq?’ They said, ‘Depends on what job you get.’ So I said, ‘What jobs could I get that wouldn’t have me go to Iraq?’ And they named jobs. I picked one of those and they said that I probably wouldn’t go to Iraq.” Johnson was too unsophisticated to ask probing questions at the army recruiting office, and he didn’t question many of the answers he did receive. “I was 20 years old,” he says defensively. “I thought we were rebuilding in Iraq. I thought we were doing good things. But we’re blowing up mosques. We’re blowing up museums, people’s homes, all the culture. I mean, I didn’t even realise Iraq was Mesopotamia, you know? There’s all this culture and everything in Iraq. I like to think of myself as pretty well educated for someone that didn’t even graduate high school, but I’ve never really known anything about history or other cultures. “The soldiers that are going to Iraq, most of them aren’t patriotic,” he says. “They aren’t going to Iraq because our flag has red, white and blue on it. They’re not going because they think that Iraq is posing a threat to us. Most of us are going because we’re ordered to and our buddies are going. That’s one of the reasons that I was going to go – because my buddies are over there.” He is immediately wistful when asked how he feels about being safe in peaceful Toronto while those buddies are fighting and dying in the desert: “I check the casualties list every day. Every day I go on the internet and I check the casualties list to see if my friends are on there. And as of yet,” he pauses, “seven people from my unit have died, and I knew four of them.” Johnson is unwilling to consider a return to America and time in prison. “It seems absolutely insane,” he says. “They’ll put someone in jail for five years for not wanting to kill somebody. I’m trying to avoid killing people. I know if I went to Iraq I would kill somebody. If I got put on patrol I would probably shoot somebody, because I would know that it’s them or me, you know? And they feel the same way. If I don’t kill these guys, they’re going to kill me.” Johnson is hoping to feel at home in Canada. His introduction to the new country when he drove across the border was unexpectedly welcoming. He tried to give his ID to the border guard, but she was not interested in checking it. She just said: “‘Welcome to Canada.’ Yeah, that’s what she said. She said, ‘Welcome to Canada.’ And I said, ‘Thank you!’ and then we crossed the border and my wife, Jennifer, screamed.” However, Johnson is now appealing, as his initial request for refugee status in Canada has been rejected by the Canadian authorities. IVAN BROBECK 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Age: 21 Aged 21, former Lance Corporal Ivan Brobeck has an inviting smile. We meet in a park near his new home in Toronto. “I knew I couldn’t take it any more,” he says of his decision to desert to Canada. “I just needed to get away, because my unit was scheduled to go back to Iraq for a second time and I couldn’t take any more.” Brobeck had no problem staying in the military, but he decided that he was not accepting orders to return to Iraq, and desertion seemed his only alternative. He spent much of 2004 on duty in Iraq. He fought in Falluja, and lost friends to roadside bombs “You tend to be very angry over there, because you’re fighting for something you don’t believe in, and your friends are dying,” he tells me. His war stories feel out of place in the peaceful, upmarket Toronto neighbourhood where we are talking. During battles, he says he operated “on autopilot”, fighting for survival. “I started thinking about what was wrong while I was over there, but it didn’t really get to me until the end of my stay in Iraq – and definitely once I was back home.” Back at Camp Lejeune, in North Carolina, Brobeck says he began to consider “the totally bad stuff that shouldn’t have happened” during his watch. “I have seen the beating of innocent prisoners,” he says. “I remember hearing something get thrown off the back of a seven-ton truck. The bed of a seven-ton is probably something like 7 or 8ft high. They threw a detainee off the back, his hands tied behind his back and a sandbag over his head, so he couldn’t brace for the impact. I remember he started convulsing after he hit the ground and we thought he was snoring. We took the bag off his head and his eyes were swollen shut and his nose was plugged with blood and he could barely even breathe.” In addition to the abuse of prisoners, the regularity with which civilians were killed at checkpoints confounded the young marine. “My friends have been ones who’ve done that, and after the event it’s always, ‘Oh, so and so is a little down today – he killed a guy in front of his kids.’ Or, ‘He killed a couple of kids.’ These marines that had to do that were my friends, who I talked to every day. It’s hard knowing that your best friend had to kill innocent people.” Brobeck started to develop sympathy for the enemy. “A lot of people that shoot back at us aren’t bad people. They’re people who had their wives killed or their sons killed and they’re just trying to get retribution, get revenge and kill the person who killed their son. They’re just innocent people who lost a whole lot and don’t have anything else to do.” Brobeck was a marine for a year before being deployed to Iraq. “I always heard all these great things that the US military have done throughout history, like great battles that they’ve won. Out of all the forces I knew, the marines were the toughest, most hard core. I wanted to do that. I was willing to risk my life for an actual cause,” he muses, “if there was one.” What would be a cause worth dying for? “A good cause” is his answer. “But this war doesn’t benefit anyone. It doesn’t benefit Americans, it doesn’t even benefit Iraq. This is not something that anyone should fight and die for. I was only 17 when I signed my contract, and my whole childhood, all I did was play video games and sports. I didn’t pay attention to the news. That stuff was boring to me. But I know first-hand now.” Last July his unit shipped out without him. “The day I decided to actually leave was sort of a spur-of-the-moment thing. I had wanted to for so long, I just couldn’t bring myself to actually do it, because going Awol is definitely a huge decision, and it’s like throwing away a lot of your life. Plus, I didn’t know what I was going to do if I went Awol.” The night before leaving, Brobeck confided his intentions to another marine. “He said, ‘You’ve been to Iraq; I haven’t. You have your reasons for going Awol and I’m not going to stop you.’” The departure from the North Carolina base was easy. “I walked to a bus station and stayed at a hotel that night. The only way I could get home was by bus, and the station was closed. When the Greyhound station opened, I got my ticket and left for Virginia. I was nervous because reveille, the time we wake up, was at 5.30, and they would have definitely noticed I was missing. I thought they would have checked the Greyhound station, the only one near the base. They didn’t, which was good. I didn’t go home to my mom, because I was worried about police being there. I stayed with a friend.” Twenty-eight days after he went Awol, Brobeck headed for Canada. He discovered the website maintained by the War Resisters Support Campaign, a group of Canadians organising aid for American deserters, and learnt that there would be help from them were he to flee north to Toronto. He called his mother and together they drove across the Niagara Falls crossing point. “She doesn’t like the fact that I’m away in Canada and can’t come back to see her,” he says, “but it’s better than me going back to Iraq for a second time.” Exile in Canada feels good for Brobeck. “Life feels for me, even if I wasn’t Awol, freer up here than it would in America. Everyone is so polite in Canada, friendly.” In the year since he crossed the border, he has met and married his wife, Lisa. His application for refugee status has been denied, but he has hopes of winning his appeal. “The only thing I left behind was my family and my friends,” he says. “So that’s the only thing I’m going to miss about America – the people. “The US used to be something you could say you were proud of,” he adds. “You go to another country now and say that you’re an American, you probably won’t get a lot of happy faces or open arms, because of the man in charge. It’s amazing what one person can do. The leadership totally screwed up any respect we had.” His rejection of US policy in Iraq is making him question his sense of national identity. “In my heart I’m not American… if it means I have to conform to what they stand for,” he says about the Bush administration. “I’m not American because America has lost touch with what they were. The founding fathers would definitely be pissed off if they found out what America’s become.” Mission Rejected, by Peter Laufer, is published in the US by Chelsea Green, and will be published in the UK in January 2007 by John Blake THE BRITONS WHO ARE SAYING NO It’s not just Americans: hundreds of our own troops have ‘retreated’ from Iraq. Philip Jacobson reports Over 2,000 members of Britain’s armed forces have gone long-term Awol since the war in Iraq started, and most are still missing. Before the fighting began, about 375 absconders a year were at large for any length of time, and were dismissed; that figure rose to 720 last year. About 740 men are thought to be on the run still, but have not yet been disciplined. While the MoD denies that this trend reflects growing opposition to the war, lawyers specialising in court martials report a continuing increase in requests for advice from personnel desperate to avoid being posted to Iraq. Although the overall number of Awol cases has been fairly stable for a few years (about 2,500 annually), there is growing concern in the military about the “Iraq factor”. Before, most absconders were Awol for a relatively short time, typically owing to family or financial problems, or bullying, and either went back to their units voluntarily or were arrested quickly. Most were disciplined by their commanding officers; punishments ranged from demotion to “jankers”, a spell in a military jail. But it seems that a growing number are ready to risk a charge of desertion — a far more serious offence than going Awol, with penalties to match. According to Gilbert Blades, an expert on military law, the MoD is playing down the true extent of the problem. “It is absolutely clear to me,” he says, “that the crucial factor in driving up Awol levels has been what more and more service people consider to be an illegal conflict.” As Blades sees it, the tightening of the legal definition of desertion in new legislation going through parliament is intended to deter potential absconders. Under the new Armed Forces Bill, people refusing active-service duty in a foreign country could be jailed for life. “It seems obvious this is a direct response to the situation that has developed as the war has intensified,” he says. Two cases this year have highlighted the issue of morally motivated “refuseniks” in the forces. Ben Griffin, an SAS soldier stationed in Baghdad, told his commanding officer that he was no longer willing to fight alongside “gung-ho and trigger-happy” US troops. Griffin fully expected his eight-year career to end in a court martial and imprisonment, but he was allowed to leave and was given a glowing testimonial to his “strength of character”. Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, an RAF doctor, received eight months in prison for rejecting orders to report for a third tour of duty in Basra on the grounds that the occupation was illegal. He was later freed, but spent the rest of his sentence under house arrest. An MoD spokeswoman told The Sunday Times Magazine that claims that the level of desertions was rocketing were untrue. “There is a good deal of confusion about this, because people often don’t understand the distinction between deserting and going absent without leave. Only 21 cases of desertion have been recorded over the past five years, and just one person has been convicted of that offence since 1989.” She also said criticism of the new legislation was “misguided and sometimes malicious”. Under the present military legal system, she explained, each arm of the forces administers its own discipline. This no longer reflects an era in which combined operations are becoming common. “It makes sense in the circumstances to have a single law addressing matters of military discipline for all service personnel.” But Blades argues that the clause providing for life sentences in the event of refusal to serve in a foreign combat zone “was driven through solely by the defence establishment to provide a drastic legal remedy to the problem of conscientious objection”. It remains to be seen whether the courts, if pushed, will hand down such a stiff sentence.