The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Daaaaagje Sanders, I really meant "Daagje" being the more "colloquial +" (loose 'n lax) form for the simple colloquial "dagje". Deliberately chosen instead of the formal "dag" you propose. Are you sure you're a native Dutch speaker? Or why else do you try to misunderstand me? Andreas ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sander Faas" <faaz@battl.nl> To: "as-ilas" <as-ilas@gmx.de> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:30 PM Subject: Re: [casi] House repeals research ban > Nice try Andreas, > > I suppose you ment 'dag Sander', the Dutch equivalent for hello. > > Anyway, thx for the info. > > I've been trying the last couple of days to get this news broadcasted or > publiced in any of the Dutch mainstream media. I 've mailed this news > together with some relevant background information to various media. Also I > called various newspapers and newsagency's. Although some of them promised > to look in to it, untill now the silence is deafening. > > I can't help to think that if this decision was made by, for example, the > Iranian parlement, this would have been the main story worldwide, if not the > start of worldwar 4. > > I close by using this opportunity to draw your attention to my website > http://battl.nl . Most of the links are in English, just like most articles > we link to. Check it out. > > Greetings, > > Sander Faas > Faaz@battl.nl > http://battl.nl > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "as-ilas" <as-ilas@gmx.de> > To: "Sander Faas" <faaz@battl.nl>; "casi" <casi-discuss@lists.casi.org.uk> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:26 PM > Subject: Re: [casi] House repeals research ban > > > > Daagje Sander, > > > > FYI > > > > Groeten > > > > Andreas > > ------------------ > > > > SECRECY NEWS - from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy > > Volume 2003, Issue No. 100 > > November 12, 2003 > > > > > > ** TOWARDS NEW NUCLEAR WEAPONS > > > > > > The 2004 Defense Authorization Act, approved in a House-Senate > > conference, includes several provisions that could lead to > > development of new U.S. nuclear weapons. > > > > The Act repeals a statutory ban on research and development of > > low-yield nuclear weapons, authorizes continued research on the > > "robust nuclear earth penetrator," and requires the Department of > > Energy to achieve and maintain the ability to conduct an underground > > nuclear explosive test within 18 months. > > > > (Actual production, testing and deployment of a new nuclear weapon > > would require further congressional authorization, however.) > > > > Collectively, these steps "will greatly improve our ability to deter > > a possible nuclear attack," said Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) on > > November 11. > > > > Not so, said Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). The new moves are "inconsistent > > with our longstanding commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation > > Treaty, and undermine our argument to other countries around the > > world that they should not develop or test nuclear weapons," he > > said. > > > > A painstakingly impartial account of the issues raised by the new > > U.S. nuclear programs is presented by the Congressional Research > > Service in "Nuclear Weapons Initiatives: Low-Yield R&D, Advanced > > Concepts, Earth Penetrators, Test Readiness," 68 pages, October 28, > > 2003: > > > > http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/RL32130.pdf > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sander Faas" <faaz@battl.nl> > > To: <casi-discuss@lists.casi.org.uk> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 9:40 PM > > Subject: [casi] House repeals research ban > > > > > > > > [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] > > > > Posted on Fri, Nov. 07, 2003 > > > > House repeals research ban for some nuclear weapons > > By Jonathan S. Landay > > Knight Ridder Newspapers > > > > > > WASHINGTON - The Republican-controlled House of Representatives > voted > > Friday to repeal a 10-year-old ban on researching low-power nuclear > > warheads. > > > > > > The Bush administration pushed for the legislation, arguing that the > > United States must maintain the technology and skills needed to develop > new > > weapons to counter threats of chemical, biological and nuclear attacks. > > Critics say it will undermine efforts to curb nuclear proliferation. > > > > > > The U.S. move to develop a possible new generation of nuclear > weapons > > comes as the Bush administration defends its decision to invade Iraq as > > necessary in part to prevent deposed leader Saddam Hussein from obtaining > > nuclear weapons. > > > > > > President Bush has insisted that he has no plans to build any new > > nuclear weapons or end a 10-year U.S. moratorium on underground nuclear > > tests. > > > > > > The repeal of the research ban was contained in a record $400 > billion > > defense authorization act for 2004 that the House passed Friday by a vote > of > > 362-40. The bill is expected to win final approval next week in the > GOP-run > > Senate and then go to Bush for signing. > > > > > > The bill would provide U.S. nuclear laboratories with $6 million to > > explore new nuclear bomb designs and $15 million to conduct a study of the > > feasibility of modifying existing high-powered nuclear weapons to make a > > warhead that could burrow deep into the Earth and destroy buried bunkers. > > > > > > It also would authorize spending $34 million to improve the Nevada > > Test Site so that it could resume underground nuclear test explosions in > 18 > > months rather than the 24 to 36 months it now needs. > > > > > > Critics charged the measures are a step toward resuming underground > > test blasts and nuclear weapons production. The United States built its > last > > nuclear warhead in 1990. > > > > > > "We are on the slippery slope back to the dark days of bomb > production > > and testing," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control > > Association, an advocacy group. > > > > > > He and other opponents warned that the measures would make the > United > > States less secure because foes such as North Korea and Iran, and > potential > > rivals, such as China, could respond by accelerating their nuclear weapons > > programs. > > > > > > "I can only hope that it (the legislation) won't be perceived as a > > step toward the development of new nuclear weapons," said Rep. John > Spratt, > > D-S.C., one of the two sponsors of the research ban. > > > > > > > > > > The bill lifted a decade-old ban prohibiting research and > development > > of nuclear warheads with explosive forces of less than 5 kilotons. (The > bomb > > dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945, was about 15 kilotons.) Such > warheads > > are known as low-yield weapons or "mini-nukes." > > > > > > Any decision to engineer and build a prototype would require > > congressional approval. > > > > > > Administration officials contend that nuclear warheads in the U.S. > > arsenal are unsuitable for use against growing numbers of deeply buried > > bunkers or stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. That's because > they > > could devastate civilian areas around the targets and release massive > > amounts of lethal radioactivity. > > > > > > Low-yield warheads would cause far less damage to surrounding areas > > and would not throw up massive amounts of radioactive fallout, they > > insisted. > > > > > > "We are seeking to free ourselves from intellectual prohibitions > > against exploring a full range of technical options," Linton Brooks, head > of > > the Energy Department agency in charge of nuclear weapons, told a > > congressional hearing in April. > > > > > > Bush's national security strategy sees low-yield weapons as possibly > > playing key roles in deterring and pre-empting chemical and biological > > attacks on the United States, its troops or its allies. U.S. foes would > > worry that the United States would be more prepared to use nuclear weapons > > of limited power than weapons than would cause huge civilian casualties > and > > release massive radioactive clouds. > > > > > > Opponents counter that it's technically impossible to build a > nuclear > > weapon that could penetrate through earth and rock and destroy deeply > buried > > bunkers. > > > > > > There are no materials that could penetrate more than 20 yards of > > rock, and the massive clouds of radioactive dust thrown up by underground > > explosions could kill large numbers of people, they said. > > > > > > Sidney Drell, a Stanford University physicist, contended in a March > > article that "even a lower yield, 1-kiloton nuclear bomb detonated 20 to > 50 > > feet underground would eject more than 1 million cubic feet of radioactive > > debris, forming a crater about the size of Ground Zero at the World Trade > > Center." > > > > > > > > http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7210241.htm > > > > [ spacer.gif of type image/gif removed by lists.casi.org.uk - > > attachments are not permitted on the CASI lists ] > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. > > To unsubscribe, visit > http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss > > To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk > > All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk