Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 12:05:50 -0400
Subject: AUT: STAR WARS VOTE ON SEPT 9 .


Subject: STAR WARS VOTE ON SEPT 9

Vote on Star Wars expected September 9th!


PICK UP THE PHONE TODAY: 202-224-3121 - Capitol Switchboard


SENATE VOTE THIS WEDNESDAY ON WHETHER TO DEBATE THE COCHRAN
STAR WARS BILL -1873

 - TELL YOUR SENATOR TO OPPOSE THE CLOTURE PETITION

 THANKS TO WAND ( Women's Action for New Directions) and Global Network
Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space <globenet-AT-afn.org> FOR THE ALERT


The Senate is scheduled to vote on Wednesday on a cloture petition, a
parliamentary device to bring about a second vote this year on whether to
debate Sen. Cochran's national missile defense bill S.1873.  The bill calls
for deployment of a national missile defense system as soon as it becomes
technologically feasible. On May 13, the Senate voted 59-41, falling one
vote short of the 60 required to invoke cloture.

WAND (& Nuclear Disarmament Advocates everywhere) opposes Sen. Cochran's
bill S. 1873 and opposes the cloture petition filed by Republican leaders.
The bill would require the U.S. to deploy a national missile defense as soon
as it technologically possible, even if  there is no missile threat
justifying it, and regardless of its effectiveness, expense, and impact on
the U.S.-Russian compliance with the Anti-Ballistic Missile  (ABM) Treaty.
If passed this bill gives another blank check to the pentagon.   That is not
what the Pentagon needs.

CALL YOUR SENATOR TODAY AND TELL THEM TO OPPOSE THE CLOTURE PETITION!

202-224-3121 - Capitol Switchboard

For more information on the issue see the Coalition web section on BMD:

http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/libbmd.html

and the Council for a Livable World's BMD briefing book:

http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/ef/bmdbook/contents.html

*****************************************************************************

FROM: John Isaacs, Council for a Livable World On March 19, 1998, Sen. Thad
Cochran first introduced S.1806, now numbered S. 1873, entitled "American
Missile Protection Act of 1998."
The bill declares:

 "It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as technologically
possible, a National Missile Defense system capable of defending the
territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack
(whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate)."

The bill was adopted by the Senate Armed Services Committee April 21, 1998
by a party line vote of 10 - 7.  A motion to proceed to debate on the
Cochran bill won a 59 - 41 majority on May 13, 1998; however, 60 votes were
needed to begin debate, and the bill failed.

All 55 Republicans voted for the motion, as did Democrats Akaka, Hollings,
Inouye and Lieberman.

The bill is seriously misguided because:

1.  The bill would mandate deployment if national missile defense is
technologically feasible, no matter how much it costs and regardless of
other Pentagon or social programs that might be jeopardized.  The bill
should be renamed "the fiscal 1999 blank check act." Just this week, the
head of the missile defense office admitted that costs for missile defense
deployment have increased dramatically.

==Useful quote=
"But right now, to mandate that in advance, it seems to me, is to make a
decision which should not be made before we determine what the research and
development is going to produce, what the intelligence situation would
warrant, and whether or not we should have a debate on the advisability of
either modifying the ABM treaty or abandoning it."
        Secretary of Defense William Cohen press conference, April 30, 1998

2.  While there have been recent tests of medium-range ballistic missiles by
Iran and North Korea, there remains serious doubts about how soon such a
country will be able to develop a long-range missile capable of striking the
United States.  Both the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have disputed the
Rumsfeld Commission on how imminent the threat is.

==Useful quotes=
"But to mandate that it be deployed without consideration of either the
intelligence assessment or considerations as far as arms control are
concerned I think would be a mistake."     Secretary of Defense William
Cohen press conference, April 30, 1998 

"The [Rumsfeld] Commission points out that through unconventional, high-risk
development programs and foreign assistance, rogue nations could acquire an
ICBM capability in a short time, and that the Intelligence Community may not
detect it. We view this as an unlikely development."        JCS letter
Senator Inhofe, August 24, 1998

"The United States intelligence community also believes the risk of an
accidental or unauthorized launch by a declared nuclear power is highly
unlikely. George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, testified in
open session last year that the intelligence community assessment is that it
is a `remote' risk because of considerable precautions or procedures taken
by Russia and China.

General Eugene Habiger, commander-in-chief of United States Strategic
Command, reinforced this view when he testified to the committee this year
on the Russian command and control measures, which he has witnessed
first-hand, to prevent an accidental or unauthorized launch of an ICBM
against the United States. He has publicly stated that Russia has some
mechanisms and procedures more stringent than our own for nuclear command
and control. General Habiger, who has had a unique opportunity to visit
Russian strategic nuclear weapon bases--including an ICBM base, a strategic
submarine base, a bomber base, a nuclear command and control
center, and a nuclear weapon storage site--has stated publicly that he does
not
worry about accidental or unauthorized launches from Russia."
Minority views on S. 1973, Cochran bill, Senate report 105-175, April 1998

3.  The bill could dictate deployment of a rudimentary technology when that
technology could be superseded by a more sophisticated and effective
technology (akin to buying a working 386 processor when advanced pentium

computers are being developed).

==Useful quote=
"Choosing a system now will limit our options to build a better system that
is better matched to the threat.  Choosing a system now will limit our
options to build a better system that is better matched to the threat. In
this case, the choice is between building an advanced system to defeat an
actual threat, versus a less capable system to defeat a hypothetical threat."

"Think of this problem in terms of buying a personal computer for college.
If you had ordered your computer as a high-school sophomore, it would have
been obsolete by the time you started college.  It would lack the
capabilities you now need and would be impossible, or prohibitively
expensive, to upgrade."
        Defense Secretary William Perry - April 25, 1996

4.  The bill would require deployment of a national missile defense even
though such a deployment could reduce U.S. security by jeopardizing further
cuts in the Russian nuclear and chemical arsenals.  Under the START treaties
and the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Russians will have to retire over
5,000 additional nuclear warheads, including all 210 of their heavy SS-18
ICBM's with 2,100 nuclear warheads, and over 40,000 metric tons of chemical
weapons.  These reductions could be jeopardized by a decision to deploy a
National Missile Defense -- or even by votes in both houses of Congress to
declare that the U.S. will proceed to deploy a national missile defense.

5.  The bill does not require consideration of negative consequences
resulting from deployment: anti-missile deployment could well destroy the
1972 ABM Treaty that remains the cornerstone of arms control.

==Useful quotes=
"The ABM treaty is designed, obviously, to encourage restraint in the
proliferation of offensive systems as well. One of the easiest ways to
overwhelm a defensive system is simply to proliferate the offensive side and
capability. That's something that we would not want to see take place. So
there is merit in trying to restrain offensive systems." Secretary of
Defense William Cohen press conference, April 30, 1998

6.  It may be that the only effective anti-missile warhead is nuclear
warhead, requiring a nuclear detonation over Alaska or North Dakota. Such a
system may well prove unacceptable to many citizens of this country and
Canada who would suffer the consequences.  According to Harold Agnew, former
Los Alamos National Laboratory director in the July 31, 1998 New York Times,
"The only effective warhead for any real missile defense has to be nuclear."

7.  National missile defense (NMD) provides no defense against the most
likely future attacks on U.S., which would not be delivered by missiles.

The U.S. may wind up spending many tens of billions of dollars to defend
against a missile attack when rogue nation adversaries are much more likely
to use other, less conventional means that don't leave a return address.

The methods of delivery have already been demonstrated at the world
trade center in New York, the federal building in Oklahoma City and the
subway in Tokyo. A nuclear weapon is much more likely to be delivered in a
bale
of marijuana or in a truck than by a ballistic missile.
********************************************************************
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
Disarmament Clearinghouse Coordinator
1101 14th Street NW #700 Washington, DC 20005
TEL: 202 898 0150 ext. 232
FAX: 202 898 0172
<disarmament-AT-igc.org>


The Disarmament Clearinghouse is a Project of:
PEACE ACTION, PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY &
WOMEN'S ACTION FOR NEW DIRECTIONS




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---