Re: [casi] House repeals research ban

["as-ilas" <as-ilas@DELETETHISgmx.de>]

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