Re: Fiery Hell on Earth - Rachels 5-Part series on Nuclear Weapons

<NY.Transfer.News@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:1200261094.3518705828.1767662571@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Fiery Hell on Earth - Rachels 5-Part series on Nuclear Weapons
>
> Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
>
>
> [Footnotes follow text for each of the 5 parts. See information on
> Rachel.org at the end of the last part.]
>
> sent by Tim Murphy
>
> May 27, 2004
> http://www.rachel.org
>
> RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #792
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> FIERY HELL ON EARTH, Pt. 1
>
> For some time now, I have been searching for answers to a
> deeply perplexing question: Why is the United States promoting
> the spread of atomic bombs worldwide?
>
> By "atomic bombs" I mean the kind that turned Hiro****ma and
> Nagasaki into a fiery hell in 1945 -- A-bombs made from
> plutonium (Nagasaki) or "enriched" uranium (Hiro****ma).
>
> In this series, I will briefly examine the facts, then consider
> some of the possible reasons why the U.S. might favor the
> proliferation of atomic weapons worldwide.
>
> In at least four different ways, the U.S. is refusing to limit
> - -- and in some cases is actively promoting -- the spread of
> atomic bombs around the globe.[1]
>
> (1) The U.S. is helping foreign nations acquire nuclear power
> plants, which everyone acknowledges have provided the basis for
> A-bomb programs in India, Pakistan, South Africa, North Korea
> and, during the 1980s, in Iraq.[2] In the hands of a willing
> nation, nuclear power equals nuclear weapons.
>
> (2) The U.S. is dragging its feet in achieving its stated goal
> of preventing theft of nuclear weapons within the former Soviet
> Union.[1]
>
> (3) The U.S. is failing to retrieve 35,000 pounds of
> weapons-grade uranium that the U.S. loaned or gave to 43
> countries during the past 50 years. A crude but effective
> A-bomb requires 110 pounds (50 kg) of enriched uranium.[3]
>
> (4) President Bush has ordered a fundamental ****ft in U.S.
> nuclear weapons policies, initiating what the New York Times
> calls "the second nuclear age."
>
> These new policies entail (a) creation of a new class of smaller
> nuclear weapons, (b) guiding small A-bombs to their targets
> from outer space, (c) reducing the time it takes to launch a nuclear
> strike, and (d) a new policy of pre-emptive first use of nuclear
> weapons even against non-nuclear states.
>
> "It is precisely these kinds of provocative new weapons
> capabilities -- at a time when the administration seeks to
> prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction elsewhere
> - -- that worries even hawkish Republicans," says James Sterngold
> of the San Francisco Chronicle.[4]
>
> Let's examine each of these four developments in more detail:
>
> I. Nuclear power = nuclear weapons
>
> The U.S. is urging -- and subsidizing -- foreign nations to
> build new nuclear power plants to generate electricity, while
> acknowledging that every nuclear power plant certainly provides
> the stepping stones to A-bombs.
>
> For example, when Vice-President Dick Cheney visited China in
> April, 2004, he was promoting the sale of Westinghouse nuclear
> power plants to the Chinese.[5] Current U.S. policy restricts
> the ex****t of nuclear technology to China but the Bush
> administration is expected to lift those restrictions in
> September. The immediate beneficiaries will be Westinghouse and
> General Electric.[6] China has already announced plans to build
> 32 nuclear power plants, and to ex****t the technology to other
> countries. For example, China has said it intends to help
> Pakistan build two large nuclear power plants capable of
> producing plutonium.[5]
>
> Within the U.S. itself, in recent months two cor****ate
> consortiums have proposed building new nuclear power plants.[7]
> President Bush is an enthusiastic sup****ter of nuclear power.
>
> But nuclear power plants always carry an unspoken danger. For
> nations that want to build A-bombs, nuclear power provides the
> basis for all that's needed in the way of technology,
> op****tunity and know-how.
>
> No one disputes this view -- the "nuclear club" has been able
> to expand only because the spread of nuclear power plants has
> been encouraged and subsidized. Why does the U.S. continue down
> this path?
>
> As the New York Times wrote recently, "'If you look at every
> nation that's recently gone nuclear,' said Mr. [Paul] Leventhal
> of the Nuclear Control Institute, 'they've done it through the
> civilian nuclear fuel cycle: Iraq, North Korea, India,
> Pakistan, South Africa. And now we're worried about Iran.' The
> moral, he added, is that atoms for peace can be 'a shortcut to
> atoms for war.'"[8]
>
> The Times goes on, "Today, with what seems like relative ease,
> scientists can divert an ostensibly peaceful program to make
> not only electricity but also highly pure uranium or plutonium,
> both excellent bomb fuels."[8]
>
> And: "Experts now talk frankly about a subject that was once
> taboo: 'virtual' weapon states - Japan, Germany, Belgium,
> Canada, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Taiwan and a dozen other countries
> that have mastered the basics of nuclear power and could, if
> they wanted, quickly cross the line to make nuclear arms,
> probably in a matter or months."[8] Experts call crossing that
> line "breakout."
>
> Other nations thought to have the know-how (though not
> necessarily the inclination) to cross the breakout line include
> Egypt, Syria, Nigeria, and South Korea.
>
> The U.S. is on record as vigorously opposing the proliferation
> of nuclear weapons. However, U.S. actions to prevent
> proliferation are half-hearted and contradictory at best.[1,9]
> For example, when U.S. allies break all the rules and ex****t
> A-bomb technology, the U.S. looks the other way. Earlier this
> year, the world was rocked by news that Pakistan's chief
> nuclear engineer, Abdul Qadeer Khan, had sold a "complete
> package" of A-bomb technology to Libya, to North Korea, and
> probably to Iran. The "complete package" included enriched
> uranium, centrifuges for making more enriched uranium, and one
> or more designs for A-bombs.[10] Dr. Khan even maintained a
> telephone sup****t hotline for his A-bomb customers. It was a
> good business -- Dr. Khan re****tedly received more than $100
> million from Libya alone.[11]
>
> When Dr. Khan's international smuggling network was
> discovered, the President of Pakistan, General Pervez
> Musharraf, forced Dr. Khan to retire as head of Khan Research
> Laboratories, then turned around and gave him an official
> pardon, lavished him with praise and gave him the title
> "special adviser" to the president.[10] According to the New
> York Times, "...some former and current American officials say
> there was considerable evidence that General Musharraf was
> turning a blind eye to Dr. Khan's activities, which they say
> may have involved parts of the Pakistani military."[12]
>
> The Bush administration did nothing. "Although Mr. Bush has
> vowed to pursue and prosecute those who spread nuclear weapons
> technology, the administration did not criticize Mr. Musharraf
> when he decided to pardon Mr. Khan, who ran what now appears to
> be one of the largest nuclear proliferation networks in the
> past half-century."[10]
>
> Did Dr. Khan provide bomb-grade uranium and nuclear know-how to
> Al Qaeda? "It's mystifying that the administration hasn't
> leaned on Pakistan to make Dr. Khan available for interrogation
> to ensure that his network is entirely closed," writes New York
> Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof. "Several experts on
> Pakistan told me they believe that the [U.S.] administration
> has been so restrained because its top priority isn't combating
> nuclear proliferation -- it's getting President Pervez
> Musharraf's help in arresting Osama bin Laden before the
> November election," Kristof writes.[13]
>
> Pakistan was not the only U.S. ally involved in selling A-bombs
> to Libya, North Korea and Iran. Dubai in the United Arab
> Emirates served as the "key transfer point" for all the
> technology Dr. Khan was selling. Just as the Cayman Islands
> are known for laundering drug money, Dubai is known for
> laundering black-market products like A-bomb parts.[14]
>
> When President Bush learned of Dubai's role in Pakistan's
> atomic shopping mall, he again did nothing. As the scandal was
> breaking in March, 2004, the Times re****ted that Lockheed
> Martin was proceeding with the sale of 80 F-16 fighters to
> Dubai -- apparently a reward to a trusted and valued ally.[14]
>
> Even when wealthy, technically-savvy governments play strictly
> by the rules, the civilian nuclear fuel cycle has proven
> impossible to control. For example, the Japanese acknowledged
> earlier this year that they have lost 435 pounds of plutonium
> - -- enough to make about 25 nuclear bombs as big as the one that
> wiped out Nagasaki in 1945. They know they produced it but they
> have no idea where it went.[15]
>
> So long as the U.S. continues to promote nuclear power for
> itself and its allies, the fiery hell on earth draws ever
> closer and more vivid.
>
> I used to think this problem of "nuclear weapons proliferation"
> was the "Achilles heel" of nuclear power -- the uncontrollable
> problem that would finally convince the world to stuff the
> nuclear power genie back into the bottle and never let it out
> again.
>
> I am now wondering whether I had it exactly backwards: perhaps
> nuclear weaponry is the main appeal of nuclear power -- both to
> those who are buying it AND to those who are selling it. (More
> on this in Part 3.)
>
> II. Turning a Blind Eye to Loose Soviet A-Bombs
>
> The U.S. has continually failed to secure nuclear weapons left
> over from the cold war in countries of the former Soviet Union.
> As the New York Times re****ted in March 2004, "The bipartisan
> [U.S.] program to secure weapons of mass destruction is starved
> for funds -- but Mr. Bush is proposing a $41 million cut in
> 'cooperative threat reduction' with Russia."[13]
>
> "I wouldn't be at all surprised if nuclear weapons are used
> over the next 15 or 20 years," Bruce Blair, president of the
> Center for Defense Information, told the New York Times
> recently, "first and foremost by a terrorist group that gets
> its hands on a Russian nuclear weapon or a Pakistani nuclear
> weapon."[13]
>
> There are an estimated 15,000 nuclear weapons in the countries
> of the former Soviet Union -- 7,000 of them strategic weapons
> plus an estimated 8,000 tactical weapons.[3] Strategic weapons
> are the big ones capable of incinerating whole cities. They are
> covered by disarmament treaties and so have been pretty well
> inventoried. They are also physically large and protected with
> several layers of elaborate codes and anti-detonation devices.
> It would be extremely difficult to steal one and set it off.
>
> But tactical nuclear weapons are a different story. "The most
> troublesome gap in the generally reassuring assessment of
> Russian weapons security is those tactical nuclear warheads --
> smaller, short-range weapons like torpedoes, depth charges,
> artillery shells, mines. Although their smaller size and
> greater number makes them ideal candidates for theft, they have
> gotten far less attention simply because, unlike all of our
> long-range weapons, they happen not to be the subject of any
> formal treaty," says the New York Times.[3]
>
> The commonly-used estimate of 8,000 tactical nukes is "an
> educated guess," says the Times. Other estimates range from a
> low of 4,000 to a high of 32,000 tactical A-bombs. Even the
> Russians don't seem to have a reliable inventory.[3]
>
> "The other worrying thing about tactical nukes is that their
> anti-use devices are believed to be less sophisticated, because
> the weapons were designed to be employed in the battlefield.
> Some of the older systems are thought to have no permissive
> action links at all, so that setting one off would be about as
> complicated as hot-wiring a car," says the Times.[3]
>
> But stealing a nuclear weapon may not be the easiest way for a
> terrorist group to join the nuclear club.
>
> Bill Keller, who wrote the eye-opening article, "Nuclear
> Nightmares" for the New York Times magazine two years ago,
> says, "The closest thing I heard to consensus among those who
> study nuclear terror was this: building a nuclear bomb is
> easier than you think, probably easier than stealing one."[3]
>
> III. Sluggish Response to Weapons-Grade Uranium
>
> So the third way that the U.S. is promoting the spread of
> atomic bombs is by failing to retrieve the weapons-grade
> enriched uranium that the U.S. sent abroad during the past 50
> years.
>
> Here is the opening paragraph from a New York Times story March,
> 7, 2004: "As the United States presses Iran and other countries
> to shut down their nuclear weapons development programs,
> government auditors have disclosed that the United States is
> making little effort to recover large quantities of
> weapons-grade uranium -- enough to make roughly 1,000 nuclear
> bombs -- that the government dispersed to 43 countries over the
> last several decades," including Iran and Pakistan.[16]
>
> Why would President Bush fiddle around in the face of a threat
> as serious and obvious as this one?
>                                              --Peter Montague
> [To be continued.]
>
> ======
>
> [1] This newsletter was written before the New York Times
> editorialized as follows on May 28, 2004:
>
> "While the Bush administration has been distracted by the
> invasion and occupation of Iraq, it has neglected the far more
> urgent threat to American security from dangerous nuclear
> materials that must be safeguarded before they can fall into
> the hands of terrorists. That is the inescapable conclusion to
> be drawn from a new re****t that documents the slow pace of
> protecting potential nuclear bomb material at loosely guarded
> sites around the world.
>
> "The re****t -- prepared by researchers at the Kennedy School of
> Government at Harvard -- does not directly blame the invasion
> of Iraq for undermining that effort. It simply notes that less
> nuclear material was secured in the two years immediately after
> the 9/11 attacks than in the two years before....
>
> "The most plausible explanation is that the administration has
> focused so intensely on Iraq, which posed no nuclear threat,
> that it had little energy left for the real dangers. Indeed,
> the Harvard researchers said that if a tenth of the effort and
> resources devoted to Iraq in the last year was devoted to
> securing nuclear material wherever it might be, the job could
> be accomplished quickly."
>
> [2] In early June, 1981, Israel bombed a nuclear power plant
> under construction in Iraq, asserting that Iraq intended it for
> making A-bombs. See Steven R. Weisman, "Reagan Asserts Israel
> Had Cause To Mistrust Iraq: Senate Panel Not Convinced," New
> York Times June 17, 1981. pg. A1.
>
> [3] Bill Keller, "Nuclear Nightmares," New York Times May 26,
> 2002.
>
> [4] James Sterngold, "A new era of nuclear weapons: Bush's
> buildup begins with little debate in Congress," San Francisco
> Chronicle Dec. 7, 2003.
>
> [5] H. Josef Hebert, "Cheney to shop Westinghouse nuke
> technology to China," Salt Lake City (Utah) Tribune April 10,
> 2004.
>
> [6] Reuters, "Asian countries in race for nuclear power,"
> Economic Times [of India] April 11, 2004.
>
> [7] "A 2nd Consortium Wants a Reactor," New York Times April 1,
> 2004.
>
> [8] William J. Broad, "Nuclear Weapons in Iran: Plowshare or
> Sword," New York Times (Science Section) May 25, 2004.
>
> [9] "Editorial: Half a Proliferation Program," New York Times
> Feb. 16, 2004.
>
> [10] David E. Sanger, "U.S. Widens Its View of Pakistan Link to
> Korean Arms," New York Times Mar. 14, 2004.
>
> [11] David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, "Pakistani's Nuclear
> Earnings: $100 Million," New York Times Mar. 16, 2004.
>
> [12] David Rohde and Talat Hussain, "Delicate Dance for
> Musharraf In Nuclear case," New York Times Feb. 8, 2004.
>
> [13] Nicholas D. Kristof, "A Nuclear 9/11," New York Times Mar.
> 10, 2004.
>
> [14] Gary Milhollin and Kelly Motz, "OpEd: Nukes 'R' Us," New
> York Times Mar. 4, 2004.
>
> [15] Bayan Rahman, "Japan Loses 206 kg of Plutonium," New York
> Times Jan. 28, 2003.
>
> [16] Joel Brinkley and William J. Broad, "U.S. Lags in
> Recovering Fuel Suitable for Nuclear Arms," New York Times Mar.
> 7, 2004.
>
>                         ***
>
> June 10, 2004
> http://www.rachel.org
>
> RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #793
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> FIERY HELL ON EARTH, Pt. 2
>
> The U.S. is enabling the spread of atomic bombs worldwide in at
> least four different ways (see Rachel's #792). But why? Do Mr.
> Bush's military advisors or his core sup****ters in the
> Republican party imagine some benefit from allowing A-bombs to
> slip into the hands of terrorists?
>
> In this series, I am searching for answers.
>
> By "atomic bombs" I do not mean "dirty bombs" -- a few sticks
> of dynamite wrapped with a packet of radioactive medical waste.
> I mean the kind of A-bomb that turned the Japanese cities of
> Hiro****ma and Nagasaki into a lake of fire in 1945.
>
> There can be no question about it: In at least four ways the
> U.S. is failing to stop -- in some cases is actually promoting
> - -- the spread of A-bombs by:
>
> (1) Helping foreign government acquire nuclear power plants --
> a sure stepping stone to an A-bomb for any government inclined
> to take the step (see Rachel's #792). All the newest members of
> the "nuclear club" -- such as India, Pakistan and North Korea
> - -- gained member****p by acquiring nuclear power plants, then
> developing A-bombs. Nuclear power = nuclear weapons, and the
> U.S. is aggressively promoting the spread of nuclear power
> worldwide.
>
> (2) The U.S. is dragging its feet in securing A-bombs that are
> lying around in the countries of the former Soviet Union.
> Thousands of Soviet A-weapons are still poorly secured. As the
> New York Times wrote two years ago, "No observer of the
> unraveling Russian military has much trouble imagining that a
> group of military officers, disenchanted by the humiliation of
> serving a spent superpower, embittered by the wretched
> conditions in which they spend much of their military lives or
> merely greedy, might find a way to divert a warhead to a
> terrorist for the right price."[1]
>
> Furthermore, the U.S.-Russian program to secure 68 tons of
> plutonium (enough to make more than 10,000 A-bombs), begun in
> 1998, is "stalled" over a trivial legal technicality. As the
> Wa****ngton Post re****ted last month, some analysts and
> politicans -- including Republican Senator Pete Domenici (a
> staunch proponent of nuclear power and weapons) -- "are
> doubting the Bush administration's commitment" to securing the
> plutonium.[2]
>
> (3) The U.S. is failing to aggressively retrieve 35,000 pounds
> of weapons-grade uranium that the U.S. and the Soviets gave or
> lent to 43 countries during the cold war -- enough to make more
> than 300 hefty A-bombs; and
>
> (4) Reversing long-standing policy, the U.S. is now building a
> new class of smaller A-bombs, which are being advertised as
> "more usable" -- meanwhile telling the rest of the world to
> renounce atomic weapons. "This administration seems to believe
> that the United States can move the world in one direction
> while we ourselves move in a different direction," says U.S.
> Representative John M. Spratt, Jr. (D-S.C.), a senior member of
> the House Armed Services Committee and an expert on U.S.
> nuclear policy. Mr. Spratt says President Bush is "taking us
> back to somewhere where we were years ago and were thankful to
> have moved beyond."[3]
>
> Here we pick up the story with point 3:
>
> Late last month U.S. Energy Secretary Eliot Abraham announced a
> $450 million effort to retrieve the 35,000 pounds of
> weapons-grade uranium from 43 countries.[4] It is expected to
> take 13 years, if all goes according to plan. Mr. Abraham said
> his plan would ensure that nuclear materials "will not fall
> into the hands of those with evil intentions."[5] This sounds
> reassuring until you learn that Pentagon auditors concluded two
> months earlier, in March, that "large quantities of
> U.S.-produced highly-enriched uranium were out of U.S.
> control."[6]
>
> The New York Times re****ted in March, 2004, that "The Energy
> Department's inspector general says that about half of the
> [35,000 pounds of enriched] uranium is in the hands of
> government agencies, universities or private companies in 12
> countries that are "not expected to participate in the program"
> to return it. Among those countries are Iran, Pakistan, Israel,
> Mexico, Jamaica and South Africa.[6] Furthermore, according to
> the Wall Street Journal, other countries with "research
> reactors" that could be used to make weapons include Vietnam,
> Syria, Serbia, Pakistan and North Korea.[7]
>
> Commenting on Secretary Abraham's announcement, Graham Allison,
> a Harvard professor and author of the forthcoming book, Nuclear
> Terrorism [ISBN 0805076514], told the New York Times that the
> plan would be "im****tant if the words are matched by deeds."
> However, he said, the scale and speed of the effort are still
> woefully inadequate. "There is still a serious imbalance
> between the magnitude of the nuclear threat he [Abraham]
> describes and the remedies proposed," Allison said.[4] Mr.
> Allison subsequently signed up to advise the John Kerry
> campaign, which has said the uranium cleanup job should take 4
> years, not 13. Administration officials scoff at the Kerry
> timetable as unrealistic.[8]
>
> The fastest possible retrieval does seem warranted.  As the New
> York Times editorialized May 28, "Highly enriched uranium is
> scattered at some 130 research reactors in more than 40
> countries, often guarded by little more than a night watchman
> and a chain-link fence. Dozens of these sites have enough
> material to make a bomb."[9]
>
> But, inexplicably, U.S. retrieval efforts have actually slowed
> since 9/11. The Times noted that "less nuclear material was
> secured in the two years immediately after the 9/11 attacks
> than in the two years before."[9]
>
> And: "Although the United States and Russia are cooperating on
> a program to safeguard dangerous materials and have fixed some
> of the most glaring vulnerabilities, only a fifth of the
> dangerous nuclear material not in weapons has been protected by
> comprehensive security upgrades, an appallingly sluggish
> performance," the Times's editors said.[9]
>
> Why is President Bush approaching this problem in an
> "appallingly sluggish" fa****on? Who among the President's
> advisors or core sup****ters in the Republican party imagine
> that there's something to be gained by this approach?
>
> Point 4: Provocative new A-bomb policies
>
> The Bush administration is promoting the spread of nuclear
> weapons worldwide in a fourth way -- by starting its own
> provocative program to build a new generation of A-bombs,
> reversing long-standing U.S. policy. Furthermore, the
> administration has announced a new policy of possible
> pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons in emergencies, even
> against non-nuclear states.[10]
>
> Mr. Bush's military strategists say the new generation of
> smaller weapons is desirable because smaller A-bombs are "more
> usable." A New York Times editorial June 8 says "more usable"
> means "easing the taboo that has kept nuclear weapons sheathed
> since 1945 on behalf of a bomb that could still expose hundreds
> of thousands of people to death or radiation sickness. With
> nine countries now believed to have nuclear weapons, including
> North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel, the world does not
> need America's encouraging the idea of more usable bombs."[11]
>
> The Bush administration is also developing a new generation of
> large A-bombs -- called bunker busters -- intended to penetrate
> deep into the ground before exploding. "Just imagine launching
> nuclear bunker busters based on weapons intelligence as
> unreliable as that circulating before the Iraq war," says the
> Times editorial. "Even if underground sites were accurately
> identified, the resulting nuclear explosions could spread the
> blast, radiation and toxins over populated areas." As an
> alternative, the Times favors conventional ways of dealing with
> underground fortresses -- like blocking air supplies or cutting
> off external energy sources.
>
> The normally-staid editors of the Times call Mr. Bush's new
> A-weapons programs a "different and dangerous direction" for
> U.S. policy, a "reckless folly" that "boggles the mind."[11]
>
> Even some Republicans are dismayed at these policy ****fts. Rep.
> Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), a senior member of the Armed Services
> Committee, told the San Francisco Chronicle, "We don't need new
> weapons, and in fact we cause more harm than good in our
> relations with other countries in our moral position on nuclear
> proliferation. I think they're almost obsolete. I'm not
> convinced that we have to have that capability."[10]
>
> Even inside the Pentagon some argue there is no need for a new
> generation of nuclear weapons. A classified study by the
> Defense Science Board, leaked in November 2003, stated,
> "Current [Department of Defense] structure provides neither
> clear requirements nor persuasive rationale for changing the
> nuclear stockpile."[10]
>
> Strangely, this is an issue that divides Democrats from
> Republicans: "Traditionally, Democrats have viewed nuclear
> weapons as nearly unusable, a deterrent of last resort," said
> Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the libertarian
> Lexington Institute and an opponent of such new nuclear
> research. "Republicans, on the other hand, particularly since
> the Reagan years, have sought to integrate nuclear weapons into
> the broader arsenal of war-fighting tools, to treat them simply
> as a more powerful version of conventional weapons."[12]
>
> This is precisely President Bush's approach -- to treat small
> A-bombs as if they were simply more powerful versions of
> conventional weapons. But of course they will leave radioactive
> fallout and long-term radiation sickness in their wake, and so,
> if used, they will send shockwaves of anger and outrage
> throughout the world. After the U.S. unleashed a small A-bomb
> or a larger atomic bunker buster, many small countries could
> become convinced that there's no reason why they shouldn't have
> their own A-bombs. Terrorists would no doubt redouble their
> efforts to retaliate in kind, eager to deliver an A-bomb by
> boat to the Statue of Liberty or the Golden Gate Bridge. An
> effective A-bomb could enter U.S. waters in a "conex" ****pping
> container and be detonated before passing through customs. Such
> an attack would be extremely difficult to prevent. [1; and see
> Rachel's #749.]
>
> A tiny one-kiloton A-bomb (1/20th the size of the Hiro****ma
> bomb) set off in New York City would probably kill 20,000
> people immediately. In the next few days, tens of thousands
> more would die from third-degree burns and radiation sickness.
> The cloud of radioactive fallout would injure many more in the
> Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, or New Jersey -- depending upon the
> wind.[1]
>
> President Bush's new policy is to fight arms of mass
> destruction with arms of mass destruction -- something
> approaching a modern version of an eye for an eye -- except
> that Mr. Bush has announced he may be willing to take the first
> eye. As the Times re****ted a year ago, "diplomacy and arms
> control, for now, have taken a back seat to muscle
> flexing."[13]
>
> Others are itching to flex back.  CIA director George Tenet
> said more than a year ago, "The desire for nuclear weapons is
> on the upsurge among small countries, confronting the world
> with a new nuclear arms race that threatens to dismantle more
> than three decades of nonproliferation efforts.... We have
> entered a new world of proliferation," he said.[14]
>
> And the U.S. is making very deliberate and systematic
> contributions to arming this new world with A-bombs.
>
> I keep asking myself, "What would possess President Bush to do
> such a thing?"
>
> How could the President or his core sup****ters in the
> Republican party imagine that they -- or anyone else -- might
> benefit from a world awash in A-bombs?
>
> Some possible answers next time.
>
> [To be continued.]
>                                              --Peter Montague
> ======
>
> [1] Bill Keller, "Nuclear Nightmares," New York Times Magazine
> May 26, 2002.
>
> [2] Peter Slavin, "U.S.-Russia Plutonium Disposal Project
> Langui****ng," Wa****ngton Post May 10, 2004, pg. A17.
>
> [3] Peter Slevin, "Sounding the Alarm on Nuclear
> Proliferation," Wa****ngton Post June 1, 2004, pg. A21.
>
> [4] Watthew L. Wald and Judith Miller, "Energy Department Plans
> a Push to Retrieve Nuclear Materials," New York Times May 26,
> 2004.
>
> [5] Anonymous, "Update: Abraham Announces Plan to Cut Nuclear
> Threat," Dow Jones Newswires May 26, 2004.
>
> [6] Joel Brinkley and William J. Broad, "U.S. Lags in
> Recovering Fuel Suitable for Nuclear Arms," New York Times Mar.
> 7, 2004.
>
> [7] John J. Fialka, "U.S., Russia Will Seek Return of Nuclear
> Fuel," Wall Street Journal May 26, 2004.
>
> [8] Jodi Wilgoren, "Kerry Promises Speedier Efforts to Secure
> Nuclear Arms," New York Times June 2, 2004.
>
> [9] "Editorial: A Real Nuclear Danger," New York Times May 28,
> 2004.
>
> [10] James Sterngold, "New era of nuclear weapons: Bush's
> buildup begins with little debate in Congress," San Francisco
> Chronicle Dec. 7, 2003.
>
> [11] "Editorial: The Wrong Proliferation Message," New York
> Times June 8, 2004.
>
> [12] Robert Schlesinger, "Senate OK's repeal of 'mininuke'
> ban," Boston Globe May 21, 2003.
>
> [13] William J. Broad, "Chain Reaction: Facing a Second Nuclear
> Age," New York Times August 3, 2003.
>
> [14] Walter Pincus, "CIA Head Predicts Nuclear Race,"
> Wa****ngton Post Feb. 12, 2003.
>
>                           ***
> June 24, 2004
> http://www.rachel.org
>
> RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #794
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> FIERY HELL ON EARTH, Pt. 3
>
> In this series, we are searching for answers to the question,
> "Why is the U.S. failing to stop, and in some cases actually
> promoting, the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide?" (See
> Rachel's #792 and #793.)
>
> Answers to this question will help us understand President
> Bush's philosophy of environmental protection -- or perhaps the
> philosophy of his core sup****ters in the Republican Party on
> whom he is depending in the 2004 election.
>
> President Bush has made it clear that he understands the threat
> posed by nuclear weapons, materials and know-how in the wrong
> hands. He has said, "We will not permit the world's most
> dangerous regimes and terrorists to threaten us with the
> world's most destructive weapons."[1]
>
> This was not an isolated statement.  In two key White House
> policy documents published in 2002, the Bush administration
> concluded that, "The threat of weapons of mass destruction is
> the highest priority for the United States and should be for
> other countries."[2,3]
>
> The President has spoken out strongly and repeatedly on the
> matter and has even said that failure on this issue will be
> judged "harshly" by history.
>
> When the White House published its National Strategy to Combat
> Weapons of Mass Destruction in Dec., 2002, the President said,
> "The gravest danger facing the Nation lies at the crossroads of
> radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared
> that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence
> indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United
> States will not allow these efforts to succeed.... History will
> judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to
> act."[3]
>
> Yet the evidence is overwhelming that the U.S. is failing to
> act on this growing threat. (See Rachel's #792, #793.) Indeed,
> the Bush administration is actively engaged in spreading
> nuclear technology and know-how into the hands of
> potentially-unstable nations.
>
> On June 20, 2004, the Carnegie Endowment for International
> Peace published a 96-page re****t agreeing with the Bush
> administration that, "Terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons
> poses the greatest single threat to the United States."[4, pg.
> 25].
>
> However, the Carnegie re****t points out, "The [Bush]
> administration has not put money or significant political
> effort behind [its] proposals."[4, pg. 13]
>
> According to the Carnegie re****t, the President's proposed
> budget for 2005 actually reduces the funds available for U.S.
> efforts to curb the spread of weapons-grade plutonium and
> uranium world-wide, and reduces the U.S. financial contribution
> to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "whose
> responsibilities have greatly increased while its budget has
> stayed flat."[4, pg. 13]
>
> Nuclear-armed terrorists are the No. 1 threat to the U.S., and
> the No. 2 threat is nuclear-armed states like Pakistan and
> North Korea. As the Carnegie re****t says, "National instability
> or a radical change in government could lead to the collapse of
> state control over weapons and nuclear materials and the
> migration of nuclear scientists to other nations or to the
> service of other groups."
>
> However, instead of trying to keep nuclear technology and
> know-how out of the hands of such states, the Bush
> administration is actively encouraging U.S. cor****ations to
> sell their nuclear hardware and know-how abroad. On a recent
> trip to China, Vice-President Cheney was peddling Westinghouse
> nuclear power plants, even though China has announced that it
> intends to transfer nuclear technology to Pakistan.[5]
>
> These contradictory facts are deeply perplexing.  I have been
> reviewing the available literature on this subject for the past
> two years, trying to answer the question, "Why is the Bush
> administration promoting nuclear weapons, materials and
> know-how world-wide?"
>
> Naturally, all my answers are merely hypotheses because I have
> no special knowledge of what motivates the President, the
> Vice-President, their core sup****ters in the House and Senate,
> and their advisors in the Pentagon. I only know what's in the
> public record.
>
> So let us begin. In the remainder of this series, I will
> examine the following hypotheses:
>
> Hypothesis #1: Simple incompetence and confusion among the
> nation's defense agencies. Perhaps they actually want to curb
> the spread of nuclear technologies but just can't manage the
> task.
>
> Hypothesis #2: Perfectly normal cor****ate profit goals combined
> with the ever-pressing need for re-election campaign
> contributions. Perhaps the administration is promoting nuclear
> power to reward potential campaign contributors in the nuclear
> business, such as Westinghouse, General Electric, Framatone
> (formerly Babcock & Wilcox), Bechtel, Halliburton, Brown &
> Root, and other large-scale construction firms that build
> nuclear power plants and the infrastructure they require
> (roads, power lines, special docks at sea****ts, fuel processing
> plants, security apparatus and training, and so forth.)
>
> Hypothesis #3: Nuclear power is needed now to prevent nations
> and regions from "going solar." Because each nuclear power
> plant requires an investment measured in billions of dollars,
> and because nuclear power plants are dangerous, they require
> (and thus maintain) the highly-centralized, top-down,
> quasi-military social structure that modern transnational
> cor****ations provide. The "military-industrial" complex that
> President Eisenhower warned us about in 1961 is epitomized by
> nuclear technologies.
>
> Solar power on the other hand can be small-scale,
> locally-controlled, definitely not dangerous, much less subject
> to terrorist disruption,[6] and therefore much more compatible
> with an open, democratic social structure that might, as time
> passes, erode cor****ate control. Therefore, in a sense, solar
> power is dangerous and even subversive because it could subvert
> "business as usual."
>
> Hypothesis #4: Just as nuclear power plants require and promote
> a centralized, quasi-military, cor****atized social structure,
> so also does a world awash in weapons-grade uranium and
> plutonium.
>
> So long as a there is a thriving black market in weapons-grade
> nuclear materials. then we can more easily justify a $450
> billion annual military budget, a network of U.S. espionage
> agencies active now in 80 countries,[7] and pre-emptive wars
> such as the one now in Iraq (and others re****tedly being
> readied now by the Pentagon against Syria, Lebanon, Libya,
> Iran, Somalia, and Sudan[8]).
>
> Whether your job is military, civilian, or somewhere in
> between, if you're in the business of fighting the nation's
> perceived enemies, and your want your business to thrive, then
> enemies armed with small nuclear weapons may be the best kind
> of enemies to have. Everyone will sup****t your work against
> such enemies. They will even follow you into war against such
> enemies.
>
> Hypothesis #5: Now we enter the realm of realpolitik, the kind
> of world that Henry Kissinger inhabits, where thinking the
> unthinkable is routine.[9]
>
> Is it possible that some people within the Bush administration,
> (or among groups whom the Bush administration considers
> essential to its electoral success in 2004), might imagine
> benefits from a rogue nation or group detonating a small
> nuclear weapon in Jerusalem or even New York?
>
> Here are some crackpot speculations perhaps worth considering:
>
> a) Maybe detonation of a small nuclear weapon would serve to
> remind the current generation how dangerous nuclear technology
> really is. A rogue nuclear detonation would quickly bring the
> civilian nuclear power industry to an end. It might also spur
> the international community to quickly sweep up the tons of
> weapons-grade plutonium and enriched uranium lying about in
> 40-or-so nations.
>
> b) A rogue nuclear detonation would almost certainly spell the
> end of democracy as we know it. Major ****tions of the bill of
> rights would probably be canceled within hours.
>
> Recall that the Bush adminstration saw the mass murders on 9/11
> as sufficient reason to scrap the legal doctrine of habeas
> corpus which was formalized in English law in 1679 and was
> embodied a century later in the U.S. Constitution.
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that `[t]he
> writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for
> safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless
> state action.'[10]
>
> A writ of habeas corpus is a judge's mandate to a prison
> official ordering that an inmate be brought before the court so
> the court can determine whether or not that person is
> imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be
> released from custody. Without habeas corpus, people can be
> imprisoned forever without any recourse whatsoever. Even the
> fact of their imprisonment can be kept secret. This is what the
> Bush administration has said it aims to do at Guantanamo Bay
> and perhaps at other quasi-military prisons the U.S. maintains
> around the world.
>
> Seeing the right of habeas corpus repealed in response to the
> mass murders of 9/11, everyone has to be impressed by the
> fragility of what seemed like the immutable underpinnings of
> democracy and indeed civilization itself. The enemies of
> democracy -- inside the U.S. and outside -- can see as well as
> anyone that a nuclear detonation in New York would almost
> surely end the American experiment in self-rule.
>
> c) There is a growing movement in the U.S. to erase the barrier
> that separates church and state, to replace our secular
> government with a religious government.[11] We can see the
> beginnings of such thinking in the Texas State Republican Party
> Platform for 2004, which says, "The Republican Party of Texas
> affirms that the United States of American is a Christian
> nation." And: "The Party understands that the Ten Commandments
> are the basis of our basic freedoms and the cornerstone of
> Western legal tradition." And: "Our Party pledges to exert its
> influence to restore the original intent of the First Amendment
> of the United States Constitution and dispel the myth of the
> separation of Church and State."[12]
>
> By removing the Constitutional wall that separates church and
> state, some people merely hope to get a free handout from
> Wa****ngton for their religious group (the President's
> "faith-based initiative" gave $1.1 billion of taxpayer funds to
> religious organizations during 2003).[13]
>
> Others have much larger goals, hoping to institute a fully
> theocratic order in which their idea of Christian Biblical law
> replaces our secular democracy, essentially repealing the
> enlightment and returning the world to the 17th century.[11]
>
> d) There is a different, and much larger, group of Christians
> who say they believe that their personal salvation depends upon
> the return of Christ to Earth and that this second coming of
> Christ requires a specific series of events to unfold in the
> Middle East, including the battle of Armageddon, which many
> interpret to mean a nuclear World War III.
>
> These believers in Armageddon theology include the Reverend
> Billy Graham, the Reverend Pat Robertson, the singer Pat Boone,
> the Reverend Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Jr., Gary Bauer,
> Republican strategist Ed McAteer, advice columnist Laura
> Schlessinger, writer Hal Lindsey ("The Late, Great Planet
> Earth"), the Reverend Tim LaHaye (co-author of the 11-volume
> "Left Behind" series), House Majority Leader Tom Delay
> (R-Tex.), U.S. Senator James N. Inhofe (R-Ok., Chairman of the
> Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works), Attorney
> General John Ashcroft, and many others in top leader****p
> positions within the Bush adminstration.
>
> Author Grace Halsell -- herself a born-again Christian from
> Texas -- toured the Holy Land in the Middle East twice with
> followers of the Reverend Jerry Falwell. Halsell then wrote a
> book about her experiences. In "Prophecy and Politics," which
> she subtitled, "Militant Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear
> War," Halsell wrote, "I have heard Falwell preach on nuclear
> Armageddon, and I saw his face turn radiant at the thought."
> [14, pg. 197]
>                                            --Peter Montague
> [To be continued.]
>
> ====
>
> [1] President Bush quoted in Dafna Linzer, "Re****t Faults U.S.
> Action on Nuclear Proliferation," Wa****ngton Post June 21,
> 2004.
>
> [2] The National Security Strategy of the United States of
> America (Sept., 2002), available at
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
>
> [3] National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction
> (December, 2002), available at
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/WMDStrategy.pdf
>
> [4] George Perkovich and others, Universal Compliance; A
> Strategy for Nuclear Security (Wa****ngton, D.C.: Carnegie
> Endowment for International Peace, June, 2004). Draft available
> at http://www.ceip.org/strategy
.
>
> [5] H. Josef Hebert, "Cheney to shop Westinghouse nuke
> technology to China," Salt Lake City (Utah) Tribune April 10,
> 2004.
>
> [6 Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, Brittle Power; Energy
> Strategy for National Security (Brown House Publi****ng:
> Andoiver, Mass., 1982).
>
> [7] Dan Balz and Bob Woodward, "Bush Awaits History's Judgment;
> President's Scorecard Shows Much Left to Do," Wa****ngton Post
> February 3, 2002, pg. A1.
>
> [8] General Wesley R. Clark, "The Clark Critique," Newsweek
> Sept. 29, 2003, pg. 31, which is an excerpt from Clark's book,
> "Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire"
> (Public Affairs, 2003; ISBN: 1586482777).
>
> [9]  See the video, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, based on the
> book of the same title by British journalist Christopher
> Hitchens (Verso paperback, 2002; ISBN: 1859843980); for the
> video, see http://www.thetrialsofhenrykissinger.com/trials.html
>
> [10] Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991),
> cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992).
>
> [11] See, for example, Frederick Clarkson, "Theocratic
> Dominionism Gains Influence," Public Eye Magazine Vol. 8, Nos.
> 1 and 2 (March and June, 1994). Available at
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=400
. And see Joan
> Bokaer, "The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican
> Party," available in text format (no pictures) at
> http://www.rachel./org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=407
and in a 2
> megabyte PDF file at
> http://www.rachel./org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=407
or you can
> find start reading the 19-page web document at
> http://www.4religious-right.info/
.
>
> [12] "2004 [Texas] State Republican Party Platform" available
> at http://www.texasgop.org/library/platform.php
>
> [13] Elisabeth Bumiller, "Preaching to the Choir, Bush
> Encourages Religious Gathering," New York Times June 2, 2004,
> pg. A17.
>
> [14] Grace Halsell, Prophecy and Politics; Militant Evangelists
> on the Road to Nuclear War (West****t, Conn.: Lawrence Hill &
> Co., 1986). ISBN 0-88208-210-8.
>
>                             ***
>
> July 8, 2004
> http://www.rachel.org
>
> RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #795
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Fiery Hell on Earth, Pt. 4
> "GOD TOLD ME TO STRIKE"
>
> In this series (see Rachel's #792, #793, #794), I am trying to
> discover reasons why the U.S. is pursuing contradictory and
> seemingly self-destructive nuclear policies, including:
>
> (1) President Bush stresses again and again that the two
> greatest dangers facing the U.S. are the spread of nuclear
> materials and know-how into the hands of (a) terrorists and (b)
> erratic and belligerent countries.
>
> (2) Meanwhile Vice-President Cheney and the Commerce Department
> are promoting the sale of nuclear power plants around the world
> even though it is widely acknowledged that nuclear power
> provides a sure path to nuclear weapons for any country so
> inclined. Witness the recent experience of India, Pakistan,
> North Korea and Iran.
>
> (3) President Bush has initiated a "second nuclear age,"
> ordering up a new generation of small atomic bombs which are
> needed because they are "more usable" than older, larger
> A-bombs. And Mr. Bush has announced provocative new war
> policies, including the threat of pre-emptive nuclear strikes
> against America's enemies, even enemies without nuclear arms.
>
> (4) Meanwhile the U.S. is deliberately dragging its feet in
> efforts to secure thousands of loose nuclear weapons in
> countries of the former Soviet Union, and is failing to
> retrieve tons of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium that were
> given or lent to 40 or more countries under the "atoms for
> peace" program begun by President Eisenhower.
>
> It's as if U.S. leaders -- or the political sup****ters to whom
> they are beholden -- believe that the rogue detonation of a
> nuclear device in some key city like Jerusalem or even New York
> is inevitable and can't be stopped, or perhaps might even be
> beneficial in some way and therefore should be enabled.
>
> In Rachel's #794, we examined half a dozen hypotheses that
> might explain the deep inconsistencies in U.S. policies toward
> rogue nuclear detonations. I don't think we can rule out any of
> these hypotheses. To one degree or another, all of them may be
> affecting President Bush's nuclear policies.
>
> However, to me the most compelling hypothesis, the one with the
> broadest explanatory power, is this: certain fundamentalist
> Christian leaders within the U.S. say they believe that World
> War III is inevitable (some even say desirable) because it is
> part of God's plan, and those same Christian leaders control
> the political agenda of the Republican Party, which in turn
> controls the Congress and the Executive Branch.
>
> These fundamentalist Christian leaders are, therefore, in the
> best position to promote the spread of nuclear technologies
> abroad, and to slow U.S. efforts to retrieve and secure
> weapons-grade nuclear materials. Many of them also preach that
> a fiery conflagration is required to defeat the armies of the
> Antichrist and thus usher in Christ's thousand-year reign of
> peace. This hypothesis, and its attendant theology, also may
> clarify some of President Bush's other policies, such as those
> on taxation, science, education, women's issues, Middle East
> policy, and the environment.
>
> This is a complicated story and I must emphasize at the outset
> that it is not a story about Christianity or about
> fundamentalist Christians or about Republicans. This is a story
> about a few fundamentalist Christian leaders who decided 20
> years ago to take "working control" of the Republican Party,
> and a few Republican political strategists who sought the
> sup****t of fundamentalist Christians to increase the numerical
> strength of the Republican Party.[1]
>
> By 1994, both groups had succeeded -- fundamentalist Christians
> had gained working control of the Republican Party, and the
> Republican Party had achieved electoral majorities that would
> have been impossible without the organized sup****t of Christian
> fundamentalists and their evangelical followers.
>
> Christian fundamentalists first appeared on the national
> political scene when the Reverend Jerry Falwell and the
> Reverend Tim LaHaye organized the Moral Majority in 1979-80.
> Ten years later the Reverend Pat Robertson formed the Christian
> Coalition for the purpose of influencing state and national
> elections. In 1992, he told the Denver Post, "We want as soon
> as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the
> hands of pro-family Christians."[2] By 1994, the Coalition had
> succeeded.
>
> The Christian Coalition rates members of Congress according to
> their votes on issues, giving us a way to measure the influence
> of conservative Christians within the Republican Party. Here
> are the ratings of the 10 most powerful Republicans in the U.S.
> House of Representatives. (Following each person's Christian
> Coalition [CC] rating, I have added the person's rating by the
> League of Conservation Voters [LCV] to show how Republican
> Christian leaders vote on environmental matters.)
>
> House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.): CC: 100%, LCV: no data;
> Majority Leader Tom Delay (Tex.): CC: 100%, LCV: 0%; Majority
> Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.): CC: 92%, LCV: 0%; Chief Deputy Whip Eric
> Cantor (Va.): CC: 100%, LCV: 0%; Republican Conference Chair
> Deborah Price (Ohio) CC: 58%, LCV: 4%; Republican Conference
> Vice-Chair Jack Kingston (Ga.): CC: 100%, LCV: 0%; Republican
> Conference Secretary John Doolittle (Calif.): CC: 100%, LCV:
> 0%; Republican Policy Committee Chair Christopher Cox (Calif.):
> CC: 100%, LCV: 14%; National Republican Congressional Committee
> Tom Reynolds (N.Y.): CC: 92%, LCV: 18%; Chairman of the
> Republican National Leader****p Rob ****tman (Ohio): CC: 100%,
> LCV: 18%.
>
> And here are the Christian Coalition (CC) and League of
> Conservation Voters (LCV) ratings for the 7 most powerful
> Republicans in the U.S. Senate: Majority Leader Bill Frist
> (Tenn.): CC: 100%, LCV: 0%; Assistant Majority Leader Mitch
> McConnell (Ky.): CC: 100%, LCV: 4%; Republican Conference Chair
> Rick Santorum (Pa.): CC: 100%, LCV: 4%; Republican Conference
> Vice Chair Kay Hutchinson (Tex.): CC: 100%, LCV: 4%; Republican
> Policy Committee Jon Kyl (Ariz.): CC: 100%, LCV: 4%; National
> Republican Senatorial Committee George Allen (Va.): CC: 100%,
> LCV: 0%.[3]
>
> This tally clearly reveals the power of fundamentalist
> Christians to control the agenda of the Republican Party, and
> their consistent hostility to environmental protection.
>
> President Bush is now entirely beholden to evangelical
> Christian leaders because evangelicals provided about 40% of
> the votes cast for Mr. Bush in 2000, according to the New York
> Times.[4] As Newsweek said in 2003, evangelical Christians now
> "form the core of the Republican Party.... Bible-believing
> Christians are Bush's strongest backers and turning them out in
> even greater numbers is the top priority of the president's
> political adviser Karl Rove."[5]
>
> The Republican Party, and the Bush family, discovered the
> im****tance of the evangelical vote in 1988 when George H.W.
> Bush (father of current President Bush) was running for
> president. According to Doug Weed, political advisor to both
> father and son, in the 1988 presidential election, "We lost as
> we always do the Jewish vote, the Hispanic vote and all those
> folks. We lost the Catholic vote. We were the first modern
> presidency to win an election -- and it was a landslide -- and
> not win the Catholic vote." Mr. Weed goes on, "[In 1988] the
> message did come home -- by God, you could win the White House
> with nothing but evangelicals, if you could get enough of 'em,
> if you could get 'em all."[6]
>
> George W. Bush and the Republican Party have been wooing,
> relying on, and taking direction from, evangelical leaders ever
> since.[7]
>
> The mass media tend to use the label "evangelical" when
> referring to all fundamentalist Christians, as if all
> evangelicals were fundamentalists. They are not. Furthermore,
> the media assume that all evangelicals share one set of
> political and theological beliefs. This is another serious
> error. There is a very broad spectrum of political and
> theological beliefs among evangelicals -- at least 10% are
> liberals.[8] An estimated 15% of evangelicals are
> African-Americans and, of those, 75% are staunch Democrats.[9]
> However, among the fundamentalist Christians who have taken
> working control of the Republican Party, the spectrum of
> beliefs is much, much narrower and definitely not liberal.
>
> What is fundamentalism?
>
> Religious historian George W. Marsden begins his book,
> Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, this way: "A
> fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry about
> something."[10] The Reverend Jerry Falwell has on occasion used
> Marsden's definition to describe himself and his millions of
> followers. Fundamentalists are pugnacious evangelicals who are
> willing to take a stand and fight against liberal theology,
> changing cultural values, and secular humanism. Fundamentalists
> are very clear about their goals. They see themselves as
> Christian soldiers engaged in a "culture war," a crusade
> against the dominant liberal culture, which they consider evil.
> Their stated goal is to win the culture war and to impose what
> they believe are Christian standards of behavior on
> everyone, in sum, a theocracy.[11]
>
> In sum, the goal of fundamentalist Christian leaders is to take
> dominion over American society -- a goal that the Reverend Pat
> Robertson stated explicitly as early as 1984.[12]
>
> Christian fundamentalist leaders are much further along toward
> their goal of dominion than most people realize. They control
> the Congress and the White House, and they are now working
> methodically to take over the courts. Perhaps because religious
> beliefs are considered to be a private matter in the U.S., the
> mass media have largely ignored this, the most im****tant
> political story of our time.
>
> Evangelicals tend to hold a common set of core beliefs,
> including these:
>
> (1) the Bible is the infallible ("inerrant") word of God;
>
> (2) the salvation of lost and sinful people (which includes all
> humans at birth) is only possible through regeneration by the
> Holy Spirit -- a deeply personal experience of being "saved"
> that many liken to being "born again" at the moment when they
> accept Christ into their hearts;
>
> (3) all who do not accept Christ as their personal savior
> (including Muslims, Jews, atheists and agnostics, Hindus,
> Buddhists, and all other non-Christians) will be resurrected
> into damnation when they die and will spend eternity suffering
> unspeakable agonies in the fires of hell;
>
> (4) Because the stakes are so high, those who have been saved
> by accepting Christ into their hearts have an obligation to try
> to persuade others to accept Christ by spreading the "gospel,"
> which is also called the "good news." (The word
> "evangelicalism" comes from the Greek word evangelion, meaning
> "the good news.")
>
> (5) Christ will eventually return to Earth in power and glory.
>
> Within the group of all evangelicals, there is a somewhat
> smaller group called "premillenial dispensationalists" or more
> commonly, "rapture Christians." They accept the five basic
> tenets described above, and more.
>
> What Do Dispensationalist Leaders Believe?
>
> Dispensationalist leaders believe that before Christ returns to
> Earth he will physically trans****t to heaven ("rapture") all
> those who have been saved, whether they be dead or still
> living. As the Reverend Billy Graham wrote in 1984, "The day is
> fast approaching when Jesus Christ will come back to 'snatch
> away' His followers from all the graveyards of the world, and
> those of us who are alive and remain will join them in the
> great escape!"[13]
>
> The rapture entered U.S. evangelical theology in the 1860s and
> has been widely accepted since then.[14] Today
> dispensationalist views are taught at over 200 institutions of
> higher learning, such as the Dallas Theological Seminary, the
> Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and the Moody Bible
> Institute. Dispensationalist views are also reflected in the
> notes accompanying popular study Bibles, such as the Schofield
> Reference Bible and the Ryrie Study Bible.
>
> The vast majority (perhaps all) of the evangelical leaders
> visible on the political scene now are dispensationalists. The
> Reverend Jerry Falwell boasts that he can mobilize 70 million
> dispensationalists (36% of all U.S. adults); others say the
> true number of dispensationalists is no more than 40 million
> (20% of all adults).[15] Either number is politically
> significant because only 50.99 million people voted for Al Gore
> in 2000 and even fewer voted for George W. Bush.
>
> Dispensationalist leaders believe the rapture will be followed
> by a seven-year period of "tribulation" during which those who
> are "left behind" (not raptured) will be afflicted with
> terrible calamities including earthquakes, locusts, scorpions
> and boils. During the tribulation, everyone left behind will
> have another chance to accept Jesus into their hearts.
> Dispensational leaders believe the tribulation years will see
> mounting chaos, crime, blasphemy, adultery, homo***uality and
> other evidence of moral decay. During this period, the
> Antichrist, a diabolical dictator, will appear, offering
> solutions to all the world's problems. The Antichrist will try
> to organize a one-world government something like the United
> Nations or perhaps the World Trade Organization.
>
> At the end of the seven-year tribulation, Christ will lead his
> armies of compassion against the Antichrist's armies of
> evil-doers in the cataclysmic battle of Armageddon, after which
> Christ will reign over the Earth during a thousand years of
> peace (the millenium).
>
> Based on their reading of the Book of Revelation in the Bible,
> dispensationalist leaders believe that the "end times," leading
> to the millenium, must unfold in a particular sequence.
>
> First, the Jews must return to, and take control of, the
> "covenant lands" -- lands given by God to the children of
> Abraham, as recorded in Genesis 15:18. Then a temple must be
> built on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which happens to be
> occupied today by the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a shrine that Muslims
> believe is among the two or three most sacred spots on
> earth.[16, pg. 109] After the Mosque is removed, the temple
> will be built and animals will be sacrificed within it. Then
> the rest of the "end times" can unfold -- the rapture, the
> tribulation, the Antichrist, Armageddon, and the thousand years
> of peace.[17, pgs. 88-116]
>
> Many dispensationalist leaders believe that the end times were
> set in motion by the creation of Israel in 1948 and were
> accelerated by the six-day Arab-Israeli war of 1967 in which
> Israel doubled the territory it controls by occupying
> Palestinian lands known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
>
> However, according to Genesis, the "covenant lands" stretch
> from the Euphrates River (in central Iraq) eastward to "The
> River of Egypt" which dispensational leaders interpret to mean
> the Nile. If you look at a map, you can see that the existing
> state of Israel -- even if you include the occupied territories
> of the West Bank and Gaza -- does not presently encompass
> anywhere near all the "covenant lands." So some Christian
> fundamentalist leaders, such as Tom DeLay, the Republican
> majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, insist
> that Arabs and others should be forcibly removed from those
> lands to make way for Christ's return. A year ago, when
> President Bush proposed his "road map" plan that could
> eventually create an independent Palestinian state on a ****tion
> of the covenant lands, Mr. DeLay made a special trip to Israel
> to stir up opposition to the "road map."[18] Mr. Bush
> subsequently stopped promoting his peace plan.
>
> Israeli occupation of the "covenant lands" is exceedingly
> im****tant to Christian dispensationalist leaders. For example,
> the 1967 Arab-Israeli war was a turning point in the life of
> the Reverend Jerry Falwell. According to his biographers, prior
> to 1967 Mr. Falwell said he believed preachers had no business
> in politics. But Mr. Falwell saw the rapid victory of the
> Israelis in the "six day war" of 1967 war as clear evidence of
> "the intervention of God Almighty."[17, pg. 72] Mr. Falwell
> soon visited Israel to meet Menachim Begin, then leader of the
> convervative Likud Party, and subsequently energized a powerful
> political movement in the U.S. known as "Christian Zionism" --
> Christians eager to help Israel take and maintain control over
> the convenant lands, as a necessary step toward the second
> coming of Christ.
>
> The Reverend Mr. Falwell is on record saying that Israel should
> seize ****tions of present-day Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Saudi
> Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan, plus all of Lebanon, Jordan and
> Kuwait.[17, pg. 141] An effort to forcibly remove tens of
> millions of Muslims from their homelands would almost certainly
> lead to World War III but there are many in the U.S. who might
> say, "Bring it on." Shortly after 9/11, neoconservative
> polemicist Ann Coulter wrote in the National Review, "We should
> invade their countries, kill their leaders and Christianize
> them."[19] The Reverend Mr. Falwell himself asserts that God
> favors war: "God is pro-war," he re****tedly said earlier this
> year.[20] Other fundamentalist Christian leaders agree. The
> Reverend Charles Stanley, a former president of the Southern
> Baptist Convention -- the largest Christian sect in America,
> with 16 million members -- re****tedly said last year, "God
> favors war for divine reasons and sometimes uses it to
> accomplish His will."[20]
>
> For people holding such views, the present U.S. invasion of
> Iraq may hold special meaning because it can be seen as an
> essential step toward the second coming of Christ.  Indeed,
> President Bush describes his own role in the Iraq war in deeply
> religious terms. When the President visited the Middle East a
> year ago, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which is owned by the
> New York Times, re****ted that the President said, "God told me
> to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed
> me to strike at Saddam, which I did...."[21]
>
> [To be continued.]
>                                           --Peter Montague
> ============
>
> [1] I am indebted to Joan Bokaer, director of Theocracy Watch
> (a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy
> (CRESP) at Cornell University) whose work helped me make sense
> out of an amazingly large number of threads that make up the
> complex tapestry of this story. Her 20-web-page document, The
> Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party, is
> essential reading for anyone who wants to really understand the
> influence of the religious right on American culture and
> politics. See http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=411
> or http://www.4religious-right.info/
. I am also indebted to
> Sr. Miriam McGillis, a member of the Dominican Sisters in
> Caldwell, N.J., who introduced me to Ms. Bokaer's work.
>
> [2] Quoted in Joan Bokaer, "The Rise of the Religous Right in
> the Republican Party -- Introduction," available at
> http://www.4religious-right.info/introduction2.htm
.
>
> [3] Data from Joan Bokaer, "The Rise of the Religous Right in
> the Republican Party -- Government," available at
> http://www.4religious-right.info/govern.htm
.
>
> [4] Elizabeth Bumiller, "Evangelicals Sway White House on Human
> Rights Issues Abroad," New York Times Oct. 26, 2003.
>
> [5] Howard Fineman, "Bush and God," Newsweek, March 10, 2003.
> Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=419
>
> [6] Doug Weed appeared on the Frontline program, "The Jesus
> Factor" broadcast nationwide on PBS April 29, 2004. Available
> online at
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/view/
.
>
> [7]  See, for example, Alan Cooperman, "Churchgoers Get
> Direction from Bush Campaign," Wa****ngton Post July 1, 2004.
> Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=420
> And David D. Kirkpatrick, "Party Appeal to Churches for Help
> Raises Doubts," New York Times July 2, 2004. Available at
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=421
>
> [8] Don Wagner, "Beyond Armageddon," The Link Vol. 25, No. 4
> (Oct.-Nov., 1992). Available at
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=392
>
> [9] Stanley B. Greenberg and others, "Evangelicals, Born
> Agains, and Fundamentalist Christians in Election 2004," May
> 26, 2004. Available at
> www.cnionline.org/hearings/armageddon/Evangelical-stats.ppt
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=417
and see
> "America's Evangelicals; Key Survey Findings," Religion and
> Ethics Newsweekly, May, 2004, available at
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=388
>
> [10] George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and
> Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eeerdmans
> Publi****ng Co., 1992). ISBN 0802805396. And see George M.
> Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New York: Oxford
> University Press, 1980). ISBN 0195030834. And see Nancy Tatom
> Ammerman, Bible Believers (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers
> University Press, 1987). ISBN 081351231X.
>
> [11] Michelle Cottle, "Team Bush is on a Crusade," New Republic
> June 4, 2004. And see David Gates, "Religion: The Pop
> Prophets," Newsweek Mar 24, 2004. And, David D. Kirkpatrick,
> "The Return of the Warrior Jesus," New York Times April 4,
> 2004, Week in Review section. See especially Note 19, below.
>
> [12] The Reverend Mr. Robertson quoted in Joan Bokaer, "The
> Rise of the Religous Right in the Republican Party --
> Introduction," available at
> http://www.4religious-right.info/introduction2.htm
. And see
> Robert Kuttner, "America as a One-Party State," American
> Prospect Vol. 15, No. 2 (Feb. 1, 2004). Available at
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=404
>
> [13] Billy Graham, Peace with God (Nashville, Tenn.: W
> Publi****ng Group, 1953; revised edition, 1984), pg. 256. ISBN
> 0849929911.
>
> [14] Larry Eskridge, "Defining Evangelicalism," (undated)
> available at
> http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html
.
> Accessed June 16, 2004.
>
> [15] Jeremy Leaming, "Religious Right Leaders Press For Passage
> Of U.S. Rep. Jones' Church Electioneering Bill," Church and
> State magazine Feb. 2004. Available at
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=422
>
> [16] Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids,
> Mich: Zondervan, 1970); ISBN 031027771X.
>
> [17] Grace Halsell, Prophecy and Politics; Militant Evangelists
> on the Road to Nuclear War (West****t, Conn.: Lawrence Hill &
> Co., 1986). ISBN 0-88208-210-8.
>
> [18] David Firestone, "DeLay Is to Carry Dissenting Message On
> a Mideast Tour," New York Times July 25, 2003. Available at
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=409
>
> [19] Ann Coulter, "This is War," National Review Sept. 13,
> 2001. Available at
> http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulterprint091301.html
>
> [20] John F. Sugg, "America The Theocracy," Weekly Planet
> (Tampa, Fla.) March 2004, quoting the Reverend Mr. Falwell and
> the Reverend Mr. Stanley. This is a clear explanation of
> the goals of Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. It is
> available at http://www.weeklyplanet.com/2004-03-25/cover.html
> and at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=418
.
>
> [21] Arnon Regular, "'Road map is a life saver for us,' PM
> Abbas tells Hamas," Haaretz June 24, 2003. Original is
> available at
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml
> ?itemNo=310788, and a PDF version is available at
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=416
.
>
>                           ***
>
> July 22, 2004
> http://www.rachel.org
>
> RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #796
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 5
> A MARRIAGE MADE IN HEAVEN
>
> We began this series seeking an explanation for America's
> contradictory and self-defeating nuclear policies. We end by
> seeking explanations for larger -- but equally perplexing --
> U.S. environmental policies.
>
> The stated goal of U.S. nuclear policy is to keep weapons-grade
> nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists and hostile,
> unstable nations.
>
> Yet in actual fact the U.S. (1) is failing to sweep up
> weapons-grade nuclear materials that are lying around loose in
> 40 countries, and (2) has opened "a second nuclear age" by
> creating a new generation of smaller, "more usable" A-bombs,
> and (3) despite the terrors of 9/11 the U.S. government is
> still peddling Westinghouse nuclear power plants to countries
> like China that have announced plans to pass along the latest
> nuclear technology to countries like Pakistan. (See Rachel's
> #792, #793, #794, #795.) In the hands of any willing nation,
> nuclear power equals nuclear weapons, as we know from India,
> Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, among others.
>
> As I said in Rachel's #795: It's as if U.S. leaders -- or the
> political sup****ters to whom they are beholden -- believe that
> the rogue detonation of a nuclear device in some key city like
> Jerusalem or even New York is inevitable and can't be stopped,
> or perhaps might even be beneficial in some way and therefore
> should be enabled.
>
> I'd prefer to explain these bizarre U.S. nuclear power policies
> as ordinary cor****ate/politico shenanigans -- the
> Vice-President hawking Westinghouse's nuclear wares in return
> for a generous campaign contribution. I'd like to believe that
> U.S. nuclear weapons policy is nothing more than the muddled
> work of neoconservative eggheads who think the world will be
> safer for democracy if theater commanders can call up a small
> nuclear strike against any enemy at any time.[1] In this view,
> the fanatics in Falluja might think twice about shooting at our
> soldiers (and thumbing their noses at us) if they really
> believed we were ready to nuke their children.
>
> But these "rational" explanations aren't persuasive to me. If
> such rational considerations are really controlling U.S.
> nuclear policy, why aren't we scooping up all the weapons-grade
> uranium and plutonium from around the world as quickly as
> possible? What is to be gained by allowing a "black market" in
> weapons-grade nuclear materials to continue? And how "rational"
> is it for the U.S. to continue spreading atomic power plants
> and nuclear know-how into a post-9/11 world? Here I have to
> wonder whether something else might be at work. Could the
> spiritual beliefs of the people who control the U.S. be
> influencing U.S. nuclear policies and, indeed, the nation's
> other environment-related policies?
>
> As we saw in Rachel's #795, we do know that a small number of
> fundamentalist Christian leaders now controls the Republican
> Party. We also saw that Republican political operatives believe
> they can only keep their electoral majorities by retaining the
> sup****t of evangelicals. To hear them tell it, Republicans have
> now put most of their electoral eggs in this particular Easter
> basket. This gives fundamentalist leaders decisive political
> influence over the Republican agenda.
>
> Furthermore, we know that these same fundamentalist leaders
> believe that a cataclysmic battle of Armageddon is required to
> pave the way for Christ's return to Earth. These particular
> Christian leaders find nuclear war foretold in Ezekiel chapters
> 38 and 39. So for 20 years they have been preaching, promoting,
> and selling Americans on the idea of building more bombs and
> using them to fulfill God's plan. In this "end times" scenario,
> these particular Christian leaders believe they will not
> personally experience Armageddon because they will be
> "raptured" (physically trans****ted) to heaven before it
> happens. The formal name for this rapture theology is
> "premillenial dispensationalism." (See Rachel's #795.)
>
> This dispensationalist "end times" scenario is an abstract idea
> with real consequences. For example, leading members of the
> U.S. Congress work hard to derail peace negotiations between
> Arabs and Israelis because they believe Israel must expand its
> territorial control to fulfill God's plan for the Second Coming
> of Christ. In this dispensationalist reading of Genesis 15:18,
> God made a "covenant" giving land to the children of Abraham,
> and Jews must occupy those "covenant lands" before Christ can
> return to Earth. So, for example, Senator James Inhof (R-Ok.)
> says, "I believe very strongly that we ought to sup****t Israel
> - -- because God said so. Look it up in the Book of Genesis. This
> is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether
> the word of God is true."[2] If you think an uncompromising
> Biblical interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict can't have
> real consequences, read the 9/11 Commission Re****t.[3]
>
> Leaders of the conservative Likud Party in Israel[4] and U.S.
> fundamentalist Christian leaders have different reasons for
> wanting to drive Muslims from the "covenant lands" but they
> work effectively together toward that goal.[5]
>
> It is worth noting that fundamentalist Christian sup****t for
> Israel's territorial expansion is not quite the same thing as
> sup****t for the Jewish people. According to Biblical prophecy,
> as interpreted by fundamentalist leaders like Hal Lindsey, when
> the "end times" scenario unfolds, at least two-thirds of all
> Jews will be killed and will be resurrected into an eternal
> agony of fire. In his best-selling book, The Late Great Planet
> Earth, Mr. Lindsey describes this holy pogrom in a section
> titled, "A bright spot in the gloom."[6, pg. 167, citing
> Zechariah 13:8,9.] Before he was President, Mr. Bush himself
> told a newspaper re****ter that no Jews can enter heaven.[7] And
> in fundamentalist theology there is only one other place to
> spend eternity -- in a lake of fire.
>
> If the return of Christ and the battle of Armageddon are
> prophesied in the Bible and are therefore inevitably going to
> happen, how should individual Christians respond? Should they
> obey Christ's Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7; Luke
> 6:20-49) and work for peace, justice, and mercy in this world,
> even though this could be interpreted as working against the
> "end times" prophecy? Or should they try to provoke chaos and
> violence, hoping to accelerate the "end times" calendar, even
> at the risk of igniting nuclear World War III? Fundamentalist
> Christian leaders are divided on this question but many --
> perhaps a majority -- say that preaching peace is heresy
> because God's plan requires an endless battle against evil,
> culminating in World War III.
>
> The Reverend John Hagee, a televangelist and pastor of the
> 17,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Tex. is
> typical when he says the current wave of Palestinian and
> Israeli terrorism in the Middle East will "produce a third
> world war. And that will be the coming of the End Times. That
> will be the end of the world as we know it," he says.[8] He
> sees this as a good thing. Such views are mainstream among
> fundamentalist Christian leaders, including those who are
> consulted on a regular basis by the White House.[9]
>
> The Reverend Billy Graham's son, the Reverend Franklin Graham,
> says he believes Christians and Muslims are destined to do
> battle against each other until the Second Coming of
> Christ.[10] The Reverend Mr. Graham believes Christians have an
> obligation to battle Muslims because, he says, Islam is a "very
> evil and very wicked religion."[11] The Reverend Mr. Graham is
> widely respected within the Republican hierarchy. He led the
> prayer at President Bush's inauguration in 2001,[12] and last
> year, just as the Iraq war was getting under way, the Pentagon
> selected him to deliver a Good Friday message to the world.[12]
>
> In a recent radio interview, Wayne Slater, Austin (Tex.) bureau
> chief for the Dallas Morning News, explained how such
> fundamentalist views play out in the real world: "I was down in
> Georgia the other day talking to some pastors and when I talk
> to them about the war in Iraq they understand fundamentally in
> ways that George Bush does not talk about that this is part of
> a millenial crusade. Bush got in trouble using the word
> crusade. You talk to some pastors in suburban Atlanta, they
> understand that this war is against the Muslims, against the
> infidel, in a way, fundamental ways, that hasn't changed in a
> thousand years. They see that this is, the president is,
> engaged in something bigger than just this moment."[13]
>
> It was President Ronald Reagan who first brought Armageddon
> theology deep into the White House. Mr. Reagan said in 1976
> that he had had a "born again" experience, and while he was
> President he said publicly on a half-dozen occasions that he
> believed that nuclear Armageddon was imminent. His close friend
> and adviser, the Reverend Billy Graham, agreed with him.[14,
> pg. 28] President Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar
> Weinberger affirmed, "I have read the Book of Revelation, and,
> yes, I believe the world is going to end by an act of God, I
> hope but every day I think time is running out." President
> Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, questioned the
> need for environmental protection because, he said, "I don't
> know how many future generations we can count on until the Lord
> returns."[8]
>
> If you think -- even hope -- that the world will soon end, then
> it may seem logical to conduct policy as if there's no
> tomorrow.[15] Within a millenial framework, fiscal conservatism
> - -- or any other kind of real conservatism -- may appear foolish
> or simply irrelevant. What does it matter if we bequeath a
> mountain of debt to our children? The Reverend Jerry Falwell
> believes that the Second Coming is so imminent that, "I don't
> think my children will live their whole lives out."[14, pg. 35]
> Such a view may clarify the Republican Party's environmental
> agenda.
>
> The current administration's environmental goals and policies
> have been thoroughly cataloged in a new book by Robert S.
> Devine.[16]
>
> Since taking office in 2000, Mr. Bush has reversed hundreds of
> regulations intended to protect the environment and human
> health. For example, a plan to reduce toxic mercury emissions
> from power plants has been delayed by 10 years or more. The
> Kyoto Protocol to limit global warming has been abandoned. The
> cost of cleaning up chemical "Superfund" dumps has been ****fted
> from industry to taxpayers, and cleanup funds have been
> drastically cut. Mr. Devine's list of Bush administration
> regulatory reversals and rollbacks is detailed and long.
>
> Mr. Devine summarizes three effects of Republican environmental
> rollbacks: (1) to favor private industrial activity over
> protection of the commons (the natural resources that we all
> inherit together and none of us owns individually, like air and
> water), (2) to favor the interests of the wealthy over those of
> the middle and working classes, and (3) to "favor the present
> over the future."[16, pg. 18] Among Republican leaders, the
> future counts for little.
>
> The Bush administration's most inventive and pioneering
> environmental policies derive from a unique perspective on
> science. As many scientists have noted, within the Bush
> administration science is routinely manipulated until it gives
> the desired answer. Last month 4000 scientists, including 42
> Nobel laureates, complained publicly that the administration
> has been distorting science for political purposes.[17] Even
> the editor of Science magazine, voice of the American
> Association for the Advancement of Science, has complained
> publicly about Mr. Bush's misuse of science.[18]
>
> However, it is im****tant to note that the Bush administration's
> approach to science is not whimsical. It has real philosophical
> roots.
>
> Traditionally, policies to protect the environment are based on
> environmental science. The bedrock of environmental science is
> evolutionary biology, the concept of ecosystems that are
> constantly evolving.
>
> Fundamentalists like Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
> (R-Tex.) deny the basis of modern environmental science. Mr.
> DeLay argues that evolution does not occur -- and has never
> occurred -- because there has been no need for it. He reasons
> that, "God is perfect, so He would not make something
> imperfect" that needed to change via evolution.[19] This is a
> logically consistent and essentially irrefutable position, if
> one accepts the initial premises.
>
> Of course science is not the only way of knowing about the
> world, and spiritual knowledge is very im****tant. The great
> value of science as a way of knowing is that it allows people
> of different cultures to reach agreement about im****tant
> aspects of reality. No matter where you live, no matter what
> your spiritual beliefs, water at sea level boils at 212 degrees
> Fahrenheit. When one's commitment to science as a way of
> knowing is weak or non-existent, then agreement is all but
> impossible to achieve on complex problems like environmental
> deterioration and associated threats to human health.
>
> For his part, President Bush says "the jury is still out" on
> evolution,[20] so it seems safe to say that the President is
> not fully committed to environmental science as the basis for
> policy. Within such an uncertain intellectual framework,
> verifiable facts of a scientific nature have little persuasive
> power, and the uncertainties inherent in all scientific inquiry
> may be used to "prove" that scientists cannot be trusted. In
> contrast, to those who accept its premises, fundamentalist
> theology offers absolute certainty.
>
> Many fundamentalist Christian leaders have been taught -- and
> now teach -- that there cannot ever be any environmental
> problems because "Christians know that God has made the earth
> sufficiently large, with plenty of resources to accommodate all
> the people He knew would come into existence... Our world has
> plenty of room and plenty of natural resources."[21] In such a
> world, there's no need to fret. If one place seems depleted,
> crowded, or contaminated, there's always a sparkling new place
> just over the horizon. "...[T]he Christian knows that the
> potential in God is unlimited, and that there is no shortage of
> resources in God's earth. The resources are waiting to be
> tapped."[21]
>
> So, within dispensational theology, as interpreted by political
> leaders, we find four separate rationales for Bush
> administration environmental policy:
>
> (1) Humans have a God-given duty to "Be fruitful and multiply,
> and fill the earth and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28) And after the
> Flood, God said to Noah and his family, "The fear of you and
> the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and
> upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the
> earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; unto your hand are
> they delivered." (Genesis 9:2) Taken literally, such language
> seems to invite -- even demand -- domination and exploitation,
> not steward****p.
>
> (2) The world is already perfect because God would not create
> an imperfect world;
>
> (3) Resources, including places needed for discarding wastes,
> are inexhaustible because God made the world abundantly
> adequate for all human needs; and
>
> (4) Environmental problems, if any were to appear, wouldn't
> matter because the Second Coming of Christ will sweep away this
> corrupt world.
>
> Rational debate and a few more facts are not going to overcome
> arguments like these.  Against the self-assured certainty
> expressed by our fundamentalist political leaders, traditional
> "environmentalist" arguments are like the chaff which the wind
> driveth away.
>
> Notice, too, that all four fundamentalist Christian arguments
> sup****t basic laissez faire "free market" economics and the
> kind of "hands off" environmental policies favored by the
> cor****ate leaders who make up the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
> who form the other major constituency within the Republican
> Party. To some, this confluence of interests between worldly
> cor****ate leaders and their fundamentalist counterparts will
> seem a cynical marriage of convenience; to others, it seems a
> marriage made in heaven. --Peter Montague
>
> ==========
>
> ** My thanks to Jim Compton-Schmidt for providing me during the
> past two years with numerous E-mails, citations, and copies of
> articles about premillenial dispensationalism and its
> consequences in the real world.
>
> [1] The neoconservative Project for a New American Century has
> been advocating U.S. nuclear rearmament for several years. See
> their web site, http://www.newamericancentury.org/
and read
> criticisms of their ideas at http://www.pnac.info/
.
>
> [2] Senator Inhof quoted in Allen C. Brownfield, "Strange
> Bedfellows: The Jewish Establishment and the Christian Right,"
> Wa****ngton Re****t on Middle East Affairs (August 2002), pgs.
> 71-72. Available at
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=389
>
> [3] Thomas H. Kean and other, The 9/11 Commission Re****t
> (Wa****ngton, D.C. July 22, 2004). Full re****t (7.5 megabytes)
> available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=423
.
> For example, on pg. 147, the Commission describes the
> motivation of Kahlid Shaikh Mohammed [KSM], the man who dreamed
> up the 9/11 attacks and then persuaded Osama bin Laden to
> organize them: "By his own account, KSM's animus toward the
> United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a
> student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S.
> foreign policy favoring Israel."
>
> [4] See Ian S. Lustick, For the Land and the Lord; Jewish
> Fundamentalism in Israel (New York: Council on Foreign
> Relations, 1988). ISBN 0876090366. Lustick describes pugnacious
> ultraconservative Israelis who share the "covenant land"
> territorial goals of Christian fundamentalists, though the two
> groups have little else in common.
>
> [5] Margot Patterson, "Will fundamentalist Christians and Jews
> ignite apocalypse?" National Catholic Re****ter Oct. 11, 2002.
> Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=383.
> See also, Margot Patterson, "Hebron: A West Bank Magnet for
> Trouble," National Catholic Re****ter Oct. 18, 2004. Available
> at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=384.
And see
> Margot Patterson, "Americans in every aspect of Mideast
> conflict," National Catholic Re****ter April 12, 2002.
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=386
And see
> Jeffery L. Sheler, "Odd Bedfellows; Evangelicals sup****t
> Israel, but some Jews are skeptical," U.S. News & World Re****t
> August 12, 2002. Available at
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=424
>
> [6] Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids,
> Mich: Zondervan, 1970); ISBN 031027771X.
>
> [7] Tom Hamburger and Jim VandeHei, "Chosen People: How Israel
> Became a Favorite Cause of Christian Right," Wall Street
> Journal May 23, 2002, pg. A1.
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=425
And Howard
> Fineman, "Bush and God," Newsweek, March 10, 2003. Available at
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=419
>
> [8] Nancy Gibbs, "Apocalypse Now," Time July 1, 2002. Available
> at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=394
>
> [9] Rick Perlstein, "The Jesus Landing Pad," Village Voice May
> 18, 2004. http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=426
And:
> Elizabeth Bumiller, "Evangelicals Sway White House on Human
> Rights Issues Abroad," New York Times Oct. 26, 2003.
>
> [10] Andrew Gumbel, "Evangelical Crusaders Prepare to Fight
> Islam with Aid and a Bible," The Independent (UK) April 22,
> 2003. http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=427
And be
> sure to read Nicholas Kristof, "Jesus and Jihad," New York
> Times July 17, 2004.
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=434.
>
> [11] David Rennie, "Bible Belt Missionaries Set Out On a 'War
> for Souls' in Iraq," London Telegraph (UK) Dec. 27, 2003.
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=428
And see
> Maureen Dowd, "A Tale of Two Fridays," New York Times April 20,
> 2003.
>
> [12] Martin E. Marty, "The Sin of Pride," Newsweek Mar. 10,
> 2003. http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=429
>
> [13] Terri Gross's "Fresh Air" radio program, "The Jesus
> Factor," on WHYY (Philadelphia) April 29, 2004. Available for
> listening at http://freshair.npr.org/week_fa.jhtml
>
> Recently two leading neoconservatives acknowledged that the
> Iraq war has religious as well as "geopolitical" motivations.
> Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and Daniel Pipes, whom
> President Bush appointed to the board of directors of the US
> Institute for Peace, have both said the ultimate purpose of the
> "war on terror" is an "Islamic reformation," the
> "modernization" of Islam, or "religion-building" rather than
> "nation-building," as they put it. See Jim Lobe, "US: From
> nation-building to religion-building," Asia Times April 9,
> 2004. http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=435
>
> [14] Grace Halsell, Prophecy and Politics; Militant Evangelists
> on the Road to Nuclear War (West****t, Conn.: Lawrence Hill &
> Co., 1986). ISBN 0-88208-210-8.  Essential reading.
>
> [15] Economist Paul Krugman has noticed that the Bush
> administration "governs like there's no tomorrow" but he makes
> no theological connection to this observation. See "Looting the
> Future," New York Times Dec. 5, 2003.
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=430
>
> [16] Robert S. Devine, Bush Versus the Environment (New York:
> Anchor Books, 2004); ISBN 1400075211.
>
> [17] Andrew Buncombe, "The defiance of science," Independent
> (UK) June 29, 2004.
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=431
>
> And see Scientific Integrity in Policymaking; Investigation
> into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science (Cambridge,
> Mass.: Union of Concerned Scientists, February 2004). And see
> Scientific Integrity in Policymaking; Further Investigation...
> (Cambridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned Scientists, July 2004),
> both available at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/
> rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449.
>
> [18] Donald Kennedy, "Editorial: An Epidemic of Politics,"
> Science Vol. 299 (Jan. 31, 2003), pg. 625.
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=432
>
> [19] Peter Perl, "Absolute Truth," Wa****ngton Post Sunday
> Magazine May 13, 2001, pg. W12.
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=433
>
> [20] Nicholas D. Kristof, "The God Gulf," New York Times Jan.
> 7, 2004.
>
> [21] Mark A. Beliles and Stephen M. McDowell, America's
> Providential History (Charlottesville, Va.: Providence
> Foundation, 1989), pg. 197. ISBN 1887456007. This is a textbook
> aimed at teenagers that falsifies American history to make it
> appear that the founding fathers intended the U.S. to be a
> Christian theocracy, despite the absence of evidence in the
> Constitution.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS
> Environmental Research Foundation
> P.O. Box 160
> New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
> Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> SUBSCRIPTIONS
>
> Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, send E-mail
> to listserv@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 with the words
> SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR FULL NAME
> in the message.
>
> SPANISH EDITION
>
> The Rachel newsletter is also available in Spanish; to learn
> how to subscribe in Spanish, send the word AYUDA in an E-mail
> message to info@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> BACK ISSUES IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH
>
> All back issues are on the web at: http://www.rachel.org
in
> text and PDF formats.
>
> COPYRIGHT NOTICE
>
> Permission to reprint Rachel's is hereby granted to everyone,
> though we ask that you not change the contents and we ask that
> you provide proper attribution.
>
> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is
> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
> interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.
>
> Some of this material may be copyrighted by others. We believe
> we are making "fair use" of the material under Title 17, but if
> you choose to use it for your own purposes, you will need to
> consider "fair use" in your own case. --Peter Montague, editor
>
>
>                                 *
> =================================================================
> NY Transfer News Collective     *    A Service of Blythe Systems
>           Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
>            Our main website:   http://www.blythe.org
>   List Archives:       http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
>   Subscribe:     http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
> =================================================================
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
>
> iD8DBQFHiofmiz2i76ou9wQRAgqrAKCe2cjwR388MoVUSshyc8DwAT7V3ACePHeB
> TK++D/0mSw2lHw5LvWgOTV8=
> =Wfy6
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
There are many things to show Christians are just as suicidal as everyone 
else in the world who are insane and unflexible and unable to get along
with 
each other for the betterment of man kind. This belief that Christians and

anti Christians must fight has completely taken over the minds of
Christians 
for centuries. Its a completely anti love and anti existence philosophy
that 
slowly contributes along with Muslim theology the destruction of others
for 
religion..Its definitely not just a Christian thing though and man and 
Christians and Muslims must rexamine why things you mentioned keep 
happening. If the theory is this great war is going to happen, why slowly 
say one thing and do another? The world in some respects are making great 
inroads to technology but the people in religion seem hell bent in areas
of 
the world to killl as many as the non believers as possible.
 There is one negative in your theory though, many people see the need for

nuclear weapons as a defense. Whether the US or someone else provided the 
toold for countries to acquire them won't matter in the future. What
matters 
is for Muslim and Christian leaders to get together and go about changing 
the course towards destruction ( insane destruction). I see little
necessary 
dialogue for that to happen and all countries will be at risk in the
future 
as the world becomes more and more dangerous. The leaders in this country 
and around the world who allow global warming to continue and all the 
weapons to be acquired without a sane foundation for people to get along, 
will ultimately make our kids lives very dangerous in the future.