What's New!
Efforts are mounting to redirect the flyby before or on June 24, 1999 to avoid risking the
health of everyone on Earth. NoFlyby will be posting this newsletter and a petition now being
drafted for the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa to consider taking actions to stop the dangerous
August Cassini Earth fly-by.
At the same moment, development of the "star wars" agenda is picking up to full steam
ahead. President Clinton's proposed budget brings us to a deadly bridge to the 21st Century,
committing billions to space weapons and technologies that threaten everyone, and does little to
protect.
The U.S. Air Force and the Pentagon's ballistic missile defense shop recently announced the
award of the first portion of a $3 billion contract to research whether space-based lasers can shoot
down long-range enemy missiles. Investigative reporter, Karl Grossman received a copy of the
U.S. Air Force document, "New World Vistas," where it states "In the next two decades, new
technologies will allow the fielding of space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness to be
used to deliver energy and mass as force projection in tactical and strategic conflict.." But, the
report notes, "power limitations impose restrictions" on such space-based weaponry. It goes on:
"A natural technology to enable high power is nuclear power in space."
The agenda of nuclear-powered star wars can perhaps share some of the responsibility in
giving birth to the Cassini-method of generating 750 watts of electricity by using 72.3 pounds
(32.8 kg) of radioactive Plutonium (P-238 and P-239). This nuclear energy interest for weapon
systems is just part of a twisted logic that could have made NASA decide not to lose 1 percent of
the weight of Cassini to be able to use solar energy for the Saturn trip. In losing only 130 pounds,
Cassini could have become a worry-free fly-by to Saturn exploratory mission.
The Cassini Earth fly-by is a critical moment near the close of the millennium. We can either
accept risking the health of everyone on the planet, playing the odds of not having an accident,
continue the path toward star wars, or we can use the Cassini Mission as a chance to redirect the
use of dangerous plutonium substances not over our heads where it threatens to pollute the air we
breathe. Life is too sacred to risk such things. Perhaps, by stopping Cassini, we can build in a
momentum to help influence the role of the military and have them serve to enforce the
prohibition of all technologies and weapons that endanger the mass destruction of life.
What can we do?
Keep learning and seeing Cassini as an opportunity. Please see and show the new
EnviroVideo produced, "Nukes in Space 2." We hope you will use our model and hold an open
discussion with the video covered by community television. The text of a poster promoting such
an event follows.
Early next week Earl Budin and NoFlyby will be distributing a press release that shows the
evidence where NASA and the U.S. military has misled the world on the dangers of the Cassini
fly-by. Please help us distribute this information for articles, editorials, letters to the editor,
forward to email lists and post on bulletin boards.
If each of us gives our effort, we have a chance to stop a real threat to life.
Sincerely,
NoFlyby Site Coordinators
Following
1) Text of the NoFlyby Poster (legal size) for a "Nukes in Space" Area Premiere
2) Address to the Senate of Canada on Feb. 18, 1999 on saying no to Missile Defense
*********************************************
1) AREA PREMIERE PUBLIC SHOWING
"NUKES IN SPACE 2: UNACCEPTABLE RISKS"
A Video Documentary by EnviroVideo
(running time of 29 minutes) "Nukes in Space 2" focuses on the high-risk NASA Cassini
Space Probe's Earth Flyby, scheduled for August 18, 1999 and its connection to the nuclearization
and weaponization of the heavens.
Discussion follows video with coverage by Montague Community Television MCTV at the Java Hut Cafe Rte. 116 Sunderland, MA (413)665-2255
Thursday, March 18, 1999 at 8:00 P.M.
For more information, send a SASE to the Flyby Action Site (see adress above)
2)Just Say 'No' to Missile Defense
By Senator Douglas Roche, O.C.
An Address to the Senate of Canada
February 18, 1999
The Senate should be aware of a development that will profoundly alter international relations,
cripple disarmament work, and tie Canada inextricably to U.S. ill-conceived military plans. I speak
of the U.S. government's current design of a ballistic missile defense shield over North America.
Canadians thought this problem went away when Canada refused the U.S. invitation to participate
in the Strategic Defense Initiative (known as "Star Wars") in 1985. SDI itself was abandoned, but
in the 1990s it reappeared as a National Missile Defense program designed to provide for the
interception of long-range missiles targeted on the United States. A missile defense program for
North America is now being promoted and Canada is inexorably being drawn into the web of U.S.
military-industrial-complex interests.
This is being done without the knowledge or consent of the Canadian Parliament and people. The
Government of Canada keeps saying: Relax, nothing's going to happen for a long time.
Honourable Senators, there is plenty to worry about and the time for us to speak out against this
retrograde, dangerous proposal is now.
The facts, briefly, are these:
1. Discussions are now taking place between the United States and Canada on a North American
ballistic missile defense (BMD) system. The U.S. is on track to deploy this system in Alaska and
North Dakota possibly by 2005, and the Administration is pumping $6.6 billion into the project.
The time for Canada to decide its course of action is now, not later, on the eve of deployment,
when Canada's options will be significantly reduced.
2. The 1994 Defense White Paper unfortunately opened the door to Canadian participation,
despite a 1985 Canadian government decision not to participate in U.S. Strategic Defense
Initiative (SDI) research. SDI closed down in the early 1990s. BMD is its successor. The U.S.
wants Canada involved in BMD through NORAD.
3. BMD would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), which forbids a nation-wide
missile defense system. The ABM Treaty is an essential part of nuclear arms control. It has long
been recognized that constructing such national defenses (leaving aside the improbability of their
working) would spur opposing nations to develop new offensive weapons to circumvent defense
systems. Thus the nuclear arms race would keep accelerating.
4. The U.S. recognizes BMD would violate the existing ABM and has suggested to Russia that
the ABM be renegotiated. Russia, so far, adamantly refuses and has threatened to stall START II
even further if BMD is proceeded with. The Government of China has warned that a new nuclear
arms race will break out in Asia.
5. The Canadian government said in 1995 it opposed abrogating or weakening the ABM, calling it
"absolutely essential," for the maintenance of international nuclear security. In 1996, the
government added, "Canada remains firmly committed to the 1972 ABM Treaty."
6. The Canadian government has consistently said it will work for the continued development of
international law. To join in a process of weakening or abrogating the ABM to satisfy the
demands of the U.S. military system, which has not lost its appetite for expansion even though the
Cold War ended nearly a decade ago, would greatly endanger Canada's credibility in arms control
and disarmament work. Canada must speak now. By signaling that Canada is open to the idea,
DND is encouraging the U.S. to proceed on the assumption that Canada will be involved.
7. U.S. proponents claim that BMD will protect the continent against the incoming missiles of
"rogue" States. But BMD is a bad idea because it presumes a potential attacker would develop an
extremely expensive delivery technology when it could much more easily and reliably deliver a
bomb in a commercial airliner or shipping container, methods a BMD would be powerless to stop.
Honourable Senators, Canadian interests in the NORAD Agreement are being compromised
through U.S. action. NORAD was not meant to be a ballistic missile defense, yet NORAD is
being used as the instrument to jump start U.S. ability to fight space wars of the 21st century.
U.S. military interests are playing on fears of a ballistic missile attack on North America by some
rogue state or terrorist and have even conjured up the ludicrous spectacle of North Korea
launching a ballistic missile attack on Montreal. The U.S. Ambassador to Canada has joined in this
softening up approach to getting Canada's compliance by references to the need of our two
countries to stick together against vague enemies of the future.
We must realize what is happening. The U.S. is extending its military capacity in order to be the
militarily dominant nation of the 21st century and to secure this power by a comprehensive system
of surveillance and communications technologies. Is putting such immense power in the hands of
a single state in the best interests of international peace and security? Is abrogating the ABM
Treaty justified by such inordinate quest for power? Is Canada, which campaigned hard for a seat
on the U.N. Security Council in order to bring forward new ideas for peace and security, served
by tying ourselves to a military machine out of control?
The Canadian government has got to stop saying: Don't worry, be happy. Every month that goes
by without the Government speaking out firmly against participation in a ballistic missile defense
system allows the U.S. government to interpret our silence as tacit acceptance. Then, when the
system is about to be deployed, it will be too late for us to pull out. Moreover, putting $600
million of Canadian taxpayers' money into this ill-conceived venture would be an unconscionable
affront to every Canadian who needs improved health, education and social care.
The correct answer to what BMD seeks to accomplish, namely the security of North America, is
to pursue, as the International Court of Justice has called for, comprehensive negotiations leading
to the elimination of nuclear weapons. Significant progress in this respect has been made in recent
years. This progress is now jeopardized by BMD. As the prestigious U.S. National Academy of
Sciences concluded in its 1997 report, The Future of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, "deploying
missile defenses outside the bounds of the ABM Treaty could greatly diminish the prospects for
future reductions in nuclear weapons." That is cautious language for what should be stated
frankly: we can kiss goodbye to nuclear disarmament if BMD proceeds. And if strategic arms
control collapses, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Canada has always championed, will be in
ruins.
Now is the time to debate this. Now is the time to inform the public. Now is the time to obtain the
consent of the Canadian Parliament.
Honourable Senators, on the basis of my experience in personally meeting with hundreds of
informed Canadians in all 10 provinces on nuclear weapons issues, I contend that the Canadian
public opposes the madness of a missile defense system. The Canadian Government knows there
is little support for the system. Why, then, dally?
The Government should couple its resistance to missile defense by a vigorous implementation of
the 15 recommendations in the Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, Canada and the Nuclear Challenge: Reducing the Political Value of Nuclear
Weapons for the Twenty-First Century. This report has rightly pointed the way for Canada to
workwith like-minded States in pressing the Nuclear Weapons States to make an unequivocal
commitment to commence negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons. The
Committee wants Canada to argue within NATO for less reliance on nuclear weapons so that the
way can be cleared for the NATO nuclear States to pledge No-First-Use of nuclear weapons and
to put their nuclear weapons on de-alert status.
That would be a positive contribution by Canada to enhancing peace and security in the world.
That is the way forward, providing confidence-building measures and hope for the Canadian
people who want an end to nuclear weapons.
Previous newsletter