Flyby News Home - Flyby News Archives - Casinni NoFlyby - Flyby Links

Flyby  News

"News Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era"

Putin-Bush Meetings and Opportunity to Ban Space-Based Weapons

08 November 2001

Now is one of the last remaining opportunities to stop space-based weapons before they invade our atmosphere and orbit Earth. Until the major nations ban weapons of mass destruction from their own stockpiles, the dangers of terrorism and apocalypse will not go away. Item 1 is from the Institute for Cooperation In Space (ICIS). Please visit their website and use their free fax system to urge world leaders to get behind the strategic ban of space weaponry. Once the arms race is capped, a world treaty signed, a real coalition for peace can and will emerge.

1. Putin-Bush Meetings and Opportunity to Ban Space-Based Weapons
2. House Appropriations Recommends Canceling Ineffective/Costly Satellite system
3. Fighting Terror and the Diversion of Missile Defense


1) Putin-Bush Meetings and Opportunity to Ban Space-Based Weapons

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - November 6, 2001

Contact: Dr. Carol Rosin, ICIS President
Institute for Cooperation in Space, ICIS
Tel: 805-641-1999 Fax: 805-641-9669

Putin-Bush Meetings Offer New Opportunity for Ban on Space-Based Weapons

WASHINGTON, D.C. - When President Vladimir Putin and President George W. Bush meet in America during November 13-15, 2001, they will have the unique opportunity to establish "a new framework for security and cooperation" on earth by banning space-based weapons.

An intense search for a new security and cooperation framework has been ongoing during the months of preparations preceding these meetings. In fact, a forthcoming draft World Treaty Banning Space-based Weapons provides this new framework for national and world security, for a stimulated economy and job market, and for a way to cooperatively apply Space Age technology and information services to solve urgent humanitarian and environmental problems. A world space peace-keeping agency charged with monitoring a permanent ban on space-based weapons can be established. This will lead to the verifiable reduction of nuclear arsenals. A permanent ban on space-based weapons is a breakthrough that establishes "the new framework for security and cooperation" that both Russia and America ultimately seek. The world treaty will place a cap on the arms race, and will simultaneously establish the foundation for building a world cooperative civil, military, and commercial space research, testing, development, deployment, and exploration industry that will replace the space-based weapons industry.

Moscow has reportedly reviewed and "digested well" an advance copy of the world treaty. One high ranking Russian source has affirmed to ICIS that, "President Putin absolutely does not want space-based weapons, will not break the ABM Treaty, does not want the U.S. to proceed with missile defense testing, and is ready to sign a treaty that will ban space-based weapons."

Either Russia or the United States - or both - could begin discussions about banning space-based weapons and sign a world treaty at any point prior to, during, or following the Putin-Bush meetings this month. Also, either Russia or the United States or both could reach out to a world coalition of nations to co-sign the world treaty and bring it into effect.

The World Treaty Banning Space-based Weapons is identical in purpose to the little-publicized Space Preservation Act of 2001 introduced into the U.S. Congress by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland) on October 2, 2001, "to preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons."

About the Space Preservation Act of 2001, Kucinich says, "We signed the ABM treaty nearly 30 years ago, which requires a reduction in strategic arms, nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. Weaponization of space clearly violates that treaty. My bill [calls] for an immediate and permanent termination of research, testing, manufacturing, production and deployment of all space-based weapons systems and components by any person, agency or contractor of the U.S. government."

On July 26, 2001, the same date that Congressman Dennis Kucinich announced a bill to ban space-based weapons in the United States, the Foreign Minister of Canada, John Manley, announced in Hanoi that "Canada would be very happy…to launch an initiative to see an international convention preventing the weaponization of space." Congressman Kucinich responded to the Canadian initiative stating, "I am pleased with the recent news from our neighbor to the north that Canada is ready to join an international effort to prohibit weapons
in space."

The Space Preservation Act of 2001 requires the U.S. President to "direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons." An enforceable and verifiable World Treaty Banning Space-based Weapons must include most world nations in order to prevent the weaponization of space.

Plans are underway for a public announcement about the signing of world leaders on to the World Treaty Banning Space-based Weapons.

ICIS (Institute for Cooperation in Space) has learned that there is worldwide support rapidly growing for a World Treaty Banning Space-based Weapons among major space-faring nations and in developing countries. Dr. Carol Rosin, President of ICIS says, "This treaty will allow everyone to continue to provide improved ground forces to protect people on earth, while ending the arms race and stimulating a whole new industry at the same time. It is in the best interest of everyone, even adversaries, to share the Space Age information and technology applications. This presents a whole new paradigm, a new way of thinking and acting, a new space paradigm. This decision to sign this treaty will impact all future generations . ICIS will be monitoring the situation and briefing members of the world media in the days preceding the Putin-Bush meetings."

Documents posted on
*World Treaty Banning Space-Based Weapons
*H.R. 2977 Space Preservation Act of 2001
*Frequently Asked Questions (Re: World Treaty and Space Preservation Act of 2001)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

"What do you think Putin is up to?" – Excerpts from a reply by Carol Rosin: far...I'm told that Putin is not changing his position. He does want to ban space-based weapons, he is NOT in favor of testing missile defense or of the US testing missile defense, he is not going to break the ABM Treaty, and is ready to sign a World Treaty Banning Space-Based Weapons.

However (!) - Putin is being offered all kinds of temptations from Bush (the seat in NATO, extended business and trade, financial assistance, the ridding of nuclear waste...and now the reduction of nuclear arsenals in exchange for Putin allowing the U.S. to test missile defense...which of course would start a whole new arms race in space that nobody would ever be able to stop).

..I think Putin is probably a bit guess...but I have to hope he has the integrity and awareness not to dare change his position...for the sake of our very survival.

And I HOPE he is maintaining his integrity for the sake of all the suffering children (there were about 1 million displaced people before this Afghanistan bombing...and now there are nearly 8 million...with millions of orphaned children entering into winter with no one to take care of them...) on our mother earth.

Putin knows that Bush is committed to breaking out of the ABM Treaty no matter what any other leader says or does. Bush has said he is going ahead with testing missile defense (space-based weapons). Of course, if Bush does that, the war game would escalate faster than ever and into that place above all our heads quickly (they are ready to do it even if they say it's years down the road...). You see, Bush can get space-based weapons developed and deployed under the "guise" of "it's merely RESEARCH or TESTING," as you know. We can't let this happen, obviously.

I only hope that Putin understands that "testing" means space-based weapons would be deployed. I am sending letters to him explaining this.

We cannot stop Bush at the moment, or those who are caught up in the aftermath of the US disasters...he's on a roll.

But we can change the entire paradigm (second order change) if we get world support and world law into place that even Bush would have to abide by.

I believe the rest of the world is ready to end the arms race after seeing the past weeks of results from the U.S. method of bombing poor people in Afghanistan, dislocating so many, and not getting the job done even yet. I believe the rest of the world is catching on to how and why the U.S. wants to drag out any war to make sure we dump our weapons arsenals, test new weapons, and try to rationalize why we need the next phase of weapons (now in space. (In fact, if you don't watch controlled U.S. media or CNN - and you listen instead to "world news" and pubic channels, you hear how the rest of the world is not happy with Bush's war tactics and doesn't really want to play with the Bush administration anymore. Only a handful are still wearing their look-alike suits.)

We CAN get the rest of the world's leaders to sign on to the treaty to ban space-based weapons. We need to expand into a world view ...bigger than we expand into the new space paradigm.

That is why I think we need to organize something HUGE with roots action...starting with letters to Putin saying he must maintain his position to NOT accept missile defense testing of any kind, to reduce his nuclear arsenal even if it's unilaterally, and to sign a treaty to ban space-based weapons immediately. I also think we should lobby Putin to introduce the World Treaty Banning Space-based Weapons.

This treaty is on paper and is in the hands of the Russian leader. We're trying to get Bush to look at it, too. If you want to see it go to or contact me and I'll email you a copy. It's based on the language of already adopted UN space treaties and incorporates the purpose and language of the Kucinich H.R,. 2977 legislation. If we could get Putin to introduce this treaty, we'd have a "tool" to educate people with and a treaty and legislation to rally everyone around, plus a real law that we could get other leaders to sign-on to that would become law. It's brilliant.

We have only one chance in all of history to get this ban on space-based weapons. The Russians have always been "first" in space in many ways, and I hope that Putin can see that HE must be the leader to bring the world into the new space paradigm...and that the rest of the world will follow because it's in everyone's best interest to do this. Russia could be the first to commit to banning space-based weapons...he could sign the treaty right on the spot at the ranch while he eats barbeque.

Please let me know if you have more questions of if I can help you in any way. If you want to get a letter to Putin, please send it to me at I will get it to Moscow for you.

Here's what "we" have to get done ... to change the whole game:

1) *Make sure that Putin does not compromise his position and that he calls for an immediate signing of an agreement with world leaders (even if Bush won't do what...we'll get it done with the help of intelligent leaders who understand): Call, write letters, welcome Putin at the Russian embassy or wherever he is going to be (I might be able to find out if you can rally people to do something like that), etc etc.

* We have to do something to get attention about Putin's trip to see Bush on Nov. 13th-15th...and we have to do it fast. Putin has got to hear from us. (If you write a letter and email ( or fax (805-641-9669) it to me for Putin, I can still get it to Moscow and/or to Putin. I just sent one from David Krieger of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.)

2) Get co-sponsors signed on to H.R. 2977.

3) Get a Senator to introduce H.R. 2977 in the Senate and get co-sponsors to sign on to it.

4) Get a nation-state leader to introduce the World Treaty Banning Space-based Weapons which is based on already adopted UN space treaties and which incorporates the purpose and language of H.R.2977

5) Get this into the media and educate everyone about the new space paradigm that will end the arms race while building a new security system based on enhanced communication and education (about different cultures and our "oneness"), a new stimulated economy with needed jobs and training programs worthy of the Space Age, and new products and services that will be created as we unleash brains and money to explore and develop a whole new (inner and outer).

If we don't accomplish the above, space will be closed to all but a few and we will experience weapons pointed down all our throats. The U.S. administration is so bold that they have now admitted (!) that they plan to control the entire world and space from space.

We have only days before President Putin arrives. Anything we do regarding this part has to be done immediately.

We have a few short weeks (at best) before an unstoppable momentum of commitment to funds and vested interests builds that would assure the reality of space-based weapons in any case, so we have to get the legislation passed and a world treaty signed.

Everything and everyone, our networks are in place. We can end the arms race in 2002. I know Putin WANTS to do it. WE have to make sure he sticks with his position.


2) House Appropriations Recommends Canceling Ineffective/Costly Satellite system

November 7, 2001

Panel Recommends Ending Satellite Plan

New York Times

WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 - At the urging of its Republican leadership, the House Appropriations Committee is recommending canceling an expensive infrared satellite system that the Pentagon considers vital to missile defense.

The satellites are intended to track ballistic missiles as they soar through the atmosphere, providing data that would help interceptor missiles tell missiles from decoys and home in on and destroy warheads.

The Pentagon had proposed putting two dozen such satellites, at an estimated cost of $11 billion to $20 billion, into low orbits above the earth over the next two decades to provide continuous surveillance against missile attacks. But in a report that has yet to be voted on by the full House, the Appropriations Committee contends that the satellite program is over its budget and behind schedule. It also cites an internal Pentagon study that questions the effectiveness of the satellites in discriminating between warheads and decoys.

Noting that ground-based radar might be a less expensive alternative to the satellites, the committee recommended denying the Bush administration's entire request of $385 million for the satellite program in the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1. Instead, the committee proposed transferring most of that money to other satellite and radar programs.

"This was not ready to move forward," said Jim Specht, a spokesman for Representative Jerry Lewis, a California Republican who is chairman of the Pentagon subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

"By taking away the funding, the committee is making clear they need to do more development and testing of this system in order for it to become an integral part of national missile defense," Mr. Specht added.

But Pentagon officials said that canceling or sharply cutting the satellite program would be a major setback to the Bush administration's missile defense plan.

"It would degrade the future capability of the overall missile defense program," said Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

"Ground-based systems are limited by the curvature of the earth," Colonel Lehner added. "They don't have the range of a space-based system, which can cover the whole planet."

Congressional officials said the fate of the satellite program before the full House and in the Senate was unclear. The Senate Armed Services Committee has voted to reduce the program by $96.6 million, while the Senate Appropriations Committee has yet to vote on the Pentagon spending bills.

The satellites, known as the space- based infrared system-low, are being developed by two competing teams, one led by TRW and Raytheon, the other by Spectrum Astro and Northrop Grumman.

The system had its roots in the Reagan administration's Strategic Defense Initiative, when it was known as Brilliant Eyes. Using infrared sensors, the satellites are intended to locate warheads when they reach the mid-course of their trajectory, sending back to earth data that would help ground-based radars and interceptor rockets to fix on a threatening warhead.

Proponents contend that the satellites would be valuable not just for tracking long-range nuclear-tipped missiles, but also short-range weapons, known as theater missiles, that could be fired at American troops overseas.

"It's an essential component if ballistic missile defenses are to work effectively," said Representative John Spratt, a South Carolina Democrat who supports the program. "Not just for national missile defense, but also theater missile defense."

Pentagon officials have often cited the infrared satellites in responding to critics who contend that a missile shield would be easily fooled by decoys released alongside warheads in space. By identifying the difference in temperature between a decoy and warhead, the satellites would, in theory, be able to guide an interceptor toward the real target, the Pentagon contends.

Critics of missile defense question whether any system would be effective in picking out decoys. But they concede that a missile defense is likely to be more effective with the infrared satellites than without them.

"The job of the attacker is easier if there is not a S.B.I.R.S.-low system," said Lisbeth Gronlund, senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an arms control group.

But over the years, the satellite program has been repeatedly criticized by Congressional investigators and Pentagon testers.

In a report released in February, the General Accounting Office, Congress's investigative arm, asserted that the satellite program was being rushed and was likely to face technical failures and major cost overruns.

The investigators found, for example, that the Pentagon was proposing to launch the first satellites before critical software had been completed.

"The S.B.I.R.S.-low program is at high risk of not delivering the system on time or at cost or with expected performance," the report concluded.


3) Fighting Terror and the Diversion of Missile Defense

"The worst-case scenario"
Article published in the Santa Maria Sun.

Fighting terrorism is changing the face of warfare. But will we still need a multi-billion-dollar missile defense system?

Hatred lurks deepest in the hearts of men who are not simply in a military trained to kill but trained to die in exchange for the deaths of thousands. This determination is new to western minds causing the public to wonder how far they will go, and what they would do if they had a nuclear weapon.

Military officials say in three to five years terrorists could strike our soil with such weapons.

As the military's job is to defend the United States and its allies, the urgent need to test the National Missile Defense System has grown in order to have it online for defense in the next few years.

The NMDS was met with controversy before the Sept. 11 attacks, which slowed down the testing and decreased the funding. Those speed bumps are cleared now, and the military has more support than ever. Congress recently approved an extra $4 billion for funding, almost twice what they had spent before.

Speculation on the possibility of terrorists or any "rogue" nations possessing nuclear missiles is enough for President George W. Bush to give the NMDS the green light. However, opponents of the NMDS are shocked that the U.S. government is continuing to move in this direction and argue that the NMDS is too expensive, it won't work, and will hurt global diplomacy.

Opponents thought their point was proven when New York City was partially destroyed by airplanes–not nuclear weapons. The United States has spent over $5 trillion preparing for a nuclear assault but was caught off guard on Sept. 11 by an operation that Newsweek magazine reports law enforcement estimated the cost as low as $200,000.

For the past two months our minds have followed this logic and some are asking if we should reformat warfare. During modern wars, the public has seen ground troops, aircraft carriers, and other military vessels deploying to the Middle East. Yet, this man-and-gun power will only be a fraction of the effort. Most of the war on terrorism will be "invisible"–intelligence agencies around the world will now investigate phone calls, e-mails, money transfers and stock purchases; covert operations and spy technology will pinpoint the terrorists' locations and target bombing sites. Governments will even offer multi-million dollar rewards for information.

This war is waging from a nationless country–Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda–believed to operate inside 68 different countries. They strike against anyone, even Muslims living in nations that tread on their religious quests. So far they have not resorted to using nuclear weapons, but sought mass destruction by other means such as suicide bombing missions and biological and chemical warfare.

This new warfare is expected to require more funds, more personnel, and more focus from all departments to effectively combat. Civilians will become more aware of their daily surroundings–at airports, commercial, and federal buildings to spot suspicious activity.

These efforts have helped recover information that will assist in predicting further attacks and bringing terrorists to justice. But before Americans and the world adjust to this new style of warfare, the military insists we not abandon the future threats of a nuclear war. America is ready to fight, but can we afford to be over-protective?

For the complete story, see:
Staff writer Andrew Petty covers military issues for the Sun. He can be reached at

Flyby News is a free electronic news service regarding peace in space, human rights, indigenous, and environmental issues.

Email address: