Text Fwd: WARS ON EARTH & IN SPACE 지구와 우주에서의 전쟁들

Participants at national conference October 9-10 in Nagpur, India
- click on photo to see banners

Bruce Gagnon blog
Friday, October 29, 2010
WARS ON EARTH & IN SPACE

Excerpt

The Obama administration has continued the long U.S. tradition of blocking any hope of creating new international law to protect space from the ravages of war. At the United Nations today the U.S. voted to abstain (and thus block) any real hopes to negotiate and pass the "Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities". The vote was 167 in favor with the U.S. abstaining. (Without the U.S. genuinely involved nothing can happen.) Today's vote came just two days after the Obama administration had the U.S. torpedo the U.N.'s annual Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) treaty resolution supported by Russia and China. That vote: 170 in favour, 2 abstained (U.S. and Israel). Just who is pushing an arms race in space?

10월 29일, "외계 우주 활동들에 대한 투명성과 신뢰 조치들"에 협의하기 위한 유엔 투표에서 미국은 투표 삼가함으로써 그 조치를 막음

Text Fwd: History of US Votes on UN Space Treaty Resolution

History of US Votes on UN Space Treaty Resolution

Summary: The Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) treaty resolution submitted in the UN First committee yearly since 1982 has always overwhelmingly passed. United States voted "no" twice, then has abstained 21 times, each year from 1984-2004, when it started voting *no* again (4 times), until again abstaining in 2009.

It is quite clear that the military industrial complex does not want the successful negotiation of a new treaty to ban weapons in space. They are the source of US blockage of any progress.

2009: abstain (US & Israel)
Yes: 176, No: 0, Abstentions: 2, Non-Voting: 14, Total voting
membership: 192

2008: no (US) abstain (Israel)
Yes: 177, No: 1, Abstentions: 1, Non-Voting: 13, Total voting
membership: 192

2007: no (US) abstain (Israel)
Yes: 178, No: 1, Abstentions: 1, Non-Voting: 12, Total voting
membership: 192

2006: no (US) abstain (Israel)
Yes: 178, No: 1, Abstentions: 1, Non-Voting: 12, Total voting
membership: 192

2005: no (US & Israel)
Yes: 180, No: 2, Abstentions: 0, Non-Voting: 9, Total voting
membership: 191

2004: abstain (US, Israel, Haiti, Palau)
Yes: 178, No: 0, Abstentions: 4, Non-Voting: 9, Total voting
membership: 191

2003: abstain (US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia)
Yes: 174, No: 0, Abstentions: 4, Non-Voting: 13, Total voting
membership: 191

2002: abstain (US, Israel, Micronesia)
Yes: 159, No: 0, Abstentions: 3, Non-Voting: 29, Total voting
membership: 191

2001: abstain (US, Georgia, Israel, Micronesia)
Yes: 156, No: 0, Abstentions: 4, Non-Voting: 29, Total voting
membership: 189

2000: abstain (US, Israel, Micronesia)
Yes: 163, No: 0, Abstentions: 3, Non-Voting: 23, Total voting
membership: 189

1999: abstain (US, Israel)
Yes: 162, No: 0, Abstentions: 2, Non-Voting: 24, Total voting
membership: 188

1998: abstain (US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia)
Yes: 165, No: 0, Abstentions: 4, Non-Voting: 16, Total voting
membership: 185

1997: abstain (US)
Yes: 128, No: 0, Abstentions: 39, Non-Voting: 18, Total voting
membership: 185

1996: abstain (US)
Yes: 128, No: 0, Abstentions: 39, Non-Voting: 18, Total voting
membership: 185

1995: abstain (US)
Yes: 121, No: 0, Abstentions: 46, Non-Voting: 18, Total voting
membership: 185

1994: abstain (US)
Yes: 170, No: 0, Abstentions: 1, Non-Voting: 14, Total voting
membership: 185

1993: abstain (US)
Yes: 169, No: 0, Abstentions: 1, Non-Voting: 14, Total voting
membership: 184

1992: abstain (US, Micronesia)
Yes: 164, No: 0, Abstentions: 2, Non-Voting: 13, Total voting
membership: 179

1991: abstain (US)
Yes: 155, No: 0, Abstentions: 1, Non-Voting: 10, Total voting
membership: 166

1990: abstain (US)
Yes: 149, No: 0, Abstentions: 1, Non-Voting: 9, Total voting
membership: 159

1989: abstain (US)
Yes: 149, No: 0, Abstentions: 1, Non-Voting: 9, Total voting
membership: 159

1988: abstain (US)
Yes: 154, No: 1, Abstentions: 0, Non-Voting: 4, Total voting
membership: 159

1987: abstain (US)
Yes: 154, No: 1, Abstentions: 0, Non-Voting: 4, Total voting
membership: 159

1986: abstain (US)
Yes: 154, No: 0, Abstentions: 1, Non-Voting: 4, Total voting
membership: 159

1985: abstain (US, Grenada)
Yes: 151, No: 0, Abstentions: 2, Non-Voting: 6, Total voting
membership: 159

1984: abstain (US)
Yes: 150, No: 0, Abstentions: 1, Non-Voting: 8, Total voting
membership: 159

1983: no (US) abstain (United Kingdom)
Yes: 150, No: 0, Abstentions: 1, Non-Voting: 8, Total voting
membership: 159

1982: no (US) abstain (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Israel, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, United Kingdom)
Yes: 138 , No: 1 , Abstentions: 7 , Non-Voting: 11 , Total voting
membership: 157

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)

[ Reply to Cordaro Report: 8 arrested at "Die-In" at STRATCom Space Weapons Bazaar in Omaha - 91 year old Peg Gallagher among them....

'01 Legal Demo Tues Nov 3.JPG'

'02 Legal Demo Tues Nov 3.JPG'

'03 Die-In Nov 4.JPG'

04 Die-In inside.JPG

'05 Fr Jack McCaslin arrested.JPG'

'06 Peg Gallagher arrested.JPG'

*Text/ video. image informed by Frank Cordaro(frank.cordaro@gmail.com) on Nov. 7, 2009

Midwest Catholic Workers' Nov 4th Die-In at the Qwest Center in Omaha
NE at SRATCom's Space Weapons Bazaar called the Strategic Space
Symposium on two Youtube videos:

Part 1 - 10 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp60pV4BQ0U&feature=channel





Part 2 - 7 1/2 Minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVZ7mXZnMNM


Videos by Marghee Boehme-Paterson <blackoutomaha@cox.net>


--------------------------

Report by Frank Cordaro, Des Moines Catholic Worker

On Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. the Omaha and Des Moines
Catholic Worker communities and friends held our fourth annual protest
and 'Die In" at the Qwest Center in Omaha at SRATCom's Space Weapons
Bazaar called the Strategic Space Symposium in Omaha NE, Nov 2-4
http://www.stratspace.org/

The effort began with a group of over 30 people gathered across the
street from the main entrance of the Qwest Center at 11 a.m. We moved
in mass across the street to the main entrance, set up our "Space Weapons
= Death" banner. We gathered around the banner and read of our
statement. (See a copy of the statement below.) After the statement
was read a number of people, including the 8 who were arrested laid
down on the ground in front of the banner, enacting a "Die-In". After
5 minutes people were called to their feet and directed to take the
"Die-In" into the Qwest Center where the Space Weapons Bazaar was
taking place. The protesters were stopped just inside the front doors
by Qwest security people and Omaha police officers. The protesters
proceeded to reenact their "Die-In" just inside the building at the
feet of the security people and police. Our statement was reread.
Qwest security people informed all protesters to leave the building or
face arrested. All but eight people left the building. Each of the
eight was asked by an Omaha police officer to leave the building or
face arrest. All eight were place under arrest, hand cuffed and
walked out the of the building into a police van or police car.

Among the eight people arrested was 91-year-old Peg Gallagher, “Grand
Dame of the Omaha Peace Movement”. Peg was ticketed and released right
on site. The seven other people who were arrested were taken to the
Douglas Co Jail, processed by the police and charged with City of
Omaha ordinance "20-155 Request to Leave" - a misdemeanor offense with
a maximum penalty of six months in jail and/or a five hundred dollar
fine.

The seven were:

Fr. Jack McCaslin, 80, Omaha, NE
Mark Kenny, 52, Omaha, NE
Daniel McCarville, 22, Omaha, NE
Friar Louis Vitale, OFM, 77, Oakland, CA
Fr. Jim Murphy, 55
Steve Clemens, 59, Minneapolis, MN
Frank Cordaro, 58, Des Moines Catholic Worker, Des Moines, IA

The four Omaha residents were cited and release and given a Dec 9th
court date. The four out of town'ers were all held over night in the
Douglas Co Jail and appear in jail court the following day. Report to
follow.

*** It must be noted that Fr Jack McCalsin placed himself in the greatest risk by violating for the second time a Federal probation condition set for him from his Dec 28, 2005 line crossing. Fr Jack first violated his Federal probation by taking part in the 2008 "Die-In" at the Quest Center. At Fr Jack's first probation violation
hearing, Federal Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken fined him $250 and
told Fr Jack that if he violated his probation again he would not
hesitate to send him to Federal Prison for six months.

For more info contact:

Jerry Ebner
Omaha Catholic Worker
1104 N. 24th St. Omaha, Nebraska USA 68102
www.no-nukes.org/cwomaha
Email: cwomaha@gmail.com
402- 502- 5887
Cell: 402-670-3745



--------------------------------------

Text of statement:

November 4, 2009 - Midwest Catholic Worker and Friends Statement at
the Strategic Space Symposium at the Qwest Convention Center in Omaha
Nebraska.

The scriptures remind us of the hypocrisy of those who put their faith
in “gods of metal” to protect them.

Because of our faith we refuse to surrender the land, sea, air and the
heavens above to those who have given their allegiance to the gods of
war and greed.

We recall Martin Luther King Jr.’s admonition that “. . . a nation
which spends more money on military defense than on programs of social
uplift is approaching spiritual death”.

We are here to expose the lie of a legitimacy given by the City of
Omaha and the Qwest Convention Center to the 2009 Strategic Space and
Defense Symposium and we name this an unholy alliance, which can only
end in global death and destruction.

We call on the city of Omaha and this conference’s sponsoring
organizations and participating individuals to turn away from this
unholy collaboration with global death and evil and to choose a path
of uplifting physical and spiritual life.

So, we stage this “die-in” to say as clearly as we can, that “Space
Weapons = Death”.

--- From the Midwest Catholic Workers and Friends.

-------------------------
Previous posting: 4th Annual Witness & “Die-In” at STRATCom’s Space
Weapons Bazaar November 2-4, 2009 - a new and improved invite....
http://groups.google.com/group/offitt-list-one/browse_frm/thread/fe4972343fcd9195

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "STRATCom / Offutt AFB List" group.
To post to this group, send email to offitt-list-one@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to offitt-list-one+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/offitt-list-one?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

* Related blog

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/11/video-fwd-space-symposium-die-in-in.html
Video Fwd: SPACE SYMPOSIUM DIE-IN IN OMAHA
Bruce Gagnon blog
Thursday, November 05, 2009

Text Fwd: Action Item for Space Week - Space Treaty

*Bruce Gagnon on Oct. 5, 2009

"Dear friends:

Below please find a letter to Congress that the Global Network and other concerned organizations are requesting that you send to your members of Congress during our current Keep Space for Peace Week.

This letter calls on them to urge the Obama administration to seriously negotiate a treaty at the UN to prevent an arms race in space.

If you are not sure about how to contact your member of Congress just go to this link for details:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/index.html

Thanks for your help with this important effort.

Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com
http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Blog)




Dear Member of Congress,

With the United Nations about to resume discussions on preventing an arms race in outer space, we ask that you to convey to the Obama Administration the need for the U.S. to actively pursue the negotiation of a new treaty to preserve space for peace.

Since the mid-1980s, the United Nations General Assembly has annually voted on a resolution for the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS).

For nearly a quarter of century, this resolution—calling merely for the negotiation of a new treaty to prevent the weaponization of outer space—has had the backing of virtually all the nations of the earth…

Except for the United States, which has essentially stood alone in refusing to support the PAROS resolution.

This obstructionist stance by the world’s leading space-faring power has effectively undercut any meaningful efforts to halt the militarization of space. During George W. Bush’s presidency, international discussions regarding space reached their lowest point ever, with the administration arguing in 2006 that “There is no — repeat, no —problem in outer space for arms control to solve” and that a proposed treaty submitted by Russia and China in February 2008 was “a diplomatic ploy by the two nations to gain a military advantage.”

We believe this view is short-sighted and risky in the extreme.

From the Chinese shooting down their own weather satellite and creating a dangerous debris cloud… to North Korea and Iran test-firing missiles… to the recent showdown between Russia and the U.S. over ‘missile defense’ bases in Eastern Europe… to the United States using that self-same ‘missile defense’ system as an anti-satellite weapon to shoot down a falling satellite… space is daily becoming more militarized.

The political course the U.S. government has followed—in opposing any new treaties governing space—is guaranteed to foster a space arms race and to make both the earth and the heavens more unsafe.

Although American policy in the United Nations has long been the prerogative of the executive branch, we urge you—as members of Congress—to publicly communicate to the Obama Administration the need for a new space treaty. With more and more nations seeking to become space powers (Iran is just the latest example), the need for a more comprehensive regime of space law has never been greater.

An international accord on PAROS could complement the 1967 “Outer Space Treaty” for the peaceful uses of space (the only significant space agreement left since the Bush/Cheney Administration abrogated the ABM Treaty). By establishing appropriate and effective verification mechanisms to prevent an arms race in outer space, and by prohibiting space weaponization and programs such as ‘missile defense,’ satellite-guided weapons launched from earth, and spy satellites collecting and using data for aggressive military purposes, a PAROS treaty could help us preserve this final frontier for the benefit of all life on earth.

With the annual PAROS discussions poised to resume in the United Nations, we are requesting that you send a message to the President urging the administration to actively negotiate a new treaty. Such a statement by members of Congress would alert the White House of your concern on this critical matter (as well as help set the stage for future legislative initiatives).

The Obama Administration has an unprecedented opportunity to break with the past and demonstrate to the world that it is again committed to participating in the community of nations. We urge you to make sure this opportunity is not lost.

Additional information about PAROS can be found at the Reaching Critical Will website:

http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/paros/wgroup.html

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,

(Your Name and Address)

Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Nebraskans for Peace "

Text Fwd: Arms Race in Space

* Text Fwd by Bruce Gagnon on March 19, 2009*

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5971

*The article was also informed in StopNATO.

Arms Race in Space
Bruce K. Gagnon | March 19, 2009

Editor: John Feffer

The new arms race in space is shaping up to be the largest industrial project in Earth's history. To pay for this project, the aerospace industry has been lobbying Washington for a dedicated funding source. Budget allocations for missile defense — Star Wars — are only part of the huge sums of money redirected toward preparations for war in space.

Since World War II, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on Star Wars research and development. When Bill Clinton first came into office in 1993 he ceremoniously announced that Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), at that time funded at $3.5 billion a year, was dead. Then he quietly created the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and moved the $3.5 billion into the new space weapons development organization. George W. Bush left office having changed the name to Missile Defense Agency (MDA) with an annual budget of $10 billion per year.

Not counted in the MDA budget is the money that goes into space technology programs at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), National Security Agency (NSA), Department of Energy, NASA, and others. Conservative numbers indicate that the total military space technology annual budget runs in the neighborhood of $75 billion per year.

From Research to Deployment

The Pentagon maintains that the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s was the "first space war" where it was able to field test new technologies and begin implementing the doctrine of "full spectrum dominance." In the 2003 shock-and-awe invasion of Iraq, 70% of the weapons used in the initial attack were directed to their targets via military space satellites. Today, terrestrial warfare is coordinated from space.

But there's a problem: If the United States can do all of this, so could another nation. Thus the Pentagon has for years been working to create the ability to "deny" others the use of space. According to the Air Force Space Command planning document Strategic Master Plan: FY06 and Beyond, "the ability to gain space superiority (the ability to exploit space while selectively disallowing it to adversaries) is critically important and maintaining space superiority is an essential prerequisite for success in modern warfare...Simply, we must be able to quickly subjugate any space capability any adversary can field while maintaining our own."

This threat to take out the space assets of other nations is leading to a new and dangerous stage in the space arms race. China's 2007 test of a rudimentary anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon was a warning to the United States that it won't allow any one country to be "Master of Space," as the Air Force Space Command logo reads. The United States responded in 2008, using the excuse of a falling satellite, to show the world it had the capability to knock out an object in space. In this case, the Navy fired a "missile defense" system from an Aegis destroyer into space and successfully hit the doomed satellite. This test also was a clear warning to Russia and China that the ship-based Aegis "missile defense" system had offensive capabilities and could be used as part of a growing U.S. first-strike capability.

Space Race in Asia

Today, the United States and its allies Japan and South Korea are deploying Aegis destroyers to encircle China's coastline and put its small nuclear deterrent capability at risk. China also knows that the U.S. Space Command has been annually war-gaming a first-strike attack on its nation. In a computer war game set in the year 2016, the United States launches the attack, using a system now under development called the military space plane. This weapon would have the capability to take off like an airplane, fly through space to the other side of the world in one hour, drop a devastating attack on China, and then return to home base. The Pentagon is selling this space plane to the Congress and the public as the successor to the outdated, and increasingly expensive, space shuttle.

The International Herald Tribune recently reported that Gen. Valentin Popovkin, former chief of Russia's space forces, said his country must develop ASAT weapons technology as well. "We can't sit back and quietly watch others doing that, such work is being conducted in Russia," Popovkin was quoted as saying. Russia already has some "basic, key elements" of such weapons, Popovkin said.

During the tenures of both Clinton and the second Bush, Russia and China introduced to the UN General Assembly a resolution calling for a new treaty to ban weapons in space. The Prevention of an Arms Race in Space (PAROS) would outlaw all weapons in and through space, and close the barn door before the horse gets out. Sadly, the position of the United States has been consistent throughout both Democrat and Republican administrations: There are no weapons in space and thus no need for a new treaty. The United States claims that there is no problem.

The Problem with NASA

NASA was created as a civilian agency with a mission to do peaceful space exploration. But the growing influence of the military industrial complex has rubbed out the line between civilian and military programs.

When George W. Bush appointed former Secretary of the Navy Sean O'Keefe to head NASA in late 2001, the new space agency director announced that all NASA missions in the future would be "dual use." This meant that every NASA space launch would be both military and civilian at the same time. The military would ride the NASA Trojan horse and accelerate space weapons development without the public's knowledge. NASA would expand space nuclear power systems to help create new designs for weapons propulsion. Permanent, nuclear-powered bases on the moon and Mars would give the United States a leg up in the race for control of those planetary bodies. The international competition for resource extraction in space (helium-3 on the moon) is now full on.

NASA's job is to do the research and development, and then be ready to turn everything over to private corporate interests once the technology has been sorted out. The taxpayers will fund the technology investment program. The military will create the space weapons systems to ensure free corporate access to the space highways of the future. The aerospace industry is already making record profits from the ever-escalating cost of space technology systems. Virtually every system now under development is well over budget. Just one illustration is NASA's International Space Station. Originally slated to cost the taxpayers $10 billion, the project has now grown to $100 billion and is not yet finished.

High Ground in Space

A little-known congressional study from1989 called Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years spells out much of the Pentagon's plan for achieving dominance in space. The Air Force Association published the report in book form, and congressional leaders like Representatives Ike Skelton (D-MO) and John Spratt (D-SC), Senator John Glenn (D-OH) and now-Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) signed the forward.

In the book, congressional staffer John Collins reports: "Military space forces at the bottom of the Earth's so-called gravity well are poorly positioned to accomplish offensive/defensive/deterrent missions, because great energy is needed to overcome gravity during launch. Forces at the top, on a space counterpart of 'high ground,' could initiate action and detect, identify, track, intercept, or otherwise respond more rapidly to attacks."

Collins goes on to propose to Congress that the United States needs bases on the moon, at the top of the "gravity well," and on armed space stations on either side of the lunar surface. He writes, "Nature reserves decisive advantage for L4 and L5, two allegedly stable libration points [on either side of the moon] that theoretically could dominate Earth and moon, because they look down both gravity wells. No other location is equally commanding." Collins then concludes that, "Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments on return." Space piracy is born.

Like the Pentagon, the defense industries also have a plan for space. They're working 50-75 years ahead of the rest of us. They understand the enormous costs involved. They are moving to secure a funding source and working to bring "reliable allies" into the program to help pay for Star Wars. They've learned to dress up key aspects of the program as defense, as in "missile defense."

Space is the new military frontier. It's now up to the peace movement to understand the issue and help the public do so as well. Unless this costly and destabilizing new space arms race is stopped, life on Earth will become much more difficult. We must keep space for peace.

Bruce K. Gagnon is the coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be reached at globalnet@mindspring.com.



Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com
http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Blog)

Text Fwd: UNA-USA NATIONAL CONFERENCE

* Text informed by Tim Rinne Nebraska Division, UNA-USA, on March 18, 2009*

UNA-USA NATIONAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTION

Educate UNA about the Threat US Strategic Command
Poses to the Peacemaking Goals of the United Nations

WHEREAS, the UN General Assembly annually reaffirms its desire to preserve space for peaceful purposes by a near-unanimous vote for the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) resolution, and

WHEREAS, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the US has legally obligated itself to disarm its nuclear weapons stockpiles and to forego developing and producing new generations of these weapons of mass destruction, and

WHEREAS, except under the most constrained conditions (where the danger must be imminent and the response not exceed the scale of the threat), the Charter of the United Nations prohibits preemptive attacks without Security Council authorization, and

WHEREAS, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the executive branch of United States government commissioned US Strategic Command (StratCom) with securing the military domination of outer space, and

WHEREAS, under the auspices of StratCom, the US is not only maintaining an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and seeking to develop more, but has now adopted a strategic posture for the offensive use of nuclear weapons, and

WHEREAS, StratCom is now charged with preemptively attacking (with either conventional or nuclear weapons) any place on earth within one hour that the executive branch unilaterally deems a threat to the US or its interests, and

WHEREAS, UNA-USA chapters and divisions—through their networks—can educate the world about the newly enhanced military threat StratCom now represents to the peacemaking goals of the United Nations:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the UNA-USA commit to educating its member chapters, divisions and international affiliates about how StratCom’s expanded role in the execution of US military policy constitutes an increased threat to peacemaking goals of the UN; and

That the UNA-USA Board develop a statement addressing this destabilizing new threat, submit it to the United Nations, and distribute it to local UNA chapters, divisions and international affiliates; and

That the UNA-USA urge the incoming US Administration to seek ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and meet all of its obligations as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty; and

That the UNA-USA urge the US Administration to abandon the October 2006 National Space Policy objective of the domination of outer space; and

That the US Administration finally support the annual UN resolution for the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) and promptly undertake negotiations—under the auspices of the United Nations—to negotiate a new treaty respecting the peaceful uses of outer space.


Jointly submitted by the UNA-USA Nebraska Division, Montana Chapter, Monterey Bay CA Chapter, Albuquerque NM Chapter, Pike’s Peak CO Chapter, Northern Colorado Chapter and Seattle WA Chapter.

RESOLUTION DOCUMENTATION

WHEREAS, the UN General Assembly annually reaffirms its desire to preserve space for peaceful purposes by a near-unanimous vote for the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) resolution.

Documentation: Intended to complement to the 1967 “Outer Space Treaty” (banning weapons of mass destruction in space and preserving the Moon and celestial bodies for peace), the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) resolution would prohibit the deployment of conventional space weapons. For over twenty years, the PAROS resolution has annually garnered the support of virtually every member state of the United Nations except the US, which has never once voted for adoption. (The 2008 PAROS vote, in instance, was 177 for, 1 against, with Israel abstaining.) Without the support of the world’s premier space-faring nation, the Conference on Disarmament has been crippled in its efforts to craft additional treaty law around the principle of preserving space for peaceful purposes.


WHEREAS, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the US has legally obligated itself to disarm its nuclear weapons stockpiles and to forego developing and producing new generations of these weapons of mass destruction.

Documentation: Not only does Article VI of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty legally bind the US to disarm itself of nuclear weapons, the International Court of Justice ruled in July 1996 that, “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to disarmament in all aspects under strict and effective international control.”


WHEREAS, except under the most constrained conditions (where the danger must be imminent and the response not exceed the scale of the threat), the Charter of the United Nations prohibits preemptive attacks without Security Council authorization.

Documentation: Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter prohibiting “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” is routinely contrasted with Article 51 governing the right of self-defense. While ‘preemptive attacks’ are not in every instance illegal under international law, to be justified, the danger must be imminent, allowing no alternative recourse, with the response not exceeding the level of the threat. The US invasion of Iraq accordingly was, in the view of former UN Secretary Kofi Annan, “not in conformity with the UN Charter” and therefore “illegal.” (9/15/04)


WHEREAS, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the executive branch of United States government commissioned US Strategic Command (StratCom) with securing the military domination of outer space.

Documentation: In October 2002, the US Space Command was moved under the direct control of US Strategic Command, headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. Four years later in October 2006, the White House issued its revised “National Space Policy,” which openly calls for US military space dominance and asserts that the US has the unilateral right to “dissuade or deter… and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US interests.” The policy further rejects future arms control agreements that might “impair” the asymmetric advantage the US now possesses in space.


WHEREAS, under the auspices of StratCom, the US is not only maintaining an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and seeking to develop more, but has now adopted a strategic posture for the offensive use of nuclear weapons.

Documentation: According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (2008), the US has 4,075 active warheads in its nuclear arsenal. This sizable stockpile, however, has not prevented the Pentagon and StratCom from promoting the research, develop-ment and production of new generations of nuclear weapons like the ‘bunker buster’ mini-nuke and the “Reliable Replacement Warhead.” The Bush/Cheney Administration, in turn, paired this technological quest for new and better armaments with an accompanying change in nuclear policy. Upending the US’s longstanding doctrine of strategic deterrence, the 2002 “Nuclear Posture Review” for the first time called for the offensive, ‘first strike’ use of nuclear weapons.


WHEREAS, StratCom is now charged with preemptively attacking (with either conventional or nuclear weapons) any place on earth within one hour that the executive branch unilaterally deems a threat to the US or its interests.

Documentation: The Bush/Cheney Administration’s “doctrine of preemption” was first unveiled in the 2002 “National Security Strategy,” one year to the month after 9/11. As outlined in the strategy, the US arrogates to itself the authority to unilaterally attack another nation on the mere suspicion of a threat to the US’s national interests. Under CONPLAN (Contingency Plan) 8022-02, StratCom was directed by the executive branch to develop a ‘global strike division’ that could turn the administration’s new preemption policy into an operational reality. “In December 2002, Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., then StratCom’s head, told an Omaha business group that his command had been charged with developing the capability to strike anywhere in the world within minutes of detecting a target.” (William Arkin, Washington Post, 5/14/05)


* Related blogs*

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/03/text-fed-nebraska-division-una-usa.html
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Text Fed: Nebraska Division UNA-USA Resolution Get Response


http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/03/text-fwd-una-usa-cover-letter-wfuna.html
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Text Fwd: UNA-USA cover letter (WFUNA)

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/03/text-fwd-una-resolution-on-stratcom.html
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Text Fwd: UNA Resolution on StratCom (Appeal letter)


*For more info. on the StratCom, go to *

http://www.nebraskansforpeace.org/nepeace/stratcom/index.php

Text Fwd: UNA Resolution on StratCom

* Text Informed by Tim Rinne, Nebraska Division, UNA-USA, on March 18, 2009

AN APPEAL TO UNA-USA CHAPTERS

For over half a century, U.S. Strategic Command near Omaha, Nebraska was responsible for one mission and one mission only: command and control of America’s nuclear deterrent. The ‘doomsday machine’ of the U.S.’s military arsenal, Strategic Command symbolized our fears of the ‘unthinkable’ and the threat of nuclear holocaust. For decades during the tense years of the Cold War, the only thing standing in the way of our collective annihilation was that these weapons were in fact never meant to be used. Under the high-stakes doctrine of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” StratCom’s nuclear arsenal was understood to be strictly defensive in intent—to be unleashed only as a last resort when our doom as a planet was already sealed. Looking back, it was just lucky that neither the Soviet Union nor the U.S., it turns out, had really wanted a nuclear war.

Following the tragic terrorist attacks of 9/11, however, StratCom began to undergo a drastic makeover in its role and mission. Between 2002 and 2005, seven more missions were added to its charge, for a total of eight. Besides its historic responsibility for nuclear deterrence, StratCom also assumed command for space, cyberspace, intelligence/surveillance/ reconnaissance, information operations, global strike, missile defense and combating weapons of mass destruction.

Tasked with waging the White House’s “War on Terror,” StratCom today stands ready to attack any place on earth in one hour—with either conventional or nuclear weapons—on the mere suspicion of a threat to America’s national security. Now offensive rather than defensive in purpose, Strategic Command has gone from ‘never supposed to being used’ to ‘being used for everything.’ The current StratCom Commander, General Kevin Chilton, has even stated that he believes the name should be changed from “Strategic Command” to “Global Command” to more accurately reflect its global nature and scope.

For advocates of the United Nations and international rule of law, this ‘New StratCom’ poses three specific concerns.

First, StratCom’s transformation is a direct outgrowth of the Bush/Cheney Administration’s “Doctrine of Preemption.” On its face, this policy is an open violation of the UN Charter forbidding offensive attacks on other nation states (except under the most extraordinary circumstances). The most notorious application of this doctrine is, of course, the invasion of Iraq, which former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan flatly labeled “illegal.”

StratCom, however, is now the White House’s weapon of choice to carry out these unilateral attacks. As a tool of the executive branch, it has become a scofflaw even in its own country, both by usurping Congress’ authority to declare war and by conducting constitutionally questionable spying operations on unsuspecting American citizens.

Second, under the terms of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, the world’s nuclear states are simultaneously obliged to disarm their nuclear stockpiles and prohibited from developing any new generations of weapons. Since 9/11, however, StratCom has actively lobbied for the research, development and production of the ‘bunker buster’ tactical mini-nuke for use in conventional military conflicts, and for the new “Reliable Replacement Warhead” to upgrade its strategic nuclear readiness.

Coupled with the new offensive authority granted to it in the 2002 “Nuclear Posture Review,” StratCom is now routinely flouting international law governing nuclear armaments at the very moment the U.S. government is hounding Iran over its civilian nuclear program.

Third and finally, the enhanced military menace that StratCom now constitutes with its offensive mission array has largely been made possible by its dominance of outer space—because whoever controls space controls the earth.

In October 2002, when the U.S. Space Command was formally placed under StratCom’s wing, nobody imagined that in less than six months the “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign on Iraq would be launched and executed from StratCom’s headquarters in suburban Omaha. Seventy percent of the weapons targeted on Iraq in that attack were directed from space by StratCom assets. “Shock and Awe” not only demonstrated how sweeping StratCom’s reach now is; it showed how vital space has become to the execution of all of the command’s various missions.

Under the 2006 revised “National Space Policy,” the United States now asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone “hostile to U.S. interests.” In addition to reserving the use of outer space to itself and its approved allies, the revised policy rejects future arms-control agreements for fear they will limit U.S. flexibility in space. As former Space Command General Joseph Ashy brazenly put it, “Absolutely, we’re going to fight from space and we’re going to fight into space.” That belligerent attitude accounts for why the U.S. is now the only country in the entire world to annually vote against the PAROS (Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space) resolution in the UN General Assembly. The 2008 vote, for instance, was 177 for, 1 against.

With its new offensive (and legally suspect) role and mission, U.S. Strategic Command today constitutes a more serious threat to international security than at any time in its history. It is, as the theme of a recent international conference in Omaha aptly expressed it, “the most dangerous place on the face of the earth.” The dramatic changes in StratCom’s reach and purpose have occurred so swiftly, however, that hardly anyone is even aware of what’s happened—let alone comprehends the political and military implications for the world.

As an organization committed to international cooperation, negotiation and peace, the United Nations Association is uniquely positioned to help spread the word about StratCom’s changed role. With its worldwide network, UNA can play a leading part in educating people around the globe about the menace StratCom poses to the goals of the United Nations. Living as we do in the shadow of StratCom, we—the members of the Nebraska Division of UNA-USA—feel a special responsibility to alert our sister chapters around the world of this threat.

We can’t do it alone, though. We need your help to make StratCom an educational priority for the entire UNA. Knowledge is power. But to muster the power needed to stop StratCom, the world must first understand the danger it poses.


* Related blogs*

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/03/text-fed-nebraska-division-una-usa.html
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Text Fed: Nebraska Division UNA-USA Resolution Get Response


http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/03/text-fwd-una-usa-cover-letter-wfuna.html
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Text Fwd: UNA-USA cover letter (WFUNA)


http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/03/una-usa-national-conference-resolution.html
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Text Fwd: UNA-USA NATIONAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTION


*For more info. on the StratCom, go to *

http://www.nebraskansforpeace.org/nepeace/stratcom/index.php