From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #96 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Wednesday, January 17 2001 Volume 09 : Number 096 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: 13 Days Re: 13 Days RE: skunk-works-digest V9 #94 Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #94 Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #95 Monkeyshine Space battles on the Horizon *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 101 06:36:07 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: 13 Days Jim, One thing I've heard about the movie is that the "bad guys" are not so much Kruschev or Castro as much as they are our own Joint Chiefs of Staff and the US military. Valid, or was my source just being too paranoid (I haven't seen it yet). Also, what were the F-5s doing? Outside of the Skoshi Tiger - -5As an Bs in Vietnam and the later -5Es used as aggressors and training foreign forces, I don't believe the US ever operated F-5s, did we?. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:51:00 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: 13 Days Any Northrop F-5s in this movie would be completely inaccurate! The first N-156F (FY-Serial '59-4987'), flew for the first time on July 30, 1959, while the first production F-5A (59-4989), which was originally planned as the third N-156F prototype, made its maiden flight on July 31, 1963. The first F-5B (63-8438) flew for the first time on February 24, 1964, and the first F-5E (then still known as F-5A-21) flew for the first time on March 28, 1969, followed by the first F-5F, which took to the air for the very first time on September 25, 1974. So in October 1962, only the first two N-156F prototypes existed! Also, any USAF F-4s would be very questionable, even though Navy F-4Bs (from VF-41 (based at NAS Key West, FL), VF-102 (?) (embarked on USS Enterprise, CVAN-65), and VF-xxx (?) (embarked on USS Independence, CVA-62) were used operational during the CMC, but only for blockade-related operations, not for reconnaissance over Cuba. Other US carriers involved were the USS Essex (CVS-9) and USS Randolph (CVS-15), neither had F-4s, though. No USN F-4As (which were never operational and mostly used for testing and training) nor USN RF-4Bs (which didn't exist then), nor USAF F-4Bs (that were on loan from the USN for testing), nor USAF F-4Cs or RF-4Cs (which also didn't exist yet at that time) were operational. The fact that two noted and well respected aviation historians and book authors, Jay Miller and Chris Pocock (which are both on this list), were consultants for this movie (probably besides many others), makes it very likely that the aviation-related scenes are much more accurate than one can usually expect from the average Hollywood movie. I guess it's time for me to go to the cinema and see for myself (I normally wait for the video). - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: GPahl@wazoo.com 1517 Michigan Avenue or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net Alamogordo, NM 88310 Web Site: http://www.wazoo.com/~gpahl/ Tel: (505) 434-6276 or: http://www.Aerospace-History.net - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:08:51 -0500 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V9 #94 Ah ... where to begin? "Another good case for eliminating nuclear weapons, not for a missle defense system." --- Would that it were possible to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. But it is not. "What has politics got to do with survival and retaliation[?] .... In fact our whole nuclear defense strategy was based on retaliation before weapons strike." - --- Respectfully, American doctrine is that we do not 'launch on warning;' rather, we require that the President (a political figure) decide whether - or not - it is in our national interest to use nuclear weapons. "Assume, assume, assume you can assume yourself into analysis paralysis and you can assume yourself into war." - -- It seems to me that the time to analyze and to prepare is before action is required so that it will be possible to respond both wisely and quickly in crisis. I doubt that you really intend to argue in favor of unconsidered reaction to a crisis. "The fact that the attack was launched from a ship, and especially an NCB device in the ship, only further illustrates the uselessness of a Missle Defense System." - --- Granted that no weapon is the entire solution to all possible threats. Your argument seems to be analogous to saying that children should not be inoculated against childhood diseases because the vaccines do not prevent, say, TB. I would argue that half a loaf is better than none. RE: The reaction of neighboring nations to an American nuclear strike. I did not intend to imply that they would launch a nuclear strike in response. Rather, I was suggesting that our long term interests in the region (and, indeed, worldwide) might be very severely damaged. If by blocking a attack we can gain time and enlarge options, it is a very good thing. I would prefer that our President be given more options than passivity or spasm retaliation. RE: Israel. I seem to recall that Israel took out the American spy ship 'Liberty' when they decided that it threatened them during the Six Day War. Even a 'lap dog' will bite if it is kicked. And history records many 'client states" that have turned on their erstwhile masters notwithstanding their economic interests. Cuba comes to mind. But so does almost every colony -- including the American colonies - that has turned its back on economic advantage in favor of political independence. RE: Israel (redux) -- I seem to have missed the hook on which you are hanging your suggestion that I am defending my 'beloved' Israel. I intended to focus entirely on the interests of the United States. During the Gulf War, it was in the interest of the United States to preserve the coalition against Sadaam and to demonstrate that we would act to prevent damage to our allies. As both Israel and Saudi Arabia were our allies, we sought to protect them from missile attack. Since this protection made it unnecessary for Israel to act unilaterally, it also served to preserve the anti-Sadaam coalition. "If we didn't run around the world, backing thugs, murderers, liars, manipulators, people who dispossess other people (and quote the Bible as an authority), if we acted the way our social mythos would have us believe, according to the principles that we espouse but don't practice. We wouldn't have any "enemies" and we wouldn't need any options." - --- Alas, it's a tough world out there. Lots of grays; very little pure black or pure white. America has interests in the world; some entirely beneficent, some less so. But I doubt that you really would have us abandon all our interests to ensure that we must never deal with nations and individual of less-than-biblical purity. Your argument reminds me of a famous remark that John Foster Dulles made after reading the briefing papers about the Middle East after becoming Secretary of State. "I don't see why the Arabs and the Jews can't just get together and settle this like good Christian gentlemen." There is, alas, a profound shortage of the pure, the just and the good in the world. As long as we have anything worth taking, there will be those who will want to take it from us. "I'll tell you how. The same way that anyone manages to protect themselves, by making themselves so big, tough, strong and bad that only an idiot would dare attack them." - --- I regret that I must report that there are idiots out there. Unfortunately, history records enough victories by the weak over the strong that apparently irrational acts can be rationalized by those wishing to do so. I do, however, agree that we should not encourage them by making ourselves weak. "... [T]he subtext behind your defense of and rationalization for a Missle Defense System. To subsidize the defense of Israel at the expense of the American herd of cattle." - --- I am a bit of a loss to understand your confusion of a defense of the American homeland against North Korea and, perhaps, Iran or Iraq with the defense of Israel. I do gather that you have a rather profound animus against Israel and her supporters (dare I suggest coreligionists?). If I am wrong in that last remark, I will happily apologize. Indeed, I very much hope that I am wrong in this. "WE, the people of the United States, do not need to preserve any options. All we have to do is to start doing the right thing and treat the people within our borders, as well as our neighbors and foreigners in accordance with our "lofty" and often stated public principles. When you are the top predator, the biggest shark in the ocean, you are the creature other creatures fear and the only reason any other critter wants to eliminate you is because you are threatening to eliminate them. Suggestion for balancing the budget, giving tax payers a break, and eliminating the enemies we have created in the world. Cut Eratz Y'srael loose and let it sink on it's own, as it will most assuredly do, without the subsidy and support of the vapid American. Lots of luck though. Considering the vast power, influence, (media, political and money) exerted within the U.S., by those whom have dual citizenship and/or loyalties first to Y'srael." - --- Q.E.D. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:23:13 +0800 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #94 There is an obvious disconnect. When you wrote "Another argumentum ad ridiculum from another proponent of wasteful taxpayer spending," you have me confused with someone else. I am NOT in favor of spending the money. Jim Stevenson > Before I reply to Stevenson and Marcus, may I suggest that the forum > members dust off 1984, an anagram for 1948, a description of the world as > George Orwell (who earned his stripes fighting for the Communists and then > subsequently disillusioned) saw it - then. Double speak is more prominent > now than then, Dept of War is Department of Defense, Peace is our > Profession was the motto of the Air Arm of Nuclear Obliteration. > Today the enemy is Oceania, last decade it was Eurasia, next week it is > Oceania again. > >> From: "James P. Stevenson" >> Subject: Re: Missile Defense? >> >> But what if the missile was launched by a stateless person? Would it be fair >> to destroy a country, unaware of the missile firing prior to liftoff, for >> the act of a terrorist acting outside the values of the country? >> >> Jim Stevenson > > Another argumentum ad ridiculum from another proponent of wasteful taxpayer > spending. > > Imagine a stateless person with the resources to launch a missle, much less > the ability to procure and assemble the warhead of a mass destruction > vehicle. The costs, the number of people involved, the logistics and > transportation are mind boggling and totally outside of the realm of > capability of a "stateless person", even an Osama bin ladin (who, > incidentally is a convenient boogey man, and one of our own creation at that). > > One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter, and oppressive > policies, political, economic and social are responsible for the creation > of terrorism and terrorist. > > Menachim Begin bragged about being the "father of terrorists", the Sioux > and Apache were terrorists to the white settlers who were dispossessing and > slaughtering them (with the help of the U.S. Army of course). > The same is true today in the mid east, where Israeli's have dispossessed > the native population and as a consequence created a new class of > "terrorists". > > Meanwhile back to your argument ad absurdum, what it is, need I say more. > > >> From: "Frank Markus" >> Subject: RE: Missle Defense? >> >> Yes, the USA could obliterate any country that attacked it. But, alas, >> that would not be the end of it. A nuclear explosion in the atmosphere >> would have effects that would extend regionally and, indeed, globally. > > Another good case for eliminating nuclear weapons, not for a missle defense > system. > A missle defense system will destroy the vehicle (if it hit's it) not > necessarily the war head. > The war head then (as the SCUD did) continues on to detonation, albeit off > target and thus > polluting the atmosphere. > > >> >> What would be the reaction of, say, Japan or China or even Russia to a >> nuclear retaliation against North Korea? > > Probably nothing, why even project that they would get involved, > especially when they too know that our second strike capability will > obliterate them as well. > > Assume that North Korea launched a >> single nuclear missile at the US, would we massively retaliate instantly as >> we might against Russia? Or is it as likely that there would be a pause >> before the American response? And would it be politically possible to >> retaliate with nuclear weapons after it became clear that there would be no >> further missile attacks from North Korea because they had exhausted their >> arsenal? > > What has politics got to do with survival and retaliation. And yes, North > Korea would not be able to get away with a solitary launch. In fact our > whole nuclear defense strategy was based on retaliation before weapons > strike. That's what MAD and our Defense against nuclear weapons attack was > predicated on, the ability to launch a strike as rapidly as possible and as > soon as it was confirmed that an attack had been launched against us (the > purpose of the DEW line and it's improved version BMEWS, as well as the > policy and training of the Strategic Air Command. I doubt if the Air > Force's reorganization has changed the policies and procedures, just > reallocated responsiblity, heirarchy and communications channels (Command > and Control). > > > >> >> Assume that Iraq or Iran had exploded a nuclear "device" from a ship off >> New York. Assume further that there were no doubt concerning the author of >> that explosion. > > Assume, assume, assume you can assume yourself into analysis paralysis and > you can assume yourself into war. > > > > Then ask yourself, how would Saudi Arabia - or even >> Israel - view the possibility of an American nuclear retaliation against >> either of those states? > > The fact that the attack was launched from a ship, and especially an NCB > device in the ship, only further > illustrates the uselessness of a Missle Defense System. What defense is > there against a ship in a harbor. > What defense was their against the Truck Bomb of Timothy McVeigh, other > than restricting access to the Murrah Building or its vicinity. What > defense was there to the Bombing of the World Trade Center. > > Your arguments are non sequiturs and a stretch. > > Israel would applaud a nuclear attack against Iraq or Iran. Saudi Arabia > would do what it always does, sit on it's hand as a trained and dependent > dog (a client state) must and will do, if it's ruling class and family wish > to continue to enjoy the lifestyle and toys that their oil delivers to them. > > > While both would likely agree that the malefactor >> "deserves it", I doubt that either would want to be down wind of a nuclear >> strike. > > Irrelevant what they would want, but you are sure stretching it in your > attempt to make a case. > > > >> >> And what if the strike were not nuclear but biological or chemical? What >> if, instead of making a nuclear bomb, a nation simply used its plutonium as >> a poisonous dust? Would the USA be able to respond by using nuclear >> weapons? > > What if, what if, what if. What if is being dishonest about the future, it > is a game that the fearful and indecisive, the feckless and vapid play, and > it is a game the conman who has an agenda plays on the victim of the scam. > > > >> >> I could go on but the point is that it is very much in the interest of the >> United States - or any country - to be able to prevent a situation in which >> its response must be nuclear. And, of course, to avoid the damage that even >> a small missile attack would cause to it. > > Sorry to contradict you, but the scenario's you paint do not justify a > missle defense system, especially if the attack is coming from a ship > anchored in a U.S. port. As regards a "rogue" nation launching a missle > attack, my original declaimer and exception still stands, the act would be > tantamount to suicide. As regards a "lone" individual launching a missle, > preposterous to say the least, see my previous retort. As regards what > Israel may or may not think. I think that the subtext of this whole > discussion is the needs of Israel, and that the only reason for squandering > taxpayer money on missle defense is to protect your beloved Israel, Mr Markus. > > >> >> The most important reason that I believe that we should build a limited >> missile defense it to provide ourselves with options an with time > > If we didn't run around the world, backing thugs, murderers, liars, > manipulators, people who dispossess other people (and quote the Bible as an > authority), if we acted the way our social mythos would have us believe, > according to the principles that we espouse but don't practise. We wouldn't > have any "enemies" and we wouldn' t need any options. > > Meanwhile, by your own scenario of ships blowing up in harbors, and the > ability to detonate suitcase bombs, the idea of a missle defense system is > not only ludicrous but a waste of money. And just how did we manage to > escape a nuclear holocaust from 1955 to 1985, without a missle defense system. > > I'll tell you how. The same way that anyone manages to protect themselves, > by making themselves so big, tough, strong and bad that only an idiot would > dare attack them. > > > . In the >> Gulf War, the presence of Patriot missiles (whether they actually worked or >> not) enabled the Israelis to ride out Iraq's (small) missile attack with >> enormously favorable consequences for the coalition of forces against >> Sadaam. > > The truth is that the Israeli Leadership and the U.S. feared that if Israel > entered the war, the Arab allies of the U.S. would have to vacate their > support of the coalition and the coalition would fall apart. The Patriot > missles (then in test stage) were merely a PR sop. > > If Israel had found itself with not option but to do nothing or to >> retaliate, I have not doubt that they would have done the latter. The >> effects of that - justified - retaliation would have blown the American-led >> coalition apart as surely as it would have done, Baghdad. The presence of >> the Patriots (and their apparent success) made it possible for Israel to >> avoid having to decide between passivity and retaliation. > > Well you more or less admitted to what I said, (and your own latent > "sensitivies" and loyalties as well, and perhaps revealed the subtext > behind your defense of and rationalization for a Missle Defense System. > To subsidize the defense of Israel at the expense of the American herd of > cattle. > >> The real reason that we should embark on the creation of a missile defense >> system is that it would preserve our options - and, indeed, enlarge them. > > > WE, the people of the United States, do not need to preserve any options. > All we have to do is to start doing the right thing and treat the people > within our borders, as well as our neighbors and foreigners in accordance > with our "lofty" and often stated public principles. > > When you are the top predator, the biggest shark in the ocean, you are the > creature other creatures fear and the only reason any other critter wants > to eliminate you is because you are threatening to eliminate them. > > Suggestion for balancing the budget, giving tax payers a break, and > eliminating the enemies we have created in the world. Cut Eratz Y'srael > loose and let it sink on it's own, as it will most assuredly do, without > the subsidy and support of the vapid American. Lots of luck though. > Considering the vast power, influence, (media, political and money) exerted > within the U.S., by those whom have dual citizenship and/or loyalties first > to Y'srael. > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:48:18 -0800 From: Lee Markland Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #95 All of the Missle Defense, SDI, arguments are non sequiturs. First thing that needs to be proved is that there is indeed a viable missle threat to the U.S. (not Israel), but the U.S. Then one needs to be able to prove that this viable missle threat can be effectively neutralized by spending trillions of our dollars (and bankrupting the country and our and our children's posterity). The only "enemies" that the U.S. has, are the ones we create through our policies and actions, such as the dispossession and massacre of Palestinians, or taking sides with one faction against another. No. Korea a threat. Har. I doubt it. Osama bin Laden a threat (far fetched impossible), China a threat, I seriously doubt it, especially since we are not a threat to China and in fact and indeed are courting them, offering them trade credits and trade privileges. Russia a threat. I seriously doubt it, even their aircraft are rusting on the tarmack. The only threat we have is from "terrorists" who don't need a missle to launch an attack (as witness the what if's and scenarious posited by Marcus and Stevenson). And the only terrorists that threaten us, are the ones whom we (meaning the Government of the U.S. and it's media) create via our policies and actions. The money spent on missle defense will only go into the pockets of the employees and shareholders of the military industrial complex, and would be better spent by improving health care, social security, education and even a tax rebate for the working middle class American. The only real beneficiaries of a missle defense system, quite obviously, will be the State of Israel,a quite obviously racist, duplicit and aggressive state who has created the very problem, which it now wants the U.S. to defend against. The problem: the tears, frustration and anger of a peoples who have been dispossessed, murdered, marginalized and reduced to common labor at reduced wages for their lords and masters the Citizens of Israel. Considering that this forum is entitle "skunk-works" and a number of the members have a vested industry in the development of weapons systems, I am not making any friends or points. But what the heck, over. I never did, nor never cared either. If the top predator nation spent as much time, money and energy helping other countries to become independent, truly self sovereign and more importantly using its power with International Financial Institutions (to quote Bill Clinton) to enable these countries to import oil and goods, without having to borrow Dollars and Special Drawing Rights, by recognizing their currency as legitimate in the world market, then we wouldn't have any enemies and nothing to "defend" against, but so long as we take sides in disputes, and engage or support aggressive actions by other nations, then we will always have enemies, and so long as we support the Dollar Denominated International Trade scam (Bretton Woods) then there will always be marginal, impoverished and resentful nations who have to sell crap like cocaine and heroin, or export goods made by virtual slave labor, that they can repay the debts to International Financial Institutions, debts incurred for one reason only, to import oil and goods, because the International Financial Institutions don't recognize the currency of the country as legitimate on the world market. And by the way, it is the embargo and only the embargo, that has kept Fidel Castro in power for over 40 years. Castro and the ruling elite suffer for nothing, they merely do their shopping in the Free Port of Colon, in the unofficial terrority of the U.S. called the Republic of Panama, and get everything they need and their heart desires, including food and medicine and fancy toys. Lee Markland ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:37:06 -0500 From: "Morris, Andrew" Subject: Monkeyshine A while back I think on this listserv someone asked about the famous/infamous encounter of America's first jet fighter the Bell P-59 with Army Air Corp flyers who were unaware of propellerless flight. An article by Ronald D. Neal in the Journal of AAHS-v.II entitled The Bell XP-59A Airacomet The United State's First Jet Aircraft he writes: ...."When a group of people must work long hours and under adverse conditions, it is not unusual for them to adopt a trademark, and such was true for the Bell crew. As their trademark, they took to wearing black derby hats."........"On still another flying encounter, Jack Woolams (also flew Bell's XS-1 until his death at the 1946 Thompson Trophy race, flying the Cobra I) used his derby hat as part of a practical joke. AAC planes were always flying somewhere in the area, and so he had decided to have a little fun at their expense.. The equipment he needed besides his hat was a Halloween mask and a P-59. One day a flight of Army fighters were peacefully flying along when suddenly they were joined by another airplane. Imagine their surprise when they saw this airplane had no propellers, but the real shock came when they saw that the pilot of this strange new airplane was a cigar-smoking, black derby wearing ----gorilla!" There you go, another citation of the legend. Cheers, Andy Morris Living in Larry Bell country ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:04:09 -0800 From: Lee Markland Subject: Space battles on the Horizon The Final Frontier http://www.globeandmail.com/gam/Commentary/20010115/COSPACE.html =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D + =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DToronto - globeandmail.com The Final Frontier: Star Wars There's more than meets the eye to the controversial U.S. scheme, says scientist, John Valleau, much much more. by John Valleau Monday, January 15, 2001 Incoming U.S. president George W. Bush and his nominee as secretary of state, Colin Powell, are strong supporters of the National Missile Defence project -- basically a scaled-down version of the "Star Wars" scheme that was proposed, and discredited, in the Reagan years. The purpose of the project is claimed to be the ability to intercept, in space, a small number of missiles launched against the United States. But the controversial plan may be more sinister than we could imagine, and Canada must make every effort to stop it. The missile defence proposal poses a giant conundrum, because the costs, financial and strategic, appear much greater than any benefits to the United States. If, as its proponents say, the system would be capable only of intercepting a few attacking missiles, the scheme offers no defence from an assault by any serious antagonist. The costs, on the other hand, are massive, not only in consuming billions of dollars by itself, but in fuelling a new arms race. Russia and China both interpret the U.S. plan as part of the development of a nuclear "first-strike" capability. They, therefore, make it clear that, if it goes ahead, they will feel obliged to modernize their arsenals. This would mean an end to nuclear disarmament. So why would the United States contemplate accepting these risks for such meagre and dubious benefits? What can be driving the the missile defence project? The answer may lie in a little-known plan for the United State to dominate and colonize outer space. This sounds absurd and paranoid, but it is all laid out in the mission statements of the United States Space Command. The basic document, Vision for 2020, is already five years old.=20 This, and the later Long Range Plan fleshing out the "vision," are publicly available on the Web, at http://www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace.=20 Copies can be found also on the Project Ploughshares Web site, http://www.ploughshares.ca. The Space Command describes its role as "dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investment [and] integrating Space Forces into war-fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict." This is a clear plan to militarize space with U.S. weapons, and to seek the ability to "deny others the use of space." The report is adorned with pictures of targets on Earth being zapped by such weapons. All this, while the United States is a signatory of the Outer Space Treaty, which aims at preventing the weaponization of outer space. The connection to colonialism is also pretty explicit: "As sea commerce advanced in the 18th and 19th centuries, nations built navies to project power and protect and enhance their commercial interests. Similarly, during the westward expansion of the continental United States, military outposts and the cavalry emerged to protect our wagon trains, settlements and railroads. . . . The emergence of space power follows . . . these models." It is, at first, hard to believe that this horrifying plan is really U.S. policy, but there has been no repudiation of the published intentions by the U.S. administration, and the Space Command continues to be handsomely financed. How does this explain the missile defence proposal? First of all, the Space Command is the responsible agency directing the defence project, and the "vision" makes it clear that it foresees that "NMD will evolve into a mix of ground and space sensors and weapons." So the limited missile defence that has been discussed publicly is not at all what is actually in mind. Then, to put the Space Command plans in place, the United States will have to abrogate, or ignore, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and probably the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well, while violating at least the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty and the Environmental Modification Techniques protocol. The nations of the world would never accept the colonial status implied by this U.S. plan, but -- and this is where the missile defence scheme comes in -- they might be persuaded to accept the dismemberment of these treaties, if they only see the missile defences as a relatively benign, small-scale defence system, as it is portrayed. What is Canada's responsibility in the face of this? The United States has not yet made a firm decision to proceed with deployment of its missile defences. Statements by Mr. Bush imply his approval, but there remains some considerable internal resistance, and the United States remains somewhat sensitive to the international reactions. Russia and China have given sharp warning of their response to any deployed missile defences -- rearmament. The nations of Europe have also expressed their opposition in forthright terms. But Canada has yet to speak. Lloyd Axworthy, when minister of Foreign Affairs, did make a statement giving strong reasons for opposing it, and Prime Minister Jean Chr=E9tien, in his recent joint statement with Russian President Vladimir Putin, appears to concur that the U.S.-Russian Anti-Ballistic-Missile treaty must be paramount. But Canada must speak out clearly. The United States is desperately seeking to legitimize the scheme by gaining its acceptance by a respected nation, and is hoping we might play that role.=20 Furthermore, Canada cannot remain neutral, because, if it is silent, it risks being involved, willy-nilly, through its membership in NORAD. So it is urgent that the Canadian government speak out now, opposing the missile defence project. We have nothing to gain from the plan and a lot to lose: the hope of abolishing nuclear weapons, the hope of an outer space without weapons, the respect of the international community. Our rejection would give strong support to missile defence critics in the U.S., and it could well help to turn the tide.=20 - -- John Valleau is a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, in the chemical-physics theory group of the Chemistry Department. He is also a member of the board and of the executive of Science for Peace. =20 Copyright =A9 2001 Globe Interactive, a division of Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #96 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/ If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner