To: president@whitehouse.gov
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Who needs Al Qaeda when we've got American CEOs running the country?
Cc: "Governor Gray Davis" <graydavis@governor.ca.gov>

To Whom It May Concern,

Personally, I'm sure that today's "stunning announcement" of a guy arrested a month ago in Chicago was PRE-PROGRAMMED.

That's right, this scare-you-silly day could have happened any day the CIA wanted it to!

Likewise, just waiting for such an announcement, CNN and all the other major media had pre-programmed "responses" -- namely, all that disinformation we heard all day (and will read in the papers on Tuesday) about how "dirty bombs" (radioactive waste dispersed with conventional explosives) really just scare people, and aren't very deadly.

Yeah, right.

Actually, thousands or even tens of thousands will die if one of these bombs is released in a major city.  But VERY FEW will die right away (in the explosion, or from acute radiation poisoning).  Most of the deaths will be HIDDEN by the SANDS OF TIME.  Just as, the deaths that will occur among residents of lower Manhattan from the dust of the WTC collapse will be hidden among thousands of other deaths over the next 100 years.  No one will ever be able to add those deaths up for sure, but for all we know, they might exceed the number who died the day of the collapse.  How can that be?  Because millions were exposed to horrific amounts of asbestos and other cancer-causing particulates for months and months after 9-11.

If a DIRTY BOMB is exploded in America, most of the deaths will be years down the road, from things like leukemia, birth deformities, stillbirths, spontaneous abortions, cancer, and various other problems.

Today was the day the CIA wanted the American public to learn something about "Dirty Bombs".  Why?  Well, it had to happen eventually.  But why TODAY?

My guess is that it was something which might seem TRIVIAL to some people reading this, but I say it isn't:  Sunday night (June 9th, 2002) was given to the anti-nukers.  It was known weeks before that the anti-nukers were taking Sunday night -- for example, Atomic Twister had been advertised heavily on various media including television and radio.  The anti-nukers were allowed, or simply chose (it's still a free country, right?), for a few hours, to control significant portions of the media.  But come Monday morning, the corporate nuclear butchers simply took back the country's feeble communal brain, in a WELL PLANNED ATTACK on the American psyche.

Last night, competing on various CSPAN and Turner channels, we had:

* Dr. Strangelove (TCM)
* The China Syndrome (TCM)
* Atomic Twister (TBS) (Made in New Zealand, interestingly enough, and nicely done.)
* Atomic Twister (TBS) (This 2-hour made-for-TV special was shown twice.)
* Dr. Helen Caldicott on CSPAN2 (a great speech, delivered in April and previously shown)
* Martha Stephens on Book TV (author of The Treatment: The Story of Those Who Died in Cincinnati Radiation Tests)

Today, we have:

DIRTY BOMBS.

But don't worry, folks, you can just scrub (and scrub, and scrub) it off! 

SUMMARY:

Who needs Al Qaeda when we've got American CEOs running the country?

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA

Please pass this on!  News gets old fast during a war.  Don't bother buying war bonds this time, folks -- the corporations have plenty of money to pay for this war.  If you want to help America -- buy Geiger counters instead, and learn how to use them!

The item below was sent to me today by the author, who requests that it be passed around as much as possible.  If it doesn't scare you, check your pulse.

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

At 08:28 PM 6/10/02 , Pervez Hoodbhoy <hoodbhoy@lns.mit.edu> wrote:
Los Angeles Times, 9 June 2002.

WHAT, US WORRY?
Pervez Hoodbhoy

ISLAMABAD-World leaders worked overtime last week to prevent tensions
between Pakistan and India from exploding into war. But in India and
Pakistan, where a million troops from the two countries glowered at each
other across the border, sabres continued to rattle. In a public debate in
Islamabad, the former chief of the Pakistan Army General Mirza Aslam Beg
declared "We can make a first strike, and a second strike or even a
third." The dreadful vision of nuclear war left him unmoved. "You can die
crossing the street," he observed, "or you could die in a nuclear war.
You've got to die someday anyway."

Across the border, India's Defence Minister George Fernandes, in an
interview with The Hindustan Times, voiced similar sentiments: "We could
take a strike, survive, and then hit back. Pakistan would be finished."
Indian Defense Secretary Yogendra Narain took things a step further in an
interview with Outlook Magazine: "A surgical strike is the answer," he
said. But if that failed to resolve things, he said, "We must be prepared
for total mutual destruction".

Some find this talk of nuclear war terrifying. But while foreign nationals
stream out of both countries and numerous world leaders call for peace and
restraint, few Indians or Pakistanis are losing much sleep. Thousands of
artillery shells exchanged since the beginning of this year may have
changed--or destroyed--the lives of border residents, but elsewhere in
both countries the effects are barely perceptible. Stock markets have
flickered, but there is no run on the banks or panic buying of
necessities. Schools and colleges, which generally close at the first hint
of a real crisis, are functioning normally.

Why this nonchalance? A fatalistic Hindu belief that the stars above
determine our destiny, or the equivalent Muslim belief in "jabr"
(predestination), certainly accounts for part of it. Traditional societies
are characterized by disempowerment and surrender to larger forces.
Conversations and discussions often end on the note "what will be, will
be", after which people shrug their shoulders and move on to something
else. But other reasons may be more important.

Close government control over national television, especially in Pakistan,
has ensured that critical discussion of nuclear weapons and nuclear war
are not aired. Instead, in Pakistan's public squares and at crossroads
stand missiles and fibre-glass replicas of the nuclear test site. For the
masses, they are symbols of national glory and achievement not death and
destruction.


Nuclear ignorance is almost total, extending even to the educated. Some
students at the university in Islamabad where I teach said, when asked,
that a nuclear war would be the end of the world. Others thought of nukes
as just bigger bombs. Many said it was not their concern, but the army's.
Almost none knew about the possibility of a nuclear firestorm, about
residual radioactivity, or damage to the gene pool.

Because nuclear war is considered a distant abstraction, civil defense in
both countries is non-existent. India's Admiral Ramu Ramdas, now retired
and a leading peace activist, caustically remarked recently, "There are no
air raid shelters in this city of Delhi, because in this country people
are considered expendable." Islamabad's civil defense budget is a
laughable $40,000 and the current year's allocation has yet to be
disbursed. No serious contingency plans have been devised, plans that
might save millions of lives by providing timely information about escape
routes, sources of non-radioactive food and drinking water, iodine
tablets, etc.

Ignorance and its attendant lack of fear make it easier for leaders to
treat their people as pawns in a mad nuclear game. How else to explain
Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's recent exhortations to his
troops in Kashmir to prepare for "decisive victory?" His nuclear
brinkmanship has been made possible by influential Indian experts seeking
to trivialize Pakistan's nuclear capability. Such analysts have gained
wide currency - they offer instant security to all who choose to believe
them.

The reasoning of the "trivialization school" goes as follows: Pakistan is
a client state of the U.S. and Pakistani nuclear weapons are under the
control of the U.S.. Hence, in an extreme crisis, the U.S. would either
prohibit their use by Pakistan or, if need be, destroy them. At a recent
meeting this January in Dubai, I heard senior Indian analysts say that
they are "bored" with Pakistan's nuclear threats and no longer believe
them. K. Subrahmanyam, an influential Indian hawk who has advocated overt
Indian nuclearization for over a decade, believes that India can "sleep in
peace".

Indian denial of Pakistani capabilities is not a wholly new phenomenon.
Two months before the May 1998 nuclear tests by India and Pakistan, as
part of a delegation from Pugwash, an international organization of
scientists concerned about nuclear war, I met with Prime Minister Inder
Kumar Gujral in Delhi. In response to my expressed worries about a nuclear
catastrophe on the subcontinent, he repeatedly assured me - both in public
and privately - that Pakistan did not have the capability of making atomic
bombs. He was not alone. Senior Indian defense analysts like P.R.Chari had
also published articles before May 1998 arguing this point, as had the
former head of the Indian Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Raja Ramana.

Pakistan proved the doubters wrong. Forced out of the closet by the Indian
tests, Pakistan's nuclear weapons gave the country a false sense of
confidence and security. This encouraged it to launch its secret war in
the Kargil area of Kashmir. In fact, this war will be recorded by
historians as the first that was actually initiated by nuclear weapons.
Although India wanted to respond, the existence of Pakistan's deterrence
sharply limited its options.

Then came September 11.

In a global climate deeply hostile to Islamic militancy, new possibilities
opened up to India. Seeking to settle scores with Pakistan, India now
began to seriously consider cross-border strikes on militant camps on the
Pakistani side of the Line of Control in Kashmir. To sell this to the
Indian public, denying the potency of Pakistan's nuclear weapons became
essential.

But to fearlessly challenge a nuclear Pakistan requires a denial of
reality. It is an enormous leap of faith to presume that the U.S. has
either the will - or even the power - to destroy Pakistani nukes. Tracking
and destroying even a handful of mobile nuclear-armed missiles is no easy
feat. During the Cuban missile crisis, even though it had aerial photos of
the missile locations and its planes were only minutes flying time away,
the U.S. Air Force reportedly could not ensure more than 90% effectiveness
in a surprise attack against the Soviet missiles on the island. More
recently, in Iraq, U.S. efforts to destroy Iraqi Scuds had limited
success. There is no precedent in the world where a country has tried to
destroy another's nuclear bombs. This would be fantastically dangerous
because one needs 100% success - a remaining nuke could unleash
catastrophe.

Fight or flight? Biological evolution has programmed us for two elemental
responses to external threats. Without fear there is no flight, just
fight. The brave are doomed. Ignorant and fearless, India and Pakistan
could well add a new chapter to well-worn textbooks on the theory of
nuclear deterrence. -----------

Pervez Hoodbhoy is professor of high-energy physics at Quaid-e-Azam
University in Islamabad.

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

Additional related items available here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/besse/davisb15.htm

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