Subject: J. R. Nyquist remains elite, elusive, and evasive: STOP CASSINI #134
Date: June 8th, 1999
Time Frame: There are 16 days left to demand that NASA smash Cassini into Venus. There are 207 days before Y2K.
Confidentiality: Please redistribute these everywhere! Translations encouraged! Help let the truth ring out around the world and in every language!
While it is always nice to get answers to my outgoing letters, I am troubled that Mr. Nyquist would be telling me how to win more credit for my cause. After all, why in the world would he be giving me advice? Out of the goodness of his heart, because he likes me personally? Or is it because it is so much easier to criticize the messenger than the message?
At 11:31 AM 6/8/99 +0000, Jeff Nyquist (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
A little more respect and civility would win more credit for your cause. It would be better if you dealt with the scientific evidence on the effects of nuclear weapons, and the studies that have been done. I have read many of these, and I do not agree with your analysis. All the same, I am not an advocate of nuclear war. I only advocate the defense of our land. I wish you were capable of having a rational, calm, civilized discussion, from which I could learn something other than the length of my tail or the sharpness of my horns. Your responses have a personal and nasty edge. In this matter you only hurt your own dignity. More reason and less heat is usually best.
It was such a pleasure to receive another letter from you -- and so quickly! And you called me "Mr." this time instead of just "Hoffman"! Who knows -- next we might actually have a "civilized discussion".
For a complete and detailed discussion of the effects of nuclear weapons, please see newsletter #123, where an article specifically on that subject first appeared (it has since been widely re-distributed). Here is the URL of the article, called (what else?) The Effects of Nuclear Weapons:
If you wish to comment specifically on the points raised there or anywhere else, I would be happy to answer any SPECIFIC comments. I await your best efforts.
However, you have broadly insulted my honor, my own research efforts, and the facts. You accuse me of being uncivil while you advocate -- yes, advocate -- wholesale genocide. Both human and animal slaughter, just because there are some dictatorial rulers on the planet who might attack us. You minimize the description of the effects of nuclear weapons simply in order not to alarm the public, then you claim that you have scientific reports on your side! If you do, then reference the "scientific" answers to my latest 10 charges!
I asked you to retract 10 misstatements, starting with naming, if you can, the 22 operational nuclear power plants you said are under potential NATO bombardment, and continuing with naming who says Russia has spent "trillions" on civilian underground nuclear defense shelters, and then continuing with why you think nuclear power plants would be low on the target list when you yourself said that the power grid would be high on the list.
You say you don't believe I'm right about some things. Be far, far more specific. And name those EMP weapons you say were used in Yugoslavia. Compare their yield to that of a 20 megaton upper atmosphere burst over the United States. You say you are knowledgeable -- show it. Debate the facts, not your emotional hang-up over who called who what name. Give me your facts to support your side for the 10 statements I asked you to retract. (Or at least the eight that don't concern YOUR name-calling and the length of MY tail.)
Come on, Mr. Nyquist -- I'm sure most people aren't fooled by your repeated turning away of a true debate. I'm sure most people aren't reading these words and wondering why I'm not nicer to you -- they are wondering why you can't back up your opinions with the facts you say you have! I'm sure most people are wondering why you think I don't have a right to be utterly disgusted with you as a reporter and as a human being, and most of all, as a fellow American citizen.
You abuse your right to address the people, because you do not address them honestly, Mr. Nyquist. I am attempting to exercise my rights, starting with the right to correct your misstatements and answer your abusive insults. If I insult you along the way, it is only because you have insulted the intelligence of the American public, myself, and my readers. I go no further than that; this isn't personal and you should stop trying to make it so. Instead, I ask again that you respond to the specific points about exactly how the abatement of nuclear war occurs once it starts, and about the danger of 20,000 nuclear warheads stockpiled on each side for a rainy day, or Y2K, or the day you, J. R. Nyquist, think someone has launched something at you.
Mr. Nyquist, if you are really ready to discuss things rationally, then it's time you start answering questions instead of simply restating your dangerous and misguided opinions. Of course, the question arises, how DOES one have a civilized discussion with one who would perpetrate such an uncivilized act as you are willing to commit? I refer specifically here to your desire for a policy of "Launch on Warning", which I ABSOLUTELY consider an uncivilized attitude, for reasons I have given previously but which should be obvious to all who can step away from their own desires for immediate revenge regardless of cost or loss, and consider the problems of computer errors, erroneous messages (purposefully or otherwise), training exercises-gone awry, madmen in the control rooms, lack of real moral authority to commit genocide, and 1000 other glitches, each of which could escalate into global thermonuclear war. Instead of the far lesser loss of only the initially targeted city or cities. You don't give reason a chance, Mr. Nyquist. You are a MADman. You should not be allowed anywhere near a button.
So you've read lots of reports -- so have I and I have named them in numerous essays I have written on the subjects we are discussing.
My cause is truth, and it is a hope for all humanity, that it will not commit these sins against itself -- that it will learn better and know better. If you disagree with specific statements, then document your disagreements instead of just saying you can do so because you believe you are more learned than you believe me to be. I don't claim to be perfect, but I claim to be substantially more accurate in my descriptions of these matters than you are. In fact, your version of what might happen appears to be based on nothing more than the hearsay of Russian generals and some -- as yet unnamed -- "scientific" studies. Studies of what, pray tell? Of how many nukes will go off in an exchange? Of which cities we shall lose? What study could possibly know that anyway?
I fear to think what it is that you call "science reports" -- I hope it's not another one of those dreamy RAND defense-industry-funded studies again!
Regarding your closing comment, "More reason and less heat is usually best", here are some quotes about the heat we are talking about. They are from the book The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Samuel Glasstone, Editor, Revised Edition, United Stated Department of Defense, United States Atomic Energy Commission, April 1962 (Air Force Pamphlet #136-1-3) (foreword by the Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Glenn T. Seaborg):
From section 2.99:
"Immediately after the explosion time, the temperature of the weapon material is several tens of million degrees and the pressures are estimated to be many million atmospheres..."
That stage lasts a hundredth of a microsecond or so. Shortly thereafter:
From section 2.101:
"...After a few microseconds nearly all of the debris is contained in a moderately thin shell of high density called the "hydrodynamic front". Its initial temperature is about a million degrees and it is traveling at speeds of several hundred miles per second..."
Next, the "shock front" (from the rapid expansion) advances faster than the "radiation front" (which is initially ahead of it) and passes the radiation front.
From section 2.106:
"... The shock front continues to advance more rapidly than the radiation front and moves ahead of it at the time when the temperature of the isothermal sphere [the actual mass of the weapon] has fallen to about 300,000 degrees C (540,000 degrees F). This phenomenon is called 'hydrodynamic separation.' For a 20-kiloton explosion this occurs at about .1 millisecond (10^-4 second) after the burst time when the fireball radius is roughly 40 feet."
The temperature of the fireball continues to decrease. The surface temperature reaches a minimum of around 1,800 degrees C and then rises again.
From section 2.115:
"...This minimum, representing the end of the first thermal pulse, occurs at about 11 milliseconds (0.011 second) after the explosion time for a 20-kiloton weapon. Subsequently, as the apparent surface temperature continues to increase from the minimum, radiation from the fireball is emitted directly from the hot interior (or isothermal sphere), largely unimpeded by the cooled air in the shock wave ahead of it, so that energy is radiated more rapidly than before. The apparent surface temperature increases to a maximum of about 7,700 degrees C (14,000 degrees F), and this is followed by a steady decrease over a period of seconds as the fireball cools..."
So there's lots of heat to discuss, Mr. Nyquist (and such forces create phenomenally strong EMPs). If you wish to become reasonable, I welcome it and I would welcome you to the age of honest discourse about the terrible threats we build for humanity. I also await your retractions for calling me names and accusing me of crimes -- you said of me: "irresponsible", "unpatriotic", "Red", "Hoffman hasn't been reading much", "your rhetoric only serves to mislead the American public", "you are a defeatist", "you have exaggerated the effects". You said I offer "misinformation", "Hoffman exaggerates the effects and the long-term dangers". And you said this little absurdity: "EMP would shut down these plants prior to the nuclear attack." And this one: "the survivors will be able to cope with it." OF COURSE they'll "cope" with it! They'll cope by dying of cancer, leukemia and birth defects at increased rates! THAT is "coping" with your nasty little war!
What exactly were you thinking when you said all these things? Nothing civil, nothing responsible, and nothing designed to start a "rational, calm, civilized discussion".
If that's what you want, you have only to start, which you can do by retracting your divisive and absurd statements and answering the specific questions I have asked you to resolve. And passing my comments on to all your general friends on both sides of the debate, that they might personally atone and answer to these charges, which all apply a thousandfold more to them than to you! Tell them ALL it is time to answer to the people -- the little people, the uneducated masses, the poor, the underfed, to the millions that even you admit died from nuclear weapons testing -- it is time to answer to the charge of inevitably causing genocide by building weapons which are capable of it.
And the charge of continuing to build them while Y2K approaches -- the enemy who comes openly, at a set time, but inexorably. Did those old RAND studies from the 50's, 60's and 70's calculate the effect of an accidental Y2K-related launch, or an intentional launch during a Y2K-related emergency or even a Y2K-related disturbance? If so, show me the reference! Did they predict Pakistan and India would follow our madness in 1998? Show me the reference! (I address the issue of how crazy India and Pakistan are in the article about The Effects of Nuclear Weapons.)
The time-honored but utterly unproven excuse that 20,000 such weapons or more -- an endless (or eternal) supply -- are right now buying our defense, withers in the face of the reality of the dangers of the damage they have caused without even having been used (since WWII), let alone, the damage that would occur should something start which you and your friends in high places have not -- can not -- envision an end to! But they can think they have.
A nuclear war could go on for hours, Mr. Nyquist, escalating every minute until ALL 20,000 weapons on each side are used or destroyed. How long does yours last? Days? Weeks? What stops it? Please be exact, Mr. Nyquist. Get out your science reports and quote for me, exactly what stops a nuclear war and limits deaths to "28 million", your lowest figure.
I'll tell you exactly what would stop a nuclear war. There is only one thing that would stop it, which is this: That one group of people (survivors in one country) manage to UNILATERALLY adopt a policy of NOT retaliating! But that's the same policy I'm advocating now! NOTHING ELSE WOULD STOP IT UNTIL ALL THE WEAPONS ARE GONE! Or if you know of something, you have not expressed it, only asserted that you know of something. What is that magical thing that will let reason take hold after one but not two nuclear blasts, or is it a dozen but not two dozen, a score but not a second score? A thousand, but not a second thousand? What indeed is this magical thing?
20,000 nuclear weapons on each side is too many. (Or is it 30,000? Or 10,000? You tell me, but until you do, I will assume 20,000 as the most plausible number.) Eliminating 99% of them would make vastly different numbers of survivors possible, and perhaps most importantly, would allow the money currently WASTED on this war technology to be spent where it should be -- in schools, urban transportation systems, adult education, and oh yes, foreign aid to the Russians, for example, who have a melting nuke which needs urgent care but which they don't have the willpower to do anything about. Is that what our country will become? What is Three Mile Island becoming? (I suppose it's too late to ask, but who put that nuke in the middle of a river anyway?)
And to make YOU happy, if we eliminated 99% of 20,000 nuclear warheads, YOU could still wipe 200 whole cities off the face of the Earth! But clearly, that isn't enough. If it were, you would at least join in my demands that we eliminate 19,800 nuclear warheads by Y2K, so that we can give the 200 that would remain 100 times more care and attention, lest they go off accidentally. I wouldn't mind eliminating the other 200, but I figure at that point you are going to have stronger arguments for your position than you do now. Maybe by then I'll have convinced enough people that the other 200 aren't any use either.
But as surely as night follows day, if we don't reduce these stockpiles, and change the hair-trigger attitudes of people like you, SOMETHING TERRIBLE IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
There is only one way America can secure her future, and that is by recognizing that she has only one faithful friend, and that friend is truth, honesty, justice, liberty, freedom, democracy, equal opportunity, a desire to help others... These things give us our security, not your bombs and your threats that you can build a better bomb shelter than the Russians. Not your condescending attitude towards those who disagree with you -- even strongly, because the issues are important and you are belittling them. The things you advocate do not and will not protect us from the most likely dangers of the next millennium or the end of this one. Nothing will but eliminating these weapons.
You will not turn swords into plowshares until the soil is radioactive. That is your way. That is not mine. Sorry if you can't answer that charge logically and must attack me personally, but so be it.
Russell D. Hoffman
Some of these links are pro-nuclear and pro-Cassini; some are places activists might look for funding; all have been compiled by Elizabeth Picard and described here briefly by Russell Hoffman based on information at the sites:
Sign this petition from December, 1998 asking Clinton not to fund Reactors in the Ukraine: http://www.nirs.org/intl/r4k2letter.htm
Austrailian press release on Global Action Against Russian Nukes: http://www.nirs.org/intl/ausr4k2rlease.txt
Rockefeller Brothers Fund (Grant money??) http://www.rbf.org/contact.html
CEE Bankwatch Network (network of environmental NGOs in Central and Eastern Europe). http://www.bankwatch.org/
Technology Project (a non-profit organization whose goal is to help other non-profits profit from technology) http://www.rffund.org/techproj/index.html
European Blank for Radiation Development (satirical commentary on EBRD, with links to EBRD) http://www.ebrd.net/
World Information Service on Energy (WISE) address list: http://www.antenna.nl/~wise/address.html
Earth Rainbow Network (Millenium Gathering Project): http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000
Funders Online Newsroom -- information on initiatives, grants, and awards: http://www.fundersonline.org/news/index.html
New Scientist Planet Science: Upper atmosphere is cooling, shrinking: http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990501/chillinthe.html
FREE weekly newsletter of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF): http://www.edf.org/Join4Free/
EDF web page for PLUTONIUM (soon to be updated, we believe): http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf_substance_id=7440%2d07%2d5
Radioactive Battlefields of the 1990s (by the Military Toxics Project's Depleted Uranium Citizens' Network): http://www.antenna.nl/wise-database/uranium/dmtp.html
United Kingdom Friends of the Earth Press Releases page: http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/1999/indexEC.html
20/20 Vision (non-profit environmental advocacy organization in British Columbia, Canada): http://www.2020vision.bc.ca/
David Suzuki Foundation: News Releases 'ARCHIVE': http://www.davidsuzuki.org/newsARCHIVE.html
Abalone Alliance Nuclear Learning Page -- start here to learn anything about nukes: http://www.sfo.com/~rherried/nukef.htm
The IAEA Daily Press Review is a summary sheet of nuclear-related items appearing in a selection of the world's newspapers, magazines, journals, and wire services: http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/inforesource/pressreview/
NucNet: "The World's Nuclear News Agency" (so they say, all pro-nuclear): http://nucnet.aey.ch/nucnet/index.html
The European Nuclear Society (pro-nuclear): http://nucnet.aey.ch/ens/
CORE ISSUES is the journal of the Uranium Institute, the international association for nuclear energy: http://www.uilondon.org/coreissues/
Indigenous Environmental Network, Bemidji, MN: "An alliance of Indigenous Peoples protecting the sacredness of Mother Earth and building sustainable communities.": http://www.alphacdc.com/ien/subject.html
Abolition 2000: Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons: http://www.hookele.com/abolition2000/
Abolition 2000 - "Friendly Allies" (there are over 1200 Citizen Action Groups connected to "Ab 2000"!): http://www.hookele.com/abolition2000/allies.html
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (Global contact for Abolition 2000): http://www.napf.org/
GANA -- Complete texts of various nuclear treaties (connected to Ab 2000): http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/A.Malten/welcome.html
GANA news site: http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/news.html
Nuclear Control Institute (NCI), Washington D.C. -- an "independent research and advocacy center specializing in problems of nuclear proliferation" -- (multi-award-winning, very animated web site!): http://www.nci.org/home.htm
NCI Campaign Against Plutonium: http://www.nci.org/nci-cap.htm
NCI Getting Rid of Plutonium Page: http://www.nci.org/nci-wpu.htm
Letter to Michael Meacher, Minister for the Environment about the Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) in West Cumbria: http://www.nci.org/l31298.htm
Temelin is an unfinished nuclear power plant presently under construction in South Bohemia, the southern part of the Czech Republic. It lies 150 kilometres from the capital, Prague. Here's a web site about it and other nuclear issues: http://www.ecn.cz/temelin/
Farndon House Information Trust, "a registered charity which promotes the use and understanding of on-line information technology in researching international security affairs": http://csf.colorado.edu/dfax/
Todd's Atomic Homepage (pro-nuclear power, anti-nuclear weapons, with many, many links): http://neutrino.nuc.berkeley.edu/neutronics/todd/frame/
NWCC -- Nuclear Waste Citizens Coalition, Las Vegas, Nevada: http://www.igc.org/citizenalert/nwcc/
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, "A national network of organizations working to address issues of nuclear weapons production and waste cleanup": http://www.ananuclear.org/
Atomic Veteran, Downwinders, Uranium Miners Web Site, "THE GOVERNMENT SURE KNEW HOW TO BOMB THE HELL OUT OF NEVADA!!": http://www.angelfire.com/tx/atomicveteran/index.html
CCNR (The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility): The Plutonium Connection -- Directory: http://www.ccnr.org/index_plute.html
CCNR Primer on Nuclear Technology, text by Gordon Edwards, photos by Robert Del Tredici: http://www.ccnr.org/nuclear_primer.html
CRND -- Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, "Working to Lower the Threat of Nuclear Weapons" (Washington, DC): http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/
INESAP -- International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (Darmstadt, Germany): http://www.th-darmstadt.de/ze/ianus/inesap/contact.html
INES -- International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (Dortmund, Germany): http://www.mindspring.com/~us016262/ines.htm
National Security News Service,"works to increase and improve the major news media's coverage of military, arms control, and international security stories": http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/nsns/index.html
Nukefix, fix the nuclear weapon problem: http://www.nukefix.org/
Nukefix on the effects of nuclear weapons (detailed article): http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html
United Nations Daily Press Briefings: http://www.internetbroadcast.com/un/ibc_todaydnb_net.htm
Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General of the United Nations: http://www.un.org/News/ossg/
Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General of the United Nations -- contact information: http://www.un.org/News/ossg/contact.htm
Phone, Fax, and physical address for OSSG -- UN:
Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General
United Nations, S-378
New York, NY 10017
CNIC -- Citizens Nuclear Information Center, "an Independent Nuclear Information Service for Public Interest" (Japan): http://www.jca.ax.apc.org/cnic/english/plutonium/index.html
The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project of The Brookings Institution: http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/WEAPONS.HTM
To stop NASA's dangerous upcoming August 17th (note new date!), 1999 flyby of Earth by NASA's Cassini spacecraft, with its deadly cargo of 72.3 pounds of plutonium 238 dioxide, arrogantly launched in 1997 amidst strong protests, please start by contacting NASA/JPL immediately and tell them you oppose Cassini:
Cassini Public Information
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena CA 91109
NASA states that they do not have the resources anymore to answer most emails they receive. Liars! They have $13 billion dollars to play with. They can answer the public's questions!
Here's NASA's "comments" email address:
Daniel Goldin is the head of NASA. Here's his email address:
Here's the NASA URL to find additional addresses to submit written questions to:
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT NASA IS DOING TO YOUR HEALTH.
Be sure to "cc" the president and VP and your senators and congresspeople, too.
Always include your full name and postal address in all correspondence to any Government official of any country.
After you have acquainted yourself with what NASA is doing, please:
READ OUR RESOLUTION AGAINST CASSINI!
SIGN OUR PETITION!
CANCEL CASSINI by JUNE 24th, 1999!
Thanks for reading! Welcome new subscribers!
Home page of our STOP CASSINI movement:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/cassini.htm (Accept no immitations!)
This newsletter is free and is not distributed for profit.
To subscribe, simply email the editor at
email@example.com and state:
SUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER
Please include a personal message of any
length and subject matter. Thank you!
To unsubscribe email me and say
UNSUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER
Published by Russell D. Hoffman electronically.
Written in U.S.A.
Please distribute these newsletters EVERYWHERE!
WHAT YOU DO NEXT MATTERS MOST OF ALL!
*** CANCEL CASSINI BY JUNE 24TH, 1999! ***