STOP CASSINI Newsletter #236 -- December 8th, 1999

Copyright (c) 1999

STOP CASSINI Newsletters Index

To: Subscribers, government officials, members of the press
From: Russell David Hoffman (still going strong)
Re: Peace: Now or never? -- STOP CASSINI  #236
Date: December 8th, 1999 (early edition)

This issue's subjects:

(1) Where to go for more information about Y2K:


Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 14:03:40 -0500 (EST)
::::    Mothersalert Homepage   CRAC-2 Report From Sandia Labs & NRC   Admiral Rickover Statement On 3 Mile Island Cover Up   Dr. Rosalie Bertell Signed, Notorized Statement On 3 Mile Island
Cover Up   Earthquakes & Nuclear Power Plants [What Fun]    Dr Gofman's Statement on No Safe Levels Of Radiation    More Valuable Info

      Please consider saving/bookmarking these sites & spreading this info as far & wide as possible. Sara Shannon & Karin Westdyk are responsible for this great site.

    -Bill Smirnow


I agree that it is a wonderful site, good looking, strong information, timely and well organized.  Everyone should visit it, link to it, and tell others about it!  -- rdh

(2) Talking World War Three Blues (with an expert at the Pentagon):

This sequence comprises a letter from Spanky Kirsch at the Pentagon to Don Ogden, followed by Mr. Ogden's original letter.  Below that is a response to the letter from Kirsch by the editor of the Stop Cassini newsletter, which is followed by a response from Kirsch and a followup response from the Stop Cassini editor.


At 10:03 AM 12/6/99 -0500, you wrote:
this just in from the Pentagon:

From: "Kirsch, Spanky, CTR, OASD/C3I/Y2K" <>
To: "''" <>
Subject: RE: URGENT!
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:40:37 -0500

Mr. Ogden,

This is in response to your December 4 e-mail to the President and DoD
regarding the Y2K problem at DoD.

I work in the Department of Defense's Y2K office and I have been working on
this problem since 1996.  Before that, I spent 15 years in the Strategic
Command, first as a pilot in B52s and FB-111s on nuclear alert, then as a
nuclear weapons analyst working for Gen Lee Butler who was CINCSTRAT.  In
particular, and of the highest priority, are our efforts concerning the
nuclear weapons of the U.S. and ALL other nuclear-capable countries.

Imagine if one of the chips on your computer's mother board were to have a
problem.  What does your computer do?  Probably nothing (blank screen), but
at the very least, most programs won't even start before having to clear an
error message.  Your computer certainly wouldn't print a document that you
haven't written.

That would be the analogy I would use to say that a missile would NOT launch
itself if a system encountered a Y2K problem.  The computers won't DO
something you didn't tell it to do.  Rather, our concern in the Department
of Defense is whether the system WORKS and works properly after a Y2K

These systems are part of our "mission critical" list, the ones that HAVE to
be fixed for us to do our job.  I'm glad to say the nuclear systems have
been done for awhile.  This isn't just hype, we've testified to Congress on
our progress.  We are now in the process of working together with the
Russians to make sure that if there is a problem with early warning systems
of either country, that we are communicating with each other.

As far as de-alerting, the targeting systems of both countries are already
set to "all zeroes" (this is what President Bush did in 1991), meaning in
the event of a launch sequence, the missile has nowhere to go and therefore
will not launch.  Also, the launch sequence of any nuclear weapon has ALWAYS
required human intervention (two-man policy), making an automatic weapon
launch impossible.  There is NO such thing as a Perimeter or "dead hand"
system in Russia, this is a Dr. Strangelove scenario that someone has begun
as a rumor.

Additionally, the US ratified the START II treaty (which would halve the
number of nuclear weapons) in 1996.  Russia has yet to bring this issue to
the table in its Duma, so therefore, no treaty.  That is the reason that
de-alerting is "off the table".  In fact, the US is prepared to put
together a START III.

To elaborate, attached is a paraphrased analysis from the British American
Security Information Council (BASIC).

I hope this is helpful.  If you have any additional questions, you have my
e-mail address.  You can also look at these websites-

DoD Y2K-
White House Y2K-
Senate Y2K Committee-

Spanky Kirsch
(703)602-0980 X132

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 12:06 PM
Subject: URGENT!

Dear Gentlemen:

I am writing  to urge you to take US nuclear forces off
'hairtrigger alert' even if only during the Y2K rollover period.

As you will be aware, the European Parliament recently voted to ask you and
President Yeltsin to do as the UK has already done, and de-alert nuclear

It is particularly disturbing that Secretary Cohen has been reported as
having stated in Moscow some time ago that de-alerting of nuclear forces is
'off the table' as a stability building measure. You have also been quoted
as saying  that 'The better course is reduction, limiting the number of
weapons, and establishing shared early warning centers'.

The recent Europarliament vote clearly puts de- alerting back on the table.
De-alerting of nuclear forces was strongly recommended by the Canberra
Commission in 1996 and then by the Tokyo Forum,  as a way to develop
strategic stability and build trust between the US and Russia. It has also
been incorporated into last year's  and  this years text of the New Agenda
Resolution in the UN General Assembly. It has also been recommended by a
resolution specifically on the subject passed by last years General
Assembly and by this years First Committee on Reduction of Nuclear Dangers.
In addition it has been the subject of two resolutions passed by the
Australian Senate on 12 August and 20September, and finally it has been
clearly requested by the European Parliament. It is also the subject of
congressional resolution H.Con Res177 put by Edward Markey, and most
recently, the City of Berkeley has asked for it.

These measures are not in competition with each other. All of them -
reductions in the number of weapons, the establishment of shared early
warning centers and de-alerting - are  vital to the reduction of tension
and the establishment of strategic stability.

This is particularly the case in view of the uncertainties posed by the
millennium date change (Y2K).

As you are well aware, the largest and oldest computer system complexes in
the world are those that control nuclear weapons systems.

The very nature of the Y2K problem makes it impossible to be sure
everything has been fixed until well into the new year.

Russia has, until recently, made little effort to even  acknowledge the Y2K
problem, let alone fix it. It is therefore quite possible that Russian
computerized control systems are not Y2K compliant and that they will
experience widespread failures during the Y2K rollover period.

Even more disquieting is the fact that the Russians have constructed
the system known as 'Perimeter', or the 'dead hand'. This system seems to
include additional ways in which Y2K failure might lead to an accidental

The establishment of a Y2K strategic stability center in Colorado is
certainly an advantageous move and an absolutely essential one.

However, it does not entirely remove the danger of an accidental launch of
nuclear weapons.

The fact that the Center is scheduled, as far as we the public are aware,
to come into operation only on December 27th, four days prior to the
rollover, is far from reassuring. A four day delay will render it useless.

Similarly, the center itself will depend on the availability of
ultra-reliable hotlines between it and Moscow. The  Y2K vulnerabilities
recently discovered in six of the seven hotlines  on which US/Russian
communications depends, are also cause for deep concern.

If nuclear weapons are removed from a status in which they can be launched
within minutes, and placed in one which would require at least days to
launch, the risk of an accidental missile launch induced by Y2K or other
errors in command and control systems will be virtually eliminated.

This  has been done by the UK, which has moved the 'notice to fire' for its
missile forces from minutes to days.

In taking De-alerting 'off the table', the United States is making a
serious error. Failure to take nuclear forces off hairtrigger alert over
the Y2K 'rollover' period is an error that has the potential of causing
unthinkable consequences.

The probability of this may be low,  but it  will never be zero as long as
nuclear forces remain on hair-trigger alert.

In a previous administration, President Bush took strategic bomber forces
off alert. We urge you to do this with all US nuclear forces.


Don Ogden, Secretary
Sawmill River Watershed Alliance



From: Russell D. Hoffman []
Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 12:04 PM
Cc: Kirsch, Spanky, CTR, OASD/C3I/Y2K; Senate-Year 2000-Committee;
Subject: Re: Fwd: URGENT!
Importance: High

To: Don Ogden, Secretary, Sawmill River Watershed Alliance (Montague, MA)
From: Russell Hoffman, independent peace activist, United States citizen
cc: Spanky Kirsch, DoD/Y2K, The Pentagon
Date: 26 days to go...

Dear Mr. Ogden,

Thanks for sending me the the DoD correspondence you received (shown below).

However, it's just hype!  As I read somewhere, "if they can get you asking
the wrong questions, it doesn't matter what the answers are".  If we let
them sell us this line, then they (and the Russians) can keep their insane
weapons for another millennium -- to be used, sooner or later, by accident,
by terrorists, by crazies, or by politicians.

But in fact these weapons must never be used; must be de-alerted, disarmed,
pit-stuffed (as described by Michio Kaku and published in STOP CASSINI
newsletter #206 and elsewhere), dismantled, demolished and destroyed.  They
are of no use.  They are dangerous.  Not just for Y2K but any day.

I have described in detail the effects of a nuclear bomb blast (see link,
below).  Likewise I have described in detail the effects of a nuclear
Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP).  The EMP is expected by most experts to be
one of the first shots fired in a nuclear war -- and without actually
killing anyone outright, it is one of the most devastating shots.  It fries
the electronics used in all computer equipment, and ONE SINGLE BLAST can do
that to all of (or most of, depending on the altitude of the blast) the
United States.  It would destroy hospital equipment, factory equipment --
nuclear power plant pump control equipment, cars, traffic lights --
everything.  We would have simultaneous meltdowns, chemical plant
explosions, all our transportation systems wouldn't work, there would be no
electricity, and all the 50 billion computer chips would be fried.  Then
starts round two.  A nuclear attack on a nuclear power plant releases 1000
times more radiation to the world than just a "simple" nuclear attack on a
non-nuclear city and hundreds of times more radiation than Chernobyl
released (recall that there are four reactors there, each of which would be
destroyed).  Only a madman would commence such an attack.

So there is really no such thing as a "limited" nuclear war and no such
thing as a winnable one.  Sure, we experienced one once -- but only because
we didn't have the ability to blast all of Japan out of the water in 20
minutes.  The biggest secret of World War Two was that we only had the two
bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In other words, we dropped our entire nuclear arsenal on Japan in World War
Two.  There is NOTHING to say we wouldn't drop our entire nuclear arsenal
again, if provoked.  NOR is there anything to say the Russians wouldn't
either. There truly is only one logical thing to do -- destroy these
weapons of mass destruction.  They are useless, if only because their use
kills us and our own descendents for millennia to come, from worldwide
dispersals of the plutonium, uranium, and other byproducts of the blast.

Looking in to the DoD/Y2K spokesperson's comments more specifically:

These so-called "two-man" teams needed to launch a missile -- two people
have been known to go crazy together.  Everything from gang rapes to
robberies to cover-ups to selling sophisticated weapons on the street to
spying -- American Armed Forces personnel have done all these things in
groups of two or more.

A Russian team in Colorado traded off with an American team in Russia to
monitor the situation?  Pshaw!

Phone lines dead.  A nuclear EMP burst from who-knows-what-sub, grid goes
down.  Panic and riots.  A first strike against a small city, by two crazed
Russians (or two crazed Americans).  Leaders dead.  What are these two
teams going to do?  Discuss things rationally?

Why must the world rely on such long odds for survival?  By destroying the
weapons of such an ugly war, we increase civilization's odds
significantly.  We increase the odds that America will be able to remain a
great nation for centuries to come, and not become a nuclear wasteland some
day (as if it isn't already!).

One must also add that after Y2K, if significant strife is occurring around
the world, we will even more greatly wish that our leaders had somehow
managed to solve these problems.

Russia is a rogue nation, it's true -- but so are we.


Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
Peace Activist (See additional contact information and links, below)
Note:  The "doc" file mentioned below is NOT attached to my outgoing
email.  I suggest interested readers order it directly from the DoD if they



At 12:21 PM 12/6/99 -0500, Spanky Kirsch wrote:

Mr. Hoffman,

You may call me at any time to discuss nuclear weapons and Y2K (I will
return the call).  Remember, the issue is Y2K, which was the object of Mr.
Ogden's e-mail. 

Nuclear weapons policy and effects of nuclear war is another matter, one
that our Policy office is in charge of.  I am very familiar with weapons
effects (especially EMP, since I headed that study for SAC) and the
disastrous effects they can have.  As I stated in Mr. Ogden's response, a
unilateral move to de-alert, since the Russians have not even signed the
START II treaty, would be unwise in view of the instability in Russia.  The
DoD is committed to reducing the number of nuclear weapons as much as you
are, they're very expensive to maintain besides their devastating power.

Nuclear weapons CANNOT go off or launch themselves because of a Y2K problem.

Spanky Kirsch
(703)602-0980 X132



To: Spanky Kirsch, Pentagon
From: Russell Hoffman, Independent Peace Activist and United States citizen
cc: Don Ogden, etc.
Date: still 26 days to go...

Dear Sir;

Thank you for your thoughtful offer that I may call you for direct answers, and indeed I might do so.  However, from your letter, I glean the following, and ask that you correct me if I have any of this wrong:

1) Your department is not in charge of handling the concept that nuclear retaliation is NOT the correct response to a nuclear attack.

2) You say, "The DoD is committed to reducing the number of nuclear weapons as much as you are...".  This is very presumptuous, since actions speak louder than words, and I don't personally have any nuclear weapons at my disposal, but DoD does.  I personally cannot conceive of a political situation (including a nuclear attack) in which a nuclear response is appropriate.  However, I can conceive of MANY far less expensive means to reduce the threat to American civilians from a Russian (or other) nuclear attack.  For example, get rid of the nuclear power plants, which are STILL funded mainly through government assurances, such as that we, the taxpayer, will take care of the long term waste problems.  America is terribly vulnerable to a nuclear attack.  So is Russia.  But unlike us, a rich nation (easily a thousand times richer than we were when the Depression hit, for instance), Russia is a poor nation, and rapidly getting poorer.  Worse still, Russia has severe Y2K problems in addition to any potential nuclear weapon Y2K problems, such as ensuring power to those 50 or so rusting Russian nuclear subs in Murmansk or thereabouts, which are cooling, but not cool enough to be left alone without power for the coolant circulation pumps.

Grid failures throughout the Russian system are considered "probable" by some, "practically inevitable" by others, and no one I know expects Russia to weather Y2K unblemished.

Let's say today, we started giving Russia a billion dollars a day to solve their remaining Y2K problems, shut down Chernobyl #4 and their other nuclear power plants, and generally prepare themselves better.  26 billion dollars altogether -- Bill Gates could lose that in a single down day on the stock market and probably would not lose any sleep.  But I would be hard-pressed to believe that a Russian people whom we had just given a 26 billion free dollars to would next want to bomb us, in what would still probably be their greatest hour of need (Y2K might bring great strife to the Russian people even with such assistance, since it would be coming so late).  Even 10 Billion dollars a day would hardly bankrupt America, but if it prevented even one Russian nuclear plant meltdown, let alone prevented any thought of nuclear war, it would be money which was extremely well invested.

If we make it so that only madmen would want to bomb us, then that is all we would have to fear.  Right now, why exactly do we fear Russia will bomb us?

But as things now stand, the Russians have a lot to fear.  We, on the other hand, fear what, exactly?  Mad Russian Generals?  Mad Russian officers with their fingers on the buttons?  Mad Russian peasants who will somehow convince the Duma to launch a nuclear attack on us?  Personally, I think the Russian peasants should fear the Russian generals even more than we do!  And how can we possibly expect other, less politically sophisticated countries than ours, to do the right thing first?  American has to do it first.  We do just about everything first, don't we?

I think we should fear our own willingness to threaten attacking, say, Chernobyl with a nuclear weapon.  The radiation released would kill millions of innocents all around the world -- including American civilians.  Likewise, think what a Russian attack on one of our gaseous diffusion plants would be like, say, that notorious factory of death in Paducah, Kentucky.  It would devastate the entire region -- I'm sure you know that.  So what good is retaliating against even a deliberate nuclear attack with another nuclear attack?  Where is the limiting factor?  What stops it from escalating?

As to whether nuclear weapons can or cannot go off accidentally on Y2K, what I am saying is that geopolitical failures which result in nuclear exchanges are accidents too, at least as far as I'm concerned because I find it inconceivable that such a thing could happen any other way, by sane people (and it would be an accident indeed to have insane people in charge, wouldn't it?)

There have been numerous false alerts, not to mention political situations, which have brought both sides close to the brink of nuclear war in the past.  My understanding is that there have been dozens of such incidents over the decades, including several already in the 1990's.  Y2K presents a uniquely complicated moment, when many of the usual clues and hints that there isn't really a war going on might be gone.  Everyone will be unusually tense.  Furthermore despite any assurances to the contrary I for one refuse to believe that not a single active-duty service person in our (or Russia's) nuclear fleets will be either drunk, extremely hung over, or thinking about little else but getting off duty to become drunk.  Their minds won't all be focused on their work.  Who knows?  Some might even be intent on causing Armageddon!   Which leads to my third question, or set of questions:

3) Assuming there IS a nuclear attack, for ANY reason, what assurances can DoD possibly provide American citizens that it will not respond with an utterly inappropriate all-out nuclear attack?  Because much though I'd hate for America (or Russia) to lose one or a few cities, it would still be better than losing everything.  Since there are no winners anyway in a nuclear war, one should not expect to necessarily be able to simply match genocide-for-genocide, tit-for-tat in a nuclear exchange.   Someone will have to say "enough".  Is anyone at DoD capable of doing that?

And lastly,

4) Considering what you have indicated you know about the effects of a nuclear EMP, how can you personally advocate a nuclear policy which includes an EMP burst?  Yet virtually all nuclear attack scenarios include such a burst!  Since it clearly would lead to mass starvation of innocent and uninvolved people, as well as poverty, epidemics, etc. etc., which are all forms of genocide and which righteous people must renounce, what's the use of owning such an expensive weapon at all?

If this century of technology has taught the human race anything, I would hope that it is that some of the things we are capable of doing, we should not do for the sake of humanity.

CAN nuclear weapons launch themselves for Y2K?  Perhaps not, but you would be much harder pressed to convince anyone that they cannot be launched for inappropriate (and/or trivial) reasons.  And you would even harder-pressed to convince anyone that Y2K does not represent an unusual confluence of potential inappropriate reasons.  And, you would be very hard-pressed indeed, to convince me personally, that Y2K will not be America's most-vulnerable-moment in the past 60+ years, though in fact, we are always vulnerable, because we have made so many poor choices about how to build our country (such as relying on 103 commercial nuclear power plants for a small percentage of our energy needs, energy that could have been provided many other ways, ways which are millions of times cleaner for every watt of energy produced, and cheaper too).  DoD's nuclear weapons (and its nuclear-powered warships, and the nuclear industry DoD's needs spawned) cannot protect me or anyone; they only make us targets of hatred and aggression.

Dividing basic arguments into separate issues is not possible.  Thus the question can be asked, does even the most educated guess today really prove the issue one way or the other?  No, it does not.  That alone is a good reason to advocate pit-stuffing, dismantling, and at the very least, de-alerting of the nuclear weaponry.

I look forward to your response.


Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
(add'l bio/contact info shown below)


No further response has been received.  However, Carol Moore and John Hallam both posted relevant documents on the Y2K-Nuclear list, which explained that numerous near misses have indeed occurred as I pointed out, and that the real worry is not so much that missiles will launch themselves, as that they will be launched accidentally (Moore's and Hallam's documents will be reposted in the next STOP CASSINI newsletter). -- rdh

(3) Letter to American Journalism Review about media responsibilities:


To: Reese Cleghorn, President, AJR
From: Russell Hoffman, Editor, STOP CASSINI e-newsletter, now in its 235th issue
Re: When Disaster Strikes sidebar, December, 1999 (Vol 21 No 10)
Date: December 7th, 1999 (how poetic -- and just 25 days until Y2K)

Dear Mr. Cleghorn:

Right now in Seattle protesters remain in prison, while the real criminals -- Police Chief Norm Stamper, Mayor Paul Schell, and whoever the Feds were that came in and "helped" them, go free.

It's now being reported that Norm Stamper has resigned (effective next month, not nearly soon enough).  But that's not nearly enough.  People remain charged, even in jail (some for little more than refusing to give their names).  There should be an immediate and general amnesty for the protesters who were arrested.

But the media too MUST be condemned for their actions in Seattle.  It is abundantly clear that the media were massively duped by a small band of organized thugs.  The demonstrations were misunderstood as being largely peaceful protesters-gone violent and a few bad apples, when what it actually was, was police infiltrators trying to incite the crowd, playing to the media cameras, and most of all, giving the police riot squads a reason to show what they are capable of (and willing to do).   Eyewitness accounts abound (on the Internet, of course).

So that's among the headlines this week, along with NASA losing another probe and not one reporter uttering the words "how does this make you feel about your promises of perfection prior to the Cassini flyby last August" at any NASA news conference.  And as this goes on, I read in your December issue, a sidebar on "Surviving an Ethics Crisis".

Pshaw to you and all of your "professional" cohorts (many of whom still shun Internet newsletters like mine, where increasingly, the truth escapes those who seek to control it)! 

Why do I condemn you specifically?

To quote from the article, Item #7 (page 25):
Give activists and outside interest groups a respectful hearing -- and nothing else."

Every other item seemed reasonable enough.  Even that one was great, until the last three words.

What's the matter with you?  How could you publish such a thing?

Why do so many in the "established" media think they have so little duty to the truth, and to human compassion, and to the environment (and to those who would try to protect it)?  Instead they see their duty as being to their own vain idea of "balanced reporting" which seems to mean, more often than not, that no matter how preposterous the official (or corporate, for that matter) explanation of something, there will be no in-depth analysis, and no presentation of the details of the opposing views.  After all, that's the activist's job, right, not media?  To present the activist's viewpoint?

Media seldom sees a responsibility to present activist's actual viewpoints to the public.  Instead the media acts as if we (the activists) had already reached the public somehow, and it is the official view which has been censored and desperately needs the media's help to get out.  But it's not like that at all, really.  In reality the activists almost NEVER succeed in changing things, until the media understands the problems the activists have been warning about, and presents the activists' views alongside the "official" explanations. Then, change begins to occur.

We never win by ourselves.  We need your help and eventually, if our cause it just, we do usually get it, and civilization progresses another step.

The purpose of news reporting (and I'm certainly not the first to say this) is not just to tell people what happened, it's also to suggest what they should do about it.  When a news organization makes a major mistake and loses credibility, and the "activists" and "outside interest groups" want a hearing, yes, by all means, be respectful, and give it to them.

But don't just listen.  Do something.  What those tens of thousands of protesters in Seattle were complaining about is really, really important.  The communal media shame for ignoring the protester's issues and focusing instead on the agent-provocateurs who were placed there both to give a bad image to the protesters for the media and their viewers and readers, and to give an excuse for the rain of police abuses that followed their actions, is practically across-the-board.  Maybe AJR will decry it.  Maybe even give the "activists" a hearing.  And then what?

If you follow your own advice, you will do "nothing else".

As the world decays, radioactively and in other ways, all I can say is, "Fat lot of help that is".


Russell Hoffman
Peace Activist
Carlsbad, CA
(Founder and Editor, STOP CASSINI newsletter)
(add'l contact info appears below)


It should be noted that Norm Stampers "resignation" actually is meaningless; he was planning to resign anyway early next year.  In fact, Stamper himself pointed out that this actually delays his leaving by two additional months.  He also explained that he feels his shame includes not having enough tear gas and rubber bullets on hand for the "unexpected violence". -- rdh

(4) More "correspondence" with Jeff Nyquist, prolific writer for World Net Daily:

Prior correspondence with Mr. Nyquist can be found in numerous newsletters, the most recent being #228 (November 19th, 1999).


At 04:20 PM 12/5/99 -0800, Jeff Nyquist wrote:

Please do not write to me.  Take me off your list.




To: Jeff Nyquist, prolific writer for World Net Daily
From: Russell Hoffman, United States citizen
Re: Your email to me (shown below)
Date: December 6th,1999

Mr. Nyquist,

What you are responding to (below) was a letter to you containing further information which provided additional backup information regarding my points which YOU disputed; it was not something on a "list".

You, famous writer for World Net Daily, author a book on the subject of nuclear war, have presented disinformation to the public and to me, and claimed it was truth -- the proof you offered being simply your assurances that it was so.  I will continue to write to you as long as you do not correct your misstatements made directly to me and about me, or for that matter, to others.  Civilized public figures correct their misstatements -- you have yet to correct a single one of your many!  I intend to continue to try to educate you -- I have earned that right, by your abuse and name-calling, not to mention your censorship of our "debate" so far (I hesitate to call it a debate, since you have thus far been unwilling to provide the counter-arguments you said you were capable of).

Mr. Nyquist, I don't know who you are, and I have no personal interest in your affairs, views, or opinions, other than how your remarks might affect my reputation, and the security of our country.  I know you write disinformation for public dissemination; I have seen it on the web, and described it previously, and continue to see it republished by others, who think you have something to say.  Furthermore you have personally attacked, without substance, my patriotism, my intestinal fortitude, my honor, and the truths I have presented, and you have accused me of outrageous things which I have not done.  These need to be corrected, not simply left.  You have things you should say to correct things you have already said which are wrong and unfair.  Things you said to me AND things you have written in your "news" columns.

I will continue to send you emails which I feel provide YOU with additional proof that you should clear up your misstatements (though frankly, I'm surprised you need any more such proof).  When you are not endangering the good, honest people of America with your lies, then I'll stop sending you my truths.  Practically every day now, more and more proof comes in -- for example, the item shown below provides some, I think.

Your position remains untenable.  You have abused the most basic and important right America has given you -- I will not allow you to abuse my right to correct your inaccurate public remarks by sending you additional corrections as information becomes available and time permits.


Russell Hoffman
Peace Activist
Carlsbad, California


(5) Tell Clinton how you feel -- Official government contact points:

To contact the top government officials:

President Bill Clinton
White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20500
Phone -- (202) 456-1111  Fax -- (202) 456-2461
e-mail --

Vice President Albert Gore (same address)
Phone -- (202) 456-1414  Fax -- (202) 456-2461
e-mail --

Secretary William Cohen
1000 Defense
The Pentagon
Washington D.C. 20301
Phone -- (703) 695-6352  Fax -- (703) 695-1149

Secretary Bill Richardson
Department of Energy (DoE)
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington D.C. 20585
Phone -- (202) 586-6210  Fax -- (202) 586-4403

To learn about the absurd excuses NASA used to launch Cassini and its 72.3 pounds of plutonium in 1997, ask them for the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini mission, and all subsequent documentation.  At the same time, be sure to ask them for ANY and ALL documentation available on future uses of plutonium in space, including MILITARY, CIVILIAN, or "OTHER" (just in case they make a new category somehow!).  To get this information, contact:

Cassini Public Information
     Jet Propulsion Laboratory
     4800 Oak Grove Drive
     Pasadena CA 91109
     (818) 354-5011 or  (818) 354-6478
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:


NASA should never have been allowed to launch monstrosities like Cassini and Galileo, but the next breed -- such as Europa Orbiter and Pluto-Kuiper Express are not much better and the policy is being set for greatly increased rates of missions!  The danger continues!  To complain to NASA about their future nuclear space probes, here are two addresses you can use:

For Europa Orbiter:
"Europa Orbiter comments"

For Pluto-Kuiper Express:
"Pluto-Kuiper Express comments"

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, because otherwise they will throw it out unread, or hand it directly to their police force to try to identify the author.  (Thus, nothing good will come of it.)  Also, ALWAYS include a personal message of some sort, indicating YOUR OWN VIEWS, even if you include a lot of material written by other people (me, for instance).

(6) Newsletter subscription information:

Thanks for reading!  Welcome new subscribers!

To subscribe, simply email the editor at and state:
Please include a personal message of any
length and subject matter.  Thank you!

To unsubscribe email me and say

Published by Russell D. Hoffman electronically.
This newsletter is free and is not distributed for profit.
The opinions expressed are those of the individual authors.
Please distribute these newsletters EVERYWHERE!
Written in the United States of America.

(7) Newsletter Authorship notes and additional URLs:

Russell D. Hoffman, Carlsbad, California, Peace Activist, Environmentalist, High Tech Guru:

Hoffman's Y2K Preparedness Information:

Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here:

** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** Carlsbad CA
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:

Next issue (#237)
Previous issue (#235)



This article has been presented on the World Wide Web by:

The Animated Software Company
Mail to:
First placed online December 8th, 1999.
Last modified December 8th, 1999.
(various URL's updated May, 2001)
Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman
Copyright (c) Russell D. Hoffman